Debates of April 8th, 2024

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Chair, I live in the Kootenays, and one of the border crossings is Kingsgate. I see raw logs heading south, because that is the border. I have some sawmills that do laminated processes. They are trying to use all the wood, and they cannot compete with the price in the U.S. because the raw logs are going. That is where we are losing jobs.

That is one half. The other half, of course, is the fibre that we cannot get. Raw logs heading south just takes jobs away from Canadians.

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

Mr. Chair, one thing we have not talked a lot about tonight is rail service. We need to ensure that a rail service in and out of mills from coast to coast is dealt with. It is a huge deal, actually. We often find ourselves at the whim of our shippers, whether it is CN or CP, and we have no other options to get our product to market.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to develop a strategy to improve rail service for rural and remote communities in the sector, so that we can actually get our products to market efficiently and affordably?

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

Mr. Chair, I totally agree. It is very challenging through the Rocky Mountains, through all our mountain passes, for rail. That is so much different from Europe, for example. We do need to be able to open the door to be more effective and efficient in our cross-border trade with the United States as well.

I have one sawmill that has its own train, which can go down into the U.S. right through Deer Trail. We do have one of those, but for the rest, we have one line. We only have CP in the southern part of the province, so to actually improve how we deliver the product will also keep the cost of our product down, which makes us the most competitive internationally.

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

Mr. Chair, I know my colleague comes from a region where softwood lumber is an important issue.

Does he agree with me that the renegotiation of NAFTA, which became CUSMA, represents a major missed opportunity and that, when it comes time to renegotiate in 2025, we must not miss out on such an important opportunity?

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

Mr. Chair, absolutely. That should have been dealt with on the day we did CUSMA, and we did not do it. We are back to where we will have to do it now, and hopefully, we will get this done in the next short period. Otherwise, we will lose a lot more jobs in the upcoming years.

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

Mr. Chair, the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States has been going on for decades, generating significant trade tensions. If the temporary direction of the U.S. government holds, the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it imposes on Canadian wood would go from 8.05% to 13.86%, which would cause considerable harm.

Of all the forestry companies in Quebec, nearly 250 are from first nations communities. These experienced entrepreneurs know the forestry well. We underestimate the concerns of these entrepreneurs during the forestry industry crises, which bring their own set of uncertainties. Think of how hard it is for the communities to get funding when their businesses are shaken by these crises. These problems are exacerbated. Think of the programs that are not adapted to the reality of first nations and to which these businesses are often ineligible because they are not incorporated under law, because they cannot be. When the forestry industry goes through a crisis, the most isolated first nations communities are the ones that are affected and impoverished.

Indigenous communities' involvement in the forestry industry is both economically and ecologically beneficial as a result of their deep ancestral connection to forest lands, which encourages sustainable and responsible practices. The companies help create local jobs, train qualified workers and diversify the economic opportunities available in remote or economically fragile regions. Over 80% of indigenous forestry companies are very small businesses, but they are are also essential to our communities' economies. Only 20% of indigenous companies have the ability to offer greater employment opportunities in indigenous communities.

On another note, I want to reiterate that the Quebec forestry regime meets the requirements of international trade agreements and respects the principles of free trade. This is a very frustrating situation. The problem is not Quebec. The allegations that our companies practise dumping and benefit from backdoor subsidies are unfounded and completely unwarranted. The rulings of international courts have systematically rejected the Americans' arguments, but the United States continues to maintain these unfair, punitive tariffs. That jeopardizes our Quebec and indigenous companies and consequently, our jobs.

In light of this critical situation, the Bloc Québécois is proposing meaningful action and solutions to support our forestry industry and communities.

First, the federal government must implement a loan guarantee program sufficient to cover the amounts withheld by the United States through taxes. Second, it must officially recognize the Quebec forestry regime because it meets the free trade standards. The federal government must also amend the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement so that the litigation process is better regulated and leaves no room for unfair delay tactics. The government must also request a tax exemption for private lumber. These measures are essential to protect our jobs, our businesses and our resource regions from the United States' unfair trading practices.

It is time to take decisive, concerted action to defend our forestry industry and guarantee its prosperous future. In our regions, small towns like Nédélec have been hard hit by the softwood lumber crisis. They have suffered greatly as result of a government that invests billions of dollars in the oil industry while providing only tens of millions of dollars, mere peanuts, to Quebec's forestry industry. That has an impact on small towns in my region. Close to 26,000 jobs were lost in Quebec as a result of this dispute.

What is even more frustrating is that Quebec has developed its auction system, which means less investing. We are the victims. If ever there was an argument for how Quebec sovereignty would be an economic game-changer, particularly in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, it would be the fact that we could have our own free trade agreement with the United States, and we would not be penalized for British Columbia's decisions.

I should also say that I cannot wait for us to invest in processing so we can offer more than just planks, perhaps by driving a nail or two into them to create an item with some added value. We could eventually offset certain elements of the free trade agreement. Why not dream of creating a Quebec IKEA in La Sarre? Quebec's forestry industry can dream big.

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

Madam Chair, I have been listening to industry and hearing about the impacts of wildfires on the lumber industry. As we know, wildfires have destroyed thousands and thousands of acres of forest land. When we talk about supporting industry and innovation, the conversation should also be about climate change and how we can help mitigate its impacts on industries such as the lumber industry.

What more can we do in working with the industry, according to my colleague, to ensure that we are supporting and protecting our environment?

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

Madam Chair, I would especially like to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his question and his concern about the forest fires. This had a major impact on forestry entrepreneurs in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, northern Quebec, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the north shore. These forestry entrepreneurs had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment that they had placed in the woods and that was ravaged by the forest fires.

Unfortunately, the federal government has not stepped up to provide compensation. As a result, that wood must be harvested quickly. The government did not give these entrepreneurs any room to manoeuver, any cash or liquidity to recover their machinery and equipment, to recover the wood and revitalize the industries.

Some EI assistance was also needed. The weeks lost by the workers could not be made up at the end of the summer. These people did not receive adequate compensation through EI. These are solutions. The federal government will have to find major solutions when it comes to investing in climate change programs. In agriculture in particular, compensation will be absolutely crucial, because people are suffering on the ground.

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

Madam Chair, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue mentioned government loans and government security to reinvest in businesses and the forestry sector. The forestry workers I know are very proud of their work. The small mill owners, the loggers and the road builders, I think, would far rather develop things on their own. However, they are not able to because of the billions of dollars, $8 billion to $10 billion, being held by the U.S. in these countervailing duties.

Would he agree that it would be far better if those companies could get those countervailing duty payments made to them, so they would not be reliant on government loans and security?

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

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for his thoughts for the workers and the business owners.

In this case, we are talking about a dispute that is political. Who is being political? It is the federal government, who should be there to defend us. If it does not, then it should pay the bill. It is not for the business owners to do that. It is not for the workers to pay with their jobs for the political risk that the government took because it did not want to go into battle with the Americans. It is not for the business owners and the workers to pay the cost of the Canadian government choosing to invest in the oil industry instead of the forestry industry, which is renewable. At some point, it will have to take action and give priority to sustainable, truly sustainable development.

If there is a political cost to pay, the workers should not have to cover that cost. If there is an economic cost to pay, it is simple. The money needs to be put in a fund and the workers on the ground need to be compensated. Obviously we are going to win against the Americans because we always win when we know that what they are doing is illegal. When the legal battle is won, the government will be reimbursed. Its pockets deep enough to do that.

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

Madam Chair, one thing I really want to thank my colleague for is talking about the importance of indigenous-led forestry companies and the role they play.

There is a new forestry company that just launched last week called Iskum, which is basically a consortium of over 20 first nations in coastal British Columbia. It is led by Chief John Jack of the Huu-ay-aht Nation and the former elected chief, Robert Dennis.

We know the forest industry currently employs about 10,000 indigenous individuals, both directly and indirectly. It is crucial to provide more support for economic opportunities in indigenous and rural communities, fostering the development of the forest bioeconomy and encouraging diverse partnerships and collaborations.

The indigenous natural resource partnerships program led by Natural Resources Canada needs to be expanded. If this is done, it could play a crucial role in supporting projects related to forest management, workplace training and the production of conventional forest products. Especially, investing in the forest bioeconomy will establish community-based employment and businesses promoting diversification and scalability.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to invest in renewing and expanding the Natural Resources Canada program as a broader strategy for the sector?

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

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his comment. It is indeed very important for me to talk about the indigenous file. Enabling indigenous communities to have better alternatives is part of reconciliation, so yes, that involves reviewing programs to invest in communities for and by indigenous people who will develop the forest in a very sustainable way. Just look at the forestry companies in Kebaowek, a very inspiring example in my riding.

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

Madam Chair, it is an honour to rise at this hour to speak in this important take-note debate.

I feel compelled to start with the sad news that was originally shared earlier tonight by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola about the Hon. John Fraser, former Speaker of the House, former member of Parliament and a valiant conservation champion. He served as minister of the environment in the government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He served as the minister of fisheries. He was a British Columbian, a Progressive Conservative and a very close friend, and he died a few days ago. There are flowers in the hallway outside under his portrait.

We are talking about British Columbia forests and softwood lumber disputes. Over many years, John was very involved in advocating for the protection of our forests. He played a key role, as I mentioned on the floor of this place not that long ago, with the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney with respect to the logging of the old-growth forests, the forests of what is now Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. He played a key role in that even as Speaker of the House.

I will briefly reflect that in Centre Block, in the Speaker's chambers, with a number of visiting conservationists and first nations, he proposed a toast to “the conspiracy to save the planet”. It was a non-partisan conspiracy, with Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats and members of the Bloc all working together. In his memory, I want to dedicate this reflection on the state of our forests and the ongoing softwood lumber disputes and to say how dearly he will be missed. He was 92 years old when he passed, but there is no stronger environmentalist in the history of this country than the Hon. John Fraser.

As these brief remarks and reflection might suggest, I have been following the softwood lumber dispute for some time and written much about it over the years, going back to what some Canadians will remember in the 1980s. It sounded like some kind of awful disease, that we had to deal with shakes and shingles, but it was not a joke. We have had relentless opposition from the U.S. to a fair shake for the Canadian forest industry. A very active participant in tonight's debate, my friend from Courtenay—Alberni, has reflected on the fact that it has been 42 years of being somehow unable to resolve what appears to be a long-running and bad soap opera. We have had moments of clarity and moments that fell apart.

I certainly think that the current Minister of Trade could be far more active in making it a top-priority issue when dealing with the United States, but I also think it is unfair to suggest that nothing has been done by the current government on trade disputes. I think it is quite remarkable that, again with the late Brian Mulroney's help, the current government was able to get to any trade agreement with the former U.S. administration and president. Let us hope to God we can continue to refer always to him as the former president, Donald Trump, who is, at his essence, protectionist and not really interested in liberalized trade, fair trading rules or even in the global trade regime, of which I also have many criticisms.

It is close to a miracle that we have CUSMA and that we were able to improve on the agreement by getting rid of chapter 11 and the investor-state dispute resolution processes, and to improve on the energy chapter. However, we were not able to improve on the perennial crisis of softwood lumber. We know that the deal we had did buy us quite a lot of time in 2006, but at a cost.

I should pause here again. In a take-note debate, there really is no such thing as a prize for best line of the night, so let this be a first. I wish I had a trophy, which I would not be able to use as it would be a prop, for the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni for “tax the axe”. It should go down in history.

Unfortunately, as my Bloc Québécois friends have already said, it is impossible to translate that into French, but it is a good joke.

For “tax the axe”, hats off to the member for Courtenay—Alberni. I wish I had thought of it, but I give credit where credit is due.

We did not really protect our forest industry in the deal that bought time in 2006, and since it expired in 2015, we have had nothing in place instead. We keep winning. Let us be clear that we win in the World Trade Organization, before NAFTA panels and against the efforts of the U.S. Department of Commerce in saying that our industry is somehow unfair to the U.S. industry. On those arguments, with a fact-based approach in response, we win in the courts; however, the U.S. Department of Commerce is a domestic and political organization.

Again, if I were giving a prize, it would be to the champion lobbyists. The U.S. Lumber Coalition is able to come back over and over again. Tonight, we have a take-note debate, and again I am backing up to give credit where credit is due, to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and to say thanks.

I thank him for his attempt to hold an emergency debate on softwood lumber on February 5.

There was an attempt made by the Bloc in early February to have an emergency debate. Back in February, the U.S. Department of Commerce said that the duties it had been applying at about 8.05% were going to go up to 13.86%. That was just what it was doing, and it did not need to have a reason.

It is often the case that I look at the United States of America and say that Barack Obama is not George Bush, and George Bush is not Donald Trump, but the United States of America is the United States of America; it just keeps doing what it does. It is not fair or right, and Canada should be able to do something more. It is not nothing to go back to another international tribunal, as our government is doing, to complain of the unfairness of the situation and that it is not right to keep hiking duties. However, I will focus on solutions, as we have heard quite a few tonight.

Let us look at the solution that was originally put forward in the Bloc request for an emergency debate. In the budget coming up on April 16, let us put some money forward so Canadian industries that are being unfairly impacted by this can receive some compensation from our government. We will eventually try to get it out of the U.S. some other way, to keep our industry afloat and keep it whole.

The amount of U.S. structural lumber going into the U.S. has been going up steadily. That is why it is raising the tariffs. Over the last couple of years and the explosion in demand for construction materials, we are getting more of the pie for Canada than we did, say, even five years or six years ago. This is why American manufacturers in the lumber group are upset about it and looking for more duties to hit us hard.

What else could we do? We could make sure that Canadian structural lumber is used more in Canada. We could stop raw log exports, because that requires a federal permit. We could make sure our mills in Canada are not lacking for fibre supply to keep our workers going on triple shifts seven days a week if they want to. Shipping out raw logs is wrong.

Recently, at COP28 in Dubai, essentially all the countries on earth embraced something I do not think has been spoken of in this House. It is called a “circular economy”. The rip and strip idea, which is exemplified by logging in places that need to be protected, and particularly old growth forests, is that we just rip and strip and get that out, ship it someplace else and not create the jobs here. If we are serious about raising Canadian productivity, we want a circular economy.

If we are serious, I know we could stop raw log exports and make sure we take better care of the ecological health of our forests while also protecting our workers. Lastly, we need to act on the climate crisis, because the biggest threat to our forests is not the U.S. Lumber Coalition; it is the climate crisis.

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

Madam Chair, today we heard about this wonderful deal that was signed during the Harper era. It really hurt the industry and hurt jobs across the sector for seven straight years. It imposed an export tax on producers, from 5% to 15%.

Does the member opposite think that is a fair approach? What does the member opposite think about what the Conservatives are doing in terms of protecting our environment and fighting climate change? We know we need to protect the forest industry, but we also need to protect our environment.

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

Madam Chair, whether the parliamentary secretary intended to or not, he did allow me to sneak in something I ran out of time to mention, which is that the forest industry quite neatly overlays rural and remote areas of Canada, and a lot of indigenous territories and indigenous communities.

Yes, we need to do a better job protecting our forests. The forest industry in Canada, despite their press, is not perfect. The government could do a better job on its environmental performance. We could sequester more carbon in our forests.

Again, what I think of the Conservatives' lack of policy on climate is a long speech of nothing, but I am afraid that if I told the Liberal member what I think of the Liberal climate policies, he would not be very pleased either, so I will end it there.

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

Madam Chair, I just have a quick question on forestry management, which, of course, in British Columbia is a significant question. I have been talking with the provincial party about forestry management, because it affects all of our forestry industry.

Would the member agree that perhaps a solution that has not been used, and should be, is all of the small, especially very small, generational sawmills, the four-, five- or six-generation sawmills? The people who work in those sawmills know forestry management better than anyone. They are there to make sure that their families can take over the business that has been going for years. They understand forestry management, yet they are not brought to the table.

Does the member think this is something that could be explored to help us with forestry management?

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

Madam Chair, there is no question that in this country we tend to have a default preference for people who describe themselves as professionals, as opposed to people who actually know what they are doing. I have always liked the quote, “Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.”

I do think we should bring to the table people who have intergenerational experience in managing their own lands, thinking of the seven generations and not thinking only of rip and strip.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that our forests are not adequately protected. Also, does she agree that the government needs to support the forestry sector and stop ignoring it? Does she also agree that the government needs to stand up for that sector when dealing with the Americans?

I would like to hear her thoughts.

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

Madam Chair, I thank my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

Absolutely, I think we need subsidies, with a preference for Canadian industry, at a time when the U.S. government wants to punish our industry. This is a good opportunity for the federal government to provide financial support to this sector.

At the same time, we must work with the United Nations and with indigenous peoples to better protect Canada's forests, the boreal forests. That is what we need to do to protect our forests in the future.

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

Madam Chair, I was just reading a quote from the release for Iskum Investments, the new consortium of indigenous companies on the coast of B.C. I was reading a quote from waamiiš Ken Watts. He is the elected chief councillor of Tseshaht Nation. He said:

As First Nations decision-makers and leaders, it is our responsibility to help find positive and productive solutions and be proactive in our efforts to solve the complex problems that society faces.

I want to thank my colleague because that is what she has done tonight.

In addition, Chief Watts said:

Through the shared values of our Consortium, it is our goal to demonstrate how business can work with First Nations and facilitate this change with new ways of thinking. Our Nations have made a commitment to bring our paddles into the same canoe, together paddling as one as we move forward to exploratory opportunities.

What I would really like us to learn from Chief Watts, from the waamiiš, is how to do that here, get ourselves in the same canoe and start paddling in the same direction, because 42 years of going back and forth like this is not working. It is failing everybody.

The government could expand the Natural Resources Canada program, which really helped indigenous communities. However, maybe my colleague could speak about the importance of indigenous ownership when it comes to forestry companies in Canada and the importance of indigenous knowledge.

I want to thank my colleague for her speech and for trying to force that debate to open up tonight, talking about solutions to deal with these problems that are facing us right now.

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

Madam Chair, the issue of forestry in the Canada-U.S. debate is structural. Let us recognize that most of our forest products are produced from land that is called Crown land, and in the U.S. it is from private land. The stumpage fees we charge are viewed by the U.S. as an unfair subsidy.

Let us strip all of that away. It is indigenous land. If it is called private land, who was it stolen from? If it is called Crown land, where did we take it from? What if we focused our efforts around forests on justice and reconciliation, on land back and economic value, while thinking about the seven generations around projects like the one that my friend, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, just mentioned and Chief Watts' impact there.

We also need to re-examine our Constitution. It is widely assumed that because in 1867 someone wrote down that provinces are in charge of forestry, the federal government should have very little to do with it. Let us back up and say that in 1867 we were not talking about climate change or indigenous rights. Yes, in terms of annual allowable cuts and logging allowances, forests are clearly provincial. However, the federal government has a much bigger role here for biodiversity protection, for reconciliation and for climate action.

Let us take off our 1867 blinkers and figure out how we get everybody into the same canoe.

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

Madam Chair, I heard my colleague make a very interesting pun. I am not sure if it was intentional or not.

First, some context. We have a proven and documented environmental measure that works, which is the carbon tax. We often hear MPs say “axe the tax”. He switched that up a bit. In this debate, what we should be saying is “stop taxing the axe”. We need to stop taxing the axe, because that axe is carried by our forestry workers, by the people who work in the forestry industry, and that is important.

The government's priority should be to stop taxing the axe, to promote jobs in our regions, to allow investment in our regions, should it not? There needs to be a meaningful environmental commitment. Investing in the forestry industry is also investing in the planet and sustainable development.

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

Madam Chair, I have very little to add because I absolutely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague.

I think it is important to point out that the debates we have here about carbon pricing are almost futile compared to the critical issue of the climate change threat. At the moment, we know that there is no greater threat, except perhaps that of nuclear war.

We need to do more. We need to have debates based on science, evidence and the reality of our current situation, which is so serious for our children and grandchildren.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Chair, I am pleased to be here this evening to talk about softwood lumber. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac. I have had some good discussions with him on the issue of natural resources.

Speaking of natural resources, I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois forestry caucus, including my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the international trade critic, and my colleague from Jonquière, the natural resources critic. I am also thinking of the members from Abitibi, Trois-Rivières, the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and Lac-Saint-Jean, because there certainly is quite a bit of forest in Quebec.

Quebec accounts for 20% of softwood lumber production. This industry supports entire communities. It is the backbone of the economy. I commend my colleagues. I also commend the Quebeckers who are keeping that economy, these communities, these workers, these unions and these businesses going.

I am beginning my ninth year as an MP. I was elected in 2015, a year that could have given us hope. In 2013, Quebeckers had adopted a new forestry system, one that we had worked on for several years. At the same time, an outdated agreement that had been signed by the Conservative government of the day expired. We were expecting something to be done about that.

However, it has been nine years, and I have to say that nothing has been done yet. We are still at the same point, despite the opportunities we have had. I think that every one of my colleagues talked about it in the House this evening. There were many opportunities, including NAFTA and CUSMA, but none of them were taken.

Being here tonight with my colleagues, I feel as though I should say that this is what the Bloc Québécois is all about. We are the only ones bringing this debate to the House. We almost never hear about forests. We do not hear about softwood lumber or countervailing or anti-dumping duties. They come up at times, such as every time the United States says it is going to impose these duties, then a minister stands up and says that the government is not going to let it happen this time, that Canada is not going to take it. Six months later, when the duties are imposed, the minister says the same thing, that the government will not let it happen and that it does not make any sense at all.

However, since 2015, unless I missed something, nothing has changed, but I am open to being corrected. Sometimes, I have seen strokes of genius. We figured that we were truly dependent on the United States and that the Canadian market depended on the United States, and we wondered what would happen. There was talk of diversifying the Quebec market and turning to Asia. There were programs like that and I specifically remember a minister who offered that. However, to us, that changes absolutely nothing.

The Bloc Québécois has asked for several measures, including loan guarantees. However, I talk to my industries. I am thinking of Mr. St‑Gelais from Boisaco, who I talk to quite frequently. What we are asking is for the forestry regime to be recognized.

How is it that, on the other side of the border, no one says a word on this issue? I was listening to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot earlier. He said that every time he goes to the U.S., he meets with congressional representatives and several people from the industry, including members of the National Association of Home Builders. He meets with them. The members of the National Association of Home Builders raise the issue, but the Canadian delegation members do not.

I am somewhat concerned that the same thing happened during the NAFTA renegotiations. I fear that softwood lumber was used as a bargaining chip. The government may have defended the auto sector and Ontario, but it could not be bothered to defend Quebec. New Brunswick does not have much to say regarding countervailing and anti-dumping duties. The same goes for British Columbia. Only Quebec seems to find this really difficult, but the government is saying too bad, that it is going to protect the auto sector instead.

Understandably, a debate like tonight's brings the softwood lumber issue to the fore once again. I would like the official opposition and the government to step up and say that they are going to do something. As my colleague from British Columbia said, for the past 42 years, which is nearly my age, nothing has changed and our businesses are still paying the price because they cannot invest, modernize or expand. Quebec is the one paying the price, because of both the official opposition and the government.

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

Madam Chair, supporting the softwood lumber industry through innovation and diversifying trade is one of our key priorities, but it is also to stand up for lumber industries and the workers in the industry. Therefore, we are advocating and will continue to advocate. The Prime Minister has raised this on many occasions. The Minister of International Trade has raised this on many occasions. We will continue to make sure that we fight for our lumber industry, because we know it supports over 200,000 jobs across Canada, whether in Quebec, B.C., Alberta or the other provinces.

In terms of innovation in the lumber industry, what more does the member opposite think can be done to ensure that our state-of-the-art products, which people around the world are paying premium dollar for, get out to markets around the world?