Debates of Oct. 19th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Support for Forestry Workers

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska for this motion.

I know that, like our government, he fully appreciates how important forestry is to Canada.

The forest industry employs more than 200,000 Canadians and contributes more than $23 billion a year to our GDP. In fact, it provides more jobs per dollar than any other natural resource sector. We export more than $34 billion worth of forest products to 180 countries around the world.

Today forest producers are strengthening composite car parts, making vehicles lighter, reducing emissions, and replacing plastics made from non-renewable fossil fuels. A forestry worker is as likely to be wearing a white lab coat as a red plaid shirt. He or she might be a genomics researcher investigating ways to make trees more resistant to disease or an economist working to optimize supply chains. To paraphrase that classic Oldsmobile commercial, this is not our father's forest industry. In fact, the Canadian forestry industry has transformed itself into one of the most innovative parts of our economy.

It was not that long ago that forestry seemed to be on the ropes. To many it seemed like an outdated or even dying industry, then something remarkable happened. Instead of wringing its hands, the industry rolled up its sleeves and began a transformation, whose best chapters are still being written. Forestry leaders reached out to their critics, listened to the concerns, and made changes to their operations. The industry invested in research, developed new products, and established new offshore markets, creating not just a new image but a new vision of what forestry was and could be.

Today, the forestry industry is poised to help our country tackle some of its greatest challenges by combatting climate change, driving innovation, creating job opportunities in indigenous and rural communities, and boosting trade.

Let me touch on each of these.

The first is climate change. It would be hard to overstate the importance of the forest sector in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that there can be no global solution to climate change without the forest sector. It is that important. Why? It is because forestry is unique in that it actually takes carbon out of the air.

Most of us will remember enough of our high school science to know that trees suck up vast amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and store it for decades. However, forestry's contribution goes far beyond that. It is developing clean technologies, producing green energy, reducing its need for energy and water, and lowering both emissions and waste. While Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions fell by 3% between 2004 and 2014, the forest sector reduced its emissions by an impressive 49%, and it is just getting started. Lignin, a material found in trees, could become the crude oil of the future, with biofuels substituting for fossil fuels in the production of plastics, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals.

Then there is wood as a building material. Pound for pound, engineered wood can be as strong as steel, making it safe and practical not only in buildings but also in infrastructure, such as bridges. With funding from our government, project Origine was opened in September. The tall wood construction project in Quebec City's Pointe-aux-Lièvres eco-district is the tallest wood-constructed condominium in North America.

In 2016, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the tallest wood building in the world, a new student residency at the University of British Columbia. This magnificent building is not only an engineering and architectural showpiece, it is an environmental game-changer, storing close to 1,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide and saving more than 1,000 metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions. That is like taking 500 cars off the road for a year.

Even in more modern structures, wood is far better for the environment. Building with lumber can result in 86% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than using traditional building materials such as concrete and steel.

To encourage greater use of wood in construction projects in Canada, the Government of Canada created the green construction through wood program. We are currently receiving expressions of interest for the next great Canadian projects.

Forestry also helps to fight climate change through its sustainable management practices. In fact, third parties have certified these practices among the best in the world.

Canada now boasts 37% of the world's certified forests, far more than any other jurisdiction in the world, and that matters. It matters because our customers can be confident that wood products brought from Canada were harvested through sustainable practices. Any tree harvested on crown land must be replaced, and permanent removal of forests for agricultural or municipal development, for example, is declining. The result is that actual deforestation is less than 0.02% a year.

We assess our sustainable forest management system by looking at a range of scientific indicators, from regeneration to forest disturbances, from carbon emissions to volumes harvested.

Canada has also developed a carbon budget model that simulates forest carbon conditions. It forms the basis of our carbon monitoring and accounting system used in international reporting. It is being applied in more than 25 countries.

Whether it is by providing greener building materials, finding new uses for wood products, or sustainably managing its resources, the forest industry is playing a central role in combatting climate change.

Second, it is helping to drive innovation. For decades, the forest industry has been developing and investing in new products and ways of operating. Look at the rise of clean tech and bioenergy, a renewable energy source derived from things like wood, wood waste, and straw.

Our government understands that the economy of tomorrow will be a bioeconomy. In September, Canada's forest ministers unanimously endorsed a forest bioeconomy framework aimed at making Canada a global leader. That framework outlines a bold new vision for the future of the forest sector and the role for biomass in the transition to a low carbon sustainable economy.

Just last week, in my hometown of Winnipeg, I had the pleasure of hosting Generation Energy, the largest energy forum in our country's history. I can tell the House that biomass and bioenergy figured prominently in those discussions.

In July 2016, I travelled to Port-Cartier, Quebec to announce $44.5 million for the first commercial-scale facility to convert forest residues into a form of renewable fuel oil. This project is a shining example of governments working together to support the industry and advance Canada's bioeconomy.

An increasing number of remote and indigenous communities are now using bioenergy to end their dependence on high-emission diesel generators for their electricity. We are supporting this effort with an investment of $55 million to deploy proven bioenergy technologies and support the biomass supply chain in rural and remote areas. The government is working with industry and provinces to develop the forest products of the future through investments in R and D and innovation, and by helping first-in-kind clean innovations reach commercialization.

Third, forestry is a dynamic engine of growth, creating economic opportunity across the country, including in indigenous and remote communities. While its reach is global, the forest industry's impact remains the local lifeblood of rural Canada and a major source of income for about one in seven municipalities across the country.

As I mentioned at the outset, the forest industry has reinvented itself by demonstrating what can be achieved through collaboration and engagement. Nowhere have those efforts been greater than with indigenous communities, 70% of which are in forested regions. It is no surprise then that forestry is one of the leading employers of indigenous people, providing some 9,700 well paying jobs across the country.

These jobs bring hope of lasting prosperity and sustainable change.

Today, governments, indigenous communities, forest companies and environmentalists are all working together to preserve the sustainable forest industry we need while protecting the environment we cherish.

Fourth, and related, forestry creates jobs at home by driving trade abroad. There has been a remarkable rise in the export of wood products to markets such as China, up more than 1,200% over the past 10 years.

In June, I had the honour of leading a trade mission to China to showcase the ingenuity, innovation, and opportunities Canada had to offer. I was joined by a delegation of more than 50 representatives from Canada's forest, energy, and clean technology sectors, focused on strengthening ties with our Chinese counterparts. The mission generated new business. All told, Canadian companies signed commercial agreements of close to $100 million.

One of the highlights of our trip was a visit to the Sino-Canadian low carbon eco-district in Tianjin. This is a $2.5-billion project, involving more than 1,300 houses in its first phase. Once completed, the community will cover almost two square kilometres, all built with Canadian lumber, Canadian ingenuity, and Canadian expertise.

With the support of China's ministry of housing and urban-rural development, the buildings will be approved as test cases, opening the door to revised building codes and more wood construction. This project is a direct result of the MOU signed between our two countries in 2012. While in China, Minister Chen Zhenggao and I renewed that MOU, maintaining the momentum it had created and enhancing supporting for green building in China.

For China, the eco-district means cleaner air, healthier communities and lower energy costs. For Canadian companies, such as Nu-Air, SOPREMA, and Kryton, it means new markets for their innovative products and services. With the success of this project comes the chance to replicate it throughout China, creating even more opportunities for collaboration and furthering China's climate change goals.

The Tianjin eco-district is a remarkable testament to what can be achieved when international partners come together to tackle big challenges.

While in Tianjin, I also had the pleasure of announcing the opening of a Chinese-Canadian wood technology centre, further cementing the bonds between our countries and opening the door for exciting new partnerships.

These are the concrete, practical ways that the government can support the forest industry, an industry that is on the leading edge of technology and setting the pace on environmental performance.

The U.S. market remains vitally important for Canadian producers of softwood lumber, but continuing to expand into other markets and other types of products is helping to diversify our trade and boost our prosperity.

Our government believes in this industry. We have a clear vision of it playing a central role in some of the most important issues of our times, such as combatting climate change, driving innovation, and creating economic opportunities for rural and indigenous communities. That is why we are standing by this industry and why we are continuing to work toward a new agreement on softwood lumber.

Our government disagrees strongly with the decision of the United States Department of Commerce to impose unfair and punitive duties on Canadian softwood lumber imports. We are vigorously defending Canada's softwood lumber industry against these unjustified duties and we will litigate, if necessary, where we expect to prevail as we have in the past.

We remain confident that a negotiated settlement is not only possible but in the best interests of both countries, not just any deal but a good deal for Canada.

It is one of the more interesting quirks of our Constitution that it assigns natural resources to the provinces but trade and commerce to the federal government. This means we have to work together and draw on one another's strengths.

In February, we did just that, creating the federal-provincial task force on softwood lumber. Through the task force, we shared information with our provincial colleagues about how best to help affected workers and communities, and we arrived at a comprehensive action plan.

All told, our government announced $867 million to provide loans for industry through the Business Development Bank and Export Development Canada; access to the work-sharing program to help employers and employees protect jobs; funding to provinces to help workers find new jobs; new resources for the indigenous forestry initiative to support indigenous participation in economic development; extensions of the investments in forest industry transformation and forest innovation programs to develop the next generation of wood products; and access to the expanding market opportunities program to reach new markets and expand the use of wood construction.

This is a comprehensive plan designed to meet real needs in real time and it is a clear and compelling demonstration of our commitment to this vital industry.

The motion before the House today reflects the importance of forestry to our communities, our economy, and our way of life.

Our government is aware of how much the forestry sector contributes. That is why we work day after day to support its future and help it reach its full potential.

I urge all members to join us in our efforts.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask the Minister of Natural Resources a question. It is an important question, because we know, as several members have stated this morning, that softwood lumber accounts for 400,000 jobs in Canada. This makes it a vitally important industry.

I would like to ask the minister why our trade relations with the United States over the past two years have been the worst in over a decade? Whether it be Bombardier, NAFTA, supply management or softwood lumber, nothing is working. Our trade relations with the United States are appalling.

My question for the minister is the following: last July, a few months ago, the Governor of Idaho, Butch Otter, said that during a public meeting, a memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber management had already been signed between the two countries. What happened to this potential agreement that was signed?

Since Mr. Obama and the Prime Minister got along so well when the Prime Minister came to power, how come no agreement was signed at that time? If our relationship with the current American administration is strained, how come no agreement was signed then?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been carrying on a continuous conversation with Secretary Ross to come to an agreement between the two countries. We make the argument—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Can you table the old one?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Oshawa that if he has a question or comment, he would want to stand to ask that question or make that comment when it is time to do so.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, Minister Freeland and Secretary Ross are having frequent conversations. The argument we make is that an agreement has to be in the interests of both countries, and we believe that is possible. Members will also know that in the case of the United States, the U.S. Lumber Coalition has an important say in the nature of that agreement, which is an oddity in a binational trade agreement, but that is the reality. Therefore, it is not only a question of a negotiation between two sovereign states, but it is also the attitude of the Lumber Coalition in the United States, 51% of which needs to say it is a good deal. That is why we say continuously that we will not accept any deal; we will only accept a good deal for Canada.

In the meantime, we have offered an $867-million set of programs, anticipating that they might be needed. As members know, prices are very high at the moment and the uptake of these loan guarantees has been relatively small, but if times change, the government will be there to protect our industry and our workers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the minister that he is not to use members' names in the House. In this case, he could say “the Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

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

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to hear the minister mention the Brock Commons project at UBC, the tallest wood building in the world, built by Structurlam, a company in Penticton, in my riding, with glulam beams and cross-laminated timber in an amazing time, because it is all built off site. It is really part of the tall wood building revolution that he mentioned.

As an aside, I hope that he and his government will support my private member's bill on building federal government infrastructure with wood, for all the reasons he mentioned. I am glad to hear of that support.

I want to ask about the impact of the softwood lumber dispute on forestry workers and the EI package that was offered. It was not anywhere near the package offered to the oil industry workers who were suffering when that industry crashed. Could he comment on why the same package was not offered to forestry workers?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his continuing constructive contributions to the natural resource debate in the House. I would like to let him know that the softwood lumber action plan, together with budget 2017, for the forestry sector is the largest federal investment in the sector and for the industry since the last recession in 2009. I will also let him know that the government's action plan is in response to the United States' trade action, but we remain flexible. As it turns out, the good news is that there have been very few layoffs in the sector and only a modest uptake of the loan guarantees made available to the sector. That is for now. We will be nimble enough to respond, if necessary.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The question I have for him is as straightforward as it gets: yes or no, will you be voting in favour of our motion, and will you be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that she is to address the Chair.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes or no, will the party opposite vote in favour of our motion? Will the Liberals join us in defending the softwood lumber industry, for once?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Of course, Madam Speaker, we will be looking at the words very carefully and giving them due consideration. I appreciate the member's work on behalf of the sector, and she can be assured that we will have a very careful look at the proposal in front of us.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. Minister of Natural Resources for his speech and for the care and diligence he puts into these delicate and difficult files.

He mentioned in his speech the government's announcement of $867 million towards a softwood lumber action plan.

Could the minister tell us a bit more about this plan and about the funds that were announced in budget 2017 to support the forestry industry?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is not only that these programs have been made available, but also that we have been very aggressive in making sure that the industry knows these programs are available. There was a massive outreach by EDC and BDC, with more than 2,500 letters and emails sent to potentially affected companies offering them the financial services of these agencies. Because prices are high, some efforts have been made to accommodate the needs of the industry, but they have been relatively small to date. Of the $605 million envelope announced in June, more than $58 million in loan guarantees, loans, and other financial services have already been signed or approved, with more currently under review.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to ask another question, Madam Speaker.

Not all of these agreements have been signed yet and the changes in the government's proposed tax reforms are going to adversely affect every region in the country, not just Lac-Saint-Jean, and the sector's executives most of all.

In these circumstances, how can the minister have such high hopes for the future of the industry?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have been meeting with representatives of the sector, really from the day we were sworn into office. We have spoken to the workers and have been able to maintain a coalition of virtually all of the provincial ministers of forestry during this difficult time, which I believe is unprecedented. The reason that we are able to hold the coalition together is that everyone understands that it is in the interests of all governments and, indeed, all parties in this House to make sure that Canada speaks with one voice.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this motion, because I am proud of the Canadian forest sector. I know how important it is to hundreds of communities, small and large, across the country and I am concerned about the future of our forest industry.

However, I must say, off the top, that I cannot support this motion put forward by my Conservative colleagues. Their former government is equally to blame for this crisis, and for them to play partisan politics with people's livelihoods is something I cannot condone.

My riding has the complete range of forest industry operations. There is the big Celgar pulp mill in Castlegar; big Interfor sawmills in Castlegar and Grand Forks; Kalesnikoff's more specialized sawmill at Thrums; the ATCO plywood veneer plant at Fruitvale; the Vaagen Brothers mill at Midway that processes small dimension logs; the family-run Son Ranch just south of Eholt; pole mills at Nakusp community forests and woodlots; and Greenwood Forest Products in Penticton that produces wall panelling and edge-glued laminated panels; and Structurlam which the minister mentioned in his speech just now, a continental leader in the manufacture of glulam beams and cross-laminated timber panels that are at the heart of the large wood building revolution. As well, there are all of the fallers and truck loggers, and the whole logging sector that supplies logs for these mills.

It is a long list, and I hope I have not left anyone out. It is repeated many times over in many ridings across Canada, in communities big and small, from Campbell River to Cornerbrook. More than 200 communities across rural Canada depend on the forest industry for at least half of their base income.

Across 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 throughout the forests of Canada. The forest industry is critical to the Canadian economy and to the hopes and dreams of thousands of hard-working families across this country.

In British Columbia alone, it contributes $12 billion to the economy every year, and $2.5 billion in direct government revenue. It creates 145,000 British Columbia jobs; one in every 16 jobs in British Columbia. Across Canada, the forest sector contributes more than $20 billion every year to our real GDP.

Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management. Our forests account for 40% of the world's forests certified as sustainably managed, the largest area of third-party certified forest in the world. Canada has become a leader in the use of biomass energy, using waste and residues from forest manufacturing practices to power mills across the country.

However, the industry has suffered in the past few decades. A vast pine beetle epidemic swept across B.C. in the last decade, killing trees throughout the interior. That epidemic has now moved into Alberta and is threatening the forest industry there. Catastrophic wildfires burned over a million acres of forest in British Columbia this summer, and climate predictions tell us that these hot, dry, and smoky summers will only happen more frequently in the future. That, of course, has reduced the annual allowable cuts for these mills. Mills that were already suffering from the pine beetle epidemic now have even less forest to access.

Then there is the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States that has pressured many mills to close in the last 10 to 15 years. I will talk more about softwood lumber at the end. I just want to say that in my riding that dispute resulted in a lot of job losses: the Weyerhaeuser mill in Okanagan Falls closed in 2007, putting 200 people out of work; and the closure of the mill at Slocan hit that small community hard. In fact, during the years of the Harper Conservative government, Canada lost over 134,000 jobs in the forestry sector, including about 21,000 jobs in British Columbia, 40,000 jobs in Ontario, and 41,000 in Quebec.

I would like to spend the next part of my speech talking about the positive ways to give the forest industry a boost in Canada. An obvious strategy to mitigate the losses from the softwood dispute is to develop markets outside the United States. We have been working on increasing our share in the Asian market, particularly in China.

The minister mentioned some recent efforts there. British Columbia exporters have been in China for over 10 years, though, and doing quite well. However, those efforts have plateaued because we are up against Russian competition that can simply move products to the Chinese border by train. With the low value of the Russian ruble, it is very difficult for Canadian companies to compete from the other side of the Pacific, for the foreseeable future. That is what I hear from the industry in British Columbia.

As an aside, lumber prices are so high because of the softwood lumber dispute that builders on the east coast of North America are starting to turn to European markets such as Romania and Germany to supply their needs. It is crazy. I think a better strategy in the mid-term is to expand our domestic markets through innovative new wood products and new ways to use wood in buildings.

As I mentioned earlier, in my home town of Penticton, there is a company called Structurlam that creates glulam beams and cross-laminated timber panels that can be used to construct large buildings entirely out of wood. The company just completed an 18-storey project at the University of British Columbia, Brock Commons, the tallest wood building in the world. The only steel and concrete in the building is in the elevator shafts. As the parts were pre-built off-site, Brock Commons took only 66 days to construct. That is 18 stories in just two months. The UBC project used 1.7 million board feet of B.C. lumber. Structurlam gets its lumber locally at mills such as Kalesnikoff, so the benefits spread through the region.

I was happy to see that the government included some money in the latest budget to help this innovative part of the forest industry grow. The minister mentioned that as well. Canadian companies are real leaders in this new technology in North America, but they need to expand to maintain that lead.

With this in mind, I have tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-354, which promotes the use of wood in government infrastructure buildings. This bill asks the government to assess the material options for large buildings, balancing the overall dollar cost of the project and the impact of its greenhouse gas footprint. That way we can decide whether wood, concrete, steel, or a combination of those materials is best for the building.

This bill is not meant to exclude non-wood materials but simply to ask the government to look at these new wood technologies that can be used to create beautiful, safe, and environmentally sound buildings. I was happy to hear from the concrete industry a couple of days ago that it has almost exactly the same ask of the government. It was not, of course, asking for the government to use more wood in buildings; but it was asking the government to use the same lens to look at the lifetime costs of the materials and the carbon footprint of the project when building infrastructure.

I believe that this process would result in more large wood buildings being constructed by the federal government. Many of them could be hybrids, of course, built with concrete and steel as well. This would have three positive impacts on the forest industry. It would stimulate the growth of this exciting new technology, keeping Canada ahead of the pack in North America; it would help all the players in the local forest industry to weather the difficulties they are facing through the softwood lumber dispute; and it would be taking real action to meet Canadian goals in the fight against climate change.

The forestry sector is facing serious challenges in Canada: a future with declining wood supply, more catastrophic fires, insect epidemics due to climate change, and rising costs associated with trade disputes with the United States. I want to turn now to that trade dispute, the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

About year ago, on October 17, 2016, in this place we debated a similar Conservative motion that specifically focused on softwood lumber. The motion urged the government to take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber exports. I supported this previous motion, of course, because for the many thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on this important industry, it is imperative that Canada secure a fair deal with the United States, a deal that respects our regional differences and protects high-quality Canadian forestry jobs.

However, a year later, here we are. The Canadian government continues to fail in its ability to get a deal. The industry has been hit by the U.S. Department of Commerce with massive, unfair tariffs reaching as high as 27%. These tariffs and our government's inability to secure a trade deal have led and will continue to lead to devastating job losses and damage to this vital Canadian industry.

A report released by The Conference Board of Canada at the end of May 2017 stated that the U.S. softwood lumber duties will result in the loss of 2,200 jobs and a $700 million reduction in Canadian exports over the next two years. Softwood lumber is a vibrant part of Canada's forest sector, and as I mentioned, for many rural communities it is the backbone of the economy.

According to Canada's labour force survey, in 2015 the forest industry counted for 300,000 direct and indirect jobs, compared to more than 400,000 jobs in 2003. Hundreds of sawmills across Canada have been shuttered, taking with them high-quality, well-paid jobs.

Today, the softwood lumber industry is on the verge of more job losses. If we consider such factors as the crash of the U.S. housing markets and the other environmental impacts I mentioned, our already hard-hit industry will be further devastated. Canadian producers and workers need a new softwood lumber agreement that will bring fairness and predictability.

This dispute first began back in 1982. For 35 years, the American industry has argued that the Canadian producers benefit from subsidization, which is a claim that has been defeated time and time again in trade tribunals. I think it has been 14 or 15 times.

Over the years, there have been several managed trade agreements, but upon their expiration Canadian exports have seen more duties applied, and Canada has spent approximately $100 million in legal fees to defend our position. While it is true that Canada has consistently won tribunal warnings under the free trade agreement, NAFTA, and the WTO, which found that U.S. tariffs were unjustified, Canada has lost tens of thousands of jobs. I find it extremely disingenuous that the government touts these so-called tribunal challenges as wins. However, I am quite certain that the people who lost their jobs due to poorly negotiated agreements are thoroughly unimpressed with them.

I also find it extremely concerning that Americans are hell-bent on eliminating NAFTA's chapter 19, the dispute resolution mechanism that has protected Canada against those challenges for so long. After the previous agreement expired in 2001, the U.S. levied $5.4 billion in duties on Canadian imports. This was money that should have stayed in Canadians' pockets, but instead was given to the American industry. It was the beginning of a decade of massive job losses in the Canadian industry.

Soon after the Conservatives were elected in 2006, they negotiated a new agreement with little or no consultation with Canadian stakeholders. The result was a very controversial agreement that many argue represented a sellout of Canadian interests. That agreement took $50 million from Canadian industry to create a binding dispute settlement system whereby 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. 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, and yet, considering the lack of leadership they have shown during the NAFTA renegotiations, I fail to see any change between our past and current governments.

As we know, the 2006 agreement was renewed in 2012 and expired last October. Again, after the Liberal government failed to negotiate a new agreement, the Liberals seemed to spend more time denying their own responsibilities and blaming the previous Conservative government rather than ensuring forest industry workers had the job security they so desperately needed.

Despite the Prime Minister's highly flaunted bromance with former president Barack Obama, the Liberals broke yet another one of their own commitments and failed to get a deal done before the time ran out.

Now we must negotiate with President Trump, whose administration has moved to hit our softwood lumber industry with even more tariffs. As with the huge hit lumber companies took in 2006, our industry is again reeling, and it is the forestry workers who will suffer most. After years of being unable to negotiate a fair deal, Canadians are left feeling unsure and, quite frankly, abandoned by their government. There seems still to be no path forward.

After two months of foot-dragging, the government introduced a compensation package, which the NDP welcomed, but I must point out that it contained nothing to improve EI benefits for workers who lost their jobs because of this dispute. The $867 million support package was a good short-term measure for industry and forestry companies; however, forestry workers need long-term solutions.

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 the 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, but we also heard in committee, very clearly, that people do not want to see another bad deal. In Quebec, for example, they made a lot of changes in their forestry practices, and any new agreement must recognize these and other regional differences. A one-size-fits-all solution simply will not do.

In the spring of 2016, the Standing Committee on International Trade held meetings on the softwood lumber agreement and submitted a report to Parliament. Sadly, one important voice we did not get to hear at all at the committee was that of labour.

The United Steelworkers, which represents some 40,000 forestry workers, has laid out several requirements for what it would like to see happen. First, it wants to see the creation of a provincial forest community restoration fund, to be invested in workers, forest-dependent communities, and forest health. It wants fair access to the U.S. lumber market, and it discourages a new quota system. It also wants a guarantee that Canadian producers will have the same access to the U.S. market as other countries will enjoy.

I appreciate the Steelworkers' perspective because it represents the workers' point of view. These three things would help give workers greater job security and strengthen the industry instead of weakening it.

In the committee's final report, there were five recommendations made to the government, including that it get a deal done that serves Canadian interests, that it consult with big and small producers, and that any new deal respect regional differences.

I want to raise an issue I have seen more of recently, due to the NAFTA renegotiation process, one that has affected many aspects of the trading relationship Canada has held with our American neighbours. That is, it is an extremely unbalanced and abusive relationship. Repeatedly, whether it has been the 35 years we have argued over softwood lumber, or the nearly 30 years we have had a bilateral and trilateral trade agreement with the Americans, consecutive Canadian governments have continually negotiated bad deals. Perhaps this has to do with the size, strength, and wealth of the United States, but I cannot dismiss this huge lack of leadership and apparent cowardice and weakness shown by consecutive federal governments.

We often speak of political will in this place, so when I see Canadian producers being hit with U.S. tariffs of around 27% in forestry or 300% in aerospace, when I see mills and manufacturing plants being shut down right across Canada, and when I see thousands of people's lives at risk and jobs lost, I have to say that something is wrong. The way we negotiate trade deals is wrong.

I hope the government understands the gravity of what these job losses mean in our communities. Thousands of people have no job to go to and no more paycheques to bring home. Families are worried about how to pay the rent or make the next mortgage payment. I urge the government to act in the interests of those whose jobs are on the line. That means getting the right deal and working collaboratively with the communities.

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 Canadians and Canada's industry weather the impending trade storm. Canadians deserve answers from the government, not more empty promises and hollow words.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the NDP has decided to vote against the motion presented by the Conservative Party. The member across the way is underestimating just how important these discussions are. If he listened to the Minister of Natural Resources, he would have a very clear picture of just how important the forestry industry is to this government and to Canadians as a whole, given its immense contribution to the GDP and the quality of life we have, and how important it is that it remain a top priority for this government.

We are very much aware of the impact on our workers and the industry. Would the member acknowledge, as the Minister of Natural Resources has clearly indicated, how important it is that the national government continue to work with stakeholders, in particular the provinces, because of our joint responsibility, and that we do not cave in to the Americans for the sake of having an agreement but work toward a good deal for Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that this is an important industry. If we had a motion that was more clearly worded with respect to supporting the Canadian forestry industry, it would have unanimous support. There are simply some problems with the way this motion has been drawn up, and we will be trying to fix it throughout the course of the day.

It is a very important industry. We would like to see more results from the government. In the course of the last few years, when we have been talking more about other industries, such as the oil and gas industry, the forestry industry has felt forgotten in the mix. It is such an important part of Canada, yet despite the problems it is having with respect to both environmental issues and the softwood lumber dispute, I think it feels that the government is not putting a high priority on it, as was the case, I would say, under the previous Conservative government.

We all thought the current Liberal government would get the job done right away. It should have been one of its highest priorities to get this softwood lumber agreement done with the Obama administration, yet it dropped the ball, and we are in trouble again.

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

Madam Speaker, our hon. colleague is from a forestry-dependant community, as I am, as a British Columbia member of Parliament.

Over the tenure of our previous government, we put an end to one of the longest and most costly trade disputes between our country and the United States. That was in 2006, and we did it within the first three months of our mandate. It took longer than we would have liked, but we managed to get that deal done. That provided 10 years of certainty for our forestry industry, which had a lot of uncertainty previously.

We also negotiated a grace period that allowed the two countries to figure out what was working and was not working and then come to some form of agreement. We had some great discussions leading up to 2015. We indeed set whatever government would be coming into power in good stead to push it across the finish line, as we did with CETA.

We also invested in green technology. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars on green technology to innovate and to make our forestry sector a leading technology producer.

I want to ask our hon. colleague this. Where does he see that we have failed the forestry industry?

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the member's riding of Cariboo—Prince George perhaps suffered the biggest losses in this summer's catastrophic forest fires, and I know it has been very difficult for the people in that riding facing that and the future it will bring. I respect the challenges the member and his constituents face.

With regard to where they failed, yes, they negotiated that agreement. It was not a perfect agreement. It brought stability, one could say, for the five or six years it was set out, and then there was the two-year grace period. When we get a two-year extension or grace period, whatever we want to call it, on a longer agreement, we should use that time to start negotiating directly about what the new future would look like, what a new long-term agreement would be. It should not be left to the end of that agreement to get a new agreement. We had a fairly stable situation during those two years. We should have used it to get a new agreement with the Americans. We would not be in the situation we find ourselves in today.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague. The people of South Okanagan—West Kootenay are very well represented. The forestry sector is too. I can see a whole lot of young people here today watching the debate in the House of Commons. Now, they know how to spot an MP who does a good job representing his region and the industry that defines it. Actually, it could be said that this industry defines Canada as a whole.

The member for Jonquière also does great work. She has often raised issues having to do with the NAFTA discussions, like supercalendered paper and the devastating countervailing duties it is subject to, a most important issue for the Lac-Saint-Jean region and the 12,000 jobs the industry supports.

I would like to know, does my colleague not find it disheartening to see that, after two years, halfway through its mandate, as was mentioned, the government has mostly indulged in spin and PR work without ever doing any real work? The effects of the government's inaction have become apparent after two years. Does my colleague not agree?

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

Madam Speaker, as I have said several times, the Liberals have had two years. They announced very quickly that a deal was imminent. It was basically done. They were going to spend 100 days to just dot the i’s and cross the t's, and we would have a new deal.

The reason we had that debate a year ago on the Conservative opposition day motion, which we supported, was that the deadline for that 100 days was basically done, and nothing had happened. Here we are a year later, and still nothing has happened. Now we are caught up in some very messy NAFTA negotiations. This is getting all caught up with those. We do not want it thrown under the bus to save other parts of our economy. We wanted it done separately, and it could have and should have been done that way.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his kind words regarding my riding. It is indeed devastating. As we do in Cariboo, we will prevail and will come back stronger than ever.

I believe our hon. colleague was part of an emergency meeting that took place with the natural resources committee back in August 2016, where I put forth an emergency motion calling on the government to immediately convene a round table of provincial ministers, our own minister, and the industry to come up with some form of agreement or strategy moving forward, because we were within mere days of the deadline. At that time, we were told by the Liberal members that this was seen as a complete waste of time and money.

Can the member offer comments on that?