Debates of April 8th, 2024

Softwood Lumber

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, there is a key factor at play in the softwood lumber issue. Because of the decision to consider the softwood lumber issue unilaterally from coast to coast to coast, everyone everywhere is subject to the same constraints.

My colleague comes from British Columbia. Obviously, we know how important the softwood lumber industry is to British Columbia. However, B.C. is the one imposing constraints that hurt Quebeckers.

Would my colleague agree that each province should exercise its own sovereignty in entering agreements with the U.S.? That way, we in Quebec would not be penalized for compensations in British Columbia.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Chair, international trade agreements are the responsibility of a federal government. It is possible that the provinces may be able to work a better deal than what the current federal government has done because it has not negotiated anything. It has simply failed. In the province of British Columbia, the lumber industry is also struggling, under an NDP government that will not get permits processed in time. There is a continuous long backlog of applications sitting before a provincial NDP government in British Columbia that is crippling the forest industry sector.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, 42 years of finger pointing is not getting us anywhere. We can see that tonight.

I want to talk about solutions. I have been working closely with Catalyst paper in Port Alberni. This is a mill that has a ton of history. My grandfather worked in that mill. It is so proud of what it is doing. It has retooled its machines so it can do food-grade paper. It has also brought forward an innovative idea to change the clean investment tax credit portion of the Income Tax Act that was supported in the fall economic statement.

It is a technology involved in biomass conversion utilizing low-grade and wildfire-prone wood residues that are otherwise left to decompose and burn in forests or landfills. This renewable resource offers an accessible, affordable clean energy source for Canadians, which would help us to meet Canada's climate and emission reduction commitments. It will save mills, such as the one in my riding, up to $10 million a year, but we would need legislation from the government to come forward this fall at the latest to get that moving.

Will the Conservatives, instead of pointing fingers, support this proposed change in legislation, which would protect jobs and protect workers? Will they do the right thing when it comes to using waste residue in our forests?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Chair, I enjoyed working with the member for Courtenay—Alberni when he was on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

His question is about legislation I have not had a chance to read yet, so I cannot say whether I would support it. However, he just talked about clean, affordable energy from wood products. A number of years ago, we put in a pellet stove. We took out the old wood-burning stove and put in the pellet stove because pellets were pretty affordable at that time. A ton of pellets, or fifty 40-pound bags, was about $165. It is no longer affordable. It costs over $6 or $7 per bag, and a ton now costs in the neighbourhood of $400.

Because of what the government has done, and because it has sold so much overseas instead of looking after Canadians, we are paying the price. It is not just me this is happening to. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of others across the country who are paying higher energy prices because of the government.

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

Mr. Chair, since my riding bears the name of our national emblem, which is a tree, I am especially interested in the softwood lumber debate, even though maple is not a softwood. Softwood lumber plays an important role in all the regions of Quebec.

It was high time that we had a debate like this one in the House of Commons to talk about the importance of softwood lumber and the Liberals' incompetence and lack of ability and will when it comes to finding a solution to the dispute we are in with the U.S. over countervailing tariffs on softwood lumber.

This is nothing new. Since the early 1980s, the United States has been desperately trying to keep Canadian lumber out and to enable Americans to benefit from top-quality wood at very good prices by imposing unfair and unwarranted countervailing duties.

Since the 1980s, there was a time when we had an agreement with the U.S. and things were going well. That was under the Harper government, from 2006 to around 2016. However, unfortunately, right after the current Prime Minister got elected, we saw the government's will to find a solution for this industry, which is important to all regions, especially in Quebec, wither away to nothing.

The forestry industry is important to Quebec's regions. In the Lower St. Lawrence, there are 33 municipalities where the forestry sector accounts for 10% or more of local jobs. In Chaudière-Appalaches, there are 28 municipalities like that. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, there are about 20 municipalities where more than 10% of workers are directly employed in the forestry sector. In the Eastern Townships, there are 17. In Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, there are 15. That is the reality. These are people who have to live with the daily reality of U.S. countervailing duties. Every day, they wonder if these duties will end up killing their industry, their future and, by the same token, their community.

If we look at the share of employment in Quebec's administrative regions and look at the number of jobs in these regions compared to all Quebec regions, some regions clearly stand out. In the Lower St. Lawrence, it accounts for 6% of jobs. In Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the number is 8%. In Quebec's capital region, it is 6%. Yes, even the Quebec City area is impacted. People think that lumber is only produced and processed in remote regions of Quebec, but that is not true. In the Eastern Townships, it accounts for 8.4% of jobs. In my region, Chaudière-Appalaches, it accounts for 12.3% of jobs. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not had the will to find a solution since being elected in 2015. It is sad because these are jobs in the regions. Is it because the Prime Minister prefers to represent people in big cities, where there are more elected officials from his political party? It would be a shame to think so. Unfortunately, the facts bear this out.

I may be about to tell my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle, the only one speaking for the Liberals this evening, something she never knew. We have not heard from any ministers or parliamentary secretaries about this situation, about the problems facing the softwood lumber industry in Canada and Quebec. Let me give a few figures. Since 2016, there have been 183 bankruptcies in the softwood lumber industry. In 2020, there were 14 bankruptcies, including 12 in Quebec. In 2021, there were 12 bankruptcies in Canada, including seven in Quebec. In 2022, there were 29 bankruptcies in forestry and logging. Of the 29, 18 were in Quebec. The numbers speak for themselves and demonstrate the urgent need for action.

We cannot allow the situation to run its course just because the market price makes it cost-effective enough for us to still get by. That is not how it works. Someday, the price will drop. Someday, all of these companies being kept alive on life support because of artificially high prices caused by inflation will shut down too.

I implore the Prime Minister to take action, find a solution and reach an agreement. Lastly, I implore him to step outside his office for a bit and go see his U.S. counterpart to come up with a solution for the sake of all regions of Quebec.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Chair, the name of my riding will soon be Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. That is coming, even though the opposition voted against my proposal to change the name, but that is another matter.

I listened to my colleague's speech. He talked a bit about the agreements that were signed under Prime Minister Harper. We know that recently, when our government was negotiating NAFTA, Mr. Harper once again gave the same advice, just as he did when he capitulated on softwood lumber in the past. Quebec was really the big loser in all of this. Is that really the kind of agreement my colleague would like to see?

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

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle had the opportunity of a lifetime to introduce a private member's bill in the House of Commons. She could have helped the forestry industry or other businesses, but she chose to introduce a bill to change the name of her riding. With all due respect to my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle, I will take no lessons from her, because she did nothing when she had that rare opportunity. I myself have not yet had such an opportunity, in other words, the chance to do something for an industry, for the workers and the people of my riding.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. The current government is not doing much to support the forestry sector. Even worse is that no government has ever done much to help the forestry sector. Under the last agreement that was negotiated by the federal government, $1 billion was left on the table.

To me, the future does not look bright, because if there were to be a Conservative government, I am not sure anyone in it would be interested in the forestry industry. Never in my life have I seen a single member of the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party show up at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and try to advance the issue of wood. I have never seen them there. I have never heard them there. I live in a forestry region. I have never seen them take part in any activity about caribou, tariffs or the forestry sector's urgent request for support. If the past is any indication, I fear that the same thing will happen under a Conservative government. I hope that my colleague can reassure me on this.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to point out to my colleague that the member for Carleton was the first to rise in the House to speak out against the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's desire to create a whole saga around woodland caribou. We expected the leader of the Bloc Québécois to ask a question about that, but he did not.

There is something else that I would like to add. My Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources have shown up and have been very clear and very vocal in defending the softwood lumber industry. We make a great team, and we are able to work together to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

As it states in their platform, the Bloc Québécois's number one interest is to achieve Quebec sovereignty. Its members are applauding what I just said. We can therefore be certain that they will do anything they can and take every opportunity to try to stir up trouble, while we are trying to find solutions for producers, those I spoke about in my speech. In Quebec, 50% of forestry producers are basically going bankrupt because this government is incapable of finding solutions to the softwood lumber crisis, which has been affecting them for far too long.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, it has been 42 years and 13 governments. It is getting weird in here. We have each side blaming the other side for who is responsible, but neither has negotiated a good deal. One is on litigation. The Conservative approach is based on tax the axe, adding taxes to softwood lumber manufacturers.

The mayor of Kapuskasing has called on us and asked if we could support an approach that leverages affordable, expedient and climate-resilient solutions to address this crisis, one that leverages the benefits of wood-based products and mass timber construction. I want to get back to solutions instead of pointing fingers.

Maybe my colleague can actually talk about solutions, because what we have been doing for 42 years is not working. Again, tonight's debate is getting weird. Finger pointing is not why we were sent here. We were sent here to get things done and find solutions to our problems.

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

Mr. Chair, with regard to the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which was approved by the NDP, I would point out that the recommendation is to entrust this to the Prime Minister, because he is the only one capable of speaking to the U.S. President to find a definitive solution to the softwood lumber crisis.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is not doing his job. What is more, this Prime Minister is supported by the coalition with the NDP, which includes my colleague. Perhaps my colleague should have included some fine print in this agreement to the effect that the softwood lumber issue needs to be resolved. If he had, we would not be where we are today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to remind folks to keep the comments and questions short, so everybody can participate. I really want to keep us on time.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion]

Mr. Chair, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, I am proud to participate in this vital take-note debate and to highlight our government's steadfast support of Canada's softwood lumber industry.

We are here tonight because the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States is a long-standing trade irritant in an otherwise fruitful bilateral trading relationship. Unfortunately, this latest round is hardly the first time that the U.S. lumber industry has sought undue protections from fair competition with Canada's leading-edge softwood lumber products. Even worse is the fact that some of our American allies continue to succumb to protectionist pressures by imposing unjustified duties on Canadian softwood lumber products.

The current round of the dispute is the fifth of its kind in the last 40 years. While we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the companies, workers, innovators and exporters who make Canada's lumber industry second to none, the fact that we have to yet again revisit this dispute speaks to the need for our continued engagement and advocacy on this file.

As members know, the unwarranted duties imposed by the United States on Canada's softwood lumber exports have caused harm to our industry and to the communities and workers that rely on it. The softwood lumber industry is a key component of our highly integrated forestry sector. It contributes to over 200,000 well-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians. The federal government recognizes the importance of the softwood lumber industry to communities across the country and to the Canadian economy more broadly.

That is why resolving the softwood lumber dispute has been a top priority of our government and will continue to be a priority until we see a resolution. The federal government has been relentless in its pursuit of legal challenges against U.S. duties. Canada has contested every U.S. decision imposing or maintaining unfair U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber.

The most recent example dates from just a few months ago, when the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development announced a legal challenge to a U.S. decision to maintain the duties on Canadian softwood lumber instead of revoking them. This decision implied that it would be harmful to the U.S. lumber industry if duties were removed from Canadian products. That is just plainly inaccurate and unfounded.

The truth is that the United States cannot produce enough lumber to meet its domestic demand, so it needs lumber imports. Fair competition from Canada should be treated fairly. To be clear, impartial international arbitrators have consistently found Canada to be a fair and reliable trading partner in previous rounds of the softwood lumber dispute. In the current round, we have already seen favourable decisions for Canada, which recognizes what we have said since the beginning, that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is not unfairly subsidized and does not dump its products in the U.S. market.

I will mention just two examples. In August 2020, a WTO panel ruled on Canada's challenge to U.S. countervailing duties. That panel ruled overwhelmingly in Canada's favour. In particular, it stated clearly that U.S. countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber are inconsistent with the United States' international obligations. More recently, in October 2023, a binational NAFTA chapter 19 panel reviewed the lawfulness of U.S. anti-dumping duties and issued a decision that was, overall, in Canada's favour.

Canada has 13 ongoing legal challenges against U.S. duties, and we firmly believe that, as these challenges proceed, we will see more and more of these legal rulings confirming our position that U.S. duties are not in compliance with WTO obligations or with U.S. law.

We expect additional developments in our legal cases this year and look forward to welcoming further recognition of Canada's fair trading practices. That said, our government recognizes that while these U.S. duties remain in place, they are having a negative impact on Canadians. That is why our government swiftly reacted to the imposition of U.S. trade measures in 2017 with the announcement of a comprehensive support package, the softwood lumber action plan. This package was designed to help mitigate the wide-ranging effects of the unjustified U.S. measures on our workers and communities in a manner consistent with Canada's international obligations.

In addition to our legal challenges to the U.S. duties, Canada is pressing the United States at every opportunity to find a mutually acceptable outcome to this dispute. The Prime Minister has stressed the importance of finding common ground to President Biden, including during President Biden's recent visit to Canada in March of last year.

Moreover, the minister of international trade routinely raises concerns over the continued imposition of U.S. duties on softwood lumber products with her U.S. counterpart, Ambassador Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative. In those conversations the government has consistently reiterated to Ambassador Tai that Canada is, as always, ready and willing to work constructively toward a durable outcome that provides stability and predictability to the sector. Sadly, the United States has yet to demonstrate that same willingness.

However, we are confident that a positive outcome for all parties can be reached. It is in the United States' own interest to engage collaboratively on this issue. Its own domestic lumber industry remains unable to satisfy growing U.S. demand, and that is where Canadian industry steps in with high-quality products. Many Americans recognize how beneficial it is to have such a reliable source of lumber to build new homes and complete renovation projects. U.S. home builders and certain U.S. lawmakers have called for prompt U.S. action and the removal of U.S. duties, because they are rightfully concerned over housing affordability.

At a time when affordability is a significant issue for many, it is very disappointing that the United States recently signalled its intention to increase these unfair duties later this year, but this only strengthens our resolve. Canada will continue to push back and defend the interests of our softwood lumber industry through all available avenues.

I would be remiss if I did not highlight our close collaboration with the provinces and territories as well as industry stakeholders, indigenous partners and other key players in our effort to defend Canada's interests. For example, our government works closely with stakeholders and partners to mount the best legal defence possible. We provide information and support to companies about navigating the complex U.S. trade remedy proceedings, and we regularly consult with stakeholders on their specific interests within the broader context of this dispute.

As the parliamentary secretary, I have the honour of working closely with the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development to deliver upon her ambitious mandate and stand up for Canadian businesses, exporters and hard-working Canadians.

Recently I have had the honour of visiting Kelowna, British Columbia, to visit with local businesses. I have travelled to Washington D.C., to help advocate for Canadian exporters, and to Nairobi, Kenya, to help enhance our trade ties with Africa. In all of these instances, as well as in my role on the Standing Committee on International Trade, I have been acutely aware of both how important the softwood lumber industry is to Canada's economy and how and why Canada must continue to be tireless in our advocacy for a fair, rules-based approach to international trade disputes.

I am convinced that the same approach is one we can and should take here tonight as part of this important debate. I know that everyone in the House stands united in their support of our softwood lumber industry. I am convinced that a true team Canada approach is the cornerstone to achieving a positive outcome for Canada in this dispute, and that is why we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders and partners, including members of the House from all parties, in all aspects of this unfortunate dispute.

The federal government's approach to this round of the softwood lumber dispute is comprehensive. We are taking concrete action through both legal avenues and through bilateral engagements to have these unfair U.S. duties revoked. Separately, we have also acted swiftly to mitigate the impacts of the U.S. trade measures on workers and communities.

While we continue to pursue a durable negotiated outcome, let there be no doubt that the Canadian softwood lumber industry and the communities and workers who rely on it know that we have their backs, and we will continue to have their backs.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have never seen a government try to polish failure like I have watched members of the Liberal government today in this debate try to polish their failure. It has been almost nine years of this dispute. The last time there was a dispute it was resolved by Prime Minister Harper in 76 days. We are now at nine years. There have been 183 bankruptcies in the forestry industry and tens of thousands of jobs lost, and the Liberals keep saying that what they are doing is going to show success. It has been nine years. It is not working.

The softwood lumber industry actually had an idea. It wanted former ambassador David MacNaughton to be a special envoy to resolve the dispute. The minister refused to answer questions at committee about why the government would not do this, so all we are hearing is the same old same old, that the wheels are in motion and that the cheque is in the mail.

What are the Liberals going to do differently? Canadians in the softwood lumber industry cannot wait another 18 months or nine years. They have lost too much already. What are they going to do differently, specifically, other than have the minister send a letter expressing her disappointment?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member opposite for that very important question.

We have heard time and time again today the Conservatives highlighting the supposed deal that former prime minister Stephen Harper signed. It is easy to sign a deal when one is going to fold and capitulate on an industry. That is what the Conservatives urged us to do during the CUSMA negotiations, and that is what they are asking us to do now.

We are hearing about this 2006 softwood lumber deal. Do members know what that deal did? It required Canadian firms and exporters to pay heightened export taxes, ranging from 5% to 15%. Quite simply, the Conservatives shifted the burden to our softwood exporters and producers. That agreement remained in effect for seven years, and our softwood lumber industry had to carry that burden for seven years, which hurt exporters and producers in this country.

Under that deal reached by the Harper Conservatives, Canada also had to forfeit $1 billion of disputed funds, which was then redistributed to American lobbyists and industry groups. Why will Conservative members not highlight that? They do not want to highlight the export tax that came about with this deal. However, I am happy to share that we will continue working with the lumber industry and not capitulate like the Conservatives did.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I come from a forestry region where a number of towns were severely affected by the softwood lumber crisis of the 2000s.

After I was elected, I had the opportunity to accompany the Minister on a mission to Washington precisely concerning U.S. surtaxes. I thought this would be a great opportunity to talk about softwood lumber. Strategic critical minerals and electric vehicles were the main topics of discussion, but I felt it was important to raise the matter with the Americans. The response was surprising. They were told that their surtax would simply mean that fewer houses would be built under plans like the Build Back Better Act. Even with all that money, if lumber was more expensive, they were going to build fewer houses. It would be a lose-lose situation for them and for us. There was some openness. Two years later, however, here we are having to bring this debate before the House of Commons for discussion.

One of the very simple issues that I would like my colleague to commit to defending in his capacity as parliamentary secretary is the review of the infamous benchmarks that put Quebec at a disadvantage. Quebec has a forestry regime that takes into account the North American Free Trade Agreement, is respectful and should not have a surtax. If British Columbia wants to make its own choices, that is its prerogative. However, Quebec is suffering the consequences. Will my colleague undertake to raise this issue with the Americans so that we can stop putting this Quebec sector at a disadvantage, specifically an industry that is very underfunded compared to western oil?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I hope to answer the member in French one day. I am working on my French.

The member opposite mentioned advocacy efforts. We take every opportunity and the Prime Minister takes every opportunity. Last year when President Biden visited Canada in March, the Prime Minister raised it with President Biden. At every opportunity, the trade minister brings this up, as do many ministers in cabinet. It is very important that we continue to raise these advocacy efforts.

The member opposite mentioned support, what we are doing and what more we can do. I want to highlight that budget 2023 provided an additional almost $370 million over three years to renew and update the forestry sector supports, and this includes support for research and development, and indigenous and international leadership. We have also invested over $130 million in the sector to accelerate the adoption of transformative technologies and products through the investments in forest industry transformation program as well as over $12 million to provide economic opportunities for indigenous communities in the forestry sector through the indigenous forestry initiative.

Whether one is in B.C., Alberta, Quebec or any other province, we will continue to be there with the lumber industry, because we know that it supports over 200,000 jobs and it supports innovation in our sector.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, in British Columbia, we know that we have fibre supply issues that are impacting our mills. What did the B.C. NDP Premier David Eby do? He created a new minister of state for fibre supply. Andrew Mercier got the appointment, and it is an entirely new portfolio, the first time in the history of British Columbia. He already delivered a report, on March 31, to start implementing action to help deal with that.

We talked about the full-court press in here earlier and the need for it. However, I am not dismissing or disputing that my colleague and friend across the way is not working hard. He is the parliamentary secretary for export promotion, international trade and economic development, which is a lot to carry. Is this government going to take this issue seriously, like British Columbia did, and actually create a minister responsible to deal with the softwood lumber dispute or a parliamentary secretary dedicated just to this issue, someone on point and not dealing with anything else, just like the Province of British Columbia did. We are in a crisis, and we need to have someone completely and solely dedicated to this.

Is the member going back to the Prime Minister and saying that this portfolio is wide and that they need to hone it down and put someone just on this to work with members of Parliament across the aisle, like me and other MPs who are here tonight, so that we can do a full-court press in the United States and work with state governments and the federal government in the U.S.?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is a very important and very valid question. Recently, we launched our team Canada-U.S. engagement strategy, where we are doing just that. We are leading team Canada's efforts to engage with our counterparts in the U.S., whether through industry groups or on the government side. We want to make sure that we involve everyone in the House because it is a team Canada approach. We represent Canadians, at the end of the day.

Speaking about B.C. and innovation, people are really doing game-changing things out in B.C., and we are seeing that on the economic development side when the minister takes trade missions to the Indo-Pacific region. Recently, in Japan, she was joined by Bruce St. John, president of Canada Wood, Kamal Sanghera of San industries and Rob Gough of Mosaic Forest Management to talk about some of their innovative Canadian products. While we want to make sure we continue to advocate for results on the softwood lumber dispute, we also want to make sure that we are opening new markets. We now have over a dozen free trade agreements. That opens up 51 different countries with 1.5 billion consumers for our lumber and our innovative products from here in Canada. The minister will continue doing that, working alongside all of our colleagues in the House.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, we have always believed that the best deals are reached at the bargaining table. Our government is prepared to negotiate in good faith with our American counterparts, but we are not willing to accept just any deal at any cost. When our government was renegotiating CUSMA with the Trump administration, former prime minister Stephen Harper urged the Canadian government to fold and capitulate.

Can the hon. parliamentary secretary share with the House what is being done when it comes to resolving the softwood lumber dispute and supporting our lumber industry?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from B.C. for his tireless advocacy on this very important topic and for his constituents.

Of course, we will continue to advocate on behalf of Canadian exporters and producers, but really when we come back to this agreement that the Conservatives keep highlighting from the Harper era, lumber producers are still feeling the impacts of that. Absolutely, we will take no lessons in terms of signing an agreement like that where we just fold and capitulate on the entire industry. They asked us to do that when we renegotiated the CUSMA. The Conservatives have consistently voted against measures to support the industry, and we are still feeling the impacts of the deal they desperately signed in 2006. For seven years, that burdened lumber producers across Canada. It really hurt employees and it hurt the innovation in the sector.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time.

There is a critical issue that has been plaguing Canada's economic landscape for decades: The softwood lumber dispute with the United States. This long-standing conflict has added strain on the livelihoods of countless Canadians who depend on the forestry industry. Softwood lumber, a vital component of Canada's forest sector, especially in Kootenay—Columbia, has been subjected to punitive tariffs by the United States under the pretext of unfair subsidies provided by Canadian governments to their lumber producers. The lasting resolution remains elusive due to the inability of the Liberals to close, leaving Canadian lumber producers, both large and small, in a constant state of uncertainty and vulnerability. These duties have devastating impacts on the small lumber producers, and the effects are felt right down to the employee loading wood on a belt, and if one has ever worked in a sawmill, it would be known as the “green chain”.

The forestry sector is 10% of the workforce in Kootenay—Columbia. The only industry larger is steel coal. Despite promising to prioritize the softwood lumber dispute and to work toward a fair and equitable solution, the government's actions have fallen short of expectations. Time and time again we have witnessed a lack of strategic foresight and proactive engagement from the current government, leading to prolonged periods of uncertainty and frustration.

Softwood lumber was not mentioned in the 2019 budget and, in 2021, I specifically asked the minister to take a stance to protect Canadian workers and the forestry industry. Here we are three years later with no action. The lack of action directly relates to the capital investments in mills when no agreements are in place. Just the other day, I was in Salmo, talking with the owner of a cedar mill. He is ready to invest $10 million into modernization, but with no solid agreement in place and access to fibre, it is difficult. It is not only Porcupine, but also ATCO, Huscroft, Kalesnikoff, McDonalds and Galloway. Those are generational mills that contribute significantly to our communities and that know how to sustain the environment for future generations.

Instead of leveraging diplomatic channels and trade negotiations to secure a favourable outcome for Canadian lumber producers, the Liberal government is stuck in a cycle of inaction. Its failure to effectively address the underlying grievances of the United States, coupled with a lack of decisive action on the home front, has only made the situation worse, leaving our forestry industry at the mercy of arbitrary tariffs and of protectionist measures. The absence of any sort of plan to the softwood lumber issue has undermined Canada's credibility on the international stage and has shaken the confidence in our ability to safeguard the interests of our citizens. In the face of mounting economic pressures and global uncertainties, there is a need right now for strong and principled leadership, and that has never been more apparent.

Canadian manufacturers are currently facing the longest period without a negotiated settlement in the U.S. softwood lumber dispute, resulting in the accumulation of nearly $10 billion in countervailing duties and duty fees. This ongoing issue has significantly impacted the industry, creating challenges and skepticism in the process. After speaking with the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, we found that value-added producers are facing another unique challenge when it comes to the softwood lumber dispute. They pay duties based on a higher sale price. As a result, it costs them more money to manufacture. When a raw material leaves Canada and goes to the U.S., we lose that. We used to have, in 2006, under a Conservative government, a $500 per thousand board feet maximum duty. That was it. Now, we do not have that, so these high-end products are more expensive.

What is the Liberal plan moving forward? It is imperative that the government takes immediate action to resolve the softwood lumber dispute by engaging with our American counterparts. The softwood lumber issue represents a glaring failure of leadership on the part of the Liberal government. It is time for the government to step up to the plate, to demonstrate true commitment to the interests of the hard-working folks in the forest industry and to finally put an end to this dispute.

How long will Canadians have to wait for the government to deliver on its promises?

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

Mr. Chair, for many years, as a parliamentarian, one frustration has been the issue of softwood lumber. It is an issue that comes up far too often, but to say that it is the fault of the Government of Canada verus, let us say, the previous government and former prime minister, does a disservice to how the U.S. lumber barons control the market in the United States to the degree that it has been devastating for many companies here in Canada.

I would like to suggest to the member that we need to be talking about ways in which we can continue to walk with our producers and others, industry stakeholders, to protect Canadian interests from those large lumber barons in the United States. Could the member provide his thoughts on those barons?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chair, right now, it is demonstrating that eight years has been a long time. It has been over eight years. For the last four years, I have been pushing for the minister to start looking at resolving it, with nothing. It is time now to show leadership.

When we were talking earlier about solutions, we need strong leadership so that we can actually start making some headway. Right now, we are not going anywhere. It is good to have this debate because I have so many sawmills in my area. I just named the smaller ones. I have big ones as well, which are suffering the same fate of losing staff. It is time to get somewhere. We have not moved forward in eight years. It is time to move forward.

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

Mr. Chair, it is nice to have so many British Columbia MPs here tonight, standing up for our forests and for the industry. I am wondering if he would agree that while the U.S. is imposing these unfair duties, it would be a good time to ask the federal Minister of Trade to stop approving any permits for the export of sawlogs when our mills still need logs to process locally.