Debates of Dec. 1st, 2021

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

She is going to keep that up—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to leave the chamber.

[And the hon. member for Battle River-Crowfoot having withdrawn:]

The hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, Canada's forestry sector is a crucial part of the economy from coast to coast. The forestry industry contributes to the economic vitality of thousands of communities.

This week, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development is in Washington to meet with U.S. congressional leaders and other stakeholders. The minister will advocate for Canadian interests and raise issues of concern around softwood lumber.

On November 18, the Prime Minister discussed this matter with the President of the United States of America, Joe Biden. On November 12, the Minister of Foreign Affairs also raised the softwood lumber issue during her meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. Other Canadian government officials are also reiterating the same message at every opportunity when meeting with their American counterparts.

Canada is very disappointed that the United States decided to raise duties on most Canadian softwood lumber producers. These unfair duties harm Canadian communities, businesses and workers.

Canada is calling on the United States to cease imposing these harmful duties on Canadian softwood lumber products. At this point in time, the United States has shown no interest in a serious conversation to find a mutually acceptable solution to this dispute.

The Government of Canada will continue to vigorously defend our softwood lumber industry and the workers and communities it supports, including through litigation under NAFTA's chapter 19 as well as CUSMA's chapter 10, and at the WTO.

In the past, those mechanisms have consistently ruled that Canada is a fair trading partner, and we expect similar results in the current challenges. From the moment these unfair duties were imposed in 2017, Canada has responded forcefully. We have launched challenges under chapter 19 of NAFTA and asked WTO panels to review these decisions. We have already obtained positive rulings from the WTO panels, which have confirmed that the U.S. duties are not consistent with the United States' WTO obligations.

These wins will be useful for Canada in our arguments before the NAFTA chapter 19 panels, which are also assessing the validity of the decisions made by the U.S. in 2017.

Canada is also challenging the final results of the United States' first administrative reviews, issued in 2020. Those decisions will be reviewed by panels established under CUSMA's chapter 10.

With respect to the most recent decision by the United States to almost double the duties on the majority of the industry, we are currently in talks with the Canadian stakeholders to look at available options, such as additional challenges under CUSMA's chapter 10, and to determine the best way forward together.

At the same time, we will continue to press our U.S. counterparts to rescind this unfair and unwarranted trade action. We remain confident that a negotiated settlement is not only possible but in the best interests of both countries. Workers in the forestry sector can rest assured that we will always be there to defend their interests, their families and their communities.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Chair, I take issue with something that was said by the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier. He was critical of the notion that we contact people we know in the United States to talk to them about the importance of Canada's softwood lumber supply to that country.

Was that not precisely the strategy we used to get CUSMA across the finish line and to deal with the steel and aluminum tariffs? We mobilized the louder and more reasonable voices in the United States to support our position.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, I absolutely agree with my hon. colleague. This is something that all parties agree on. It is a team Canada approach.

Speaking of team Canada, the minister is in Washington right now with a group of members of Parliament from all parties to make sure that we are vigorously defending the interests of our communities, our industry and our businesses. This is something we have to do all together.

My hon. colleague mentioned CUSMA. We were the ones who absolutely fought successfully to keep the dispute resolution mechanism in chapter 10, which we are now able to use to defend our interests.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Chair, again, I have a question for my colleague across the way.

Would the government, the Liberal Party, be prepared to consider an amendment to CUSMA? She gave some examples from CUSMA regarding recourse, potential dispute settlement mechanisms, but would the government be prepared to improve the issue of disputes so as not to unduly drag out these disputes when time is against us, and also to include a permanent advisory committee on the softwood lumber issue?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, our government recognizes the importance of the forestry and softwood lumber industry for Quebec. We will continue to defend the resiliency and innovation of Quebec's forestry industry, which exports more than $10 billion in forestry products per year and employs more than 60,000 workers in the province.

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

Madam Chair, in response to a question, my colleague referenced why we need to use CUSMA, NAFTA and whatever mechanisms we can. She also said that CUSMA was negotiated in a normal way. Well, why was softwood lumber not included in it? To me it seems that this is such an intractable problem that logic and fairness have nothing to do with it.

What are we up against here and how are we going to get around this? We could have put it in CUSMA if logic and fairness had something to do with this dispute.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, this is exactly why we fought very hard, and successfully, to keep the dispute resolution mechanism within CUSMA, and that is something we will continue to do. In fact, the WTO, under NAFTA and CUSMA, has consistently ruled in Canada's favour that Canada is a fair trading partner. There is no reason to believe that it would be different this time.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, I listened to this evening's debate. The Prime Minister boasted that Canada was back on the international stage. However, I am once again struck by the fact that we are realizing that this is not true, and that when we sign international agreements, the sectors that are important to Quebec's economy are the ones that get sacrificed.

The investments in lumber are not the same as the investments in oil. Why can the government not invest more money in lumber, when it can invest so much money in western Canada's oil industry?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, we continue to vigorously defend all industries in Quebec and Canada.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Chair, I will take this opportunity to thank my constituents for voting for me to represent Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier in the House of Commons for a third time.

I want to thank the many volunteers who worked hard to get out the vote and ensure that people voted for me. It was an extraordinary success, and I received 51.6% of the vote, which was more than I had hoped or aimed for. I am very pleased with that, and I appreciate it very much.

I want to thank some volunteers in particular: my association president, Serge Henry, and his wife, Hélène Naud; the secretary-treasurer, Alain Poulio; and the vice-president, Mario Paquet. Finally, as we all do in this place, I obviously want to thank my family: my wife, Isabelle, and my children, Charles-Antoine and Anne-Frédérique.

I am taking this opportunity to thank everyone as this is my first time rising after giving my speech as a candidate for Speaker, which, like you, Madam Chair, I did not win. These are some of the disappointments we must contend with in politics.

Before I get into the debate on softwood lumber, I want to share with the House that I was just at the Westin Hotel, which is hosting the big tourism awards. Once again, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier was a standout, with its ice hotel winning the top Canadian tourism award. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to congratulate those people. I invite everyone in Canada to come to Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to discover this extraordinary, unique, ephemeral attraction that is built anew every year.

Now to the substance of the debate. If we look at the lineup—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I believe the member might be sharing his time with someone else.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Chair, thank you for reminding me. It is very important. I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, an extraordinary member from British Columbia.

To continue, the topic we are debating tonight is an important sector of the Canadian economy. It is important in British Columbia, Quebec and other provinces in Canada.

Quebec is not yet a country. That is not what the Conservative Party is working towards, but we will protect Quebec.

I mentioned the ice hotel, which is just outside Quebec City. I am participating in tonight's debate because part of the riding I represent is more rural and is home to sawmills and lumber mills. In contrast, if we look at the list of all the Liberals who have spoken tonight, we see that they represent office towers and parking lots rather than rural areas that have sawmills and lumber mills.

I think we need to take this seriously. The government that has been in power for the last six years is trivializing the economy, as if it were not important, and is pushing the problem down the road. It is not offering any solutions. It is sad.

We are at the beginning of an economic recovery. I think it is important, at the beginning of an economic recovery, to get ahead of the game. We need to have the tools to attack. We need to have the workforce. If we look at the news, we see that the labour shortage is all around us.

Since I have little time remaining, I will simply say that we could complain about what the Liberals are doing. However, instead of complaining, I will propose a solution. I think it is important to work on resolving this problem. I think if we roll up our sleeves here in Canada and tell the Americans that we are no longer sending them our softwood lumber, that they are cut off for the next six months, then it is the U.S. citizens who will be asking their state governors to do what it takes to speed up the process.

Our Prime Minister is unable to exert any pressure. He does not have any leverage to force the U.S. government to do anything. The U.S. market is huge. I think we have to support this industry by cutting off exports to the U.S. and subsidizing the industry to ensure that the businesses can absorb the revenue losses. In six months, everything will go back to normal. I think we have to work on that. That could be a solution. I think we need to find solutions so that we can reopen our economy and be part of the recovery.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to tell the member opposite that although I represent Thunder Bay, I also represent everywhere between Thunder Bay and the Manitoba border, which includes quite a few trees, so I am certainly not just from the big city.

I remember that when I was in law school, I read a case with a WTO panel decision on softwood lumber tariffs imposed by the United States against Canada. That was 25 years ago and not a whole lot seems to have changed since then.

I know the opposition wants to think we are the enemies, but I would suggest that perhaps we are not. The enemy is forces in the United States that are not only protectionist but self-serving. Perhaps it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that we have any control over those protectionist forces, just as we have no control over the weather in Florida.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Chair, my colleague is probably an exception to the rule tonight because he is one of the only Liberals who represents a riding that includes rural areas.

I am not saying conflict is entirely avoidable, but what keeps me up at night as an MP is the Liberal government's failure to act and the fact that it is not holding the cards or negotiating from a position of strength. I would like to talk about factors that are important in a negotiation. I want to be constructive and share some negotiation tips.

Number one, make the first move. In this case, President Biden beat us to it. Two, know what you want. When the Prime Minister showed up at the White House, did he know what he wanted? Did he talk about softwood lumber? I wonder about that.

Next, come up with best-case scenarios and avoid compromise. Make sure there is room to manoeuvre. Do not be intimidated. Avoid dead ends. Think win-win, not win-lose. Find solutions. Create a relationship with the person or country you are negotiating with. It does not seem to me that the current government has that kind of relationship with our biggest client, the United States.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Chair, my colleague mentioned that he ran for the position of Speaker of the House. I thank him for taking the time to call me about that. I do, however, sense a bit of relief on his part that he is not in the Speaker's chair, so he can continue to defend his constituents.

I get the impression that he wants us to show some backbone. Now how do we do that? What actions should we take? My colleague and I want the same thing, we are looking for the same results, but how should we proceed at this point?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, who was very open and engaged in our conversation when I tried to convince him to vote for me to become Speaker. I obviously was not elected, and I acknowledge that, since politics involves dealing with disappointment. That is what I did last week, and I am finally starting to accept it.

As for the member's question about solutions, I would say that the focus should always be on finding some leverage. It seems like right now, Canada is on its knees in front of the United States. Canada is not in a position to negotiate. It is still trying to beg for help from the international community, which is embarrassing. Earlier, a Bloc Québécois colleague said that Canada was back, but Canada keeps going backwards instead of forwards. That is what is disquieting.

Earlier there was talk of a partnership with other countries. The Conservative government is the one that put all that in place, and the incoming Liberal government just had to wrap it up. The Conservative government developed the model, though. That is a good thing, and I thank the Liberal government for following through, because it is important, economically speaking, to have customers and a good network.

We must find the solution. I do not know everything, but I suggested a possible way forward. I want to work with all parliamentarians in the interests of the Canadian economy.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for sharing his time with me tonight.

Actions speak louder than words, and that is a theme I am going to get to. The lack of a softwood lumber agreement has affected my riding greatly. We are in northern B.C., where lumber and forestry are what we do. I want to take us to the time of Obama and the Prime Minister, back in 2015, when there was a 100-day promise. Let me read from an article from The Globe and Mail in March 2015:

Two-thirds of the way through the 100-day countdown set in March by [the Prime Minister] and President Barack Obama to agree on the parameters of a new bilateral softwood lumber deal, time is fast running out to reach an agreement before U.S. election fever overwhelms the negotiations.

The Canadian lumber industry is still hoping that talks at the bureaucratic level will have advanced far enough that Mr. Obama and [the Prime Minister] can iron out what differences remain when they meet at the North American Leaders' Summit in late June.... The last [softwood lumber agreement] ended in October 2015 [I might note] with the expiry of a 2006 deal that instituted managed trade between the two countries that are supposedly the world's biggest champions of free trade...

Here we are, with a bunch of promises from many members across the way that this is going to get done. They are saying, “Just relax, we need more time.” That promise was made six years ago, and we still have not seen that delivered. That is why this discussion is happening tonight, and I am glad for the opportunity we have.

It even escalated. We saw the President of the United States, and I was about 20 feet away from him when he came to Ottawa to speak, and there were actually expectations. The Conservatives had lost the election, and we were thinking this was maybe a silver-lining moment for us: At least we were going to get a good trade deal across the line. President Obama gave a great speech in Centre Block, right in front of the Speaker, and we expected the deal to get signed that afternoon. There was nothing. All we saw was Air Force One leaving Ottawa with no new softwood lumber agreement.

Fast-forward to 2021, and where has the softwood lumber agreement gone? I was a member of the natural resources committee and the international trade minister was there. She had just met with the new Biden administration. They had met in a bilateral meeting. My obvious question to her was whether she had discussed softwood lumber in their meeting. She was very vague. When somebody is very vague about these things that are very specific and very important billion-dollar deals, I start to get a little suspicious.

It became obvious in an article in Politico. This is from Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative. This is after she promised that she had been discussing this with the trade negotiator and that they were actually working on a softwood lumber agreement. This is what the trade representative from the U.S. said:

In order to have an agreement and in order to have a negotiation, you need to have a partner. And thus far, the Canadians have not expressed interest in engaging.

It is pretty serious when the U.S. trade rep is saying they want to do this, but so far the international trade minister has not even reached out. Therefore, those promises ring hollow and again it goes to my theme: Actions speak louder than words. What are the Liberals really doing? They cannot try to infer that they want a softwood lumber agreement. They have to be very firm about these things.

I might add that a previous Conservative government got the first one done in 2006. We renewed it in 2013, and it expired in October 2015. Some are saying over there that they cannot get it done. We got it done twice, so we can get it done and it is proof that, if the intention is really there, the current government could get it done too.

I will finish with this. This is a statement from the minister from her own Global Affairs website, on October 6, 2021, in Ottawa, Ontario. It states:

Today, the Honourable...Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, met with Katherine Tai, United States Trade Representative, on the margins of the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in Paris, France....

[The Minister of International Trade] reiterated her concerns about Buy America provisions, U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber and solar products,....

That was October 6, 2021, when negotiations were supposed to be happening all along. Actions speak louder than words. We want some action on softwood lumber from the government.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Chair, let me begin by congratulating you on your appointment as Assistant Deputy Speaker.

To the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, I want to mention it is the home to the Prince George Cougars, I believe is the junior hockey team there. As a former athlete, I certainly appreciate their good demeanour on the ice.

A couple of different things have been suggested on this side of the House during the debate. One of them is that our government has not been there in challenging and working with the United States. I think back to 2017, when I was not in this House. I was a lawyer in Halifax at the time. It was our government that stood and made sure we were there to protect Canadian interests from a United States president who, frankly, was willing to rip up NAFTA and start it over.

Will the member opposite at least recognize two things? The first is that the Minister of International Trade and the member opposite's colleague are on their way to Washington right now as part of a team Canada approach. The second is that this government, particularly in the 42nd Parliament, has been there to protect Canadian interests. Will he recognize these things?

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

Madam Chair, I will commend the minister and our member as well. Our member from Saskatchewan has been working on the U.S. file for many years. I will give credit where credit is due. At least it is happening now. We hope some good things can happen, but I will remind the member that we had great fanfare when we had a sitting president and a prime minister who shook hands. In the first hundred days of the softwood lumber agreement, what happened? They had the ability to pull it off then, with two willing partners, yet all we see right now is a doubling of tariffs recently after this similar meeting happened between the Prime Minister and President Biden.

Frankly, I do not have much faith that they are going to get it across the line. I hope they do for the sake of our people in the lumber industry. Again, actions speak louder than words, and up until now, six years of non-action does not speak very loudly to me.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chair, everyone knows that I am a fair-minded person, and I am not going to bug my colleague, with whom I shared a lot of good times at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. However, he talked about the Conservatives' 2006 softwood lumber agreement and said that we need to be firm. I would simply tell him that the people in the forestry sector think that the 2006 agreement was a bad deal. They lost $1 billion. The people in the forestry sector are now saying that they never want to have that kind of sellout agreement ever again.

What the people in the forestry sector want is for the government to be prepared to give them a liquidity program to help them weather the storm and for the U.S. to never again impose tariffs intended to wear the sector down into accepting a sellout agreement.

I would like my colleague to say whether he realizes that the deal signed in 2006 was a sellout agreement.

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

Madam Chair, I respect the member from Quebec, who is my former colleague on the natural resources committee. All I would say is that the industry originally wanted an agreement back in 2006. They wanted it in 2015 as well. Much of our industry, as the member well knows, and mills from my area, Mackenzie, are moving south. Good Canadian companies are moving their mills south of the border because of this lack of a softwood lumber agreement. It simply does not make financial sense for them to stay on the Canadian side of the border anymore.

We need a softwood lumber agreement to bring stability to the forestry sector, straight up. The forestry sector is attached to many people and homes, people who are not going to have Christmas dinner because their dad or mom lost their job at the mill. We need to care about those people, who have lost jobs because of the lack of a softwood lumber agreement. That is who we need to care about tonight and who the government should care about in getting that deal done.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for his speech. I was on the natural resources committee with him as well, like the other member who just spoke.

The member talked about the mills that have moved south. We now have big companies in British Columbia that own sawmills. They have more mills in the United States than they have in Canada. Does the member know of a trade legal way whereby we can take the tariffs that have already been charged to those companies and have the government return that funding to them in the form of loans, as a kind of down payment on what the government is promising about solving this problem?

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

Madam Chair, I would do one better than that, just like what similarly happened when we had the agreement before and $4 billion was returned to Canadians as a result of that deal. My hope would be that those tariffs that have been collected in the past get returned to Canadians in this deal, which will be inked hopefully very soon.

Am I confident that is going to happen? Not very. I am hopeful, yes. Again, actions speak louder than words and we need to see some action from the Minister of International Trade.