Debates of Oct. 19th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Support for Forestry Workers

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this country stands on free speech, this country stands by science, and this government stands by free speech and science, so people have the right make their views known out in the open. They are allowed to protest. They are allowed to mention their views, and it is this government's duty to act on science and research and data. That is where our government is doing an excellent job. Every environmental agency has its right to free speech.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I am happy to be here today to speak about the softwood lumber situation, which directly affects my riding of Yellowhead. We are one of the largest areas of Alberta. Along with my colleague's riding of Peace River—Westlock to the north, we have mostly all of the logging in the province of Alberta, which employs well over 100,000 people. Therefore, I am very concerned.

Back on October 12, 2015, the softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States expired. It was an agreement made by the previous Conservative government. Here we are two years later with no softwood lumber agreement. Now, to add insult to injury, the U.S. is back to its old tricks of hammering Canadian forest companies with U.S. duties of 24.12%, which is pretty high, and some of those affect the mills in my area, such as West Fraser Mills Ltd.

When the Conservatives were in government, there was no softwood lumber agreement. They actually developed a softwood lumber agreement with the U.S. government in three months of negotiating. It was a softwood lumber agreement that was very good for Canada. It was a deal that saw the softwood lumber industry grow from coast to coast.

In fact, I was on the city council for the City of Fort St. John when this deal was ratified. I remember that, just prior to that, they were thinking of closing the mill in Fort St. John. The markets were poor and there was no chance of expanding. The mill just up the road from us in Fort Nelson closed after being open for many years. Then the softwood lumber agreement was signed. Lo and behold, we saw company owners looking at the future and thinking they could invest, modernize their technology, expand operations, and make money. In fact, shortly after that, two major companies in northern British Columbia came together. One was an American company. They built a new plywood facility in Fort St. John, employing close to 400 people.

This is what a softwood lumber agreement does for us. It gives companies security. It gives them a long-term forecast. We do not have that today.

Close to 400,000 jobs are at risk across Canada, because we do not have a softwood lumber agreement. The current government has failed Canadians and the softwood lumber industry. Now, the government is into NAFTA, trying to get it signed, but it still has this softwood lumber agreement in the back, and we are being hit hard by our U.S. counterparts. I am afraid that the softwood lumber segment of our country is going to hurt.

Close to 20% of Canada's GDP comes from Canada's natural resource industries, which are energy, mining, and forestry. Therefore, a big portion of the money that this country runs on comes from forestry.

Today I believe the Prime Minister is in Lac Saint-Jean, a community of more than 5,000. It is a softwood lumber community and region. Yet, to go back to the Prime Minister's letter of intent, he never mentions softwood lumber at all.

Does the Liberal government have a plan regarding softwood lumber? It makes me wonder, because two years of negotiations have failed to give us a softwood lumber agreement.

The three sectors I just spoke about employ almost two million Canadians. What is alarming is that all three are declining because of the current government, a government that states it is here for the environment and sustainability for Canadians.

I was at a breakfast this morning with the minister and I listened to her speak very eloquently about sustainability, Canada's future, and industry working to protect the environment. That is not happening. I do not think there is anybody in this room who can say that industry can survive without the environment. We know it relies on the environment. Industry in Canada has proven that we are probably the best example of stewards of the environment when it comes to industry anywhere in the world.

Industry can help Canada be sustainable. We know that. As noted before, industry is a large contributor to our GDP, approximately 20%, and it can do so well protecting the environment. It has proven that time and time again. Yet we have a government that has put hurdles in front of our companies, which make it financially not feasible for some of them to exist. Energy east has gone south. Northern gateway is in limbo, because there is a moratorium that says no ships can haul crude oil on our west coast, but they can do it on the east coast.

We must have environmental laws. The government must work with Canadians and industry to develop a sustainable economy. It cannot do it in a silo, making up all the rules itself, and then dumping them on Canada's society and Canada's industries and telling them what to do. We know exactly what happens. All we have to do is go back to Energy east. The government put in some rules in the middle, and the company closed its operations.

The Liberals are failing us in the softwood lumber industry. I fear for the 171 municipalities across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, that are directly derivative of the forest industry. These communities are already hurting and they will hurt in the future. I can go back to before our Conservative government initiated the softwood lumber agreement, and I remember when 15,000 people in the province of British Columbia, where I lived for 40 years, lost their jobs. I do not want to see that happen today.

The Liberals need to get their act together. Maybe they should take their partisan attitudes and spend more time talking to MPs on the Conservative side who have successfully negotiated deals such as the softwood lumber deal and NAFTA. After all, are we not all working here together for the betterment of Canadians? The Liberals could learn a lot if they just sat down and talked to the hon. member for Abbotsford about how to make international deals.

I am concerned even further when it comes to softwood lumber, because the Liberal government is failing in other areas. The Liberals are failing us.

I have been working for two years with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, to take some serious action with respect to the pine beetle in Jasper National Park. It has destroyed the forest there. It has now moved into the province of Alberta and, in one year—if the members across would listen—it has increased tenfold.

The government needs to take some action to support Alberta's forest industry.

The government needs to take a look at our caribou, which is now an endangered species. The government is doing nothing to work with the provinces to ensure that these animals are protected. If the Species at Risk Act goes into play, and if the Province of Alberta gets its way, it will close down close to 4.9 million acres of our forestry land due to the caribou.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, about halfway through my hon. colleague's speech, he asked if the government has a plan for softwood lumber. Yes, we do.

We can agree with this motion that the forestry sector is a major employer in Canada, and it is a world leader in sustainable forestry practices. We have invested $150 million to support clean technology. We are supporting it with $876 million toward an action plan. We are taking this very seriously in terms of our negotiations. We have met with the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross. The Prime Minister has spoken with President Trump about the industry. As mentioned, we are looking for a good deal for Canada. Therefore, it would be irresponsible for us to stand in favour of this motion. I hope the member opposite can see why, with the investments and the conversations we have been having.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it will not take too long to answer that. There is no softwood lumber deal. You can talk, but unless you can talk the talk and walk the walk and develop a plan for the Canadian softwood lumber industry, you are not doing your job.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I hope that the member was addressing that through the Speaker.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Yes, I was, Madam Speaker.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the member for Yellowhead is concerned about the pine beetle epidemic that is now expanding in Alberta. We suffered through it for a decade or more in British Columbia. The unprecedented expansion of that epidemic killed off millions of acres of forest in British Columbia.

What we found in British Columbia was that no matter what we threw at that epidemic, it just kept on going until the weather helped us. To fight the beetles, we need very cold weather. At this time of year, we need short, cool summers. I am wondering what he is asking the government to do to stop this epidemic in Alberta, when we found in B.C. that we could only sit and wait for the climate to answer back.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am asking for a couple of things. One is that the federal government step up to assist the province of Alberta, like it assisted the province of B.C. We know a lot more today than we did when the outbreak started in 1977 in B.C in the Spatsizi area of the province. Over the last three years, the Province of Alberta and the forestry companies in the area where the pine beetle have been coming through the parks have held them at bay, until this year, because we do not have the financial resources provincially or through the companies. They knocked down 40,000 trees last year and kept them at bay. This year it was 540,000 trees.

They are running rampant. Where did they come from? They came through Jasper National Park. I have been working with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and other groups to do some active burning there. We could have stopped them earlier on, but it was not done due to ecological integrity or something like that, I was told. However, if the government had taken some action, we could have slowed them down. We may have even been able to stop them, because we know a lot more about them today than we did when they attacked us when I lived in B.C.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion that affects many workers in Canada, and not surprisingly, in Quebec and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, in particular. We are talking about 370,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada, including 60,000 in Quebec.

I represent a riding that shares a border with the state of Maine, which makes the flow of trade extremely important to us. We have enjoyed a free trade partnership with the United States for the past three decades, but its future is once again uncertain.

It is disappointing, then, to see the government opposite handling this file like amateurs. It neglected to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement as soon as it came to power, and now, Canada was caught off guard on the NAFTA file.

I would like to remind the House and Canadians who are watching us that the dispute around softwood lumber is not new. The previous government at least made it a priority. In April 2006, only three months after being elected, the Harper government ratified an agreement on softwood lumber which made for ten years of peace in that sector. In 2015, my colleague for Abbotsford was the minister in charge and he began discussions with his American counterparts which led to negotiations to renew the agreement. We all know what happened next.

The Liberals across the way came to power, but we still had hope that the initial discussions would bear fruit. When the current Prime Minister met with President Obama in June 2016, he had given himself 100 days to sign a new agreement. There was a smell of victory in the air, as some would say. However, the Liberals chose to double down. Michael Froman, who used to be the U.S. Trade Representative, said last May that the Government of Canada had received an offer from the Obama administration in order to find an agreement before the new administration took over, but the Prime Minister and his colleagues decided to wait and see if they could get a better deal with President Trump. Is the government proud of its decision today? I am not so sure.

We realize how out of touch this government is with the reality of the regions of Quebec and Canada. When he appointed the Minister of International Trade, the Prime Minister sent him a mandate letter. Of 2,731 words in that letter in French, not a single one is about the forestry industry. The English version contained 1,873 words, but the percentage remained the same: 0% of words about the forestry industry in both official languages. However, the letter contained a lot of jargon. I quote the Prime Minister: “advancing Canada’s progressive trade agenda to create jobs for the middle class and those working hard to join it”.

They have been talking for two years about the middle class and those who want to join it. Clearly the current Government of Canada does not recognize that forestry workers are part of that middle class, as they are not mentioned anywhere in the Minister of International Trade’s mandate letter.

In my riding, there are forestry producers and processors, such as Bois Daaquam in Saint-Just-de-Bretenières, Maibec in Saint-Pamphile, and Matériaux Blanchet. They offer very high-quality jobs in a setting where, it must be said, the population is aging and new workers are hard to find. So it is essential that this agreement be signed as soon as possible.

Those people in Saint-Pamphile and in the northern part of my riding are Canadians who live specifically off the forest. They are Canadians just like people in Montreal or Toronto. They pay their taxes like everyone else and it is the government’s duty to not forget them. However, it is in fact the interests of Canadians like them that are forgotten instead of defended when the government enters into NAFTA negotiations.

We currently have a Prime Minister who is trained as a drama teacher and who repeats platitudes ad nauseam in the belief that every opportunity is a time to share his so-called progressive virtues. He must deal with an American President who has made billions of dollars throughout his life negotiating agreements, and who is now threatening to abolish free trade.

Instead of ensuring that our $2 billion in commercial trade can continue and that our forestry sector is defended, what is the government doing? The Liberals instead go to Washington demanding that the United States amend their laws to meet the so-called progressive criteria and values of the Liberal Party of Canada, and that the new agreement contain clauses to that effect.

Knowing the role of the large unions that directed all their resources to get them elected in the last election, the Liberal government even asked the American federal government to invalidate legislation, right to work legislation that exists in 28 of 50 states. In those states, workers are free to decide whether or not to belong to a union.

If U.S. President Donald Trump were to ask Canada to strike down labour laws in Quebec, New Brunswick, British Columbia, or Ontario, imagine the media outcry. It would be an abuse of power, an affront to our sovereignty as a nation, and an insult to our federation, which guarantees a certain level of provincial independence. This Liberal government is trying to do exactly that, but with a country whose population is 10 times greater than ours. Do the Liberals really expect to save NAFTA by making such demands?

I want to make it clear that what Canada has put on the table will most certainly not help negotiations with the United States. What the Liberals should do is drive home the fact that trade agreements between Canada and the United States have resulted in truly reciprocal trade. The numbers show that Uncle Sam's trade deficit with Canada is virtually non-existent. It is $11 billion out of $545 billion, which is barely 2%.

Our Canadian wood is needed to meet one third of the current demand in the U.S. construction industry. We in Canada have what they need. These are points that need to be hammered home in order to be convincing during the negotiations. That is how we know that the government does not care about the forestry workers. In fact, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord just said that we were wasting our time talking about this motion to defend the workers in the industry. He said it was unnecessary and unimportant.

Forestry workers can count on us to defend them. The sector is so unimportant to the Prime Minister that he did not even include the two little words “forestry industry” in a lengthy mandate letter to all of his ministers, including the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, not to mention the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. He could not be bothered to include the forestry industry.

Inevitably, we must absolutely vote in favour of this motion. I hope, at the end of the day, that all of my colleagues, and all members, both in government and in the second opposition party, will find this motion to be justified and justifiable.

In any case, it must be said, people—not only in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, but particularly in that region—have seen innovation. We have seen innovation in my riding. Investments have been made over the last 10 years and more to make businesses more productive and more innovative. Billions of dollars were invested when we were in government. Obviously that must continue. Clearly, we will continue to defend people in this industry.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, we all knew that the softwood lumber agreement was set to expire in October 2015, so it is certainly reasonable to criticize the Liberal government for failing to negotiate a new agreement in the two years since then. However, I would like to ask my colleague why the former Conservative government did not negotiate a new agreement before leaving office.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The reality is that we had already begun negotiations. The 10-year agreement that was signed after three months of negotiations by the Harper government included a one-year extension to allow for negotiations, which we had already begun.

We, the Conservatives, never let down people in the forestry industry in negotiations with the United States, quite the contrary.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we know that softwood lumber is vitally important for our communities and workers across the country. Ministers on this side of the House have said over and over again how important it is to ensure we get the right agreement and the right deal. The time we are spending is to ensure we get this right, because it is so important.

We have invested $867 million in a softwood lumber action plan. Is this not, at the very least, an indication of the importance we have given to this file and an acknowledgement that this industry is very important to Canadians?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Actions speak. The Liberals have been in power for two years, and an agreement has still not been signed. Those are real facts. After two years of negotiations, there is still no agreement signed.

My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said that the linear price of wood had has risen from $500 to $650 and that that means the industry is doing well. That is the government’s response to the concerns of the industry and of workers across Canada. He sais that things are going well, that the exchange rate is good and that wood is selling for $650.

The day when things go really badly and this government is not ready, jobs will be lost and it will be no laughing matter.

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

Madam Speaker, $867 million is a significant amount of money, and it should not be a surprise. From day one, this has been a priority issue for us. We know that over 200,000 Canadians are directly employed in this industry, let alone the tens of thousands indirectly employed.

The government is very keen to get not only an agreement but a good agreement, and there is a difference. The Conservatives seem to be determined to sign an agreement. Would the member not agree that it is better for us to ensure we get a good agreement? That is how we will protect the industry and those middle-class jobs, and in fact expand the industry. Should we not try to achieve that?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that we want to have a good agreement.

An agreement was proposed when President Obama was in office. The Liberals must table that agreement so that we, Canada’s parliamentarians, can evaluate it. The Liberals say that only they determine if it is a good agreement, but there are 338 members here in the House. We are able to all decide together whether or not it is a good agreement. The Liberals are saying that they decided that it was not a good agreement. Let them tell us, then, what constitutes a good agreement for Canada.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

When we think of forestry, Saskatchewan is not necessarily the first province to come to mind. However, the northern half of our province is almost completely forested, as is very well represented on our provincial flag. My grandfather, Mike Kalmakoff, was the general manager of the Saskatchewan Timber Board under the government of Premier Tommy Douglas. The goal of that provincial timber board was to get the best possible price for Saskatchewan's resource and also to encourage processing in the province, such as sawmills and also the development of a pulp mill.

I would like to talk about the importance of forestry to Canada in terms of those same two concepts, collecting revenue for the people who own the resource and also encouraging processing activity and the good jobs associated with that.

Under the first point of revenues from forestry, provincial governments charge stumpage fees for the timber. Of course the systems vary a bit from province to province. It is subject to provincial jurisdiction. However, certainly as Canadians, we would want to be collecting the best possible return for this resource. Stumpage fees are also at the heart of the current softwood lumber trade dispute. The American allegation is that Canadian stumpage fees are too low, that they are below the market value of the timber, and that they are an unfair subsidy to our industry.

Anytime this has been adjudicated by an international trade tribunal, Canada has won. Canada needs to be prepared to stand up to the United States on this issue. It was disappointing when the former Conservative government capitulated to the United States after all these tribunals victories.

However, the bigger point I want to make is that the reason we should want to optimize our stumpage fees is not actually to make the Americans happy in a trade dispute. First and foremost, the reason to ensure we have the best possible system of stumpage fees is to ensure that the Canadians who own the resource are getting the best possible return on it.

A side benefit of doing that might be to satisfy the Americans, although it is not clear the Americans will ever be totally satisfied. They probably have a desire to try to protect their own industry regardless of what Canada does.

Our first goal should be to ensure we collect as much revenue as possible from this resource that belongs to Canadian citizens through our provincial governments. Different provinces have tried different things in this area. Some have better systems than others. The federal government definitely needs to respect provincial jurisdiction.

We also need to recognize that having stumpage fees in provincial jurisdictions creates the risk of competition between the provinces and a race to the bottom on stumpage fees, where provinces are giving away their timber at lower and lower prices to try to attract investment away from other provinces. Inn the end, this does not increase the total pool of investment. It simply shifts investments and jobs around between provinces, ultimately leaving all provinces with less revenue from that economic activity.

There is a role for the federal government to try to coordinate between the provinces to maintain stumpage fees at some sort of reasonable level, and to try to discourage this sort of race to the bottom among provincial governments. There is a constructive role for the federal government to play in ensuring that all Canadians, regardless of which province they live in, derive the greatest possible revenue from our timber resources.

The second thing I want to talk about is the benefit we derive from forestry, not simply as revenue but also through processing that timber into lumber or into pulp and paper products. This is a major contribution to Canada's manufacturing sector as well. It is worth recognizing that it is a particularly important contribution to many forestry communities. There are many rural communities where the forest industry accounts for a majority of the local economy.

Therefore, it is important nationally but it is really important locally in some instances, and we need to have policies in place that encourage the processing of timber in Canada.

One major problem has been raw log exports, timber being taken out of our country in raw form, processed offshore and then maybe sold back to us as a finished product. To some extent, provincial governments can address this by putting processing requirements on the timber at source. The Government of B.C. had not been doing this. I am optimistic that now we have a progressive government in power in B.C., it will start requiring more and better processing of timber and that this problem may be resolved.

However, another aspect of this whole question of raw log exports, which is very relevant to us at the federal level, is the environmental question. Clearly, it is not very good for the environment to be shipping raw logs across the ocean, processing them in China or in some other offshore jurisdiction with lower environmental standards, and then using a bunch more energy to ship them back to North America as finished products. This obviously is increasing greenhouse gas emissions and worsening climate change. One of the potential unintended consequences of the federal government requiring a carbon price in all provinces would be to create a further incentive for that processing activity to happen in some other jurisdiction that fails to price carbon.

Fortunately, there is a policy solution to this problem, and that is for the federal government to also extend its carbon price to the carbon content of imports from countries that do not have carbon pricing and rebate it on Canadian exports. Right now, sawmills and pulp mills in Canada will have to pay a carbon price. That does create an incentive for them to reduce their emissions. The problem is that lumber or paper products coming in from the United States, or from China or from other jurisdictions will not be paying that same carbon price. However, the federal government has jurisdiction over international trade and the federal government can and should apply that same carbon price to the carbon content of these products coming into our country.

Of course, our forestry industry is not just about serving the Canadian market; it is also an important export industry. Therefore, another aspect of the border adjustment I am talking about would be for the federal government to rebate that carbon price on exports from Canada to ensure our forest products are competitive and have a level playing field when they are sold in other parts of the world.

Ensuring that the federal government's carbon price is adjusted at the border would allow us to use it as a tool to reduce emissions in Canada, while at the same time ensuring it would not create an incentive for industry, including the processing of timber, to simply relocate to other jurisdictions that fail to put a price on emissions.

We have seen a major challenge with raw log exports. That challenge could actually be aggravated by putting a price on carbon in Canada that may not exist in other jurisdictions. The federal government can and should solve that problem by extending its carbon price to the carbon content of imports and rebate it on exports. This is a solution that would allow us to ensure that carbon pricing reduces emissions in Canada, without pushing jobs and pushing industry outside of the country.

What have I talked about today? Forestry is an extremely important industry to Canada. One aspect of that is collecting revenue from our timber resources. This is done through provincial stumpage fees. The federal government can and should play a role in coordinating between provinces to ensure there is no race to the bottom, to ensure that all provinces are collecting the best possible return from their forest resources.

Second, we have talked about encouraging the manufacturing and processing of timber in Canada. There are things that can and will be done at the provincial level to require processing. The federal government also needs to ensure that its carbon pricing system does not create an incentive for that processing to leave the country and apply the carbon price fairly at the border.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that our colleague from Regina—Lewvan is talking about reducing emissions at the same time that the energy east pipeline, which would have been produced by EVRAZ in his riding, has been turned down. The member talks about not supporting pipelines in this country while at the same time we are getting foreign oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. We know those countries have no emissions standards whatsoever, yet he can stand in the House today and talk about forestry when he would not defend the pipeline that EVRAZ would have produced in his riding to give Canadians a chance to work and prosper.

I would like the member to talk about energy east and the pipeline that would have been produced in Saskatchewan and made Canadians prosper from coast to coast to coast.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, certainly the amount of pipeline capacity that is built in Canada depends critically on the projected future production of oil. That depends on the price of oil, which certainly no Canadian politician can control, but we do have a number of pipelines going ahead, significantly Keystone XL as well as the Line 3 replacement project. The analysis I have seen suggests that with those projects going ahead, there simply was not enough demand to support energy east. That is the assessment that TransCanada made. It is also building Keystone XL and many of its customers are being included in that project rather than energy east. That may be unfortunate. There is not a lot we can do about it.

We can try to ensure that all pipelines that are built get built with steel produced by EVRAZ in Regina. That is something I have advocated for regularly in the House. I am quite disappointed that my Conservative colleagues have never done so. They have been cheerleaders for any and all proposed pipelines regardless of where the steel is produced. They would be fine if the steel were coming from offshore. I have stood in the House and advocated that the pipeline review process consider where the pipe is made, which would certainly help support good jobs in Regina.

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

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the day when we see an opposition day motion talk about the importance of our oil industry and to hear more about pipelines.

It is interesting that we are having an opposition day dealing with our forestry industry. We on this side of the House understand and appreciate how important that industry it is to Canada. As I mentioned earlier, it creates 200,000 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs. This is a government that has come to the table since day one. We have now invested well over $800 million in a fund to assist the industry.

Can we anticipate an NDP opposition day motion on the oil industry? The member may be a little offside with some of his colleagues on the pipeline issue, but I can appreciate and love Regina too. It is a great city. Could he provide his thoughts on the importance of the jobs in the forest industry?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that was a somewhat convoluted question. The member for Winnipeg North criticized the Conservatives for bringing up the oil industry in a debate about forestry and then he tried to ask me about the oil industry instead of forestry and then came back to forestry at the end of his question.

I am not entirely sure how to respond to this, but I would say that all of us in the House recognize the importance of forestry. All of us recognize the importance of having a strong energy industry. To the extent that pipelines such as Keystone XL and Line 3 are being built, we should be working to make sure they are being built with steel produced right here in Canada, because it is cleaner and safer than pipe imported from offshore. I am proud of the fact that I have stood up in the House for Canadian steel and pipe production.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Carleton, Taxation; the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Indigenous Affairs.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague ended his response on the need to acknowledge the importance of the country's forestry industry. Naturally, it is important in Quebec, though we often forget that it is even more so in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and in the James Bay area, both of which are in my riding.

My riding covers more than half the area of Quebec, which leads us to conclude that forestry is also important there. I can attest to this almost every day. In addition to the 14 Inuit and 9 Cree villages, and two Algonquin reserves, most of the municipalities located there, in one way or another, depend on forestry, and mining.

In light of all of this, I cannot help but acknowledge the importance of the forestry industry, which I talk about often, even in the House. However, there are several things missing from this motion, and I will come back to that.

First of all, I would like to highlight that in the NDP, we have always supported the forestry industry. We have always spoken in favour of this industry in the House, as much in our statements as in our questions. We will continue to do so.

The Conservative motion proposes to attack some NGOs, which is a little disappointing because it is not necessary. We should be talking about many other issues pertaining to the forest industry. So the motion misses the mark, in my view.

Also, we deeply regret the lack of progress in resolving the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. It is especially sad to see that after two years of Liberal government, there seems to be no progress on this issue. It is absolutely deplorable for the industry as well as for workers.

I would like now to speak to an item which looks crucial to me in the debate on the forest industry in Quebec as much as in the country as a whole. Discussions about the forest industry often revolve around the environment and environment-friendly methods of harvest in all regions of our country. However, the rights of aboriginal people is often overlooked in those discussions.

I do not know how many people in the House remember the struggle of my people, the Cree, against the forest industry in the James Bay area of Quebec. At that time, around the end of the 1990s, 27 forestry companies were operating in the James Bay area, which is covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The methods used by those companies were not compatible with the rights and interests of the Cree, as defined in that first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The Cree had to resort to litigation, and the Quebec Superior Court ruled in their favour in December 2000. The Court said that provisions of the Quebec Forest Act were incompatible with the terms of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement because of the established rights and interests of the Cree.

A new forestry regime had to be negotiated for the James Bay area. There is currently a law of general application in effect everywhere in Quebec, but there is also a specific forestry regime for the area covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. I am proud to say that I negotiated that regime with the Government of Quebec myself.

There is a different regime for the James Bay area, and it helped us to strike a balance between the Cree's rights and interests and the long-term viability of the forestry industry in the area.

After the Cree won their case, they could have chosen to sit back and say that, if the forestry industry was ultimately not viable in the James Bay area, then so be it. However, they did not. We believed and still believe in the importance of forestry jobs. That is why we thought that it was necessary at the time to negotiate with the Government of Quebec on this issue.

It is important to keep working and to support forestry workers, who, I believe, play a major role in Canada's economy. They represent an estimated 200,000 jobs in the country, including about 60,000 in Quebec, according to the most recent data I have seen, which was for 2012, if I recall correctly. Many rural communities in my riding are forestry dependent. We are talking about roughly 200,000 jobs in Canada, many of them in my own riding.

What I want to underscore is that there is a major flaw in this motion, because it does not take into account indigenous peoples' rights vis-à-vis the forestry, mining, and oil industries, as was mentioned earlier. We must never forget that these constitutional rights exist, that they belong to Canada's indigenous peoples, and that they must be respected. That is what I mean when I say that a fundamental aspect is missing from the motion.

I would therefore like to move an amendment to the motion. Let us see if it is in order.

I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “the Minister of International Trade; and” and substituting the following: (d) our natural resources must be developed in collaboration with indigenous peoples and in an environmentally sustainable manner; the House express its support for forestry workers abandoned by the government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou moved an amendment. After reviewing and discussing the amendment, I must inform the hon. member that the amendment is beyond the scope of the main motion and is therefore out of order.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my community of Nanaimo—Ladysmith we have a great success story. This is a community built on forestry. It is the foundation of our settlement.

In recent years, Harmac Pacific Mill was purchased largely by its workers. Since that happened in 2008, they have added 150 new jobs. They are using residual wood waste from the pulp mill to invest in a sustainable energy system, one that is big enough to power 18,000 homes. It is at the heart of our economy.

We had one of Harmac Pacific Mill's reps, Cameron Milne, testify at the trade committee a year ago. He talked about the importance of a softwood lumber agreement and how it would support local milling, and thus the production of more sawdust and residual waste. That is the kind of material that is helping to supply pulp mill companies like Harmac Pacific.

I would like to invite my fellow member to comment about some of the collateral benefits of a good softwood lumber agreement that not only helps us with the export side, but also helps with the economy and jobs close to home.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Given that my amendment was rejected, I want to emphasize how much this motion is missing some fundamental elements, which is why I oppose it. I think something fundamental is missing. It is unfortunate that my amendment was rejected, although I fully understand the reasoning behind it.

My colleague raises an important aspect of the forestry industry. In many communities, including in my riding, success stories do exist. Take, for example, Chantiers Chibougamau, a lumber yard which has been investing heavily in innovation for many years now. It is known and highly regarded around the world for its construction materials. To give an example, the roof of the Buffalo Sabres training centre was built using Chantiers Chibougamau products, which is why it is so important that we have a good softwood lumber agreement.