Debates of April 8th, 2024

Softwood Lumber

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

Madam Chair, I want to begin by saying that my colleague is probably right about that.

On various missions to the U.S., including missions I went on with colleagues from other parties in the House, missions with the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group and in the meetings we held, whether with senators or U.S. representatives, I was pretty much the only one who raised this issue, which says a lot. It is worth mentioning.

Allow me to repeat some of the examples I gave earlier. Softwood lumber was not on the agenda at the WTO in Abu Dhabi last month. In 2021, when the increase in countervailing duties was announced, the government was busy panicking over the electric vehicle issue and did nothing at all about softwood lumber. The House adjourned, and the words “softwood lumber” were nowhere to be seen in the paragraph devoted to American protectionism. A few weeks after the announcement of new countervailing duties, and the words “softwood lumber” do not even appear in the paragraph about American protectionism in the mandate letters. I do not know what happened there.

Obviously, there is work to be done to raise awareness among the American citizens. The National Association of Home Builders in the United States is doing a remarkable job, but we need to pull out all the stops.

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

Madam Chair, it is an honour and privilege tonight to join this debate. This is a debate that is long overdue.

We need new ideas around the softwood lumber dispute and we need a different approach. Canada and the United States have been fighting over this softwood lumber issue for over 42 years, and it is time to stop the partisan politics. We need to work collectively in this place, come up with new ideas and take a team Canada approach, a united approach.

I live in a community that has been hit hard by this dispute, and believe me when I say that many of the people, the mills and the businesses in our community will not be here for another 42 years if this dispute carries on.

It is time to change our approach. Forty-two years might be a long career for someone working in our mills or in the forests, for people who are working hard, but I can tell members that they cannot wait another 42 years, and our communities will not make it.

Mill workers, timber workers, lumber workers and forestry workers and those who are out felling in our forests are the backbone of the community where I live. We know that the fallers get up before dawn. They are ready to face some of Canada's most rugged and dangerous terrain. April 28 is a day of mourning, a day when we recognize those who are lost at work, and many of those people are foresters and mill workers. They do some of the most dangerous jobs in our country, and their work is crucial for Port Alberni, for the Alberni valley, for Vancouver Island and for the Canadian economy from coast to coast.

It is time to spend way more time ensuring that we tie this issue into the need for people to have a place to live. We have an opportunity to use softwood lumber to build homes. I think about some of the mills in my riding, like San Group, where they mill western red cedar, yellow cedar, Douglas fir, hemlock and spruce. We use softwood lumber for the roof over our heads, and we need to capitalize on that, given that we have a housing crisis.

Timing is also critical, because we have wildfires and a changing climate, which obviously threaten those mills and our lumber industry, and loggers and mill workers need economic security now more than ever before.

I will cite that the United States, in moving forward, is looking at raising duties and causing even more harm. The bigger problem is that it is not only harming Canadians but is actually harming its own citizens and people around the world. It is driving up inflation. We have an inflation crisis, which we know is global because of global supply chains, but this is an absolutely unnecessary cost and impediment to people in the United States south of the border. We need to do a better job of educating Americans about the impact that those lobbyists are having on their own people.

Again, after 42 years, 13 Liberal and Conservative governments, eight prime ministers, three temporary agreements, two prime ministers with a last name that starts with T, which I am not allowed to say here, we are still dealing with the same trade dispute. For decades, the Liberals and Conservatives have bickered back and forth about who has achieved the best deal, but we know it is who has achieved the best of a bad deal, which is really what it has come down to.

I appreciate that the Liberals have been in court fighting the harmful duties set up by the United States, but it is important to uphold the rules that form the foundation of our international agreements. This needs to be fixed. This cannot keep going.

Every time Canada wins in court, we see that we have proved that the actions of the United States are not only harmful but in fact illegal. The American government just shrugs it off, despite the fact that this is illegal. Then there are more tariffs, more jobs lost in communities and cities like Port Alberni and on the west coast and across Canada. They are gone for good, and they are hard to get back. The San Group opened the first mill in 15 years on the coast of British Columbia just in the last few years. Now it is being hit with this.

We know that conservatives would like to cost our lumber industry more than it can afford by bringing in these tariffs. They call it “certainty”, but it costs our lumber industry and those producers more, and they are at an unfair playing advantage.

I was sitting with Ken McRae, four-time mayor, just the other day. He was the negotiator for the Canadian Paperworkers Union for over a decade and also ran the labour council in Port Alberni for five years. He told me that back in 1995, he wrote a letter to Jean Chrétien, who was prime minister at the time, asking him to make this a top priority. I have not seen that priority as part of the Canada-U.S. agreement.

As my friend from the Bloc said, he has gone on these trips across the border and I have gone to PNWER repeatedly to talk about the impact of the softwood lumber agreement on our relationship, but we have not seen the Canadian government get organized and create a strategy of going across the border. I hope that comes out of tonight's debate.

In 1986 and 2006, the agreements the Conservatives established created export taxes on our softwood lumber in an attempt to appease the United States. Following the 2006 agreement, our lumber exports ended up being taxed by both Canada and the United States. We could say that the Conservatives taxed the axe. That is language they will understand.

For mill workers in Port Alberni, the Liberal court battle does not mean much. Mills are being overcharged for wood; some are closing their doors for good, and many mill workers will not see a dime of the money that the Liberals win in court. Another Conservative tax, though, would make sure those businesses would never recover. Either way, most mill workers cannot afford to wait another 42 years for real change.

It is time to fix it. It is time for the government to look at new possibilities instead of just trying the same thing over and over. It is time that we support our lumber industry in supporting itself. We have already taken a step in the right direction. Catalyst Paper, for example, in my riding, retooled its mill so it could make food-grade paper. When people go to Costco and buy a hot dog, that is where the paper is made. It is adding eight times the value per tonne of fibre.

We brought forward a biomass expansion to the clean technology investment tax credit, working with the Minister of Natural Resources, and my riding led the charge, working with Catalyst Paper in my community. It is projected to save mills in British Columbia up to $10 million per year. This was in the last economic statement in the fall. We are hoping legislation comes forward quickly to enact that tax credit, because this money would go back into communities, giving workers in the industry some breathing room and a little more security, but it is just a start.

After 42 years, we need to take another look at our dependence on raw softwood lumber. For 42 years, we have been propping up the same failing issue in how we manage with loans and programs, which only lead to more tariffs. Now we need to support our lumber industry in a transition toward more lucrative, environmentally friendly and future-forward enterprises. Port Alberni has seen prospective investors hoping to bring money into the community to create mass timber plants. Through targeted federal funding, we can support them and other lumber towns that rely on softwood lumber, creating new jobs in a growth industry that uses all the same resources that those communities already have.

Mass timber can benefit Canada in more than just the health of the lumber industry. My NDP colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay brought that forward. It could provide a new material that is more carbon-friendly than metal or cement, and we could use it to build infrastructure, skyscrapers and the housing that our nation desperately needs, a point that I raised earlier.

We also need to further support the growth in our domestic market by encouraging Canadian companies to use wood in place of less sustainable materials in manufacturing. New developments in wood alternatives to plastic could open up new industries to our supply of softwood lumber. We could reduce waste by helping the environment and generating Canadian wealth, as I talked about earlier with that tax credit. After 42 years, we could finally try to do something different. We can strengthen mass timber and other Canadian wood product manufacturing and we can improve domestic demand and ensure that softwood moves away from logging companies to Canadian mills and manufacturers. Funding for mass timber and wood manufacturing would create new jobs in regions where logging and mills have historically been a major industry.

Families in Port Alberni that have worked in lumber for generations can remain in their communities and harvest timber or create new, higher-value products, which then can be exported to the United States or other trading partners. We need to look at those other trading partners.

Those manufactured wood products, by the way, would be unaffected by the raw log tariffs. It is time that we stop repeating the failures of the last 42 years and start looking at what we can do to strengthen the timber industry for the next 42 years.

I know it is past my time, but it is certainly time to start something new.

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

Madam Chair, the forestry industry is significant, especially in Kootenay—Columbia. There are a lot of family-owned saw mills, some owned for five generations.

Another problem in British Columbia is access to fibre. I am wondering whether my colleague could give some examples or ways he could see for our mills to get the wood, regardless of the fires. There is wood there, but we cannot seem to get access. Could the member explain what kind of ideas he has?

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

Madam Chair, that is a great question. I hope this debate leads to all of us working collectively. I appreciate the demeanour and tone my colleague brings.

This is something that has come up. Mosaic, which owns private lands on Vancouver Island, actually asked the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development for relief during COVID, for 18 months to three years, whereby it could bypass B.C. timber sales, basically the raw log export board federally. If it had been granted that permission, it would have creamed everything. San Group and mills would have been closed. We would have lost hundreds of workers, and they would have never come back. We fought tooth and nail, and we got the minister to back down on that request. Thank God, because the price of timber went through the roof. It would have demolished that area.

We have an opportunity right now to change the structure of how logs are sold internationally. We should not have raw log export. At a time like this when we have issues when it comes to fibre, we should be focused on all of that fibre being manufactured here in our country. We also need provinces to demand changes in how the federal government works on international trade. They need to work together on this issue. The model is not working. It is not working for the environment. It is not working for workers. It is certainly not working for the future of British Columbians and Canada.

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

Madam Chair, for my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, I have another question from Vancouver Island. I thank the member for the last round, as I was just going to ask where my hon. colleague thinks we should stand on the issue of raw log exports.

Obviously Canadians need a team Canada effort. Tonight's take-note debate lets us focus on the quite unfair and unexpected increase in duties from the U.S. Department of Commerce, but let us look at the reality: Why do we let a single raw log get exported out of B.C. when we could be putting it through a mill? I will connect this back to the issue of productivity. The more we export only products that are value-added, the more it improves Canada's productivity. A productivity crisis is enhanced when we export any resource product without value added, which is a crime against the environment and our workers.

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

Madam Chair, I know the member has raised many times in the House her concerns around raw log export. Especially when we look at the Alberni Valley, where I live, she knows full well there are still boats being loaded to the hilt with raw logs right now, when our local mills cannot even get access to supply. It is absolutely ridiculous.

As I said, Mosaic came forward with a request for relief, basically to bypass putting its timber up for bid to local mills. It would have put them completely out of business. It was actually our party and I that went to the wall to get the federal government to back down. That is not good enough. We actually need a restructuring and a new model of how we do B.C. timber sales and how the raw log export board works.

We need to make sure that on fibre that is put up for bid we do everything we can to ensure that the fibre goes to our local mills. That is certainly not a priority right now for the federal government. If the timber companies go after the wood, they get blocked by the big players, and they get penalized. That is exactly what happens. They get hammered. We are seeing businesses sidelined and put out of business. Right now the big conglomerates can block and knock them right out. That is not working for small producers and small mills. It needs to be completely revisited.

I am glad my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands asked her excellent question. The Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development needs to show leadership on this. It has been going on for decades and has not been resolved.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chair, I am not entirely familiar with the reality of the forestry sector in British Columbia. I am more familiar with the situation in Quebec, but there is one fundamental issue, and that is processing. We need to process more wood. Unfortunately, we do not have the support of the federal government.

One simple measure would be to use the carbon footprint of federal government buildings as a criterion for awarding contracts. Unfortunately, the government does not want to implement this simple measure, which would allow us to use more wood in federal buildings. I wonder if my colleague agrees with that.

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

Madam Chair, I know the Bloc worked with the NDP when it came to the bill that was brought forward by my good friend and colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, who lives in Penticton, on mass timber used by the federal government, in order to do exactly that. However, the federal government has not done it. When it comes even to things that pass in the House, it is moving so slowly on getting direction from the House. Despite the fact that there is a housing crisis and that it is buying materials to build buildings, the government is ignoring the House. We passed legislation directing the federal government on what it has to do.

On the retooling of our mills and making sure we add value to every single board foot that goes through, I think of San Group, which is using small logs and processing them. It is not using big logs, but is processing small logs and creating more value. We need to create more value.

We need to make sure we purchase and support wood and timber through federal procurement, and we need to stop raw log exports, especially at a time like this, when we are seeing the impacts of climate and we know we are going to have fibre supply issues down the road. We need to do this immediately. It is critical to job security, to our communities and to the longevity of our forest sector. It is actually smart. I cannot think of another first world country, if we want to call it that, or a developed nation, that is mismanaging its forest like this. It is absolutely unbelievable that we are shipping raw logs when our mills are starved for fibre. It absolutely does not make sense.

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

Madam Chair, the member is clearly very knowledgeable on the topic. On this side, we have always believed that the best deals are reached at the bargaining table. The government is prepared to negotiate in good faith with our American counterparts, but we are not willing to just accept any deal at any cost. When the government was renegotiating CUSMA with the Trump administration, former prime minister Harper urged the Canadian government to fold and capitulate. I wonder whether the member recalls that and can comment on it.

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

Madam Chair, 42 years at the negotiating table is a long time. If I were the government, I would not be patting myself on the back or blaming another political party. Certainly, we know the Conservatives' approach did not work. Like I said earlier, it is taxing the axe, because their motto was tax from both sides of the border, which they agreed to. It was a billion-dollar hit to the B.C. lumber industry and producers in British Columbia, and half a billion of that went to lobbyists. That is what Stephen Harper negotiated.

The Liberals dragged this out. There has not been a full-court press on the issue. Clearly they have not negotiated well, and we need a different approach. We need to keep as much of our fibre as we can in Canada. We need to supply our mills. We need to end raw log exports. We need to add value to our fibre. We need to retool our mills. We need to invest heavily into ensuring that we keep up with the international market and are supplying the needs of countries that do not have access to fibre, as well as with emerging markets, where there is huge opportunity. There is mass timber, which we talked about.

We have seen some great models in British Columbia of small players that cannot access fibre. This is ridiculous. The federal government allows international trade and export of our fibre, and our local mills cannot get access. This is just absolutely bonkers. I cannot think of any country in the first world that is managing its forest sector like this. It is unbelievable.

The opportunity is here. It is right now. I hope next week, in the budget, that the federal government is going to take a different approach and is going to look at mass timber, value-added product, retooling and putting more money on the table. Catalyst mill in my riding received the most federal money ever in the history of the riding to retool the mill so we can make food-grade paper and replace plastic paper. When one goes to Costco and gets a hot dog, the packaging is from my riding. Eight times the value per tonne is what we are getting now because of that retooling. Let us do more of that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

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

We come forward tonight talking about the softwood lumber issue. It has been an issue I have been very close to for most of my life. My first job out of high school was working at the local pulp mill in construction in Taylor, B.C. That is where I learned to work hard, building the mill that was going to cost $150 million but provide hundreds of jobs over generations using residual fibre, which normally would just be waste fibre, from the local mills. However, what we have seen from the current Liberal-NDP government, and the provincial NDP government particularly in my province, is inaction on the softwood file.

Let us put this into context a bit first, because I think folks out there wonder what softwood lumber means. For me, it means jobs. I have already said that I have worked in the softwood sector, working on one of the mills. My kids have all worked in it, whether it was for a logging company, working on trucks, or at an OSB mill. We are all very familiar with the forestry sector.

However, a CBC article on January 11, 2023, reported, “‘We expect about 300 jobs in Prince George will be lost across the Canfor Pulp organization with the shutdown of the pulp line at PG Pulp and Paper Mill. This includes staff and hourly positions,’ a spokesperson for the company said in an emailed statement.” The CBC, on January 25, 2023, reported, “In an email to CBC News, Canfor said its plants in Chetwynd employ 157 people, adding that ‘where possible, employees will be prioritized for hiring and redeployment to other Canfor locations.’” This was after it was announced that Canfor would shutter that particular mill, which was absolutely the backbone of Chetwynd. I recently talked to one of the former councillors in Chetwynd, and the parent has to go work in northern Alberta now, because there is no longer a mill for her dad to work at.

These were two different mills, both in my riding. Of Houston, B.C., which is slightly out of my riding, Canfor said, “it is too early in the project planning to fully understand how many of the 333 employees who work at that facility will be laid off.” Energetic City, in September 2022, reported about the mill that I worked at growing up, “In May, the company stated that the curtailment would most likely stay in place until the fall. At this time, Ward had confirmed that around 80 employees had been affected, saying the company ‘sincerely regrets its impact’” and that another 20 jobs would be lost.

This all comes around to the inaction on the softwood lumber file. I was criticizing the trade minister for her lack of action. I would ask her regularly, when she was meeting with our trading partner, Katherine Tai, on the U.S. side, whether she was actually negotiating the softwood lumber agreement. I would constantly get no answer back. We know in this place that when someone is not answering, it probably means it is not being discussed. On May 16, 2021, CTV reported from Washington:

Tai told U.S. senators that despite higher prices, the fundamental dispute remains and there have been no talks on a new lumber quota arrangement.

“In order to have an agreement and in order to have a negotiation, you need to have a partner. And thus far, the Canadians have not expressed interest in engaging,” Tai said.

This was in 2021. Now the government has come to the table, and it is finally talking about softwood lumber. That is great, but what happened about six years before? It did absolutely nothing about it, and that is why our mills were closing. This is the government's game: protecting 25% of lands and waters by 2025 and upping that to 30% by 2030. It is all part of the game to shut this stuff down with a bunch of other different excuses as the reason to do so. What we need is better forest management, and according to Jesse Zeman, “Forestry could play a critical role in mitigating the effects of wildfire by reducing fuel loads and thinning forests.”

It is about time we had a government that takes our softwood sector seriously, and I hope that with this conversation we cause the government to do so.

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

Mr. Chair, I listened to the speech of my colleague with great interest. Clearly, he wants to tell us that he supports the softwood lumber industry, and I know the Conservatives in general talk a big game when it comes to supporting the industry and Canadian workers, but unfortunately it is all talk and no action. We hear a lot of buzzwords, and we hear a lot of slogans, but the simple fact of the matter is that, when it came to voting for funding support for the management of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber file, every single Conservative in the House voted against it. Therefore, I would like to know how the member can defend that vote to the companies and workers they care so much about.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Chair, it would be funny if it were not so sad. Here is a member of a government that has done absolutely nothing, and I just proved it. The minister responsible did nothing for six years, even as evidenced by Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade secretary. It did nothing when we got it done within six months.

Here is a government that has done absolutely nothing. It has been the government for almost nine years, and it is still not there. We got it done within six months. We did pretty well. My hope is that the officials get to the U.S. and negotiate a softwood lumber agreement.

With respect to the mills that I talked about, I am seeing jobs being lost by the hundreds in my very own riding. Mills are being shut down by the hundreds. Is it for a lack of trees? I fly over our forests twice a week, and there are lots of trees in British Columbia. We just need to make sure that the companies have a reason to go in and log.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, there is a fairly simple solution to support forestry companies. It was actually people in the forestry sector who came up with this solution. They have to be given access to liquidity. To get through the current crisis, with its tariffs that are totally unfair, what people in the forestry sector are telling us is that they need access to liquidity so they can invest in their infrastructure.

Would my colleague agree that a federal program is needed to give forestry companies access to liquidity?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Chair, I cannot speak to what the Bloc's plan is for equity in the forest sector, but when I had my job as a 19-year-old working on a construction site where we were building a pulp mill, the company did not need the equity. It got it because there were good business cases for developing a lumber mill or using the residual fibres from a lumber mill for making paper and other products. It was not necessary.

We had a great, flourishing forest sector, especially after we had our softwood lumber dispute settled in 2006. We need to get back to having a government that cares about our softwood sector, cares about our forests and wants to better manage our forests. However, what I can see with the environment minister and the fisheries and oceans minister is that it is all about shutting it down.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's speech and his passion on this. Again, we need a team Canada approach, but he keeps going back to the agreement under the Harper government. That agreement gave away $1 billion U.S. of collected duties, which legitimately belonged to Canadian softwood producers. About half of that amount went to the U.S. lobby group that started the dispute.

Therefore, it is an agreement that sent half a billion dollars U.S. to those who started the whole thing, and they are our opponents if we want to call them that. They are not really partners when they are taking that approach. Is that the kind of agreement that my colleague wants to reinstate?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate what the member has to say, but from my perspective, I just read many news articles talking about literally hundreds of jobs being lost in the current situation without a softwood lumber agreement. Again, when we came into government in 2006, it was done within six months. That is what we are proposing. We would get it done again, and we would bring it home.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to rise on this important issue this evening.

Of course, forestry is a major employer and economic driver for people in my region of northwestern Ontario and right across northern Ontario. I think about the people in Dryden, Kenora, Ear Falls and Ignace, along with a number of first nations across Treaty No. 3 that have partnered in groundbreaking partnerships and revenue-sharing agreements to find prosperity in the forestry industry. It is an industry that provides powerful paycheques to many people across northern Ontario. It is also an industry that is very environmentally positive and environmentally sustainable.

I heard a few comments about that already today, that the forestry industry is one that can help mitigate the effects of climate change. It can help to mitigate the effects of fires if we are able to harvest forests and harness the carbon dioxide that has been absorbed through the trees. Unfortunately, it is also an industry that has been under attack by the current NDP-Liberal government.

I want to just share one related issue of caribou in northern Ontario. The environment minister had, last year, issued an ultimatum saying that he was going to block harvesting thousands of kilometres of Ontario forests. It was through the guise of caribou protection. He was saying that and doing so without any acknowledgement of what has been happening at the provincial level or what has been happening with first nations and their local knowledge and local leadership to ensure that there is a protection plan in place for caribou. The minister was planning to move forward with that order just to block development. He seems to have this personal vendetta against development of any kind. It was very sad to see that the government was planning to move forward on that. We will see where that stands going forward.

It is important that any plans that are put in place have to account for the provincial, territorial and local plans that are already in place and that are already working to help ensure that we can harvest forests in northern Ontario and across the country in an environmentally sustainable way and in a way that provides good jobs and good economic growth and, of course, is viable from an environmental standpoint as well.

I share that because it is just one example of how the government has failed the forestry sector. I could go on, but unfortunately I am limited for time. Another issue is the softwood lumber issue we are dealing with right now.

This dispute has had real ramifications for people in my riding. It has led to people losing their jobs. It has led to idling of the former Kenora Forest Products mill and the eventual bankruptcy of Prendiville Industries as a result of that. We are happy that GreenFirst is now involved in that operation, but these tariffs and this trade dispute continue to hang over the heads of the workers across northern Ontario. Unfortunately, it is only going to get worse because the U.S. plans to increase these tariffs from the current 8% to over 13% on our softwood lumber industry. That will bring even more economic devastation to people across northern Ontario. This has already also cost billions of dollars to our industry, Canadian companies. It is first nations that have stakes in this industry that are now without those funds as a result of the government's inaction.

It was mentioned already that, under the previous Conservative government, there was an agreement reached within six months. The current government has had over eight years, yet has still not been able to come to an agreement. The best the Liberals can say is that they are working on it. They are raising the issue. They are talking about the issue. We do not know if that is even true. One thing is true. It is either that they are completely ignoring the softwood lumber issue or that they are raising this issue with U.S. counterparts and getting nowhere through two different administrations. It does not seem to matter who is in the White House as the current government has not been able to get a deal done competently. It is completely unable to fight for Canadian workers and Canadian industry.

Canada's Conservatives are going to continue to stand for Canada's forestry sector and the hard-working people who make it thrive.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech and just say how grateful I was to hear the term “climate change” mentioned by a Conservative member. There were even a couple of other words in there, such as indigenous knowledge, and something to do with acknowledging that wildfires are an issue in this country and need to be addressed.

This government has made significant investments in supporting the forest industry, especially as global demand for sustainable forest products grows. As the hon. member mentioned, the forestry sector continues to innovate, grow and support good jobs for Canadians.

Why did he vote against our investments in budget 2023 of over $368.4 million over three years to renew and update the forest sector's support?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the five years I have had the honour to represent the people in the Kenora riding in Parliament, it has been a pleasure each and every time I have had an opportunity to vote against one of the NDP-Liberal budgets because I am voting non-confidence in the government.

It is a government that is tired and out of ideas. It is corrupt and has no plan to support our forest industry or to get back to a balanced budget and make life more affordable for Canadians. All of its plans have been failing, and that is why I am proud to stand with my Conservative colleagues and continue to vote non-confidence in the government.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the fact that softwood lumber was not mentioned in either the minister's mandate letter, or the agenda for the WTO ministerial in Abu Dhabi. In both cases, it was a month after the announcement of new countervailing duties. The Liberals agreed to holding this take-note debate more than two months after we started talking about it.

Are we witnessing a rather clear display of this government's complete disinterest in this issue?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think a very good point was raised. It is something that is urgent for people in northern Ontario, Quebec and right across the country, but the government has really been dragging its heels on this. The member points out a very obvious example. The fact that we are even here debating it all this time later, after eight years, is perhaps the greatest example of all that the government has been largely ignoring this issue and has been absent from this issue.

As I said, even if we take the government's word for it that it has been working on it, then it is clearly incapable of delivering on this issue because it has had eight years to get it done. It is definitely time for change. The Conservatives are going to bring it home.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about solutions. My colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing sent me a letter from the mayor of Kapuskasing, and he wanted to talk about solutions to Canada's housing crisis. He cites that they can be found in the forest.

He cites that Canada can:

Actively promote Canadian wood and mass timber solutions within a federal affordable housing strategy.

Establish a harmonized regulatory framework for permitting processes to expedite approvals safely and responsibly.

Adopt a performance-based approach and increasing tall wood building height allowances in the National Building Code.

Promote nationally certified, prefabricated building typologies for wood-based structures that meet municipal standards.

Offer incentives for developers using a high proportion of Canadian wood products in new construction.

Support the development of a future-ready skilled workforce through standardized green education and training programs.

That is something my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has been working very hard on.

Does my colleague agree with those great recommendations from the mayor of Kapuskasing?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I really love the community of Kapuskasing. Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel there with the leader of Canada's Conservatives. We met with forestry workers, many of whom felt left behind by the NDP-Liberal government. They were very upset with the fact that their NDP representative continues to support the Liberal government and continues to support a government that is dragging its feet on the softwood lumber deal and not delivering for the people of northern Ontario. That is what Conservatives are going to do: deliver for northern Ontario.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, Canada and the United States are close neighbours with an unprecedented, mutually beneficial relationship when it comes to trade. That said, as we all know, even among good neighbours, irritants are bound to arise. The softwood lumber dispute with the United States is a long-standing trade irritant that, unfortunately, has resurfaced on several occasions. We are in the fifth round of the dispute since the 1980s. In past rounds, we have seen a certain pattern develop.

First, unfair U.S. duties are imposed against Canadian softwood lumber products at the behest of the U.S. lumber industry. Canada then prevails in contesting these unwarranted duties in neutral international fora. Finally, a negotiated outcome providing predictability and stability to the sector is reached. Right now, we are in the second phase, a phase of active litigation to vigorously defend the interests of our world-leading softwood lumber industry.

Members should make no mistake: This trade dispute negatively impacts the Canadian softwood lumber industry, which is a key component of our highly integrated forest sector. Nowhere is it more important than Surrey Centre, a riding that has the highest number of softwood lumber employees per capita in Canada, or at least in British Columbia. The softwood lumber industry provides thousands of jobs across the country and is an economic anchor to many communities, particularly in rural regions.

Canada is a trading nation, and our softwood lumber industry is no different. Almost two-thirds of the total softwood lumber production in Canada is exported. The United States is our largest export market. Unfair U.S. trade measures on most of Canada's softwood lumber exports not only undermine our industry's competitiveness in the U.S. market but also affect communities and workers at home.

Our government recognizes this burden; at every step of the way, we have supported our industry, our communities and our workers. Our government is mounting a strong legal defence of Canada's interests against the U.S. duties, in close collaboration with provincial governments and industry stakeholders.

That is why Canada currently has a total of 13 ongoing legal challenges against the U.S. duties. The hon. Minister of Export, Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development recently announced the latest of our challenges, which contests a biased U.S. decision to maintain both anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian products instead of revoking them.

The government has contested every single U.S. decision that has led to the imposition or maintenance of unfair trade measures on our softwood lumber industry. These legal challenges are being heard through various venues. Most of Canada's challenges are proceeding under chapter 19 of NAFTA or chapter 10 of its successor, CUSMA. We have two ongoing challenges through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and one that is being heard by the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Through the many iterations of this dispute, Canada has consistently been found to be a reliable and fair trading partner, while U.S. duties have repeatedly been judged to be inconsistent both with U.S. law and the United States' international trade obligations. We are confident that this will ultimately be the outcome once again. In fact, we have already seen a number of decisions in Canada's favour in the current round of this dispute. We know that the facts and the law are on our side, and we will never waver in our support of Canadian businesses and our workers.