Debates of Oct. 17th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber Agreement

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to today to speak to this important issue. My colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster articulated a broad picture of the issue, its importance, and that we need to come to some resolution. It has been a challenge over the last 30 years, but the Conservative government got the job done.

I was first elected in 2008, but from 2006 to 2008, I remember the relief that the ridings and communities across our country felt because they knew the agreement was in place. No agreement is perfect, but it brought peace in the woods for over 10 years. It was something that the Conservative government was able to get done. After 30 years of very challenging circumstances, it got the job done.

Many people in the House represent urban areas and are perhaps not as familiar with the forestry industry as some of us who live in rural communities, so I want to talk a bit about the forestry industry and how important it is. Someone who lives in Toronto and represents a downtown riding may hear about the softwood lumber agreement and be a little puzzled as to why this agreement even matters.

The Forest Products Association of Canada has a map that shows communities across the country. I urge people to go to that website and look at the amazing map. There are little green dots that represent communities whose viability completely depend on the forestry industry. If they look at British Columbia, parts of Quebec, and Ontario, they will see provinces that are full of those green dots, rural communities that are completely dependent on the forestry industry.

In British Columbia right now, 34% of its exports are forest products. B.C. represents 72% of Canada's softwood lumber industry, so clearly the softwood lumber agreement is absolutely critical to the province. The Conservative government recognized that it should not be so dependent on the American market, and British Columbia has done a great job with the Asia-Pacific gateway and how it moves products. Asia has now replaced Europe as its second most important partner in terms of getting its products to market. Having said that, the U.S. market remains absolutely critical. British Columbia has 58,000 people in the industry and $6.5 billion in GDP.

Right now in Canada, the fiscal situation is very concerning. When we look at Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, British Columbia has been a glimmer of positive movement forward. I am very concerned that if an agreement is not reached, the province will have very significant challenges.

I will narrow this down a little more. I talked a bit about the big picture in British Columbia. In the riding I represent, there is a beautiful little community, Clearwater, which is on the Yellowhead Highway. People may have driven through it when travelling from Kamloops through to Jasper. It is a very popular place for tourists, including those from Europe, who visit beautiful Wells Grey Provincial Park.

In that community of about 2,200 people, there is the Canfor Vavenby mill, which is predominantly spruce and pine. This particular mill has 150 direct workers. Tourism is important to this little community of 2,200 people, but the most important industry in that community is the mill, with 150 workers. It has a payroll of $20 million and is estimated to add $100 million to the local economy. We can imagine what would happen if it were no longer viable. This community is just one example of the many green dots on that map by The Forest Products Association of Canada.

Not only does the mill provide well-paying jobs in the community, but it does a great job in terms of the apprenticeship training program. It also sends chips to Kamloops. Another thing it does as a community benefit is for heating. It provides chips free of charge to the Dutch Lake Community Centre to keep that heat going.

It is estimated that 70% to 80% of its market is to the U.S. Therefore, 70% to 80% of what is produced right now in that Vavenby mill is loaded on rail and trucks destined for the U.S.

Companies like Canfor, West Fraser, Interfor are important to our communities. They have expanded into the U.S., and certainly they have other opportunities to continue to do the good work they do. However, it is the communities that are going to be most hurt. It is the coffee shops and small businesses that die in rural communities when they lose their forestry industry. These communities are absolutely critical for British Columbia.

We have talked about the massive billion dollars in terms of supporting Boeing, but there are communities across British Columbia that need the government to get the job done and get a new softwood lumber agreement.

British Columbia said that this is absolutely critical, and the Premier was quoted in The Globe and Mail. On March 10, there was an agreement between the Prime Minister and the President that they were going to get the job done in 100 days. At the time, the Premier was optimistic that a top-level agreement was going to head off another Canada-U.S. softwood lumber trade conflict. She talked about the $3.3 billion, and applauded the commitment at that time to get the job done.

That happened on March 10, but on May 16, again I will talk about the Premier of British Columbia as she was quoted in an article from the Vancouver Sun. The headline was “After an initial flurry of optimism, Premier Christy Clark is now anxious about Canada's prospects for a renewed agreement with the United States...” She said, “I am worried about softwood, period...I think we are going to have to work incredibly hard now to try and get a deal because we are not a lot closer.”

We can see that the premier of the province is very concerned. Those little communities across British Columbia and across the country are hugely concerned in terms of what is going to happen to them if the agreement is not met.

However, what has the Liberal government done?

First, I knew that this agreement was expiring. At my town hall meetings in those rural communities, when we were going to the election, constituents asked what we were going to do about the softwood lumber agreement.

However, this agreement was not mentioned by the Liberal government in the Speech from the Throne, and it was not mentioned in the minister's mandate letter, which is absolutely stunning. To not have that mentioned in her mandate letter shows what low priority the government has in terms of getting the job done. The Liberals have given lip service to getting the job done.

Certainly when the Prime Minister and President had that 100-day commitment, we hoped that they would get the agreement done, to be quite frank. We wanted it done, and at that time we were thinking that maybe there was a priority to get this done. Clearly, the Conservatives got it done. The Liberals keep saying that this is our fault. They have had a year, and I do not see us being any closer to getting this done.

The only other thing that is important to mention in closing is that it is absolutely critical that not only this is done, but that it is a good deal, that they do not give away the farm in terms of getting a deal done.

I hope that by talking today, it will have impressed upon people, not only in the House but across Canada, how important the agreement is for the basic fabric of our communities, especially our rural communities, in terms of continuing to be an important part of our country.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo mentioned in her speech, I come from one of those urban ridings. I do not have a softwood lumber producer in my riding or workers in the industry, but in my previous employment I did travel extensively through northern Ontario and western Quebec, where I saw many communities that had been devastated by the long-term dispute between Canada and the United States.

I have looked at the motion that has been presented to the House and it contains good words. I come back to the comments made by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. It is one thing to have this resolution before the House but what bright line in the sand would the member suggest the government not cross in getting the right deal for Canada?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the first thing is not to have quotas that are significantly lower than the existing quotas.

This is a hard negotiation, but it can be done. Our government showed that it could be done. When we became government in 2006 we managed to get the deal done. It was a reasonable deal and it was accepted across the country. It was not perfect but it was certainly much better than the very challenging circumstances that we had in the many years prior.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I learned a lot about the forestry industry in her riding.

As I have said in the House many times, the forestry industry provides over 5,000 jobs in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I am also concerned about the industry's problems. Some of our businesses have already indicated that they are no longer going to move forward with projects because they are worried that the softwood lumber agreement will not be renewed.

It has been said that the Conservatives reached an agreement before the matter went to court. However, one million dollars was lost as a result of that Conservative deal.

Does my colleague agree that the government should immediately start coming up with a plan B, for example a loan guarantee program, to support our forestry workers and industry just in case a bad agreement leads straight into another trade war that must be resolved before the courts?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about British Columbia, but as my colleague clearly articulated, this is not just an issue for one province. It is an issue across the country.

This issue was absent in both the mandate letter and the Speech from the Throne.

Aerospace is a sexy industry. It is perhaps appealing to the Liberal government to look at giving it $1 billion of taxpayers' money to the aerospace industry.

We are asking the government to take the time, take the energy, and make it a priority and let us get the deal done.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members who have spoken to this motion for their understanding of this issue. This is a huge issue in front of us. As my colleague mentioned, this was not included in the throne speech and was not in the minister's mandate letter. What is out there is the Liberals' claim that they are going to get it done in 100 days.

Similar to the $10 billion deficit, which is now three times that at $30 billion, and similar to their position of taking a little off the top from the rich and giving it to the bottom, which is now about $2 billion short per year, how can we trust them, given their lack of credibility, when they say they are going to get it done?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government likes to spend taxpayers' money and over-spend with the now $30 billion deficit, but it is not creating an environment for our industries to succeed by having things such as the softwood lumber agreement and pipelines that generate revenue. The Liberals are missing one side of the equation. They are good at spending taxpayers' dollars but they are completely missing the side of the equation in which they could be creating an environment where industries could be successful, whether in forestry or such things as pipelines and our oil industry.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the motion before the House today. I would like to start by underscoring a rare moment of unanimity from the speeches and questions earlier today. We all disagree about a lot, but I think we all agree about the importance of the softwood lumber industry to our country. I want to start by saying that it is great to have a chance to talk about it. As Minister of International Trade, I want to assure all members of the House and Canadians how strongly personally committed I am to this issue.

I would also like to respond directly to a comment made by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. She talked about members, for example from downtown Toronto ridings, and issues they may or may not be familiar with. I am very proud of the number of downtown MPs we have on this side of the House, and as we have already heard from my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt, very many of them have a deep familiarity with issues ranging across our country's geography and economy. I want to say for the members opposite and for all Canadians who are listening that I personally am very proud to represent the amazing downtown Toronto riding of University—Rosedale. I am equally proud of my own background, having been born and raised in Peace River in northern Alberta. I am personally extremely familiar with and very emotionally connected to the rural economy of this country. One of the things I take greatest pride in, as the Minister of International Trade, is fighting for our rural economy. I want Canadians to know that.

Let me talk a bit about the softwood lumber industry and how important it is to our country. Communities across the country, particularly in rural areas, depend heavily on this sector, which employs nearly 200,000 Canadians. In 2015, 69% of Canada's softwood lumber exports went to the U.S. which continues to be our largest export market despite excellent work by the industry to expand our markets, particularly in Asia but also in Europe. CETA, which I am working very hard on, could expand those markets further. Softwood lumber production is a driver of economic growth in Canada. It contributed more than $20 billion to our GDP last year, and maintaining access to the U.S. market is essential.

However, I would like to note that it was under the previous Conservative government that the old softwood lumber agreement expired, on October 12, 2015, when the previous government was still in office. I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House the details of a briefing I had nearly a year ago when we first formed government. I was astonished to learn in one of my first briefings by trade officials that the Conservatives did absolutely nothing to try to negotiate a new deal with the United States, even with the expiry date fast approaching. There was no outreach, no meetings, no telephone calls, and no action to try to protect the thousands of Canadians who work in this essential industry. The deadline was looming and the Conservatives sat on their hands.

Our government, by contrast, understands how important this industry is to Canada, and unlike the previous government, we have been engaged, starting with the Prime Minister, from day one on this issue. The Prime Minister raised the issue of softwood lumber in our first bilateral meeting with President Obama in Manilla last year. It was a key issue in our state visit to Washington in March. It was a key issue when President Obama came to Canada in June. We have been on this issue at the highest level. My negotiators were in Washington last week working on the softwood lumber issue. I spoke with Ambassador Mike Froman at length on Friday and I will meet with him again in person in Europe later this week. We are very engaged.

I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank and commend the work of our ambassador, David MacNaughton; of our negotiators, who are working very hard on this fiendishly complex issue; and of the team at the Canadian embassy in Washington. I have been meeting with my U.S. counterpart, Mike Froman, repeatedly around the world, whether in Shanghai or just a couple of weeks ago in Toronto.

In 35 years, Canada and the United States have been in open conflict four times over softwood lumber. All the stakeholders knew that a new agreement would take time and a lot of hard work.

When I started working on this portfolio, I was shocked to learn that the Conservatives had not even begun discussions with the Americans on the renewal of the softwood lumber agreement. Precious time was wasted during which the Conservative government could have been moving this file forward.

That is why, immediately after I was appointed, I asked that extensive consultations be held with key stakeholders in the forestry industry, namely the provincial and territorial governments, small and large lumber companies, producers of various types of softwood lumber products, industry associations, unions, and representatives of indigenous groups.

Our government is therefore working very hard in co-operation with the provinces and industry representatives. The negotiating teams are in constant communication. They are in contact daily. The Canadian ambassador to the United States and I are personally involved in the discussions.

I met with my counterpart and industry stakeholders, as well as the workers. When I went to Saguenay, I had the opportunity to speak with them directly. It was very productive

Let us not forget that softwood lumber was a key aspect of the second state visit to Washington in March. My U.S. counterpart, the United States Trade Representative, and I were expressly instructed, and I quote, to attentivelyexplore all options and report back within 100 day on the key features that would address the issue.

On June 29, following discussions outside the North American leaders' summit held here in Ottawa, the Prime Minister and the President of the United States made a joint statement reiterating their support for a mutually acceptable solution.

Both leaders agreed on nine key elements for a lasting and equitable solution, including exclusion provisions, regional outputs, and transparency, to name a few. This road map continues to guide the negotiations, which, I would like to point out, are ongoing.

On October 12, my American counterpart and I issued a statement indicating that the governments of the United States and Canada remain committed to continuing negotiations in an effort to achieve a durable and equitable solution for North American softwood lumber producers, downstream industries, and consumers.

We recognize that forestry management policies differ across the country, and we are taking those differences into account in our negotiations and as we work toward a national solution. We represent all provinces, including Quebec, the Maritimes, and British Columbia, and will ensure that their needs are reflected in an agreement that benefits all of Canada. Our goal is to sign a good agreement.

Even so, the opposition has been critical. Would it rather we signed a bad agreement? We Liberals are working to negotiate the best deal for Canadians.

MPs and Canadians need to understand that the Government of the United States cannot impose an agreement on its industry even if our two governments do settle on a deal acceptable to us both. That is because, for an agreement to be reached, the American industry must relinquish its legal right to impose tariffs on Canadian exports, a condition that further complicates negotiations.

Another factor that is making negotiations particularly difficult is the level of protectionist rhetoric in the United States.

With the election campaign under way, protectionism is gaining ground and influencing the media and the people. Despite the looming threat of American protectionism, the Prime Minister showed strong leadership during the G20 when he stood up for free trade and open society.

Also complicating matters is the most protectionist climate in the United States since the Great Depression. This is a serious moment and a serious trend. We are seeing it very much at play not only in the U.S. election but in Europe. We saw it in the lead-up to the Brexit vote, and there is a consequential election soon in Austria, where these themes are very significant.

What we are seeing around the world, both south of the border and in Europe, is a gathering protectionist wave, and it is mixed up with a lot of other things. It is mixed up sometimes with anti-immigrant sentiment. It is mixed up sometimes with xenophobia. This is a powerful backlash against globalization, and it is looking for a target. This broader political environment certainly complicates any trade negotiation, including this one.

Having said that, we are working very hard to secure export markets for Canadian producers, and we are succeeding. In fact, we started our mandate by working hard and successfully repealing protectionist COOL legislation in the United States, notwithstanding the comments made by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. I was rather surprised to hear him raise this issue. They did not get the puck in the net on COOL. Our government did, and I was very proud to secure that access for our ranchers. We then secured access for Canadian beef in Mexico and in China, which was another real victory for our producers. Finally, we had last month's absolutely breakthrough agreement on securing access for canola exports to China through 2020. This is terrific news for Canadian farmers, including my dad, who hopes that the snow melts off his swaths of canola and that he can finish harvesting this fall.

Canada is pushing back hard against the anti-trade sentiment, and we are securing some tangible wins for our producers. However, we in this House are all very aware of the real challenges. Despite these challenges, our government is doing everything possible to find a solution on softwood lumber that works for industry and safeguards the interests of all Canadians, whether in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, or B.C.

The negotiating teams speak on the phone almost every day. To date, my officials have had formal meetings with U.S. officials on 16 occasions, most recently last week in Washington. My officials have had more than 65 meetings with Canadian stakeholders, including provinces and industry.

To further understand the views of the industry on both sides of the border, and to move negotiations forward, Ambassador Froman and I hosted a round table with the U.S. industry in Washington, D.C., last month. Then, on October 5, we hosted a round table with the Canadian industry in Toronto. Our Canadian meeting included small and large producers from across the country, including a first-nations-owned business. These meetings shed valuable light on the concerns of both sides as well as on areas where we share similar views, including our joint desire to grow the market for softwood lumber products within North America and abroad.

On October 12, Ambassador Froman and I released a joint statement in which we agreed to continue negotiations and to work to meet the mandate agreed to by President Obama and our Prime Minister when they met in Ottawa in June. In this mandate, our two leaders agreed to nine key features of a durable, equitable deal. Those features include provisions for exclusions and regional exits, to name just a few.

While my officials continue to engage diligently in negotiations, and I am very personally directly involved in that work, we are at the same time preparing for litigation. Should we have to fight, we will be ready to do so. Our softwood lumber producers and workers have never been found in the wrong. International bodies have always sided with our industry in the past.

Canadian officials have been working closely with provinces, territories, and industry since I became minister to prepare for possible U.S. trade action against our softwood lumber products. We are also preparing for the possibility of subsequent litigation at the WTO and under NAFTA. This work has included hiring economic experts, gathering evidence, monitoring U.S. trade law, and preparing our briefs.

While I, personally, and our government are ready to fight in the courts, negotiating an agreement that is good for Canada is the best way to secure stability and predictability for our industry. We will continue our unflagging efforts on this front.

One of our government's top priorities is the economic well-being of the hundreds of Canadians and the hundreds of thousands of families across Canada that depend on the forestry sector and on softwood lumber exports to the United States. That is why we are working so hard to find a solution to the softwood lumber issue.

Let us be clear about what the opposition is asking us to do here today. It is asking us to agree to a deal right now. To do that would mean agreeing to the inadequate deal the U.S. industry is putting forward today. We will not do that. I will not do that. We will keep fighting for the best deal for Canada and for Canadians.

We want a good deal for Canadians, not just any deal. We are hoping for the best and working for the best, but we are preparing for the worst. We are prepared to fight for and defend our industry and our workers in the courts if that is what it takes.

I would like to close by assuring this House, and above all, by assuring Canadians, that the Government of Canada is prepared for any situation and that we are working vigorously and tirelessly to defend the interests of Canadian workers and Canadian producers.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and I share a lot in common. We are both prairie farm kids. We are both proud of our Ukrainian heritage , and we talk often about a lot of those issues.

However, I have to take offence at some of the things she said in her speech today. The idea that the Liberals put the puck in the net on country of origin labelling is laughable. We know the work Conservatives did as the government, especially the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, when he was the minister of agriculture, who worked tirelessly on actually correcting the country of origin labelling. Essentially, we had to let the Obama administration run out all their legal rights, and time on the clock ran out. It happened because of the hard work done by the previous government.

We are having this debate today because the bromance between the Prime Minister and President Obama is over. We are not having any movement by the government on the softwood lumber debate. Four hundred thousand jobs are at risk right across the country. The government has not even lived up to its own timeline to get this done by October 12.

Where is the actual plan? Why are we not seeing the government sitting down and actually getting this dealt with? Why is it up to the opposition to actually hold consultations across the country to brace the industry for the changes that are about to come?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is absolutely right that he and I have a lot of common. We have a rural prairie background in common, and we enjoy talking about Ukraine. I look forward to doing that at some time in the future.

I can also assure the hon. member, and this is the comment with which I began my remarks, that we get it. We get the importance of the softwood lumber issue. I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle get it too. One positive outcome of today's conversation will be to assure Canadians that this House is united in its understanding of the importance of the softwood lumber issue, the industry, and the jobs there.

I want to assure the member opposite that our government is working incredibly hard on this issue. I am very personally engaged in it, and I have been from day one, and so is the Prime Minister, and so are our negotiators. Officials, as I said, have had 66 stakeholder meetings since the beginning of our mandate. I myself have had more than a dozen meetings with the USTR on this issue. We are very engaged. It is a fiendishly complicated issue, but we are working hard.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the SLA expired under the Conservative government. I am disappointed today to hear the partisan politics being played, with 260,000 jobs in Canada. This is about deep insecurity in this sector right now. With no agreement, with the date having come and gone, many people in Canada today are wondering when those charges will come from the U.S., what they will be facing, and what the government will do to help them when that happens, because it is quite certain that it will at this point.

I am happy to hear that the government is preparing. The minister mentioned that in her remarks.

The negotiations aside, the sector really does need assurances today from the government. Can the minister elaborate on the plan to support the industry today, and does it include loan guarantees?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by adding some precision to my previous answer.

Just to be precise, for the record, I have personally had, in person, 10 meetings with the USTR since the beginning of our mandate, and many phone conversations in addition to that.

To the question of what part of the opposition has referred to as a “plan B”, as I said in my remarks, we are hoping for the best, preparing for the worst. We are absolutely negotiating in good faith with our American partners for a negotiated solution, but we understand that it may not happen. We are very much prepared to fight it out. We understand what the implications of that situation would be for our industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the softwood lumber issue is very complex and that it involves a number of industry stakeholders across the country.

I commend the minister for her speech and her hard work on this file, and I want to thank her for fighting for our interests.

Forestry is one of the most important industries in the economy of my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, after tourism. It is therefore very important to us that a sustainable, long-term solution be found.

The economy of the Antoine-Labelle RCM was hit hard by the forestry crisis, because that municipality depends on that industry.

Can the minister explain what she is doing to ensure that all industry stakeholders and provincial governments are aware of ongoing initiatives, and that any deal reflects the diversity of interests in the various communities across Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and the work he is doing on this important issue, one that matters to Canada as a whole, including Quebec.

I was in Montreal last week having important discussions about the softwood lumber issue with my Quebec counterparts and industry stakeholders.

The representatives of Quebec appreciate the work we are doing. The Conseil du patronat du Québec commended the government “for all that it has done in defence of the Quebec forestry industry”. Meanwhile, the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec says that it is “pleased with our position on Quebec's forestry regime”. I am well aware that the Quebec system is unique, and we frequently point that out in our negotiations.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the minister's words. However, she talked about how many meetings the government has had. Really, what the workers in the forestry industry are looking for are not meetings. They are looking for a quality of outcome that resolves this issue.

Members may recall that back in 2006, when our previous Conservative government was elected, we followed on decades of neglect by the previous government under Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien. They just could not get it done. They could not negotiate an agreement.

Within months of our government being elected, guess what happened. We were able to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. We brought this country nine years of peace.

The current Liberal government has had one year to get this done. It has not.

Do members remember, in Washington, D.C., when the President of the United States and our Prime Minister agreed that within 90 days they would have a framework for resolving this agreement? Where is that framework agreement? Why is the minister not getting it done?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, having sat in the seat I now occupy, that the way to get a deal done is by having meetings and negotiating sessions with our counterparts. That is what we are doing. We are intensively engaged. Thanks to our hard work, we now have an American government USTR, my counterpart Mike Froman, who is very much at the table working with us.

Our announcement at the meeting of the two leaders in Ottawa, which outlined some key elements of an agreement, was an important step. We are intensively pressing on with those talks.

We want a good deal, not just any deal. If we cannot achieve a negotiated agreement, Canada is prepared to fight.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a question that my friend, the member for Essex, asked.

If I tell the people in my riding who work in sawmills that the government is hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, they are not going to take much stock. I would like the minister, with respect, to give the House some specific details on what plan B is.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his question, and I would hope the member for Essex is my friend too. She is a very good trade critic.

We are pursuing, as is our responsibility to the people of Canada, a two-track approach right now. We are negotiating in good faith and intensively right now with our American counterparts, and working very closely with our provinces and industry as those negotiations intensify.

I know the U.S. industry and U.S. negotiators follow proceedings in the House carefully on this issue. I want to assure them that we are negotiating in good faith and that we believe a great deal for Canada and the U.S. for our highly integrated industry and markets is achievable. I am working for that.

We understand that the way to get a great deal is to be prepared for the possibility that there is no deal at all. That is why we are working hard on a plan B as well.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the friends and family of Jim Prentice. He was a respected parliamentarian, and my heart goes out to all of my colleagues who are mourning his tragic passing today.

Today's motion is timely, and I am glad my Conservative colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster has brought it forward for debate. The motion urges the government to take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber exports.

I absolutely support the motion. For the many thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on this important industry, it is imperative that Canada secures a fair deal with the United States.

Softwood lumber is a vital part of Canada's forestry sector. For many rural communities, it is the backbone of their economy. According to Canada's labour force survey, in 2015, the forest industry accounted for 260,000 direct and indirect jobs, compared to just over 400,000 jobs in 2003. Hundreds of sawmills across Canada have been shuttered, taking with them high quality, well-paid jobs, the kind of jobs on which families and communities depend.

Today, the softwood lumber industry is on the verge of more job losses. With the expiry of the 2006 SLA, producers are bracing for more U.S. tariffs, which will further devastate an industry has has already been hard hit by the long-standing dispute with the U.S., as well as factors like the recent recession, the crash of the U.S. housing market, and domestic issues like the spread of the pine beetle across British Columbian forests.

Canadians producers and workers are hoping that a new SLA will bring fairness and predictability.

The Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute first began in 1982. For nearly 35 years, the American industry has argued that Canadian producers benefit from subsidization, a claim that has been defeated time and time again.

Over the years, there have been several managed trade agreements and upon their expiration, more duties slapped on Canadian exports to the U.S. and more costly litigation. Canada has spent in the ballpark of $100 million in legal fees to defend our position.

After the previous agreement expired in 2001, the U.S. levied $5.4 billion in duties on Canadian imports, money that should have stayed in the pockets of Canadians. It was the beginning of a decade of massive job loss in the Canadian industry.

Soon after the Conservatives were elected in early 2006, they quickly negotiated a new agreement with little to no consultation with Canadian stakeholders. The result was a very controversial agreement that many argued represented a sellout of Canadian interests. For starters, it was based on the falsehood that Canada's industry was subsidized, which tribunal after tribunal has said is not the case. This set a terrible precedent that the rules of trade did not apply.

The agreement provided an option for Canadian regions of an export tax or a quota with an export tax at a lower rate. It took $50 million from Canadian industry to create a binding dispute settlement system where the U.S. was able to bring more actions against Canada. Perhaps most egregiously, the agreement allowed the U.S. to keep $1 billion of the duties it illegally levied on Canadian producers.

At the time, BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst, Stephen Atkinson, said, “Why would you give 22 per cent to your competition?...This money belongs to the companies and their shareholders, and the Canadian government is giving it away.”

Canadians were furious with the 2006 SLA. When the Conservatives brought it to Parliament in the form of Bill C-24, the NDP argued vehemently against the agreement. When we look back at this agreement, it is fair to say that the Conservatives caved to American interests. Today, it is imperative that the Liberals do not do the same.

As we know, the 2006 agreement was renewed in 2012 and expired last October. The Liberals love to blame the Conservatives for failing to initiate negotiations on a new agreement. It would seem the Conservatives made zero effort to work on the issue before the election. However, the current government must shoulder the responsibility for its role in failing to get a new deal done in time. For months, the government has hinted at breakthroughs that have never materialized.

In March, the Prime Minister boasted, “I'm confident that we are on a track towards resolving this irritant in the coming weeks and months.” That is from the CBC. The fact is that the Liberals broke their own commitment and failed to get a deal done before time ran out.

Beyond softwood specifically, the government does not seem to have a plan for the forestry sector. The federal budget contained no vision for supporting this important industry, which provides jobs right across Canada. It also failed to renew funding for the forest innovation program, which expired earlier this year.

The international trade committee undertook a brief study of softwood lumber earlier this spring, given that the expiry of the standstill clause was fast approaching. Over the course of two meetings, we heard from witnesses from British Columbia, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. We heard a lot of frustrations about how Canada had gotten to the place it was at now. The 2006 SLA was a bad deal and the Conservatives did a poor job of negotiating it.

While many concede that another managed trade deal is better than more costly litigation, there is something inherently unfair about the fact that despite continued findings that Canada is not in the wrong, we continue to negotiate agreements that are clearly in the interests of U.S. industry. Many witnesses expressed a desire to see Canada and the U.S. reach a negotiated settlement, one that would work for all our regions. However, I also heard very clearly that people did not want another bad deal. Quebec, for example, has made a lot of changes in its forestry practices and any new agreement must recognize these and other regional differences. A one-size-fits-all solution simply will not do.

One important voice we did not get to hear from at committee was labour. The United Steelworkers, which represents some 40,000 forestry workers, has laid out several requirements for what it would like to see happen now that the 2006 SLA has expired.

It wants the creation of provincial forest community restoration fund. These funds would be invested in workers, forest-dependent communities, and forest health. It wants fair access to the U.S. lumber market and discourages a new quota system. It also wants a guarantee that Canadian producers will have the same access to the U.S. market that other countries will enjoy.

I appreciate the perspective of the United Steelworkers because it represents the workers' point of view. For workers, these three things would help give them greater job security and strengthen, instead of weaken, the industry.

The committee's final report made five recommendations to the government, including that it get a deal done that would serve Canadian interests, that it consult with big and small producers, and that any new deal respect regional differences. The committee submitted its report to the House last spring, but as the summer went on, we continued hearing worry and concern over the lack of progress on the government's part. In August, opposition committee members, including myself, pushed for a summer meeting to get an update from the department.

We also called on the government to broaden its consultations and convene a round table of stakeholders that had been excluded in the past. The Liberals rejected this proposal and, quite shockingly, called the whole meeting a waste of time.

In just a few short months, Canadian producers expect to be hit with U.S. tariffs of around 25%. Mills will be shut down right across Canada. Thousands of jobs will be lost. It is extremely important that the government gets this deal done right and gets it done fast. I hope the government understands the gravity of what these job losses will mean in our communities: thousands of people with no jobs to go to, no more paycheques to bring home, and families worried about how to pay the rent or make the next mortgage payment.

I am from southwestern Ontario and people in Essex know what it is like to lose a lot of jobs in one sector. It is tough and people are resilient, but it is very difficult for families and communities to work through these types of events. I urge the government to act in the interests of those whose jobs are on the line. That means getting the deal right and working collaboratively with the communities that will be impacted by another round of duties.

If the Liberal government is serious about holding out for a good deal, instead of signing a bad one tomorrow, then it owes Canadians more transparency and openness about how it will help Canada's industry weather this impending trade storm. Some in the industry want the government to provide loan guarantees to help them deal with a new round of U.S. duties. If this prevents sawmills from closing and jobs from being lost, then it is imperative that the government provide this support. Canadians deserve answers from the government, not more empty promises and hollow words about meetings and consultations.

The New Democratic Party supports this motion and urges the government to make a new agreement that is in the best interests of Canadians a top priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I largely agree with the member for Essex on this very important topic. In a riding like mine, forestry is the major industry after tourism and public services.

I am a bit of a hawk on this issue. I have a question for my colleague. If the Americans do not move in the direction we would like them to move, does she agree that we should fight this out to the end, rather than settling early, and even if it takes a long time, should we have the war?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would stand in the House and advocate a war with our American neighbours, most certainly. We need to come to some sort of an agreement; that is understandable. However, that is cold comfort to people who today in Canada are uncertain about their jobs and about the impact on their communities. We need to know. We need that transparency that has been promised time and again from the current government. What is the plan right now while the Liberals continue to negotiate? We absolutely would like to see a deal reached, but in the meantime we need some supports in place for those communities and people who will be affected.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Essex for her speech. I am pleased to hear that the New Democrats are going to be supporting the motion.

One of my colleagues reflected earlier on the fact that we did not see a mention of the softwood lumber issue at all in the minister's mandate letter. We did not hear discussion of it in the throne speech. In fact, we barely heard discussion at all of our vital primary industries in this country. I wonder if my colleague can just reflect on the absence of emphasis, at least in terms of the stated priorities of the current government, on softwood lumber and on our primary industries in general, what that says, and what that suggests about the obligation we have to continually hold the government accountable on this to make sure it is actually doing what is so important for this industry.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that whether it is part of the government's mandate or not, all of us as parliamentarians have a mandate to represent people in every sector who would be affected by trade. Certainly we knew that this was looming, that the softwood agreement had expired. We are in this grace period of time and we all have a responsibility to ensure that the softwood lumber sector and all of its workers, right down to the small producers and the indigenous producers, are protected.

It is very concerning to me that this was not included in the government's mandate letter. It should absolutely be a key focus. We heard today that the minister is working on the agreement and that is ongoing, but what we would like today are some answers on how people can cope with the impending tariffs they will be facing and that will be slapped on Canadian producers, in all honesty, as soon as this week.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very informative speech.

I think everyone in the House would agree that we need a good deal. To send a clear message, I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. If the government were already showing strong leadership by having a plan B, such as a loan guarantee program, for example, what impact would that have on the negotiations, and how might that affect the outcome if the matter ends up in court?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work on this file. She certainly represents well the constituents she is here to represent.

I would say that the plan B absolutely has to include a loan guarantee program. If that were in place right now, it maybe would take some pressure off of the negotiations and the time that we are up against where we have no agreement. It at least would provide some stability for those who are in the sector, knowing that they would not have to come up with the legal fees they would need to battle this out in court, when time after time it has been proven that we are not at fault here in Canada. I believe that any type of plan B from the government needs to include loan guarantees to provide some security to those people in the sector.