Debates of Oct. 19th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Support for Forestry Workers

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am just going to interrupt the member for a few seconds.

I have heard a few phones go off today, and although we know that phones are allowed in here, could members, if they do not mind, just check their phones and make sure the sound is off. They are very interesting sounds; it is just that we do not want to hear them while someone is speaking.

The hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the calls that we are receiving are in support of this magnificent motion before us today. In that case, I would ask that you be more tolerant so that we can take calls from Canadians who want to join us in testifying to the importance of this motion.

The forestry industry is a major employer in Quebec and across Canada. Quebec’s forestry workers in particular deserve stability and predictability from their government. As we know, the forestry industry is the cornerstone of many communities in Quebec.

However, as I mentioned, the government has been unable to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement. The livelihood of forestry workers has been jeopardized, not only in Quebec, but all across Canada. While the Prime Minister continues to drag his feet on this important file, workers in this sector that is vital to the Canadian economy remain vulnerable to misinformation campaigns conducted against their industry.

These are schemes by non-governmental organizations funded by foreign interests, such as Greenpeace and ForestEthics, groups that do not understand that Canada is a world leader in sustainable forestry practices, but who take advantage of our forestry industry, which is currently very vulnerable.

All of this is because of the Liberal government’s inaction. On this side of the House, we are very aware and very concerned about the current situation in Canada’s softwood lumber industry. The situation remains unacceptable for thousands of workers, their families, and their communities. These people depend on the federal government to take action with the American administration.

According to the Quebec Forest Industry Council, the softwood lumber industry in that province generates $15.8 billion a year, including nearly $4 billion in salaries and benefits. Natural Resources Canada indicates that the industry employs more than 200,000 people, including 9,500 in indigenous communities. In Quebec, 58,000 jobs are directly related to the forestry industry.

Despite these impressive figures, we are still waiting for concrete action by the government. This lack of leadership jeopardizes the security of entire communities that depend on the softwood lumber industry. We are hearing this message everywhere. We hear it from workers, from people who live in towns and villages across Quebec, from people in British Columbia, from people all across Canada where there is a large forestry industry, and from people on the ground who depend on the sustainability of the softwood lumber industry.

We hear this message from people like Gilles Potvin, spokesperson for the forest committee of the Union des municipalités du Québec. Back in April he told La Presse:

The Quebec forestry industry is being doubly penalized by the new U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber.

This puts us in a really difficult situation, and the last small, family-owned businesses that are still in the game are going to be further penalized. They do not have the capacity to withstand this additional pressure.

In Quebec's regions, in places like Matawinie, forestry companies are expecting this to have a significant impact.

This spring, in an article in the newspaper L'Action, it was estimated that lumber mills like the one in Saint-Michel-des-Saints would have to pay up to $3 million a year because of the new tariffs.

The Alliance des chambres de commerce de Lanaudière stated in May:

...this new conflict jeopardizes the competitiveness of many companies and the very survival of the forestry industry, which is crucial to the economic vitality of Quebec City and its regions.

Despite all that, the government still does not seem to understand the importance of the serious issues we are talking about today. In the previous speech, I heard an argument to the effect that this government simply does not understand the urgent need to take action and to stand up to the Americans.

The fact that the rise in lumber prices from $500 to $650 is being used as an excuse as to why the government is in no hurry to reach an agreement with the Americans explains a lot about our current predicament. We can understand why the issue of a new softwood lumber deal was never raised during the Prime Minister's first meeting with the American president, President Obama. Why was it not raised? The Liberals told us not to worry, that there was plenty of time, that the industry would be able to manage on its own. “No need to worry”, they said. We were told that prices had gone up, and that there was no need to negotiate because people were not complaining too loudly. Families are concerned and people are afraid of losing their jobs? No need to worry. The Liberal government certainly is not. Now there is a byelection. No need to worry. The Liberals will just say that they are getting around to it, but by next week nothing will have changed. This is serious.

It is important for the government to carefully examine today's motion and to take action against these foreign-funded groups seeking to disrupt our forestry industry because the damage being caused now is permanent, even though the price of softwood lumber has risen. These people are being allowed to tarnish the reputation of our forestry industry. The government is doing nothing and then wondering why thousands of jobs have been lost in regions like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. That is unacceptable.

Organizations like Greenpeace and ForestEthics, which are spreading misinformation about the forestry sector and have been trying for a long time to destroy it, have understood that this government had no intention of doing something about this harmful propaganda and that they could continue with this campaign of misinformation. Why not, when no one is standing in the way? They need this campaign to fundraise abroad or, even worse, to obtain money from certain U.S. lobbies who do not want Canadian softwood lumber entering the United States. These are the issues we must focus on and address today with the motion moved by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska. That is why, today, we are asking the government to stand up for once to these groups that are threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs across Canada.

Mr. Garneau told The Globe and Mail that Greenpeace is not satisfied with marauding just our companies, but also our way of life, which is built on nurturing healthy forests that are the lifeblood of the people who live there.

Forests are synonymous with Canada. Forestry workers are at the heart of Canada's history. The forest is a major resource that has made Canada one of the most beautiful, greatest, and richest countries in the world. We must preserve our forests and, above all, we must protect it against foreigners with interests other than protecting the families of Canada's forestry workers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we move on to questions and comments, I would like to remind the hon. member that, even if the name of a minister or other hon. member appears in a quote, the quote can be modified to avoid naming the person in question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was not a minister. It was another Mr. Garneau.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I understand. I apologize. It will still serve as a reminder for the hon. members. When the name of a minister or hon. member appears in a quote, it must be replaced by his or her title in the House.

Let us move on to questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have to hear from any of the Conservative members of Parliament in terms of the importance of the industry. From day one, we have had a government that has been dealing with this issue as a priority, from different ministries right to the Prime Minister's Office. There is literally hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation available. We are looking at ways to have a good agreement. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve.

It is important we recognize that the former government did not get the job done. Now the Conservatives are trying to say that we should just get an agreement. They are pushing the government because they want an agreement. The Government of Canada also wants an agreement, but it does not want just any agreement, it wants a good agreement that is in the best interests of all Canadians.

Why does the member feel that the New Democratic Party is not even supporting the motion, given the fact that the New Democrats, like the Liberals, are also acknowledging the valuable contributions of the industry to our economy and Canada's middle class?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the parliamentary secretary would like to be on this side and let other people make the decisions on that side, but, unfortunately, such is not the case. The Liberals must deal with their inability to settle the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

They have been in power for two years and they have done absolutely nothing to settle the softwood lumber dispute. It is all well and good to say that, in the past, in the early 1900s, trees were bigger and it took workers more time to cut them down, but that changes nothing today. We can go as far back as we want, but that changes nothing today. The Conservatives and the NDP have not been in power since 2015. The Liberals have, and they are the ones who are incapable of making a decision and negotiating an agreement with the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L’Érable and his proverbial spirit.

We will be voting this evening, and I admit that I have not yet come to a decision because I am in agreement with motion in general. My question concerns one specific part of the motion.

My colleague undoubtedly remembers, as I do, that a documentary like L’Erreur boréale in Quebec, for example, largely contributed to changes in forestry practices in Quebec, which are now sounder and better than they were before.

The last part of the motion proposes having groups that have a say in the matter and industries face off in a conflict that is currently in court. I do not see how a fight like that would help the situation. In any case, it will be resolved in court, since the parties are already there.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Trois-Rivières has been doing outstanding work. I know this issue is of particular interest to him because he himself is from a region with quite a bit of forestry activity, sawmills, and pulp and paper mills. People in his region depend heavily on forestry.

The simple answer to his question has to do with why the government has been unable to negotiate an agreement with the Americans. Is it because the government is paying too much attention to the lobby groups whose actions are under fire today? Is it because the government would rather listen to lobby groups for purely partisan, electoral reasons than to forestry workers across Canada and particularly in our regions?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about the softwood lumber industry, the motion, and share some concerns. I come from a northern British Columbia riding. Forestry is big in Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. Just two weeks ago, I visited Lakeland Mills in Prince George to see how it was doing. It was affected by the mill fire and loss of life. It has recovered well and selling its lumber, thankfully, with the temporary lifting of the tariffs until, I guess, the U.S. decides to re-establish them in November.

I made a lot of trips to the U.S. to understand its view on the softwood lumber industry. I got to know Ryan Zinke, the Secretary of the Interior, and a week into the Trump administration's mandate, in February of this year, I understood where they were going. They are developing a lot of their public timber and fibre to be much more competitive with Canada's. The concern is that Canada supplies a lot of their timber and lumber.

When talking about the softwood lumber agreement, the reason I bring up the U.S. is that 69% of our softwood goes to the U.S., which is a big deal. Meanwhile, the U.S. administration to the south of us is sharpening its pencils and doing its very best and whatever it takes to develop its industry. We cannot blame it for that. It is defending its country, just as we defend ours. The government seems to be making a lacklustre effort to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement. It was the former Conservative government that actually negotiated and extended the last softwood lumber agreement. Conservatives think it was a successful agreement, with two streams to it. When I go to the U.S. and talk to the Secretary of the Interior, I ask why we cannot sign a similar agreement to the one that worked for everyone before and I argue that the U.S. needs our lumber, etc.

I will go back to why we are debating this today in the House. We have a government that does not seem to be interested in the softwood file. It is busy with NAFTA, which is a big part of what it is dealing with right now, but on softwood lumber, I would say as a person from the province of British Columbia, that it is equally as large in terms of exports. It is a massive part of our industry base, providing jobs and employing British Columbians and Canadians in the province and my riding. That is why Conservatives are deeply concerned.

When the Liberal government was elected in 2015, it seemed that some positive things were going to come from the relationship between the Liberal government and the then Obama administration. On softwood lumber, the Prime Minister and the president promised to have an agreement within 100 days. When those two key figures make a promise like that, there should be no reason why they could not come together. Ideologically, there were not many differences between the two administrations. There was a lot of hoopla, fanfare, and expense for the president to come to Ottawa. We always welcome heads of states from other countries in this place, in this room where we sit today. With all of the fanfare, we hoped that a book would be opened and the softwood lumber agreement would be signed.

Days went by, the president spoke in this place, and then left, with no agreement being reached. Members with softwood in their ridings knew it was a huge missed opportunity. It sent signals to forestry workers in B.C., Quebec, and across Canada that the government did not view softwood as that important an issue. Selfies, pictures with the president, and dinners with fancy suits and dresses were important, but no signal was sent by the Prime Minister and the president in reaching a softwood lumber agreement, which could have been done easily. That makes us question if the government understands how significant this industry is to the entire country. It sent a signal that really did not exist.

I understand that it is difficult to conclude a softwood lumber agreement, but when we hear a promise by a prime minister and a president that they can reach one within 100 days, we would expect them to have it all sorted out. They had three months to get it done. They already had a pre-existing agreement that had worked for both countries. It would have been very simple to bring that back to the table and sign off on it so we could continue.

Right now, we are caught in a dispute that is just going to get worse. With our American neighbours elbowing us out for their own industry to grow, it is likely not going to get better.

We cannot cry over spilled milk, but there was a whole bunch of spilled milk that day when the agreement was not signed and fulfilled. It left a promise unfulfilled by both individuals.

Concerning a lot of our communities, we wonder about our government's resource development philosophy. We see projects in B.C., even pipelines, being over-regulated to the point that companies are pulling out of the province of B.C. The Energy east project has been halted, with the company saying there are too many regulations and too many risk factors to proceed with that particular investment.

We look back at other industries like agriculture and forestry that have chugged along year after year over the centuries in Canada, and we look to rely on those even more for stability in our economy. It is troubling that the government appears not to understand how significant that is. It has really failed our forestry industry and workers.

As politicians we are often guilty of talking about the economy, numbers, GDP, exports, and import tariffs, and all of that kind of terminology, but it really comes down to food on tables, roofs over heads, and sustaining families where they want to live.

I was born and raised in the Peace region. We lived out here in Ottawa when my kids were small. We are happy to be back in Fort St. John and the north Peace area of the province of British Columbia. People ask why we would want to go back when we lived in such a nice city, in Ottawa. It is because it is home. A lot the forestry workers simply want a nice place to live, which we have in beautiful northern British Columbia.

Robson Valley is another place where there is a lot of forestry, including in Valemount, McBride, Prince George, and all the way up the Rocky Mountains. They all really rely on the forest industry. It is not a number they rely on in the forest industry; it is a person, a family, and other industries. There are subsets of those industries, employing heavy-duty mechanics and others. I have often said that a person at Tim Hortons selling coffee to people in the morning is likely selling it to someone who works at a mill and makes lumber. Likewise, someone who works on trucks, like my son, a heavy-duty mechanic, likely works for a company in forestry. He is a first-year apprentice. He works on trucks and heavy equipment that go right out into the forest. That is how he makes his living. It has afforded him a nice car and lifestyle.

I want to get back to the government needing to care about that person on the ground. We are coming up to Christmas. We will be celebrating a great season with our families and we want to make sure that those jobs and lifestyles are sustained.

I hope that the government considers how important the softwood lumber agreement is to British Columbia, Quebec, and Canada. I hope it will do a better job than it did in the past. We saw a lost opportunity, and I hope the relevant ministers and the Prime Minister grasp how important the agreement is and how much it means to Canadians. I hope they will think about the people who are attached to these forestry jobs and how they would be affected by a signed softwood lumber agreement.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his comments on the forestry system.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for two years now, and we all know that the softwood lumber file is one of the most important ones we have worked on. I hope that my colleague has no doubts whatsoever about everything our government has done for workers. We have made investments. On June 1, 2017, we announced an $867-million softwood lumber action plan.

Export Development Canada has viable export solutions for forestry companies. Through the expanding market opportunities program, we are investing $45 million in market development.

Earlier, our Minister of International Trade said that we are working on finding a solution with the United States. Members should be aware that we need to develop and diversify our offerings, and that is what our Minister of International Trade is doing. He is working very hard with the United States.

If it were easy, it would already have been done. I would also like to remind the member of the $63-million Forest Innovation Program, which fosters innovation and expands market opportunities for the sector.

Our government is working hard to come up with a solution. I look forward to hearing comments on what I have just said about all of the statements and investments we have made in the two years we have been in office.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that simply highlights the two philosophies of two different governments, with one that would subsidize everything.

During all of my discussions with forestry workers and mill owners, I have never been asked for a subsidy. They have only asked to get this agreement signed and done so they can do what they do best and open the gates of trade.

I have always viewed the role of government as keeping the doors of trade open, not to over-regulate, but to let the groups that want to trade do exactly that. We should be staying out of the way, not getting involved.

The Liberal government subsidizes. It subsidized Bombardier not long ago and I do not know how well that has worked for the government. The company has failed miserably to the tune of $500 million.

The forest industry is not asking for subsidies. It is asking for a good agreement, and I hope the government understands that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my friend from northern British Columbia, I share the benefits and value of a vibrant and long-standing forestry industry, but there has been a steady and aggressive decline in both the number of mills and the number of people working in those mills. Just within British Columbia alone, never mind across Canada, tens of thousands of families can no longer rely on the forestry sector.

Various factors have come into play in that regard, whether it is more machines out in the bush, less people having to work, or the trade disputes with the U.S. Every time one of these disputes happens, we lose mills. They concentrate further in the United States as the barriers go up. Let us be clear: these disputes are a tactic. The softwood lumber disputes are a tactic by the U.S. lumber industry to attack Canadian producers trying to enter the U.S. market, sometimes using Canadian money to do it.

Since the last time we went through this Groundhog Day of American protectionism, many of the major Canadian producers have made significant investments south of the border. The greatest free trading nation in the world seems to like its protectionist attitude, at least the present administration does, but I am not seeing or feeling the same urgent push by Canadian producers as the last time there was a dispute.

My concern is that the way the industry works has changed significantly. Is that one of the factors that is causing the government not to feel an urgent need to reach a deal that the member says the workers in my region want, which is just fair and free access to the. U.S. market?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The industry views risk as a calculation. If a company's survival is at risk, that company will go somewhere else where it will survive and flourish. We have seen a lot of our Canadian forestry companies go south. Some of our older companies that used to be located predominately in Canada now have more than 50% of their mills in the U.S.

When we talk about over-regulation, these groups are going to make a decision just like we saw with Pacific NorthWest LNG, and so on. They look at the risk and decide to move out of Canada.

I would like to highlight something the member said: once we lose these companies it is going to be difficult to get them back.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for North Vancouver.

As members know, this is an issue that affects ridings all across the country, and my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac is no different. This is a file that has been critically important to our government, and continues to be today. It is one that we have made a top priority since day one of this dispute.

Our forestry sector supports 230,000 good-paying, middle-class jobs for Canadian workers and communities all across the country, such as communities like Juniper in my hometown. Softwood lumber production contributed $21 billion to Canada's GDP. In particular, softwood lumber is an economic anchor in more than 170 rural communities.

Given Canada's geographic proximity and close commercial links with the United States, it is no surprise that the U.S. is our number one export market for softwood lumber. Today, the U.S. market accounts for over 78% of Canadian softwood lumber exports. We all know that there are significant benefits for the U.S. in having access to Canadian lumber. For many decades, the U.S. has relied on our exports to fill the gap between domestic production capacity and demand for softwood lumber.

Canadian softwood lumber has historically been used to meet about one-third of the U.S. demand overall, but despite this mutually beneficial relationship, softwood lumber has been a contentious subject in a long-standing trade dispute between Canada and the United States. Since the early 1980s, Canada has experienced very few months when either litigation or a managed trade agreement have not applied to its softwood lumber exports to that country. Softwood lumber is a deeply complex issue, and although Canada has been engaged in intense negotiations with the United States in an effort to secure a new softwood lumber agreement, we always knew that finding mutually acceptable terms would be highly challenging.

I would like to reiterate that this is a priority for our government and we are working closely with the provinces, territories, and industry on this issue. My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources has held several meetings with the provinces, territories, and stakeholders to find solutions to support our workers and our communities. We have also been working hard with our stakeholders towards the likelihood of litigation at WTO and under NAFTA following U.S. final determinations.

We strongly disagree with the decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose unfair and punitive duties on Canadian softwood lumber imports. These penalties are unjustified and are damaging to workers, communities, and consumers in both Canada and the United States. The accusations made by the U.S. lumber industry are baseless and unfounded. From the very beginning, this has been a frivolous case designed to shake up the industry, and has ultimately resulted in higher prices to consumers on both sides of the border.

There have been four previous U.S. countervailing duty investigations over the past 30 years, and U.S. duties have never survived the legal challenge. The U.S. has always lost before the WTO and NAFTA panels, because Canada does not subsidize softwood lumber. We will vigorously defend Canada's softwood lumber industry, including throughout litigation. We expect to prevail as we have in the past.

We fully understand that the duties that were unfairly imposed on Canadian lumber producers created uncertainty for the workers and their families within the industry. This is why in June of this year our government announced $867 million for the softwood lumber action plan to support the workers and the communities affected by these duties.

Specifically, we have two measures in the action plan that will help workers. First, our government is spending $9.5 million over four years for a work-sharing program that gives employees and employers the flexibility that they require when there is a temporary reduction of business activity. This program supplements employment insurance benefits and eligible workers who are working temporarily reduced hours. It extends the maximum period for work-sharing agreements from 38 to 76 weeks in order to reduce layoffs. This measure will help companies to retain skilled workers even during difficult economic times. Second, we are providing $80 million over two years through labour market development agreements. This funding will help workers to upgrade their skills and transition into new opportunities. We recognize that career transition can be a difficult and stressful time. To help make it easier, workers will receive salary top-ups through a targeted earning supplement while they are making the move to another field of employment.

I also want to acknowledge that forestry is very important to our indigenous communities across the country. This is why we will provide $10 million over three years to support forestry initiatives in our indigenous communities. These initiatives can be in clean technology, environmental stewardship, or forestry resource management.

As the Minister of Natural Resources had said when the package was announced, “...This action plan delivers on our pledge to take swift and reasonable action to defend our softwood lumber industry and charts a stronger future for the workers, families and communities that depend on it.”

Finally, our government is actively working to help the forestry industry access new international markets. The Minister of International Trade is leading forestry-related trade missions around this issue. For example, Asia is a market with an increasing potential for Canadian lumber products and the minister has promoted the use of Canadian forestry products during recent visits to China, Vietnam, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan.

Canada continues to believe that a negotiated settlement that brings stability and predictability to the softwood lumber industry is the best option for both countries, but we will not accept a deal at any cost. It is not right for our industry, it is not right for our communities, and it is not right for our workers. A durable negotiated agreement would be the best outcome for Canadians and for Americans. While there is no deal at this time, we are continuing to work toward this goal. We are looking for a good deal, not just any deal.

It is important that we realize that this should not be a partisan issue. This is an industry that affects communities, families, and workers all across this country. It is important to note that we as a government have said from day one that we support these families, we support the workers, and we support the industry stakeholders during this difficult period.

In my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, softwood lumber plays an integral role. It is huge in my riding and it is huge in the province of New Brunswick. The majority of New Brunswick softwood lumber exports go directly to the United States. It takes three and a half hours to drive the length of my riding, and the entire length of that is the U.S. border. We work strategically hand in hand with U.S. counterparts that are just across the border trading back and forth in an industry that often has shared resources for industry stakeholders on both sides of the border.

When I talk to American consumers, which I have done on several occasions over the last six months, they want to see softwood lumber prices stay relatively where they are. That is because they do not want to see the cost of their homes go up. That is where the U.S. is offside. It is offside for a plethora of reasons, but one of the main reasons is because it is failing to recognize the detrimental impact this is having on U.S. consumers.

As a politician in the Canadian government, I find it offensive both to myself and to our government that people are trying to play partisan politics on an issue that we should all be united on. The last softwood lumber agreement stretched over half a decade and it too was filled with partisan comments back and forth. What did that ever get us? We spend a lot of time in the House nitpicking back and forth for partisan political reasons when we should be focused on the task at hand which is to support Canadian workers, to support the sector, and to support industry stakeholders through this difficult time and to help them try to adapt and find new markets, focus on civil culture, focus on ways that they can grow their business and respect those families and try to do this collectively.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is is my first opportunity to join the debate on the supply day motion today, I want to express my regret that the Conservative Party has put forward a motion that includes extraneous, egregious, and malicious attacks on environmental groups. I think there is not a member in this place who would not be proud to stand and support the Canadian forest industry, support that forest practices are for the most part sustainable, and support forest workers.

This is part and parcel, I am afraid, of recent attempts by forest industry, particularly Resolute Forest Products, to brand the two organizations interestingly enough that are mentioned in the Conservative motion today, Greenpeace and Stand.earth, formerly known as ForestEthics. Resolute Forest Products with its millions of dollars and access to lawyers has taken these two environmental groups to court charging them with criminal racketeering, if we can believe. The U.S. court on October 16 threw out these efforts to demonize environmental groups.

I really regret enormously that the Conservative Party's motion will divide the House when we could have united around the cause of our forest industry and the importance of achieving an equitable agreement with the U.S. on trade.

I will ask my hon. colleague across the floor who just gave a speech that mostly focused on the question of the Canadian forest industry and the ongoing softwood lumber dispute whether he would agree that the motion the Conservatives put forward would be passed unanimously if they had simply taken out the absolutely malicious attack on Greenpeace and ForestEthics?

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's comments are very reflective of the type of tone and candour with which I think we should be addressing issues within this House that should not be of a partisan nature.

I know from my opportunity of sitting on the natural resources committee for the last two years that I have witnessed members from the opposite side of the aisle, from all parties, come together to talk about issues, like softwood lumber and resource development, in a very thoughtful and concerted manner which takes into account the needs of Canadians, and the viewpoints and opinions of indigenous peoples, and ultimately works collaboratively with stakeholders.

It is very representative of the reasons that I wanted to be a member of Parliament. I really like the idea of working, on both sides of the aisle, with members from all parties, trying to facilitate and construct solutions that are to the betterment of the industry and ultimately to the betterment of Canadians.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of trigger words that I am starting to get nervous about when I hear them from my Liberal colleagues.

One is “unacceptable”. I just had a phone call from some folks who are struggling with the Phoenix pay system, and they have heard from representatives and in calls to the government that the travesty of the Phoenix pay system is unacceptable. It has been unacceptable for a couple of years, and it continues to be unacceptable. As a friend of mine, Coral from Prince Rupert, B.C., asked, “What does unacceptable mean?”

The second term is that this is a “high priority” for the government. The softwood lumber agreement and getting it settled is a high priority. I share the member's concerns, because I represent a place that is even more impacted, I would argue, but I do not know all the details, than Mactaquac. My riding is hugely and significantly impacted by not having a deal on the table, and yet we hear that it is a high priority for the government and is of greatest urgency.

We see the Prime Minister go to Washington and somehow develop a friendship with the president, which is remarkable in some ways when we think about it, but hopefully, it is to get something done. When does he expect this deal to actually get done? That is what the families I represent want to know. This is my specific question, what impact will it have on a per day basis, not having a deal? Does the government have an estimate of what it costs the Canadian forestry industry every day that the deal is not acquired?

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to touch on the point of Phoenix. I, too, agree that this is egregious, that we are still at this point where we are arguing and fighting to try to get to a better place with the Phoenix pay system. Absolutely, his constituents should be concerned. My constituents are deeply concerned about this.

We are working constructively through the department and with departmental officials, with the people on the ground to try to focus a concerted effort to fix this as soon as possible.

On the issue of the softwood lumber, I would probably agree with my hon. colleague that this may be a larger issue in his riding. I do not know the specific demographics within his riding. Arguably the forest industry in B.C. is of immense magnitude to that province. My thoughts are with the workers in his riding. I, too, agree that it is unacceptable that we are at this point.

I would have liked to have gotten to the rest of this, but maybe at a later date.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to participate in this very important debate, for it gives me an opportunity to speak about our forests and Canada's forest industry and how they are serving to build a stronger economy for all Canadians while helping to protect and preserve a healthy environment for our children and for future generations.

The topic of today's debate is rather timely. It was just last week—on October 12, to be precise—that I had the opportunity to attend and actively participate in the Forest Stewardship Council's general assembly in the beautiful province of British Columbia. For those not familiar with the Forest Stewardship Council, it is a global not-for-profit organization, whose stated goal is promoting environmentally sound, socially beneficial, and economically prosperous management of the world's forests. It is one of three independent third-party standards that Canada recognizes as tools to demonstrate Canada's sustainable forest-management practices, and it is complementary to Canada's rigorous forest-management legislation and regulations. In fact, Canada has more forest land independently certified than anywhere else in the world: 168 million hectares as of the end of 2016.

Approximately, 800 delegates from more than 80 countries attended this session in Vancouver. A number of important issues were discussed, including climate change and boreal forests. I had the pleasure of speaking to the delegates about our government's approach to combatting climate change, as well as our efforts to protect and recover boreal caribou populations.

Colleagues on both sides of this House have spoken about the importance of Canada's forest sector. It employs hundreds of thousands of workers throughout Canada generating billions of dollars for the Canadian economy, and it is the lifeblood for many rural communities right across the country.

Our government believes that a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand. That is why all stakeholders need to work together to find a path that will lead to further economic growth that is consistent with sustainable forests and the protection of biodiversity. To accomplish this, we are working with the forest products industry, provinces and territories, local communities, indigenous communities, environmental non-governmental organizations, and others to ensure that Canada continues to be a world leader in the conservation of biodiversity while promoting sustainable economic growth.

One thing we should not overlook during this debate is the importance of Canada's forests in the fight against climate change and the protection of human health. Canada's forest industry leaders are well aware of the role they play in helping to address climate change. They have been leaders in the development of the clean technology that is helping to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

Further, Canada's forests represent one of the largest carbon stores in the world, which is why our government is committed to enhancing carbon storage in forests through land use and conservation measures, including significant reforestation, and through encouraging greater use of wood in construction projects.

Over the past four decades, global forests have absorbed about one-quarter of the carbon emitted by human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels and the changing of land uses. It is clear that forests in Canada and elsewhere have a huge role to play in helping the world combat climate change.

Our forests also make a major contribution toward improving air quality. Back in June of this year, there was a study published in Nature Communications by scientists at Environment and Climate Change Canada, which demonstrated, among other things, how forests would reduce ground-level ozone levels, resulting in better air quality and in turn healthier Canadians.

Our forests also play a key role in the protection and recovery of species at risk. Our government recognizes the importance of conserving Canada's biodiversity and maintaining and improving our species at risk protection and recovery. That is why we are working with members of the forest sector, provinces, territories, and indigenous leaders to ensure that our forests are managed sustainably, including the protection and conservation of special areas.

There is no question that our forest industry is an economic driver in Canada, particularly in my province of British Columbia, but it is also an important contributor toward realizing positive conservation outcomes in Canada, particularly for species such as the boreal caribou. The boreal caribou is a priority for this government, and we are determined to protect this iconic symbol of our rich Canadian cultural identity. As members know, the Species at Risk Act creates legal obligations for the Government of Canada to act to protect this threatened species. Therefore, in 2012 a recovery strategy for boreal caribou, including an identification of the species' critical habitat, was developed. The strategy recognized the lead role of provinces and territories in managing the boreal caribou and its habitat, thus providing those jurisdictions with up to five years to establish range plans for how habitat would be restored to support self-sustaining herds.

Most provinces and territories are still working to complete recovery plans for boreal caribou. To be effective, their plans will need to focus on the maintenance and restoration of critical caribou habitat. This implies a focus on things like selective harvesting and intensive reforestation as elements of broad solutions, particularly in areas where habitat disturbance levels are already high.

In July, the Government of Canada published a proposed action plan that set out the federal government's contribution to support caribou recovery and protection in collaboration with partners and stakeholders. Under this action plan, we have invited the forest sector, as well as indigenous peoples and other stakeholders, to participate in a new multi-stakeholder forum called the National Boreal Caribou Knowledge Consortium to share information, indigenous knowledge, and lessons learned on boreal caribou conservation science. We will also be pursuing conservation agreements with provinces and territories to accelerate work and collaboration on boreal caribou and reporting to Canadians, which includes the release of a five-year progress report at the end of this month. We are now reviewing some of the documents we have received from provinces and territories to determine whether caribou and their critical habitat are or will be adequately protected. We intend to report on the adequacy of these plans in April 2018.

Once adequate range plans are in place, Environment Canada will explore with provinces and territories, and other parties as appropriate, the establishment of conservation agreements to clearly describe the commitments each party is making to protect and recover boreal caribou. The government will enter into such agreements if they provide specific, measurable, achievable, and time-bound measures that are founded on a scientific basis that enables confidence that such agreements will over time provide for the protection and recovery of the species and its critical habitat. Robust conservation agreements with concrete protection and recovery measures could achieve important progress toward protecting boreal caribou.

On September 15 of this year, the Minister of Natural Resources hosted the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. At that meeting, ministers recognized the important role that the forest sector can play in helping to recover and protect caribou. Federal, provincial, and territorial ministers discussed the need to work with indigenous peoples, with stakeholders, and with industry to protect and recover boreal caribou populations. They unanimously agreed on the importance of taking a collaborative, science-based approach and of sharing best practices to help support conservation agreements, while considering the socio-economic benefits of the forest sector for communities.

Developing effective range plans and conservation agreements that lead to the protection of critical habitats certainly does not preclude continued economic activity in the boreal forest. I believe that, by working in partnership with all stakeholders, we will ensure continued economic growth for Canada's forest industry, reap the benefits of carbon capture through sustainable management of our forests, and protect many species at risk such as the boreal caribou. I know that the forest sector is committed to working toward innovative ways to support a robust and sustainable Canadian economy while also contributing to caribou conservation. I know that the industry recognizes the need for sustainable development, particularly in the boreal forest. I look forward to continuing to work with our forest sector and all stakeholders in efforts aimed at protecting our boreal forests and biodiversity and to ensure a healthy, sustainable forest industry for decades to come.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate a bit of what my colleague from across the way said. Our Canadian forest industry is the most environmentally friendly forest industry in the world.

We have a fantastic industry, but the problem is that it needs a marketplace. Our former Conservative government was able to ink a deal within three months.

There has never been a closer relationship between prime ministers and presidents than there was between our current Prime Minister and the former president Obama. In fact, they had this little bromance thing going. The Liberals in this House committed to inking a deal within 100 days. They did not get it done. I want to know what it is about the Liberal government that it cannot seem to get a deal done.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, this government has made reaching an agreement on softwood lumber an extremely high priority. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has worked extensively to achieve that agreement. She has involved in that conversation all of the relevant parties in Canada that represent the forest products sector in every region of the country. From meetings that I have had with the folks in British Columbia, I would say that they are extremely happy with the work the minister has done and extremely proud of the work Canada has done. We will work to get to an agreement, but it will be an agreement that is a good one for Canada; it will not be just any agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague opposite talk about the folks in British Columbia being happy with the work that has been done.

In reality, colleagues of mine who represent communities that rely on forestry tell me their constituents are constantly saying the government does not seem to be listening to them.

Honestly, I have to say that this Conservative opposition day is pretty pathetic, because they are the ones who let the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement expire without a murmur. The Liberals are just as bad, having taken no action for two years.

The member for Jonquière said that the specialty paper manufactured in Jonquière is overtaxed due to countervailing duties. You have unquestionably been dragging your heels on this issue, and frankly, the other side has not done much better.

Did you hear the member for Jonquière when she asked this kind of question, or did you forget, just like you forgot your finance minister's villa?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member does not expect the Speaker of the House to answer the question. I would like to remind the members to address their comments to the Speaker of the House and not directly to another member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this House is united in the fact that we are looking for a deal on softwood lumber that is a good deal for Canadians, the forest products sector, and the local communities that support and provide the personnel who work in the forest products sector.

We have been working very hard, and the minister has dedicated enormous amounts of effort to this. I can say that the folks who actually represent the companies in the forest products sector have been actively engaged in this dialogue. They have expressed to me their admiration for the work the minister has done.

We are very focused on ensuring that we get to an agreement. However, it needs to be an agreement that is in the best interests of Canada and the best interests of Canadians.