Debates of Dec. 1st, 2021

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I have heard great things about your wisdom, and I look forward to working with you.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West.

This is my first speech since being re-elected, and I want to thank the people of Timmins—James Bay. It is very moving to me that, in the first speech I give, I am speaking about an issue that is impacting our communities. I am thinking of the incredible community of Elk Lake and the mill workers there. The EACOM mill in Timmins has been taken over by Interfor. They are people with an open-door policy and they welcome me to the mill. I have visited with the workers and seen the production lines.

One of the things we learned from the long crisis with softwood lumber is that we lost so many mills in the north, along with the collapse of the paper industry: the loss of Smooth Rock Falls, the loss in Kirkland Lake and the huge loss of the Abitibi mill. However, the mills that survived became very efficient. Just this spring I was talking to representatives from EACOM, who said they were finally having a good year. They were finally starting to reinvest, and then they got hit with this. This is an issue that we have to address.

I am not going to attack my good friends over on the Conservative side, but their sense of history is, I find, a little strange. Yes, Stephen Harper signed a softwood lumber agreement, but he came in and threw out every WTO win that we had. We had won at the WTO time and time again, but then the agreement was that we would take a billion dollars' worth of subsidies that our industry had to pay, which should have come back to us, and give $500 million to competitive mills in the United States. Do members not think those mills thought that was a great idea, and that as soon as the softwood lumber agreement ended, they thought they would hit up Canadian companies for more money? The fact that our industries had to subsidize American competition shows how wrong this is. That is the history of this.

In six years, the current government has not negotiated the softwood agreement, and it has an effect. It has been a ticking time bomb. When the Biden administration came in, we knew it was going to take a hard line on job protection, and I do not hold that against it. I do not hold it against Joe Biden that he is standing up and saying he is going to fight for good union jobs. I have never heard the Prime Minister say that. I wish he would.

What worries me about the Prime Minister is that he is like the last of the Davos free traders. He believes that he and the Deputy Prime Minister can go to Davos and talk about this great international order where all the trading partners make agreements, but that is not what is happening. Around the world, countries are defending their own financial interests, and we have been left out in the cold. We saw it with the inability of our country to make PPE when we were hit with the pandemic, and our inability to make sure our people were safe with no investments in vaccines. Well, Brian Mulroney sold off our vaccine capacity, but the Prime Minister was going to trust in the international market. The Americans were investing in massive amounts of medical research during the pandemic so they would never be in that situation again. We were hoping for the best, and that is what we have been hoping for with softwood. We are hoping for the best, that everything will work out.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade went to Washington on November 17. This was going to be the big hug. The Prime Minister was going to do the schmooze charm. Seven days later, the Americans hammered us. What did the Prime Minister say that pissed them off so badly that within seven days, they doubled the tariffs on us? I am not sure the trade minister even mentioned softwood. We never heard any talk about it, but within seven days of their being there, we got hammered.

We know how the Americans are going to operate. We know where they stand, and we know how they will bend to their lobbyists and their vested interests in Washington. That is not news to us. The question is what we are going to do to stand up for our industry, our workers, the union jobs we need to defend in forestry and the auto sector, and the massive transformation we need to make in the energy markets. We have not heard that from the Prime Minister.

Now the Liberals are telling us it is complex. “Trust us. Trust us,” they say. The workers in Elk Lake, the workers in Timmins, the workers in Cochrane and the workers in Kapuskasing, in my region, are not going to trust. They want to see action.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is a real pleasure to stand this evening and talk about timber, to talk about softwood lumber and the impact it is having across rural Canada. I appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay raising the plight of workers. In my riding, workers have lost their jobs. They have lost their livelihoods and the ability to provide for their families because of government policy and government inaction in not reaching a softwood lumber agreement.

Could the member explain what benefits we could see from the forestry industry if the government actually took it seriously and followed through on its commitment in 2016, when it said it had almost reached a deal. Close to six years later we are still waiting for that to come to fruition.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have to stand up and not be afraid to say that our industry, which took it on the chin year after year after year, is extremely efficient. Our workers do the best job possible and American consumers look for Canadian wood products because they know they are top-notch products, yet with all that on our side, we cannot get down to Washington and make that case. There is something wrong there.

The impact is in our communities. People who go to work and feed their families by the work of their hands, whether they are in the mines, in forestry or in agriculture, need to know that their lives matter here, where the lobbyists and the insiders and the rich folk hang out. Their voices are rarely heard in the House, and we have to be their voice. It is a shame on us that we would allow these jobs to disappear because we do not have a Prime Minister who will stand up for the working class in this country. We have to do better and we have to fight for these jobs, and that will mean trade retaliation. It has to happen. We have to say there's a line in the sand and we will fight.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his speech. We will be working together on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

He ended his speech by asking what we were going to do for workers in the industry. I would like to tell him that what we can do has a lot to do with secondary and tertiary processing. Unfortunately, industry stakeholders are telling us that the federal government does not have a meaningful program to develop this value chain.

I would like to offer my colleague a potential solution. Would he agree that there is no meaningful program because the federal government decided to put all of its eggs in the oil basket? We are now saddled with a massive deficit, and it is time to invest in more worthwhile energy resources or environmental sectors, such as the forestry industry.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleague to participate at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. It is a significant opportunity to implement practical alternatives so that the government can give the natural resources sector the development help it needs and so that we can develop Canada's regional economy.

There is a lot of potential in the forestry industry, and this potential has evolved thanks to the efficiency of the industry and the vision of workers across the country. The Government of Canada must implement an investment plan to help this economy develop.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's speech and I quickly want to give a shout-out to the hard-working men and women of the steelworkers union in my riding, who work very hard in the mills in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to provide for their families.

In British Columbia we are developing designs for a lot of mass timber structures, which of course have a much lower carbon footprint than buildings made out of steel and cement. I am wondering if my colleague could talk about these emerging technologies and how we do need to stand up for Canadian workers but also to make a concerted push to U.S. industries, because of course they are going to suffer from the tariffs on these. The U.S. homebuilders are the ones who are going to suffer, but there are some amazing technologies coming and we really need to see the Canadian government stand up for that abroad.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have to be looking at all our sectors at the federal level in terms of the climate crisis and the climate change opportunity. Certainly, the issues of cement are huge. With the ability to use forest products to transform and lower carbon impacts, Canada can be a leader, but we cannot be a leader if we do not have a government that is willing to come to the table. Industry is talking about it; workers are talking about it and people have a vision. What we do not have is a government that is willing to stand up and work with us to make these transformations that will save the planet.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, as this is the first time I have been able to rise for a speech, I want to thank the residents of Windsor West, and I could not think of a more appropriate way to start this engagement.

My riding represents 40% of the daily trade that goes to the United States, between 30,000 vehicles and 10,000 trucks pre-COVID. It is returning to that level. As well, we date back to the underground railroad by which slaves escaped to our community of Windsor, across from Detroit. We were there for the War of 1812. We were there for times when Detroit came over to fight fires in Windsor, and during 9/11 we sent our firefighters there, so we are very much ingrained with U.S. culture and the U.S. economy. In fact, during COVID-19, around 2,000 health care professionals have gone over daily as essential workers to the United States, to serve in their hospitals as doctors, nurses and other health care professionals.

At the end of the day, we have a broken relationship with the United States. This is a part of the problems we are facing with softwood right now. Ironically, this June it will be 20 years since I first attended my original lobby as an MP with Pierre Pettigrew, the then minister of international trade. Down at the Canadian embassy we lobbied against softwood lumber tariffs for this country and this nation. Many times I have been down there as part of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group, in a non-partisan fashion, to continue to push the issue.

However, the reality is that what we have seen over the last several years is a breaking down of that relationship, and it really is at the feet of the current government right now. It is going to take a conscious effort to reverse that course. We look at the situation with the USMCA, the CUSMA, the new NAFTA or whatever we want to call it, and the fact of the matter is that Canada was outnegotiated and outmanoeuvred even by Mexico in signing that agreement. The progressive forces, senators and congresspeople who I am very familiar with in the United States took note that Canada originally wanted an agreement that did not include the environment or labour. It was Mexico and the United States that added that component, and later on Canada had to come back to the table to ratify that change.

I can tell members there is a two-way breakdown here that is very succinct. A good example, though it might seem like a small one, is that Canada is negligent on our fisheries commission contribution, which is around seven to nine million dollars, to fight lampreys in the Great Lakes. We refuse to pay the bill.

We have ourselves wanted to build a nuclear waste facility off the Great Lakes, where the United States did not do it because Canada, under Joe Clark, asked that they not do that on the American side. We have a series of different issues that have emerged, and they were front and centre when, most recently, the government went down to the United States to push on EV vehicles. In fact, when we signed the original NAFTA, it hammered communities like mine, which actually lost the auto industry compared to what it used to have, because in the new NAFTA we lost the auto pact, a favourable trading position that was negotiated by previous governments.

They went down there, and when they came back I had never seen anything like that. As the member for Timmins—James Bay noted, they actually got another repercussion, which previously was not even in their rear-view mirror, from what they could see or what they would admit. This is equivalent to rubbing the dog's nose in it. That is what took place. It is very significant and shows the breakdown we have, which has become more significant.

However, I do not want to stop without saying that with these tariffs we have to remember that they are jobs, families and value-added work that men and women have done. I know my whip just recently lost another plant in her riding, another mill that was closed. As New Democrats we have called for sectorial strategies for auto, the lumber industry, oil and gas and a series of different industries, so we are not dependent upon rip and ship. The negotiation tactics we have to push back against are buy America and other protectionist policies that are in the United States. They are part of their culture, and only if we develop our sectoral strategies will we have weight at the table to push back against this protectionism.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would love to ask the member about Crown copyright, but that is a discussion for another day.

We are seeing more and more investment shifting southward. That is bad for workers who want to put their skills to use and who want to put food on the table for their families. It is bad for those communities, specifically for those communities that rely extensively on forestry for that employment.

We have seen the government plod along, not paying attention to this file. In fact, my very first words in the opening of Parliament in 2015 were whether the government would put in its mandate letter a specific reference to getting a softwood lumber arrangement. The Liberal government continues with the status quo. When members of Parliament, like this member and members from British Columbia, ask questions of the government, it seems it has no plan to deal with it.

Would the member agree that the government needs to start to get serious on this file and actually engage with the Americans? What other things need to be done to get this job done?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, we will follow up on Crown copyright. It is really important. This sets an example of how immature we really still are as a nation. Other countries, including the United States, have sectoral strategies for aerospace. The United States, with its electric vehicles, is a good example. Now it is softwood lumber. We saw this coming, quite frankly.

When we see what is happening with regard to mineral deposits in Canada, right now we do not even have a plan on how to make this into a robust development strategy for our electric vehicles. That is why the government was upset in having to scramble at the last minute to go down there. We already had a national auto strategy. We used to be number three in the world in manufacturing. We are now down to number 10.

Sectoral strategies, where we protect workers but also invest in their future like other countries do, is how we push back and have integrated supply lines that mean something at the negotiating and bargaining table.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, given the urgency and the speeches in this evening's debate, it is apparent that the softwood lumber issue could affect several areas, especially in our regions in Quebec. I am naturally thinking about Abitibi and Lac-Saint-Jean, but I have to say that even back home in the eastern townships, there are mills that will be affected. This has an impact on our overall land use. This is a major industry. The Bloc Québécois has a good idea for developing tertiary processing. When I was campaigning, I met some forestry producers. It is a major part of our regional economy. We have to do more.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts about the importance of protecting these forestry producers.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, here is where we can take advantage of our current situation. There is no reason why we could not use this in the interim as we go through for a robust housing strategy across the country.

There will be a supply issue that will create a moment, if we keep some of these facilities in operation as we deal with the unfair trading process, to set some national objectives and national goals. That is why I think a unified Canadian component with regard to the industry was so successful in the past on pushing things back.

Again, a strategy, a plan with guidelines, timetables and follow through with a directive by people is how we get something done, and it will be respected in the United States. It means something when they have something in front of them that way.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Chair, a paper mill was permanently curtailed in Powell River, and I know that will have huge impacts. Hundreds of people are going to be impacted in this area. One of the most frightening things is we have a federal government that does not seem to take these things seriously and does not understand the huge impact that these kinds of events have on our small rural communities across the country.

I wonder if the member could explain for the government the action that needs to happen, so these communities are not left so far behind.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, one of the most important things is to have that type of long-term commitment for a sectoral strategy. There is no doubt that the products that are being produced are worthwhile. They are being affected by other things outside in the world. Those workers and communities are worth it. They cannot just go and find another job. We used to have that vision. We need to return to it. That is what other countries are doing. We did it strong before, we can do it strong again, but it takes a commitment, a long-term commitment, from the government. That is the protection we need and the support workers are expecting.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

I want to thank all hon. members gathered here this evening to discuss yet another unfair trade action against an industry that deserves much better from our American neighbours.

The softwood lumber industry is one of Canada's largest employers and has been throughout our history. It is woven in the sinews of our nation and a source of pride for Canadians. Many of the thousands of jobs are challenging and involve tough work in remote places, but the work is rewarding and contributes to the strength of Canada's middle class. It is especially vital to indigenous communities, whose relationship with our forests dates back centuries. Therefore, it is disheartening for these workers and their communities to face increased duty rates as part of the continuing, unfair and unwarranted U.S. trade action.

Our government is deeply disappointed and we have expressed our frustration to our American counterparts at the highest levels. I hope all members will work through interparliamentary forums and use any and all contacts we all have, whether through business, family or friendships, to make clear our position across the border. It is imperative that we take a team Canada approach. Our shared message today is that these are unfair duties that are bad for workers on both sides of the border and they have always led to higher U.S. housing construction costs, something that no economy in the world needs right now.

I can assure my colleagues that we have and will continue to vigorously defend our industry and its workers, and we are confident of success. Why? Because over decades, regardless of which party was in power, Canada has fought similar actions. These legal battles are expensive, lengthy and painful for vulnerable communities, yet trade tribunals have ruled consistently in our favour. While we are confident in our legal position, we must also do everything we can to help impacted communities, and our track record is strong.

During the height of the 2017 dispute, our federal government launched a task force with our provincial colleagues right across the country to consult on ways to defend the industry and its workers, and their respective communities as well. We followed that up with the $867 million softwood lumber action plan. It included market and product diversification initiatives and programs to assist affected workers. We have continued to invest in this industry.

In 2019, we renewed the forest sector competitiveness programs, an investment of $251 million over three years. These programs support market access and encourage innovation in order to create new opportunities for the sector. We have had numerous success stories, including many that have also advanced our federal government's robust plan to reach our 2030 and 2050 climate goals.

We are seeing tall buildings go up in B.C. and Quebec, built principally from wood fibre rather than steel and cement. Car part components made of wood are also making vehicles lighter and more fuel efficient. We believe Canada can capitalize on an emerging global bio-economy expected to reach $5 trillion annually by the end of the decade.

We have also made major investments to confront infestations of the mountain pine beetle, the spruce budworm and the emerald ash borer.

There are many other examples to illustrate how our government has defended this industry and its workers, and that should give all members and all Canadians the confidence that we will do so again.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member spoke at length about defending Canada and how her party, the government, was going to defend Canadian values when it came to trade and when it came to softwood lumber. She talked about defending it, but with respect, this is essentially a WHL team playing against an NHL team when it comes to defending. Just because the government wishes to defend Canadian values does not mean, with respect, that it is in the same league. What we have seen is precisely that. Six days after a meeting, the President elevated those tariffs, shutting down trade.

When did the Prime Minister know this was coming? If he knew it was coming, why did he not do anything to prevent it?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to believe that on this issue we are all on the same team. I think that we all have the same outcome in mind when we say we want this issue resolved. We are very disappointed by the results of the administrative review. We are very disappointed that the softwood duties have increased. We know that in a relationship that is as large as the one between Canada and the U.S. there are bound to be issues, but I can assure the member and all members of the House, as well as all Canadians who are listening, that we have, from the very beginning, indicated our issue with the increase of the duties with the Americans. We have stood up for Canadian businesses and workers. We have talked to President Biden. We have talked to Ambassador Tai. We have talked to Secretary Raimondo. We will continue to stand up for our forestry sector. I look forward to continuing what I want to say with the next question.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, the forestry and lumber industry is critically important to my region and to Quebec. If we look around, we are surrounded by wood. Everything I touch here is made of wood.

If wood is so important to the Liberal government, can my colleague explain why the federal strategy for oil and gas from 2018 to 2020 was allocated $14 billion a year, but the federal strategy for Quebec's forestry industry only got $71 million?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, in a relationship that is as large as the one between Canada and the U.S. there are bound to be issues. Given the fact that we have $614.9 billion in two-way trade between our two nations, largely things are going really well between our two countries. This is one of the irritants that we have had, and it has been in place since 1982. It has escalated in recent weeks. I am really pleased to hear that Minister Ng is leading a team Canada group, including members from all sides of the House, to Washington to continue our government's advocacy and to stand up for Canadian interests. We will not stop until we resolve this issue. We will always stand up for Canadian businesses and workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would just remind the member not to use the last name of one of the ministers.

Questions and comments. I will have to choose the birthday boy, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, I certainly do appreciate the member for Davenport, but, realistically, she said that things were going well with the United States. We have issues with electric car batteries. We have buy-American provisions. We have softwood lumber issues. This is all going horribly wrong. We all may be on team Canada, but when the manager is not doing a good job of managing the team, the manager gets replaced. This has been a terrible thing. I quoted earlier how Fortune magazine said in May that the Biden administration was looking to double softwood lumber tariffs, yet here we are near the end of the year and the government acts like this is something new.

People are asking about their communities? What about the forestry workers and the communities that rely on forestry and are being left to deal with these things by themselves? What does the member have to say about the fact that the government knew in May that these tariffs were coming?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to wish the hon. member a very happy birthday. I also want to assure him and everyone else in the House that we are interested in finding an outcome and a solution that is acceptable for industry and workers. We have consistently said that these tariffs are unfair and unwarranted, whether at the CUSMA panel or at the WTO, and we are going to continue to stand up for workers and the forestry sector.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about the actions that the government has been taking to support Canada's interests in the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

First, as this is the first time I have risen in this 44th Parliament and, in fact, ever, I would like to start by thanking the constituents of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill for sending me here and for putting their trust in me.

Despite some accusations to the contrary, I can assure members that we are continuously engaging with the Government of United States to convey the importance of a successful resolution to this dispute. We have been very clear that Canada believes a negotiated agreement with the United States is in both countries' best interests. However, we will only accept a deal that is in the best interests of our softwood lumber industry, our workers and our communities. A deal that protects Canadian jobs is a priority.

The United States has always relied on imports of Canadian lumber to fill the gap between its domestic production capacity and the demand for lumber. Imports from Canada have historically met about one-third of U.S. demand. U.S. consumers need our lumber to build homes and other projects. It is clear that imposing unjustified duties on such a large portion of U.S. consumption is counterproductive in combatting rising inflation and housing costs.

The U.S. National Association of Home Builders has highlighted that duties on Canadian lumber exacerbate already high lumber prices and directly increase costs to consumers. This is in direct contradiction to the United States' goal of increasing housing affordability. The association is able to see a solution to this problem that evidently the United States government has not yet realized.

A negotiated settlement that brings stability and predictability to the softwood lumber industry is the best outcome for everyone involved. Unfortunately, the U.S. lumber industry encourages the U.S. administration to refrain from engaging meaningfully in negotiations, preferring the continued disruption to lumber supply caused by these duties, to the detriment of U.S. consumers and our workers. Nevertheless, our government has been persistent in encouraging the United States to return to the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable agreement.

The entire government is involved in this effort. The Prime Minister has personally raised Canada's concerns with President Biden on many occasions. The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently raised the issue with U.S. Secretary of State, and senior Canadian officials, including our ambassador to the United States, are in constant contact with our U.S. counterparts.

The Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development has taken a strong lead on these efforts. Earlier this week, she spoke with her counterpart, the U.S. trade representative, to discuss softwood lumber among many other important trade issues. The Minister of International Trade is actually in Washington, D.C., as we speak, where she will again work to advocate for Canadians and build partnerships with like-minded Americans.

As with all Canada-U.S. trade irritants, we fundamentally believe that a win-win solution is possible. It serves neither Canadians nor Americans to put up unjustifiable trade barriers that harm our mutual prosperity. At the same time, the government will continue to vigorously defend Canada's softwood lumber industry and will stand up for our forestry workers and communities in every way possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we get to the next question, I want to ask everybody to tighten up their questions and answers. I am trying to allow everyone to get them in. We have gone over a couple of times.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the new member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill for probably one of her first speeches.

Right now, forestry workers in my riding do not want to hear rhetoric about a win-win because this has already been a loss-loss. They have already lost the jobs, the mills are already closing and forestry companies in B.C. like West Fraser are looking to go south of the border. Frankly, the government has had since 2016, when it started talking about signing a new deal, to get things done, but it has not.

The other day I asked the minister in the House of Commons during an adjournment debate what positive steps she was going to take. I agree that she took a positive step today; she went to Washington, D.C. However, we have not outlined for industry a transparent process that it can look to for any type of certainty.

Could the member please comment on whether she agrees that it has been way too long and the government has not acted quickly enough to support the workers in my riding and across British Columbia who are impacted the most by the lack of government action?