Debates of Oct. 19th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Support for Forestry Workers

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think talking is ever a waste of time. I was in Washington in June talking to senators and congressmen about the softwood lumber agreement, and many of them were really poorly briefed on this situation. These were representatives of northern states with a lot of forestry industry. It is an ongoing dispute, yet they did not seem to know about the history of this. They were happy to hear from us about our side of the story.

Members from all sides of this House should be down in Washington, and should have been down in Washington for the last 10 years, talking to representatives and pressing our case.

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise to speak to something that, as many in the House know, I am deeply passionate about. The forestry sector has played a vital role in Canada's history and is leading the way toward a bright future. It is clean, it is green, and it is growing. Trees provide jobs, sustain our economy, and truly help define our culture. After all, where would Canada be without hockey sticks? I love that point. It was sent to me by a friend who is in the forestry industry, which has been hard hit and has felt a little neglected over the last while. It was a forest leader in my province of British Columbia.

These are indeed troubling times we see moving forward and indeed have faced over the last two years.

In the last two years, I think I was the first person to bring up softwood in this Parliament. I am deeply passionate about it. I am probably one of only a few members of Parliament who can honestly say that I know what it is like to get up at two o'clock or so in the morning and then drive hundreds of kilometres to the block. I ran a skidder for a while as well as bucked. I ran a chainsaw. I know exactly what it is like to have sawdust in my hair—I know that I do not have hair, but at one time I did—and to have chain oil underneath my fingernails and on my hands.

Forestry truly is the lifeblood of our economy in British Columbia.

I want to apologize. The first time softwood was mentioned in this House I attributed to me. I want to be on the record saying that I was wrong. I erred. It was not me. It was my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola who raised it on December 7, 2015, just an hour or minutes before I gave my maiden speech and mentioned it as well. I was, however, the second MP to mention softwood, the next day, when I got up in questions during the debate on the Speech from the Throne. It was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. As a matter of fact, it has been missed completely by the current government from day one. The Speech from the Throne failed to mention the importance of softwood and our Canadian forestry workers. The first time it was actually mentioned by a Liberal member of Parliament was on January 29, 2016. I asked a question, and it was the Liberal member of Parliament for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun who said that the government was consulting. I asked where we were in terms of the softwood lumber agreement and that it meant jobs, and well-paying jobs, in communities right across Canada.

This has been a priority for us from day one. Indeed, our previous Conservative government invested a lot of time and effort. I mentioned earlier, and I have said it before, that the Conservative government put an end to one of the longest and most costly trade disputes between Canada and the U.S., our number-one trading partner. We put to bed this long-standing trade dispute in 2006. We did it within three months of our mandate.

There is much to be said about that trade dispute. In doing research for this presentation, something interesting I found was that the trade dispute was very costly. It cost our Canadian producers dearly. It was found to be unfair and unjust. The penalties that were assessed were unfair and unjust. Do members know who really benefited from that? There is some good that came out of that trade dispute. When signing the 2006 Canada–U.S. agreement, we did more than bring some peace to a perennially problematic trade file.

What it did was guarantee that $500 million of the penalties and duties levied against the Canadian lumber industry would not go to the American industry. It went to American charities, and one of them was Habitat for Humanity. The organization has built over 19,000 homes since that time, with 70,000 people in the U.S. benefiting from the $500 million that went to Habitat for Humanity due to the Conservative Party's negotiations to make sure that the money did not go only to the American side, which was unfair. Again today, the U.S. is penalizing our forestry producers, families who depend on forestry for their livelihoods, as well as U.S. consumers. It is unbelievable that the Americans are so nearsighted that they are holding their own consumer market hostage. Why? What product makes up a good portion of all the homebuilding and new housing market in the United States?

[An hon. member]

Softwood.

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

Softwood, and Canadian softwood. Why is that? It is because we have the best product in the world right here. Not only that, our industry is leading the way in green technology. It is the leading the way in harvesting methods and principles. Despite what we hear, which I will get into, we are being continually attacked by outside interests that have a sole purpose, and that is to shut down the Canadian industry. Whether it is the forest industry, the fishing and marine industry, the tanker industry, or the oil sands, outside interests are intent on one thing: shutting down the industry in Canada.

I got a little off topic, but I will go back to one of the very early throne speeches that the Prime Minister addressed to Canada and the world. He said that under this government, Canada will be known more for its resourcefulness than its natural resources. That rings true to this point. Projects are not being approved. Definitely energy east has gone by the wayside. Where is softwood lumber? That is why we are debating this today. We are seeing more and more uncertainty.

The government's role always is to create an environment in which industry and organizations want to invest to create jobs. At this point, two years into the Liberals' mandate, all they have done is create more uncertainty. A recent article stated that Canada is no longer one of the most economically stable environments or countries in the world because the government continues to cause uncertainty through inconsistent policy, inconsistent measures, and, indeed, questionable actions.

British Columbia is the largest producer of softwood lumber in North America, with $33 billion in output and $12.9 billion in GDP for the province. In 2016, there were, indirectly and directly, over 140,000 jobs tied to the forest industry. There was a total labour income of $8.6 billion. There are over 140 communities in the province of British Columbia that are forest-dependent. My riding of Cariboo—Prince George is one of them.

This past summer, B.C. faced one of the most unprecedented fire seasons. Over 53 million cubic metres of fibre have been scorched. To put that into context, that is the equivalent of one year's annual allowable cut for the province of British Columbia and 10 years' annual allowable cut for my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. It remains to be seen how much of that is still marketable. There is a very small time frame for forest producers to get in to see whether there is any salvageable or marketable wood or fibre.

We call on our provincial NDP government to allow access to industry, to get in to find out what is going on. We are calling on it again today to make sure that this is taking place. The earlier we can get in and figure out the status of our fibre, the better we can strategize and plan as we move forward.

The B.C. forest sector is the world leader in sustainable forest management with less than 1% of our provincial forests harvested. For every tree taken, three are replanted. That is something that many people never mention, but we can always do better. Our previous government invested in that. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars in green technology allowing us to reforest. If we replant we have a root structure along a bank that means rivers, lakes, and streams are going to be secure as well. We are going to need that more than ever before with the 53 million cubic metres of fibre that has been scorched. Our rivers, lakes, and streams have lost that critical root structure, so we call on the federal government to assist our provincial government to make sure that takes place.

I also want to talk about the impact to Canada. The Minister of Natural Resources talked about the importance to Canada. He has been speaking to the file for awhile and he talked about the value to Canada, $22 billion in GDP. We employ over 200,000 first nations and people right across Canada, with 9,500 jobs in indigenous communities. I would hazard that the actual indirect numbers are well beyond 200,000 and forest-dependent communities are in the hundreds right across Canada.

We see that the government has dithered away a good amount of time on the softwood lumber issue. It was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the very first message to Canadians about what the Liberals were going to do during their mandate. We heard earlier that the first time it was mentioned by a Liberal member of Parliament was January 2016 on a question from a Conservative.

In the early part of 2016, we heard there was a new-found relationship, that the Prime Minister and the outgoing president were BFFs and they were going to get this deal done. As a matter of fact, one of the ministers said that the Prime Minister was absolutely giddy. That was the term that she used in one of her interviews. There was a bromance going on and they were going to hammer through all the challenges.

We pressed from this side and we later heard that within 100 days there would be some form of agreement. I believe the president at the time stood in the House and said “we will come up with a solution to this irritant.” I took offence to the fact that he called it an irritant. This irritant employs my family, my wife's family, so many families in my riding and as we have heard, many families across Canada. It is not an irritant, Mr. President, it is a way of life. It is one of our number one industries. It is the cornerstone of our national economy and it is shameful when a Prime Minister sits there and smiles and calls it a bromance. When he went to a state dinner, he left the Minister of Natural Resources at home. He is more focused on the red carpet and taking selfies than negotiating a softwood lumber agreement.

I am getting a little frustrated because people in my riding, family members, friends, and neighbours have been waiting for good news. Time and again, it is us sitting here pounding away and what do we get? Platitudes or a hand on the heart.

We are seized with this issue. Somebody must be kidding me. Two years.

I have been on those trips to Washington. I have heard comments from folks on the other side, who are not Conservative friendly. They say the Liberals have mismanaged this file from the beginning of their mandate. They limped into the discussions. They did not negotiate from a position of strength, and that brings me to my next point.

Throughout this tenure, whether it is my file on fisheries, oceans and Canadian Coast Guard, whether it is electoral reform, whether it is forestry, foreign-funded groups have taken credit for the defeat of the Conservative Party in the 2015 election. The senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister at one point was the president and CEO of one of those groups. Some of the chiefs of staff and those who advise ministers on our files, files that are key to our national economy, have roots based in these groups. Whether it is ForestEthics, Greenpeace, Tides Canada, or Tides Foundation, they all have one thing in mind but they like to say that it is all about making things greener or it is for the good of the land.

I will bring the House right back to something else that happened in my community, and I am speaking of the Mount Polley mine disaster. There are no two ways about it, it was a disaster but the company and our community, those that mattered, those that are dependent upon the lakes and streams and the environment and the mine for the economic viability of our region, all banded together and managed to get things done, They all agreed that they never want to see this happen again.

When we did an ID check at the front gate it was interesting to note who was protesting. Busloads of people were sent to protest and they were not from Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George, Vanderhoof, or Cariboo region. These people, these paid activists, came from other countries, they came from south of the border, and they came from larger communities.

It does not surprise me that our NDP colleagues are not supporting this motion. During the 2015 election these groups openly targeted those Conservative ridings that were seen as vulnerable, and my riding was one of them. I could show the House the documents. Who did those groups support? They supported NDP candidates and other candidates who were not Conservative in order to defeat Harper, to defeat the Conservatives.

It is interesting to note that the NDP members, with whom we have banded together so many times in recent weeks to point our fingers at members across the way for their failures, will not stand up with us in support of our forestry workers. That is shameful.

Our policy should always be developed in the best interests of Canadians and without the influence of foreign groups. With that, I am going to rest.

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

Madam Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the member's passion was not there when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. The Conservative government had the opportunity to negotiate an agreement.

However, to try to leave the impression that this government was negligent in any way on this file is just wrong. We have very competent and capable ministers who have been on this file virtually from day one. He is trying to give Canadians the impression that the government does not care. The member knows there is a compensation package in place of well over $800 million. The Minister of Natural Resources talked about the importance of this industry.

The member talks about the 200,000 direct jobs. Hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs are also critical to our economy. These are middle-class jobs, which we have been emphasizing since day one. The government believes we have to not only negotiate an agreement, but it has to be a good agreement for Canadians. The government has strived to do that. Yes, it might not be on the Conservatives' timetable, but it is not important for us to meet that timetable. It is important that we get the right agreement and a good agreement for Canadians. That will secure the middle-class jobs we have today and will grow the industry, as the Minister of Natural Resources said.

My question for the member is very simple. Would he not agree that it is in Canada's best interest to not just settle on this issue, but that we strive to get the best agreement we can, which will result in more economic and social activity for all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject some of the things my hon. colleague has said.

The hon. minister stood in the House and talked about China, how it got a ton of new things, and that the government had introduced Canada's wood to China. We have been in China for over a decade. I was there. I helped lead some of the trade missions, Canada's wood first. Canada did an incredible job prior to the Liberal government. Again, the Liberals can try to take credit for that, but we will not let them.

I agree that we should get a deal done, but what are the Liberals waiting for? They have had two years. I will bring the member back to what I said on the newfound romance and friendship with the outgoing President Obama. There was going to be a 100-day solution to that irritant, an irritant to which I so angrily took offence.

The Liberals have let other groups influence decisions along the way. They have dithered away. I am not pointing a finger at who has mismanaged it. It has been the collective of the government's ministers. From day one, this has not been a priority. Now they are scrambling. They are behind the eight ball, despite our warnings time and again.

In my maiden speech in the House on December 7, I brought up the softwood. We brought up forestry and the importance of it. The government has dithered away. It has sat two years since being elected and we have yet to see a softwood lumber agreement. In fact, all we have seen is more and more uncertainty.

The Liberals talk about their care package. They would not need a care package if they had managed to get the deal done, and get the job done. They said they had a plan when they came into power. All we have seen is that they do not have a plan, and they have failed Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member across the aisle come say that this is simply the “Conservatives' timetable”, it is the only kind of terminology the Liberals can come up with to try to push the issue back to our side of the floor. When the member stands to speak, who is he speaking on behalf of?

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

Mr. Speaker, time and again, whether it is the changes to the Standing Orders or whatever, the Liberals fails to understand that the House does not belong to them, Nor does it belong to us. We stand here as elected voices for our ridings, for Canadians.

This is not a Conservative timeline. It is not an NDP timeline. It is Canadians' timeline. It is the forestry industry's timeline. It is the families from across Canada that are waiting for the good news.

Jobs are being lost, more uncertainty is taking place. Time and again, the government allows outside interests to dictate its policy moving forward. Who pays the price? Canadians.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke with passion. I have enormous respect for him, and he knows that.

The member wanted to know what the government had been doing. I can assure him that, as trade minister, I have not taken one trip abroad on behalf of Canadians without bringing up softwood to Asia, whether it is in China, Japan, or Korea. When we were with the Prime Minister in India, we talked about softwood.

I would invite the member, because he speaks so passionately about helping Canadians, to join in our efforts. We need to modernize our industry, bring innovation to it, and diversity it. I recognize the member's passion. I recognize my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done work on this in the past.

However, I implore my colleagues, for those watching us at home, to join in the journey, come with me on trade missions, talk to the industry in Canada, and ensure that together we can sell more softwood around the world. Families in my riding, just like in his riding, depend on us to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, from the earliest point of raising this issue, our Conservative team and myself, as vice-chair of softwood, have offered our support.

This is a non-partisan issue. Where we are getting partisan is on the failure to actually get a job done. When we are sitting before our counterparts, the U.S. side, this is not a partisan issue; this is a Canadian issue.

I have been waiting for an invite, but it is not my file. Clearly I am passionate about this. I am the vice-chair. I wait for the invite to go to speak passionately about the impact in my riding, but also about the impact on other countries. I can speak first hand about the challenges we face. I can also speak first hand about the opportunities we have.

I have yet to see an invite. I just came back from a trip with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. I welcome the opportunity to travel with the Minister of International Trade. Hopefully, I get that invite in my mailbox shortly, and the whip approves it.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his heartfelt speech on behalf of the forestry industry.

We know today that the Prime Minister is in Lac Saint-Jean, Quebec, attempting to persuade voters there that the Liberal government stands, unqualified, in support of the forestry industry. However, at the same time, we have learned that he refuses to condemn Greenpeace or any of the other organizations the member mentioned, which spread so much misinformation and disinformation about the industry.

Could the member speak to the government's inconsistency?

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

Mr. Speaker, in a quick review of ForestEthics, its executive director's office is in Bellingham, Washington. On Greenpeace, we know it along with ForestEthics proudly talk about how they have shut down Canadian industry, how they have forced Canadian industry to withdraw their tactics. What they say in some of the documents, if members do the research, is that they will not make the argument; they will get people within the organization to make the argument. They put pressure on them.

We have seen the government, and indeed the Prime Minister's senior policy advisor, with his background, being solely influenced by this, whether it is ForestEthics, Tides Canada, Tides Foundation, or Greenpeace.

Most recently, the hereditary chiefs' council of Lax Kw'alaams spoke about the government's foreign funded influence. It categorically rejects any of the policies put forward by the government.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

The motion before the House calls on the government to reaffirm its support for forestry workers and denounce efforts by foreign-funded environmental activists to tarnish the Canadian forestry sector's environmental reputation. I am happy to be speaking today because forestry is central to the economic prosperity of my own region, the Mauricie, in Quebec.

I can assure the House that our government is well aware of the very real hardships the industry is facing and of the impact recent events have had on our forestry communities and their workers, in the Mauricie and elsewhere. I would remind the House that it was our government that took targeted and tangible measures to protect and defend the industry. We have also worked to foster new business opportunities in some highly competitive markets in order to ensure the prosperity of our forestry workers.

Our government is always endeavouring to find new, innovative ways of supporting every stakeholder in the industry, from large corporations and small family businesses to every last worker along the value chain, in every community that relies on forestry.

As Minister of International Trade, I know that over 70% of Canada's forestry products are exported. That is why selling our forest products to the world and Canada's international reputation as an environmentally responsible supplier of sustainable forestry products are among our government's top priorities.

As I was saying to my colleague opposite, my first team Canada trade mission was focused on the Chinese softwood lumber market and included all of our forestry partners, such as Canada Wood and Quebec and New Brunswick representatives. Our goal was to showcase the innovation that we are famous for in the Chinese market.

What I feel is important to emphasize today is that our industry, the best in the world, is about so much more than the product it sells. It offers real solutions to the needs of all modern societies: it supplies a product that is in demand, fights climate change, and adds major value. That is why we are opening up new markets for our producers. For one thing, we want them to have more choices, and for another, softwood lumber offers solutions and is an essential commodity for the biggest markets in the world.

We have also turned to other markets in Asia, where we have held meetings, such as in Singapore, in Vietnam and in the Middle East, to increase our exports and promote our commitment to sustainable forest management. The goal of our plan is to improve business relations with the current main foreign buyers of Canadian forestry products, and to establish stronger relations with new long-term buyers. We are doing that with the support of our team of highly qualified employees in Canada’s missions abroad, and we also use the tools and expertise of Export Development Canada, the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Canadian Commercial Corporation.

As Canada’s chief marketing officer, I have made a priority of softwood lumber. I am first and foremost the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I have often had the opportunity to meet with employees at Resolute Forest Products, in Haute-Mauricie, and I can testify to their love for the forest and their professionalism. They are proud, hard-working and responsible people.

Remember, with my colleagues the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we announced on June 1 that our government would invest $860 million in tangible measures under the Lumber Action Plan. My colleague called for tangible measures earlier. We have invested a total of nearly $1 billion to promote innovation and productivity in our forestry sector. This plan offers support to forestry workers and to communities affected by the United States' recent measures targeting softwood lumber.

This plan was developed to directly support workers, as mentioned by the Quebec Forestry Industry Council, whose new president recognizes the work that we have done and that we continue to do in support of the forestry industry. He was once a colleague of ours in the House, a Conservative member; I salute him. That investment is concrete assistance for softwood lumber that will allow for its sustainability and ensure continued operations and development.

It is also our government that has taken strong and concerted action to counter the American administration's unfair measures. This action plan shows the Government’s commitment to taking quick action to overcome the difficulties our important forestry sector must face. It describes the overall strategy of our government to develop markets around the world in a targeted and global manner in order to increase the diversification of trade and Canadian wood and wood product markets as part of our commitment to promote a clean growth economy.

These concerted efforts, combined with the quality products of our Canadian businesses, have already provided initial results in terms of positive growth for exports of Canadian softwood lumber to markets outside the United States. For example, in the first half of 2017, exports to China increased by nearly $50 million dollars compared to the second half of 2016, which is a significant increase. India tripled its imports of Canadian softwood lumber over the same period. We have also seen positive growth in new and emerging markets, including the Philippines and South Korea.

These recent initiatives were not put in place overnight; they are based on our department’s long-standing commitment to support trade associations and businesses that want to develop international trade. Consequently the Canadian trade commissioner service, which has five central regional offices in Canada and more than 161 offices worldwide, is actively involved in various international trade promotion and development initiatives for Canadian forestry products in traditional and emerging markets, often in partnership with national and provincial trade associations throughout Canada, our federal partners at Natural Resources Canada, and of course, our provincial and territorial counterparts.

By working together, we obtain much better results. The trade commissioner service, whose focus is to help small and medium-sized businesses, has employees in 44 of our embassies and consulates around the world who are responsible for offering direct export support for Canada’s forestry product businesses.

These international trade professionals work on the ground, and I commend them for their efforts and know that my colleagues on both sides of the House do too. These professionals work to facilitate numerous initiatives to promote international trade development by Canadian wood product trade associations that receive funds form the expanding market opportunities program led by Natural Resources Canada.

Last year, the tangible results of that commitment included some 45 initiatives specific to forestry products and wood carried out in 16 countries by our trade commissioner service, more than 40 trade agreements with foreign organizations, and some 500 forestry sector clients across Canada who received services and support over the course of the year.

On behalf of forestry sector workers, I thank the trade commissioner service staff for being there to help.

I will set my notes aside and simply say to those watching us that the people who are familiar with the forestry sector, the workers who I meet when I return to my riding on the weekends, know that our government is there to help them. We are with them, we were with them, and we will be with them every step of the way.

As a member of the government, a member of the government's Quebec caucus, and a minister, I always have the interests of forestry workers at heart. I take every opportunity to promote them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the minister a question. I have much respect for him, and I know he is very involved in his riding. I also know that he is in close contact with the forestry industry.

I have only one question. I would like to know why, in the 2,871-word mandate letter the minister received from the Prime Minister, the words “forestry industry” do not appear once.

When a minister gets a mandate from the Prime Minister that makes no mention of the forestry industry, how can that minister tell Canadians and those watching us, to use his words, that the government he represents is truly interested in defending the forestry industry?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He knows that I have a great deal of respect for him, as well. He represents a neighbouring riding.

I am happy to learn that my mandate letter contains 2,871 words. I had not looked at it that way, but what I can say is that we are there for more than 2,871 forestry workers. It is one thing to put words in a mandate letter, but quite another to listen to the needs of the forestry industry as a whole and to work with the people at the Quebec Wood Export Bureau and Canada Wood and with our colleagues in New Brunswick and British Colombia.

Our Prime Minister said that we would be an open and transparent government that would listen to people’s needs. My colleague has even condemned us a few times for holding too many consultations.

I can assure my colleague that I listened to more than 2,871 voices asking for help to ensure the development of the forestry industry in Canada.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

I thank the minister for his speech, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know whether he is aware that, in the Lac-Saint-Jean region alone, one of Canada’s 200 rural regions that rely on forestry, 12,000 jobs are at stake because of a dishonest government that was unable to negotiate a deal to protect our jobs in the forestry sector.

The hon. member for Jonquière asked dozens and dozens of questions; letters were written to the minister; unions and Quebec mayors, in particular from the Lac-Saint-Jean region, came here to tell the government how important this matter is.

Two mills in the Lac-Saint-Jean region are in danger because of the 18% countervailing duty, and others have been paying a 27% duty since the softwood lumber agreement was negotiated with the United States. This is outrageous.

This affects thousands of jobs and families. Some jobs have already been lost, while others are threatened. It is a very difficult issue. When the Conservatives negotiated, $1 billion and 134,000 jobs were lost. The government record in this regard has been abysmal for years. Everyone is saying how important this file is.

Why then is that not apparent in the government’s actions? How is it that so many jobs are at stake in a flourishing industry in which people are finding innovative ways of using waste lumber to manufacture other products and working to ensure the sustainability of our resources?

We are tired of empty rhetoric. We need to see some action. We need to stop seeing the industry unravel and jobs being lost.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging my colleague, for whom I have enormous respect.

She is addressing a minister from a region of Quebec that relies on the forestry industry. I can tell her that we have taken real action in this matter. We set up a $867-million program to promote innovation and productivity. I encourage her to speak to union presidents and company directors. I encourage her to speak to the president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, who was telling me recently that we are making progress and that the key is diversification. There are forestry workers in my region. I meet them on weekends, not when I am here in the House answering questions. We see them and interact with them every weekend.

I appreciate the hon. member’s question, because I know she cares about workers, but I can tell her that, on this side of the House, we do more than just ask questions. We take real action. On my trade missions, I have made sure that markets are opening up for our workers.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought you were going to ask me to ask a question of my colleague, the Minister of International Trade, whom I commend for his extraordinary work. I would have liked to ask the minister how the union presidents and entrepreneurs in his region reacted to the measures that we implemented and that he listed. I can say that his answer would have been quite clear. Entrepreneurs are satisfied with the measures we have implemented. I will have more to say about that in the next few minutes.

I would like to reassure my opposition colleagues, notably my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, that the softwood lumber issue is an absolute priority for our government. I will say it again. It is an absolute priority. As the Minister of International Trade said earlier, we are proud of our world-class forestry sector. Canadian forestry companies employ more than 230,000 Canadians across the country, often in rural regions, where they play a key role in the economy by employing hundreds of middle-class workers. That is the case in my riding, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. Our businesses and our economy largely depend on forestry, and I am very proud of our entrepreneurs’ work in the forestry industry.

The forestry sector is clearly a major contributor to Canada’s economic growth, contributing more than $21 billion to the country’s GDP. We have worked hard to diversify our export markets and to offer the highest quality Canadian products around the world. These measures have created excellent opportunities for Canadian businesses in Asia, particularly in China. The United States is obviously the primary destination for Canadian softwood lumber exports. In 2016 alone, 78% of such exports were destined for the United States, with a value of more than $7.6 billion. It is therefore essential that we maintain stable and predictable access to the American market if we want our softwood lumber industry to continue to prosper and if we want Canadian workers to keep their well paid jobs. That is why the softwood lumber file has been an absolute priority for our government since our first day in office.

As soon as he took office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was then Minister of International Trade, asked for broad consultations with the main stakeholders in the softwood lumber industry, including provincial and territorial governments, small and large softwood lumber businesses, producers of various types of softwood lumber products, industrial associations, unions, and representatives from indigenous groups.

In my region, particularly in Amqui, Carleton-sur-Mer, and Gesgapegiag, I have had the opportunity to consult with various stakeholders and entrepreneurs who are working hard to grow their businesses. I have met with them, along with some of my colleagues who are here in the House, to listen to their concerns and determine how our government can support them in concrete ways in the development of their businesses. They made some good suggestions. Later, I will talk about concrete measures that our government has taken.

In order to assist us, federal public servants have gone across the country to meet in person with stakeholders who clearly indicated that they supported the negotiation of a new agreement that reflects the bests interests of Canada. However, those stakeholders warned that it was better to not enter into an agreement than to enter into a bad agreement.

Our government then worked to negotiate a new agreement with the United States. Negotiations began in January 2016 and are continuing at a good pace. In just 12 months, our two countries held approximately 20 in-person meetings and numerous conference calls to advance discussions. Our government has raised this issue with the highest representatives of the American government and will continue to do so.

The Prime Minister has spoken with President Trump about softwood lumber on numerous occasions, including last week on his trip to Washington on October 11. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has personally assumed responsibility for this file since the start of the negotiations. She has raised this important issue with the American Secretary of Commerce at every opportunity. As a result of that high-level political engagement, this crucial file remains on the political agenda in the United States.

Close collaboration between the provinces and territories and the industry, as well as their active engagement, are at the heart of our management strategy in this important file. The minister and federal officials, as well as the hon. members on this side of the House, have made a sustained effort to establish dialogue with Canada’s largest exporters and principal producers, such as remanufacturers and manufacturers of specialized softwood lumber products.

Furthermore, as part of our government’s efforts to establish nation-to-nation relations with indigenous groups, measures were taken to consult first nations representatives, particularly those in the sawmills belonging to these groups. We held various types of consultations, including consultations in person, regular updates in advisory forums for governments and the industry, official and informal bilateral meetings, and telephone calls with premiers and ministers across the country.

The government’s efforts have clearly paid off. Provincial governments and industry representatives have publicly congratulated our government on the firm resolve it has shown in this file. The close ties between our government and the provinces and territories and the industry have allowed Canada to speak with one voice at the bargaining table, which has strengthened our position.

This united front was confirmed last August, when provincial envoys from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick met with the ambassador in Washington to clearly demonstrate that the provincial governments stand together with the federal government in this matter.

Although Canada consistently defended its interests at the bargaining table, the United States was unwilling to accept the conditions that were acceptable to Canada. I would like to point out that, although we would prefer to reach a new agreement that will give our industry more stability and predictability, we will not sign an agreement that causes considerable permanent damage to our industry and our workers. Our position is very clear: we want to reach a fair and balanced softwood lumber agreement with the United States. However, I repeat that we will not accept just any conditions. We will continue to work very hard for our industry. There are too many jobs at stake.

With that in mind, I would now like to outline the measures we have taken. I would remind those who claim that the Government of Canada is not committed to standing up for the interests of the forestry sector and its workers that we have allocated a total of $867 million in direct support for the industry, its businesses, and its workers, naturally. This support is made available through the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada, and I have personally spoken with stakeholders in my riding to make absolutely sure they were all well aware of the measures being offered.

The interesting thing to note is that there has been a steady rise in lumber prices in Canada over the past few months. Two-by-fours, for example, have gone from roughly $500 to $650 per 1,000 board feet. Obviously, that means more money for the industry, and other domestic industries will benefit as well, since local businesses will have to hire in order to increase production. In light of all of the devastation that has been wrought upon the United States, the demand for softwood lumber keeps going up, which is good for prices and, in turn, for our business community.

We want to reach an agreement with the Americans and thus bring some stability to the market. I can assure the House that our government has made this file its top priority and that we will keep working to ensure that the softwood lumber industry continues to grow, while still looking to diversify our markets and foster innovation. We are very proud of our Canadian industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague for his impassioned speech. I hope it came from the heart and was not written for him, as we are hearing the same talking points over and over again.

About half an hour ago I stood up and was a bit animated. As members can imagine, I am passionate about softwood lumber because it impacts thousands of families in my riding, and we are facing troubling times. The Liberals like to stand up and say they are fighting passionately for these families right across Canada, yet what we seen is a wasted opportunity. They point fingers at the previous Conservative government, rather than rolling up their sleeves and taking responsibility for a file they have now had for two years. All they have done is to point fingers and say, “They should have done this”, and have offered nothing but excuses.

Late last year we got wind of a deal on the table. What was wrong with that deal and why did the government not pursue it, because if it had, it would not now have had to provide the aid package it is boasting of and would have been able to put some certainty into an industry that is facing uncertain times. Late last year there was a deal on the table. Why did the government not take that deal?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's most appropriate question. I am not sure where in my speech he heard criticisms of or a direct attack on the previous government. On the contrary, we are here to work proactively and we have put clear measures in place to support the industry.

However, he raises a good point. He was part of the previous government, a Conservative government that lasted 10 years, so he is quite familiar with the reality facing the industry. He knows full well why we have no formal agreement in place. It is quite simple. The U.S. coalition plays an important role in these negotiations.

We are ready. We want to have a good agreement for the industry and for Canadians. Unfortunately, that is not how the American industry sees things. It is applying all sorts of terms and conditions that we cannot abide by.

Clearly, the member opposite, who knows the industry in and out, knows full well that the powerful U.S. coalition has a direct impact on our negotiations. We want to reach an agreement. The Minister of International Trade and the foreign affairs minister are working very hard and I am sure that we will reach an agreement. However, there is still a lot of work to be done and we are committed to reaching a formal agreement.

In the meantime, we must ensure that we have the measures to support the industry and its businesses. We have injected $867 million to ensure that our businesses can benefit from the measures they need to get through this crisis.

So far, the industry is doing relatively well, especially back home. We are still hiring and, again, the price of two-by-fours has gone from $500 to $650 per 1,000 board feet. That goes to show that even though the situation is far from perfect, we are continuing to do the work that we started.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Are there any questions or comments?

There is a minute and a half left, so 45 seconds for the question and 45 seconds for the answer.

I would encourage members to ask their questions as concisely as possible, so we can have more time to hear what everyone has to say.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the glacial pace of the Liberals' progress on this file is going to cause the lumber industy, back home in Mauricie, in Lac-Saint-Jean, and throughout Quebec and Canada's forestry regions, to have merely a good year, rather than an exceptional year, despite the disasters that struck the United States that will require a great deal of construction material.

As we all know, negotiations are about a balance of power. We are all fairly well versed in the pressure tactics used by the American administration in negotiations.

Can the member tell us about any pressure tactics we can use on our side to tip the scales back in our favour?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, in 45 seconds or less, please.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me how much time I have left. I really appreciate it.

Our government is not letting up, as I mentioned earlier. Members of this House, parliamentary secretaries, and ministers have been meeting and continue to meet with various American stakeholders and elected officials to lay out our position, our arguments, and our proposals.

This work, just as the minister's involvement, has been ongoing since we were elected. I mentioned how many conference calls she has had. We are committed to securing a deal, but not just any deal. Our goal is to defend the industry's interests, and we are doing this in an appropriate and ongoing manner.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, if that is all right with you.

I would like to go back to the previous speech, because I was impressed by the pressure tactics the Liberal government is using to negotiate an agreement on softwood lumber with the United States. My colleague mentioned all of the action being taken, from the minister's phone calls, to the parliamentary secretaries, in particular the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for Canada-U.S. Relations, who, in an interview about NAFTA on October 11, had this to say about supply management:

“Is there room to discuss and negotiate? Of course.”

That was his answer. That is the most our parliamentary secretaries can muster in their negotiations with the Americans. They open the door wide open and voluntarily suggest there may be room to negotiate. Since we began talking about this free trade agreement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was previously Minister of International Trade, has been staying on message, stating that they want a good deal, not just any deal.

Two years into the government's mandate and we still have no agreement, and the industry is concerned. We are certainly giving dairy, poultry, and egg producers cause for concern, because every time the government needs to deal with the Americans, they mess things up. The government is incapable of reaching an agreement. So much for the Liberal government's negotiating power vis-à-vis the Americans.

I thank the member from Richmond—Arthabaska for the opportunity to discuss this important issue today. It is exactly the type of agreement—