House of Commons Hansard #8 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a point of order. I have been having technical difficulties. It will not change the end result, but I would like my vote to be recorded as a nay.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
We cannot allow the votes without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to allow the two members to vote?
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 30, 2021, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole to study the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how proceedings will unfold.
Each member will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. The debate will end after four hours or when no member rises to speak. Pursuant to the order made Tuesday, November 30, 2021, members may divide their time with another member and the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.
We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.
Mark Holland LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That this committee take note of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to share some thoughts on a very important issue. It does not matter what side of the House one sits on, we all recognize that Canada leads the world in many different industries. One of those industries is our softwood lumber industry. We have, I believe, an incredible history of providing not only the United States but also other countries a first-class product. That is recognized.
I give a great deal of thought, and express appreciation and thanks, to those who have been there over the years to protect and foster growth within that industry. It employs thousands of people. It contributes billions of dollars to our GDP. It is a major force in our economy. Whether it is its direct jobs or indirect jobs, it should matter to all of us. We as a government, and the Prime Minister himself, have expressed concern, whether it is to the President of the United States or to others. This is an industry that Canada, and in particular our government, will be there to protect.
I believe an appropriate way to start my comments would be to read what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance stated the other day on this very important industry. The minister said:
Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber industry is a source of jobs and pride for Canadians across our country. We are extremely disappointed by the unfair and unwarranted decision of the United States to increase the duties it imposes on softwood lumber. This issue was raised, of course, by the Prime Minister at his meeting with President Biden. I have raised it with Secretary Yellen, as have all of our colleagues, and we have pointed out that these duties are adding to the inflation tax American consumers are paying.
This is not a new issue. We can talk about what we would argue on this side of the House are unfair practices taking place in the United States at times, and they are targeted at one of Canada's most valuable industries. This is not the first time. We have seen it on several occasions in the past. As a government, it is important that we speak as one voice, that we do not capitulate and that we recognize our voice is stronger if we unite in saying what is happening is not right.
In terms of free trade and the U.S., the relationship that Canada has with the U.S., the emphasis that we put on being a good neighbour and the economic ties between provinces and states, one needs to look at groups like our interparliamentary associations. We understand the dynamic. They have industry leaders within the United States, a significant, relatively wealthy group of people who are very effective at lobbying.
Because that is the case, we once again have duties and the U.S. has taken action that not only hurts us here in Canada but hurts Americans too. The U.S., from what I understand, does not have the ability to meet the demands of its market when it comes to softwood production. Canada, over the decades, has supplemented that supply.
As I indicated earlier, we have a first-grade product that is in high demand in the United States. However, the wealthy American mill owners and other stakeholders have been effectively lobbying to get these penalties put into place.
As a government, we have approached the very top political level: the President. We will turn to the free trade agreement that we ratified not that long ago, which includes Mexico. We will take it to the World Trade Organization as a government. I know the minister is on top of this file and recognizes the importance of it. We will do whatever we can to protect that industry, which is well represented in a number of regions including British Columbia, which has been hit very hard recently with rains. The province of Quebec and my home province of Manitoba have important lumber industries also.
Regarding jobs, indigenous communities often take the lead in providing the workforce. This industry supports so many communities in rural Canada. In many ways it is incredible.
The government, the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister responsible are very much aware of the issue. To individuals who are following the issue, in particular those who are working in the industry and the owners who are trying to ensure that we can maintain our market share, the Government of Canada has their backs. We will continue to work with different stakeholders and appeal to members on all sides of the House to add value to the debate we are having tonight. It should not necessarily be a finger-pointing exercise. It should be recognizing that this has gone on now for many years. It predates this government.
That is why we have trade agreements. That is why we have the World Trade Organization. That is why we build the relationships that we have. There is no doubt in my mind that Canada will ultimately prevail, as we have prevailed in the past, because we are on the right side of this issue. We might not necessarily be able to prevent it from happening, although I sure wish that we could, but we can ensure at the end of the day that the industry not only survives but thrives into the future.
We have seen growth in export markets, whether to China, Europe or others, because it is important. The minister will tell us that we look at ways in which we can expand our export markets. That is why we have progressive, aggressive trade going on with agreements. We have signed more trade agreements than any other government. We have, that is a fact. It speaks volumes in terms of how this government recognizes the value of our exports because we see that in the actions we take every day.
In particular, workers can rest assured that we will be there to support them in the coming days, weeks or however long it takes to resolve this, and we will prevail on this issue.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a lot of the sentiments that the member for Winnipeg North shared. Of course, those in the riding of Kenora and across northern Ontario are looking for more than that. They are looking for results and they are looking for action.
A question had been posed to the minister, a couple of times I believe, and she has not been able to answer. I wonder if the member could answer this for us. Does the member know how many negotiations and how many meetings have transpired between this government and the U.S. trade representative?
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give a hard number, but I believe these are the types of discussions and dialogue that occur on an ongoing basis. Today, I would suggest that there is a larger interest in the subject matter because of actions that have taken place in the U.S., and there has been more engagement as a direct result.
Let us not try to politicize the issue. This is an issue that was there in the past. It is not just one government that has had to deal with this. What is important is that whoever is in government at the time takes whatever measures are necessary to ensure that we are protecting the industry. As I said, I truly believe that the Government of Canada will resolve this positively. Unfortunately, it will take time.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I can understand my colleague from Winnipeg North wanting to depoliticize the debate because what both the Conservatives and Liberals have done for the forestry industry is pathetic.
Earlier, I was listening to my colleague say that it was powerful U.S. lobbyists who managed to get the tariffs imposed. He said that members of the House should not be pointing fingers at one another. He is saying that because the current government and the successive governments have done absolutely nothing for the forestry industry. Lobbyists in Canada are oil industry lobbyists.
The forestry industry is a natural resources sector that is underestimated. Ask anyone in the industry. There is no federal program available to help diversify the forestry industry. That is the problem. We depend on the United States and now this industry, which is the economic base of many regions in Quebec, is becoming more vulnerable. That is the problem.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. Not only has the government been there to support the industry in times of need, but we have been there consistently since 2015. We have seen growth in exports beyond the United States over the last four or five years. We continue to look for other economic opportunities and other export opportunities, which is one of the reasons why we have had a very aggressive approach to getting trade agreements.
We are not scared of standing up to the United States. I think what is important is that there is a process in place. That process will, as it has in the past, allow for Canada and our industry to not only survive but thrive. It does make it difficult, which is why the government needs to be there for the industry. We have been there, and we will continue to be.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Biden government was sending clear messages of protectionism, and we know that the softwood lumber issue is continually affected by the American trade lobbyists in Washington. The Prime Minister's team went to Washington on November 17, and this was to be the big rapprochement. Seven days later, we got hammered with an 18% tariff duty.
My question is this: Were there discussions in Washington about the softwood issue? What was said, and why was it that within seven days of meeting the Canadian delegation the U.S. hit us with the hardest penalties they have thrown at us? What went wrong in Washington?
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to read too much into a coincidence. I believe the last time we had this issue before the House was in the late fall. There might be a timing issue. I am not as familiar with the issue in depth, in terms of why it has arisen over the past few weeks, but I do know that this issue periodically surfaces, unfortunately, and the driving force for it to surface is not necessarily a government. It is the lobbying that takes place among very wealthy lumber owners from the United States.
That is my understanding of it, and we have a responsibility to use the tools we have as a government to protect our industry. That is exactly what we are going to do here in Canada. We will prevail.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend and colleague has pointed out, this is not the first time we have been challenged in this way, and with determination and perseverance each and every time we have prevailed.
I wonder if the member could offer us a few reflections on the CUSMA negotiations, the recent free trade agreement, and just how important it is to speak as one voice as a country. Opposition members, government-side members and all Canadians need to stand together. Does he agree with that and have some reflections?
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation. We need to be able to trade with the world.
By expanding our export markets we are able to improve the lifestyles of all Canadians. Export markets create jobs for our middle class. They create and contribute to our GDP. As I say, the forest industry alone contributes billions of dollars to our GDP every year.
When we can sign off on trade agreements that enable our producers and exporters to get more to markets around the world, we are better off as a nation. That is why we made it a priority. Today our emphasis has to be using the tools we have before us to protect an industry that is respected and worth the fight. This government is prepared to step up to the plate and ensure that we prevail and protect this industry.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, let me give some context. In my riding, the Merritt Tolko mill has closed, and Tolko has closed in the Kelowna—Lake Country riding. The company is not leaving forestry. It is leaving British Columbia, and opening up in places like Louisiana. The member says they should be able to open up other places.
On May 29, 2021, in a story by Lance Lambert in Fortune magazine, headlined “Biden administration could double Canadian lumber tariffs even as wood and construction costs soar”, the U.S. commerce department proposed doubling the tariff on Canadian lumber from 9% to 18%, a prospect that dismayed home builders. That was on May 29, 2021. The current government should have known. It should have been acting. It should have been engaging, and the minister cannot even tell us how many times she has met with the trade representative.
What does the member have to say about a government that just does not seem to care about the Merritts and the Kelownas of the world, where those jobs are not coming back?
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, whether in the member's constituency or my constituency, depending on the industries that are there, we recognize the jobs of all Canadians in industries that continue to make our nation prosper. We continue to support them in the very best way that we can, and at times there is a need for us to come forward in a larger way by looking at what sorts of options we can use, such as I made reference to: trade agreements, and having discussions and more dialogue with local politicians.
Remember, this policy coming from the States is also hurting American consumers. We know how important this issue is, and we will continue to have dialogue and push Canada's file and as we say, as governments from the past have done, we will prevail. It is just something that has taken place, and it is not just this government. That is why I say I do not think we do a just cause by trying to say it is all this government's fault, because that is not the case.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying that I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.
I would like to provide the counterpoint to what we have just heard from the Liberal side, because we have to distinguish fiction from fact. The truth is, there is a long history to this dispute, going way back to at least 1982. It was a Liberal government under Paul Martin that finally tried to bring peace to the woods. This was called the war of the woods because we had ongoing battles between the United States and Canada on the softwood lumber issue. Unfortunately, Paul Martin failed to get a deal done, to get peace in the woods. His trade minister, Jim Peterson, failed to get an agreement for Canadians.
Then we had an election in 2006. Stephen Harper was elected prime minister of our country and he did something remarkable. He reached across the aisle and asked David Emerson to cross the floor and join his cabinet. He had one main task, and that was to resolve the lumber dispute. David Emerson had deep roots in the softwood lumber industry. He knew it well. Stephen Harper knew that David Emerson could get the deal done, and guess what? He did it successfully.
In fact, he was remarkably successful. He negotiated a seven-year softwood lumber agreement and bought peace for seven years. He also negotiated a potential two-year extension. On top of that, he negotiated a $4.5-billion U.S. repayment to Canada that went back to the softwood lumber producers in Canada. It was a big win for Canada. It was a big win for the Conservative government under Stephen Harper because it brought us that peace we needed in the woods.
That softwood lumber agreement needed to be ratified in the House through a ways and means motion, and guess what? The Liberals voted against it in 2006. Only one Liberal voted in favour of it: Joe Comuzzi. He boldly stood up against the duplicity of the Liberals at the time. We later ended up renewing that agreement, so we had a total of nine years of peace between Canada and the United States.
Today we find ourselves in a situation. For the last six years, the Liberal government, the finance minister and the Prime Minister have been continually promising to resolve this dispute.
In fact, I have here a CBC article going back to March 12, 2016. The headline is “[Canada's trade minister] heralds ‘real breakthrough’ on softwood lumber negotiations”. That was six years ago. That trade minister was quoted as saying, “We have now managed to get the Americans to the table, we have managed to raise attention to this issue at the very highest levels.” She went on to say, “I don't want to downplay to anyone the complexity—the fiendish complexity—of the softwood lumber issue [but] this was a real breakthrough.” That was six years ago. What happened to that breakthrough?
Time after time, when we ask questions in the House about how those negotiations are going, we are told we are going to get a deal, yet it has been six years. That, by any definition, is failure, especially when we compare it to the standard the Harper government set in negotiating nine years of peace in the woods. For six years we have had a war in the woods and that war continues. In fact, today we are in a situation where the U.S. has doubled tariffs on softwood lumber exports from Canada.
Shame on the government. Shame on the Prime Minister. Shame on the finance minister, who was trade minister when she made those bold statements. I know we can do better and Canadians deserve better.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will make the suggestion that maybe prior to the defeat of Paul Martin and his government, there was a softening within the industry, which ultimately led to Harper getting his first agreement.
Having said that, let us go back to 2015 when there was an election. If he was so great, why did Stephen Harper not have a new deal in place when the deal was just about to expire and there was a change in government? I do not quite understand that connection. Could the member expand on how many meetings Stephen Harper had in the months leading up to the 2015 election, when the agreement actually expired?
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to answer that. The softwood agreement expired shortly before the election. It was in October 2015 that it expired. In fact, our Liberal friends across the way were making all kinds of promises about how they would extend and renew the agreement. They said they had a much better relationship with the United States. Today we know that was all bunkum. It was all a fabrication. The Liberals had no relationship with the United States.
Today we know our relationship with the United States is a failed relationship under the current Liberal government. It is sad to see when we think that under Stephen Harper we had such a strong relationship. Now, under three successive presidents of the United States, the Prime Minister has been unable to achieve anything on the bilateral trade front.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I found it rather surprising that my colleague is patting himself on the back for the agreement reached in 2006. For the people in my region, the 2006 deal was a disaster.
The Conservatives never brought in a liquidity program for people in the forestry sector, so they were struggling and were eventually forced to accept a sellout agreement.
What my colleague failed to mention is that, in 2006, the forestry industry left $1 billion on the table. That $1 billion can never be recovered.
Now that agreement gets held up as an example of what not to do. We are asking the government to bring in a liquidity program and, above all, to never negotiate a sellout agreement again, as was done in 2006. My colleague should know that.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member recalls that back when the softwood lumber agreement was negotiated and settled under a previous Conservative government, every softwood lumber province across the country had agreed with it. All producers across the country were onside. Industry was onside. Governments were onside. This was a big win for Canada.
Can members imagine $4.5 billion U.S.? The equivalent of that today is $6 billion and it came back to our producers. Instead of the government keeping that money, which I am sure the Liberals would have done, we as the Conservatives said that the rightful owners of that refund were the producers themselves. The member should be celebrating that victory rather than scolding us.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about that further. There was $1 billion: $500 million went to the lumber producers and $500 million went to the Bush administration. The B.C. business council described it as a raw deal. I think it is therefore erroneous to suggest that it set us up for some type of utopian experience with softwood lumber. In fact, article 1905 was harshly criticized because it limited our responses after that.
I think it is important to recognize that this deal left $1 billion of Canadian money at the table. I do not think the member should paint it as the glorious result that is being suggested in this debate.