Debates of Dec. 1st, 2021

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Chair, I asked in question period the other day whether we could expect, for the first nations-owned lumber mill in my riding, to have the $20 million that have been withheld in tariffs returned to it through this process.

The hon. member speaks of the process and playing it through to the end in an appropriate manner. Can this lumber mill in Saskatchewan that has $20 million tied up, which is not being used for first nations to provide social housing and other benefits to its communities, expect to get its $20 million back, and when it might happen?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Chair, the member will know very clearly I am not privy to that information. I do not know the facts of this particular mill. I am interested in it, though. I am interested in anything where the entrepreneurial spirit of indigenous communities of Canada can be unleashed and work.

This government has been more committed than any government to ensuring indigenous companies, corporations and investment and employment opportunities receive not only fair treatment but the best treatment possible. I am happy to hear more about this. I am happy to take that to our own government to ensure we find a solution to it.

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

Madam Chair, although this is not the first time I have risen in the House since we returned, I should take a moment to thank everybody in Fleetwood—Port Kells for sending me back here for a third time. I do not know if they just wanted me out town or if they really like the work that we have been doing, but I presume it is the latter.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in defending our forest industry, and referring to the comment from my colleague for Don Valley West, this is what we are all here to do. We are all here to defend the sector, its workers and the suppliers, and a huge contributor to our economy across the country.

We are dealing with the latest set of unfair and unwarranted duties by the United States. I think we can assure Canadians that we do have means at our disposal to defend the workers and communities that depend on the work that they do, which includes, by the way, indigenous people who, in many places, rely on this vital part of our economy. Canada will use all the methods at our disposal to combat unfair trade actions by the United States as we have at every stage of this dispute over the years. This includes legal recourse available under our bilateral trade agreements in the World Trade Organization. Time and time again, we have won. Panels in these venues have consistently ruled against U.S. duties.

Our government will do whatever else we can to defend workers and communities, just as we did in 2017 when we came up with the $867 million softwood lumber action plan. That was a plan that focused on expanding markets and diversifying products, and on assisting workers, including those transitioning to other parts of the economy.

In the long run, we have an advantage. We have a vast, healthy and unusually resilient forest ecosystem, with parts of B.C. this year being an unfortunate exception. We have an ecosystem that absorbs carbon pollution. In fact, there is no path to net-zero emissions that does not involve our forests. Our government has underscored this reality with a plan to plant two billion additional trees over the next 10 years. This is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 12 megatonnes annually by 2050.

Canada is also taking global leadership in reversing tropical forest loss and land degradation. It makes sense that we are out in front in this area, because our strong system of forest laws, monitoring and enforcement ensures sustainable forest management practices across the country. Canada is home to 9% of the world's forest, but we have 36% of the world's sustainably managed forests.

Canada's forests are monitored closely. Each year, the Government of Canada publishes “The State of Canada's Forests” annual report. It tracks a number of indicators pertaining to sustainability. The government will continue to work with industry, provinces and territories to protect and sustainably manage our forests, because that is our long-term advantage, but as today's debate highlights, we need to invest in order to encourage this industry's transformation.

One example is the investments in the forest industry transformation program. It supported innovation for more than a decade and, to date, it has successfully funded 43 capital investment projects. These initiatives have secured approximately 6,600 forest-sector jobs and another 450 innovation-related jobs. The program supports forest-reliant communities and improves the environment and performance of the sector. These projects help diversify the forest product market through high-value bioproducts, such as bioenergy, biomaterials, biochemicals and next-generation building products.

Budget 2021 recognized the program's success by injecting up to $54.8 million over two years starting this fiscal year to increase its capacity. We also recognize, as I said, how important this sector is to many indigenous communities, which is why we are investing to create forest-sector jobs as well as increased knowledge and economic opportunities.

Normally when we are in a negotiation with somebody, we expect to deal with somebody who is rational. However, we have seen over the last number of years any number of irrational decisions made in the United States or by Americans. These are interesting and difficult times, but as my colleagues have suggested, we have the means at our disposal, the patience and the talent to get this over the line successfully.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the speech from the member opposite.

I just want to bring this back to the workers, those on the ground whose lives are impacted by this, because this is something we have seen in the Kenora riding throughout the course of this dispute. Just a couple of years ago, Kenora Forest Products had to lay off over 100 workers when its parent company filed for bankruptcy, citing the ongoing softwood lumber dispute.

I mean this question in the most collegial way possible. What would the member want to say to those workers who have lost their jobs and their families who are looking for action from this government?

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

Madam Chair, I have lived in many communities where forestry is a big industry, including in our riding where we have the Teal-Jones mill, which is a very large operation. Throughout Canada we have had these dislocations on the paper side and the lumber side, etc. There is no doubt that our industries are going through a transformation, and it is support through the transformation to new technologies, new innovations or perhaps simply new jobs in other sectors that would make a difference for these workers. That is what the federal government should and will be doing.

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

Madam Chair, since my colleague is from British Columbia, if I am not mistaken, I would like to hear what he has to say about the stumpage system in his province. The stumpage system in British Columbia is set by the government, as opposed to the Quebec system, where prices are set by the market. That seems to be the sticking point for the U.S. How would my colleague defend British Columbia's system under free trade rules?

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

Madam Chair, I know that in past softwood disputes the Government of Quebec attempted to make changes that would more closely harmonize with New Brunswick, especially, in order to escape some of the impacts of American retaliation. That has not worked. In British Columbia, we have taken the brunt simply because our forest tenure system and access to Crown land is significantly lower in cost than it is in the United States.

I want to add one thing. I was close to some of the people working on the softwood lumber agreement that was struck in 2006, including David Emerson. This is an anecdote from when they were talking to a forest operator in Georgia who was very critical of the Canadian system. He said that Canadians were spending all this money to become more efficient, and all he needed to do was take a couple of hundred thousand dollars to Washington in a suitcase and he could get what he wanted.

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

Madam Chair, I want to say that six years ago it was this member to whom I asked my first question in the House of Commons the first time I spoke, so it has come a bit full circle.

I would ask him this. To get away from this dependence on the United States, is there anything more we could be doing to expand our markets, both here and abroad, as well as to value or monetize our forests in ways other than just for fibre and two-by-fours?

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

Madam Chair, that is a tricky question simply because a lot of other factors have come into play that have robbed us of our opportunity to do value-added in the forestry sector. The era of Reaganomics, Margaret Thatcher and some of the other neo-Liberal policies back in the seventies stripped a lot of manufacturing from Canada and sent it overseas. That is where the value-added activities are happening. British Columbia has continuously increased shipments of raw logs, because we cannot compete with the low-wage sectors in Asia for those value-added products, so it is difficult.

I think in the bigger picture we need to think about reshoring a lot of the things that we have lost over the last 50 years, and bringing those industries back. Right now Canada has a housing shortage. We have a lot of lumber. Let us get that together and make something happen here.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Kenora.

As this is the first time I have risen in this 44th Parliament, I would like to take a minute to thank the constituents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for re-electing me and sending me back to Ottawa to be their representative. It is a privilege and a responsibility that I do not take for granted. I would also like to thank my entire team for their time, their effort and their professionalism during the campaign. Without an awesome team, none of this is possible.

Last, I would like to thank my family, and especially my wife Lori, for continued support on this journey. For many of us, I know the support of our spouses makes it possible for us to do this important job.

The debate tonight has a direct impact and far-reaching consequences for the people of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. The forest industry in northern Saskatchewan is an economic driver that provides direct and indirect employment to approximately 8,000 people. Forest product sales are worth over $1 billion every year, and 30% of the timber supply in northern Saskatchewan is allocated to indigenous businesses. This is the highest of any province in Canada, and indigenous people make up roughly 30% of the forestry workforce, which again is the highest of any province in the country.

These stats only look at the current situation. With long-term growth in the sector having the potential to generate over $2 billion in annual sales and well over 12,000 jobs, this vital renewable resource industry is in a growth phase and is proving to have the ability to bring Saskatchewan residents together to solve many of the socio-economic problems in our communities.

Just yesterday, there was a major announcement made between Paper Excellence, the company that is restarting the pulp mill north of Prince Albert, and One Sky Forest Products, which is building a new oriented strand board mill. These two companies are moving together on a co-location partnership. They are sharing log storage areas and existing infrastructure, including electrical, natural gas and rail lines. The shared purpose in this collaboration should be celebrated as an example of navigating problems through mutual coordination and respectful dialogue. This is something that the Liberal government could learn in its dealings with the United States administration.

The development of these large forest-product manufacturing facilities is one of the many reasons why northern Saskatchewan, in September, was in the top 10 across the entire country for job growth. It is a statistic worth emphasizing. I point out that when the government, in this case the provincial Government of Saskatchewan, creates the framework for economic opportunity for all, it is the people who win.

Speaking of opportunity for all, I want to highlight a unique company in my riding. NorSask Forest Products is the largest 100% first nations owned and operated sawmill in Canada. As I stated recently in question period, NorSask currently has paid around $20 million in tariffs. The announcement of softwood lumber tariffs doubling will add to the damage that is being caused by these punitive actions. NorSask's profits are shared among the nine first nations of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council. These communities now have to deal with the shortfall in revenue. This means millions of dollars not being utilized for education, for health care including mental health and addictions programs, for housing, for youth and elder activities, etc.

This is not just an economic and international failure, it is another failure in reconciliation. First nations communities that have worked tirelessly to provide jobs for their people and created own-source revenues to help invest in the social issues they are facing deserve a federal government that works equally as hard at fighting for them to get back what is rightfully theirs.

In conclusion, as was so aptly described by the member for Abbotsford earlier tonight, from 2006 to 2015 under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper and presidents Bush and Obama, Canada and the United States had a softwood lumber agreement. Since being elected in 2015, the current government has seen three different U.S. administrations, and still we have no deal.

As the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development is leading a delegation to Washington today, I implore her, on behalf of the residents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River not to come home empty-handed. The people of northern Saskatchewan deserve better. Canadians deserve better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, the member made reference to the 2006 deal with Stephen Harper, and I would suggest that getting no deal is better than getting a bad deal. The deal that Harper achieved saw us surrender literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the United States at the cost of the industry here.

What is important for us to recognize is that we are on the right side of this. We know that if we continue to proceed through the apparatus that is set up and established, whether through the World Trade Organization or even our trade agreements, and have the negotiations that are so critically important, we will prevail.

Would the member agree that it is better for us to push, and push hard, and be patient in order to protect the interests of the tens of thousands of jobs and the hundreds of communities that will directly benefit if we get this right and make sure that Canada does prevail on this important issue?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Chair, I actually have the press release from September 12, 2006, on that announced agreement, and that press release talks about the $4.3 billion that was to be returned to the importers of record at the time. One of those importers of record was NorSask Forest Products in northern Saskatchewan. I can tell members from a meeting I had with the company in the last couple of weeks that it remembers very clearly the return of its share of that $4.3 billion.

In the last two years that I have been raising this issue, the amount of tariffs that have been held from one first nations-owned company in northern Saskatchewan has increased from $14 billion to $20 billion. They do not have an eternity to solve this issue.

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

Madam Chair, my colleague spoke of great missed opportunities. The Bloc would support two amendments to CUSMA.

The first would be to regulate these infamous disputes, which are dragging on while our industry is going bankrupt. The Americans are using all kinds of smoke and mirrors to slow down the processes.

The other would be to create a standing advisory committee on softwood lumber through CUSMA. I introduced an amendment to that effect in the House in March 2020.

Could we count on the Conservatives to work with us on this issue?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Chair, Canada has an obligation to involve indigenous softwood lumber producers in the discussions regarding any softwood lumber agreement. In 2016, the parliamentary Standing Committee on International Trade made a recommendation:

That the Government of Canada ensure that its consultations regarding the negotiations for a new softwood lumber agreement with the United States include stakeholders that may have been overlooked in the past, especially Aboriginal stakeholders and small producers.

To my colleague's question, I believe there is an obligation to have many stakeholders at the table to solve the issues facing many Canadians across the country.

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

Madam Chair, sometimes the benefit of sitting in the House is being able to learn about industries such as those in northern Saskatchewan.

I think we can all agree as parliamentarians that this is a challenging time for the forestry sector. The member opposite mentioned that there is a delegation going to Washington right now. My question is about innovation in the forestry sector, which I suspect is already happening in Saskatchewan.

Can the member talk about mass timber? I know it is very prevalent in British Columbia. There are conversations in Atlantic Canada right now about whether the wood species in Saskatchewan could be beneficial for mass timber and whether to include it in Canada's building code. Are those the measures we should be working on to help drive forestry innovation in his province?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Chair, the member talked about innovation, and I can assure him that NorSask Forest Products is one of the most modern, technological companies in the country. It has advanced its technology at incredible speeds.

My challenge is that the $20 billion is not there to pay dividends to the first nations communities, and it is also not there to invest in new and better technologies at the same time. That money can be used for capital investment and for dividends. When we do not have either, we have a problem.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to join the debate tonight on such an important topic. It is fitting that my first speech of the 44th Parliament is on a topic that is so dearly important to people in the Kenora riding and right across northern Ontario.

The forestry industry is so important to Canada as a whole, and to Canada's economy. This sector contributes nearly $24 billion annually to our GDP and makes up roughly 6% of total exports. The industry employs hundreds of thousands of people, many indigenous people, many in northern Canada and, as I mentioned, many in my riding as well. These families rely on the well-paying union jobs that the forestry industry provides.

However, we are here today because the industry is in crisis. In northern Ontario and across the country dozens of mills have closed in the last few years, impacting thousands of workers. Additionally, these closures are having impacts down the line on indirect jobs such as in trucking and throughout the supply chain.

Earlier in the debate I mentioned Kenora Forest Products, a mill that had to lay off over 100 workers a couple years ago when its parent company filed for bankruptcy, citing the ongoing softwood lumber dispute as a major factor of that. The lack of an agreement continues to threaten jobs in Kenora, in Ear Falls and right across all of northern Ontario.

We know the U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner, but these protectionist policies have limited our access to its markets. Now the forestry industry has suffered another blow less than a week after the Prime Minister flew to Washington to meet with President Biden. The U.S., of course, has announced plans to double tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber products.

When I raised this issue in question period last week, the Minister of International Trade replied, saying that the government was pursuing litigation under CUSMA, and I am glad to see we are. Canada has historically been very successful in challenging U.S. actions through channels like this, but while we wait for this ruling, the Canadian industry continues to suffer. Industry and workers in the Kenora riding continue to be left behind.

The status quo we seem to have of our largest trading partner imposing aggressive and unreasonable tariffs and Canadians working to challenge them only to win temporary victories until the cycle repeats itself really is not working. It is not working for our national economy, it is straining the relationship with our allies and, most important, it is failing the families that rely on these jobs and this industry to put food on their table and a roof over their heads.

What our forestry industry needs is stability. We need a softwood lumber agreement with the United States. We need a prime minister who will fight for our workers and ensure they are treated fairly. We need a prime minister who can work effectively with our international allies to advance Canadian interests. It is clear from the discussion we are having today that, for whatever reason, President Biden does not seem to be taking our Prime Minister seriously, and that is very concerning to all of us and to many people in my riding.

As I close, I would like to note that in response to questions in the House, the Minister of International Trade has been unable to tell us how many negotiations the government has had with the U.S. trade representative. She has not been able to tell us what retaliatory measures, if any, the government is planning to take or, more broadly, what its plan is to deal with this crisis. Workers in the Kenora riding and across northern Ontario need the government to succeed on this. All Canadians need the government to succeed on this. I hope government members can give Canadians some hope during this debate tonight.

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

Madam Chair, as the member opposite mentioned, I know that for the riding of Kenora the forestry industry is extremely important. We have heard in this debate tonight from all members. Regardless on what side of the House they sit, this is a concern, and that is the reality. Right now the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development is on her way to Washington to try to ensure there is a resolution for our Canadian forestry industry.

This question is genuine. I have heard the member opposite speak tonight and he certainly seems to be genuine in the questions he has asked. Has the member opposite had engagements with the forestry stakeholders in his riding and can he articulate to the House some of the concerns they might have about the economic impact in Kenora and otherwise? We all share this concern, but I would be more interested in hearing more specifics, if he has them.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to see that the minister is travelling to Washington. I am also pleased to see that our shadow minister on the file is on his way as well. It is great to see that we have members from all across the aisle wanting to work together on this to get to a resolution.

I have had the opportunity to meet with many stakeholders in my riding and across northern Ontario to talk about this. I probably need time for another speech to mention all the concerns they have raised. It is the uncertainty more than anything that I hear time and time again, the uncertainty of not knowing what will come next and whether this dispute is going to have a solution or not.

Again, I would encourage the government to do what it can to ensure it finally puts an end to this dispute.

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

Madam Chair, I wonder if my colleague shares my reading of the situation. I find one thing fascinating. We are in a take-note debate, and yet the government has very few solutions to offer. We have an industry and workers who are suffering, and all we are getting is a mishmash of empty rhetoric. No concrete action is being taken.

In concrete terms, what measures, what policies does my colleague have to propose given that the government clearly does not have any?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Chair, it is an important question. The most tangible measure we need is a result. We need an end to the dispute, and we need the minister to come back from Washington with some good news for this House and for all Canadians. That is the bottom line.

I know the government has talked a lot about its strategy, of how it wants to do it and how it does not want to push too hard. The government has asked the House of Commons to endorse this strategy, but it has not yielded results yet. At the end of the day, what we need is results for the people of the Kenora riding, for the people of northern Ontario and, I am sure, the people in Quebec who are impacted by this as well.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Chair, whenever we talk about softwood lumber and the disagreement between Canada and the United States, one of the things to realize is that we are comparing apples to oranges.

In Canada, the person who cuts down the tree is responsible for building the road that brings the person to that tree, for ensuring that all of the environmental regulations around cutting that tree down are abided by, and for the replanting of that tree and ensuring that it grows to maturity.

In the United States, with most of the trees that are cut down, the forestry company comes in and cuts down the tree, and somebody else is responsible for building the road and so on. The folks who buy the tree buy the tree and nothing else, whereas in Canada, those who cut down a tree are responsible for getting to the tree and replanting the tree.

It is apples and oranges. That is what we are talking about. What we want to know on this side of the House is, what is the government prepared to do with all the money that is sitting in the bank account and has been collected with the tariffs? I wonder if my hon. colleague has any idea what the government's plans are for that money that has been collected in tariffs and is just sitting?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Chair, the brief answer is no, I do not, because I am not on the government side. It is a very important question.

I would just say, to the comment the member made about the responsibility Canadian forestry producers have, that it speaks to how strong our industry is from the environmental side and the social side, and why we need to continue to support our Canadian industry.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, before this Liberal member gets up to speak, I think it is important. He is being investigated by the Calgary police—