Debates of April 8th, 2024

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for reading PMO speech number six.

Where we are is that this is catastrophic for the softwood lumber industry in Canada. While these members talk about how the wheels are in motion and how the dog ate their homework, 183 companies in the forestry sector have gone bankrupt since 2016, with tens of thousands of jobs, real livelihoods. In 2016, we had the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement that was put together by former prime minister Harper.

What they are doing is not working. It has been almost nine years. This has cost the sector billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

What are they going to do differently, other than talk and talk?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, we all know that the mechanism to fight these unfair duties is through legal means, through NAFTA chapter 11 or CUSMA chapter 10. We have fought those, but we can only have a favourable outcome and settlement if the other party is willing. Unfortunately, despite continuous legal victories on Canada's behalf, we need a willing trading partner who agrees to abide by those. We have seen that the Americans have been inconsistent in that regard, and it takes a long time to pressure them into doing that.

I am very confident that our government and our minister of trade will continue to do those talks, and we will get to a resolution so that our softwood exports will be traded at a fair and an appropriate value, free of any trade barriers.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, does my colleague not find it odd that at no time in the minister's mandate letter, when it talks about trade disputes, is there any mention of the words “softwood lumber”?

Is that not a clear admission that the Government of Canada does not care about the softwood lumber dispute and that it is trying to use the regions of Canada that live from the forestry sector as a bargaining chip to secure the automobile sector with U.S. partners?

Does my colleague interpret the absence of the words “softwood lumber” in the minister's mandate letter as clear evidence of what I just described?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, I could not disagree more with my colleague. I think Canada fights equally for these. I regularly meet with stakeholders, particularly small and medium-sized sawmills and even larger privately owned sawmills that are located in my constituency of Surrey Centre. They have faith that the government is fully trying and that our trade minister is working on it; they receive regular updates in regard to that. Therefore, I am confident that there is no impropriety being done between one region and the other. When Canada speaks, it speaks on behalf of all its provinces.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, while the Conservative Party continues to debate whether climate change is even real, 2023 was the most severe wildfire season in history for British Columbia and Canada. The impact that wildfires will have on our forestry sector going forward is obvious to everyone, except for the Conservative Party.

Does the Conservative Party have a plan, any plan, to help our world-class forestry sector deal with the ravages of climate change? Do the Conservatives not recognize that failure to act on the climate file will have significant long-term impacts on the forestry sector?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Richmond Centre said it very well. The government actually recognizes that we have to create well-paying jobs. However, in order to have those jobs, we have to protect our environment, we have to clean our air, and we have to have practices that are sustainable so we will have a continuous and robust forestry sector for years, decades and millennia to come. If we do not amend those practices, if we do not protect our forests, if we do not have practices to protect and preserve our forests, we will not have a forest sector in the future. Therefore, our government is doing both hand in hand: It is fighting to create the opportunities and fighting to protect our forests and create a future for our children.

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

Mr. Chair, again, over 42 years, we have had 13 consecutive governments now that have not been able to figure this out. Liberals choose litigation. Conservatives choose to tax producers on their way out and agree, actually, that Americans can hit us on the way in. It is unbelievable. In fact, under the Harper government, we saw a billion-dollar takeaway from softwood lumber producers. Half of that billion dollars went to the very lobbyists who started this whole thing.

We need a new approach, and we are not hearing the government talk about a new approach. We heard that the Conservatives want to revert back to tax the axe, which is language they will understand. However, does my colleague not agree that we need a transformational change in how we approach things?

Also, in terms of our fibre supply, raw log exports need to stop. We have mills that are starving for fibre, and the current model is not working. It is not sustainable, given the threats of climate change and given the threats to our mills.

I want to hear solutions. Is the member going to work on ending raw log exports? Is he going to work on mass timber? Is he going to support the motion that was passed in the House so that the federal government could actually procure using locally milled lumber and roll it into a national affordable housing strategy, and we could build homes out of local fibre?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, I agree with some points that my hon. colleague from British Columbia has made. We need to increase mass timber projects. We have been doing that by changing the building code to accept that, with the building of even 18-storey buildings now using mass timber. This is a renewable and carbon-sequestering methodology of building more homes. However, we also do not want to revert back to what the Conservatives did and tax $1 billion on these sawmill owners and then give half to rich lobbyists who act on their behalf.

However, we need a willing partner on the other side. What we have been seeing is a very litigious partner. As lawyers can appreciate, it is no different from people who commence lawsuits frivolously time and time again. When the outcome is always the same, it is a very frustrating program.

I agree that perhaps a new approach, a new agreement, with the Americans needs to be reached where this does not happen over and over again. When NAFTA was created, it was thought that the chapter 11 method would be safe and secure. We were able to retain it in this round, which the Americans did not want to have. However, we need to implement better teeth, so it is a quick, prompt decision that is executed right away.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

Usually, the best thing a person can do is to tell the truth. Let us tell the truth this evening. The government has never been willing to provide real support for the forestry industry. That is rather easy to prove. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did so earlier when he said that the words “softwood lumber” do not appear anywhere in the Minister of International Trade's mandate letter. That shows how much this government cares about the forestry industry.

Meanwhile, the forestry industry is currently facing a perfect storm. If we look at everything the forestry industry is dealing with, we see that this economic sector that supports our regions is in jeopardy. This evening we are talking about punitive tariffs. If nothing is done and if the minister does not grow a backbone by then, these tariffs may increase from 8% to almost 14% in August. The federal government's financial support for the forestry industry is pathetic. I will come back to that later. It is absolutely nothing. It is peanuts compared to the support being given to another natural resources industry, the oil industry. It is downright appalling.

Our forestry sector has been going through major transformations over the past 15 years because the pulp and paper industry is gradually disappearing. We need to replace it with something else, but, unfortunately, we never get the financial support we need to make that happen. We also have a crisis caused by the woodland caribou, especially in Quebec, with the Minister of Environment threatening to enforce an order under the Species at Risk Act that would scuttle the efforts of many communities in Quebec that depend on the forestry sector. Then there was last summer's forest fire crisis.

All these factors add up to a perfect storm for the forestry sector. I think the only person who does not see that is the Prime Minister. Quebec MPs do not see it either. I rarely hear Conservative Quebec MPs talk about forestry. It is not just rare, it is practically unheard of. I have never seen them show any interest in the forestry sector, even when we studied it at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I am sure that Quebec is, by far, the biggest player in Canada's forestry sector. In 2000, the sector accounted for 95,000 jobs in Quebec. By 2010, that number had fallen to 64,000. The latest figures show 59,000 jobs in 2020. Why the decline? It is because the federal government refuses to support the forestry industry.

I would like to give members a very simple example. In the forest sector, no support is ever provided by Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions or any federal government program for primary processing. Why is that? Whenever primary processing is involved, people are automatically told to go through Global Affairs Canada to request federal government support and, de facto, the request will be refused. Let us try to name another sector of economic activity unable to obtain any federal government support. They are few and far between. However, this is what happens. The federal government does not want to address this issue.

For small and medium-sized lumber mills that produce roughly 300,000 cubic metres a year, the main customers are local, in other words, in Quebec or Canada. Even if they do not do business with the United States, they are paying a heavy price for the trade dispute we are in, because they cannot get federal government support. The government bragged about planting two billion trees. Does anyone know why the government is having trouble sending those trees to the forestry people who could plant them? It is because there is a fear that they will be harvested. If those trees are harvested, the federal government says that would violate its trade agreements with the United States. That is fear for fear's sake. They are essentially saying that since those trees might be harvested in 70 years, we might as well not plant them. That shows how much courage the federal government has.

In closing, I would say that this is a sad spectacle, one that has been going on for more than 20 years. There has never been any real willingness on the part of the Liberals or the Conservatives to support the forestry sector.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleagues' speeches, including the speech by my colleague who just spoke on behalf of Quebec's forestry industry.

This evening, we heard that an agreement had been reached under the Harper government that left something to be desired. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. We want to conclude an agreement with the United States, but not at any cost. I would like my colleague to say a few words about a future agreement.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, indeed, a billion dollars stayed on the table in the last softwood lumber agreement.

Now there are solutions that the current government could put in place. The majority of the key players in the forestry sector are asking us for a liquidity program. That has never been brought in by the government. The majority of people in the forestry sector are asking us to diversify. What they want is the opportunity to benefit from federal support either through BDC or CED, as all other sectors of economic activity have. The government has never wanted to offer this type of support to the forestry sector because it is too afraid of losing its cash cow. This would run counter to the trade agreements that benefit the automobile sector, the automobile sector being the federal government's cash cow. We are a bargaining chip and that is unfortunate.

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

Mr. Chair, in British Columbia, especially in rural British Columbia, we have a lot of small mills with fifth-generation owners. They understand forestry management. They understand the business, and they have managed to stay in business even during these tough times.

It has been eight years since the government had the opportunity to deal with the softwood lumber issue, and nothing has happened. I think the member is onto something when he talks about how there is nothing in the mandate letter about lumber. If there is nothing in there about lumber, where is the accountability to even move forward on this, other than talking about it in a take-note debate?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, the major problem is the laissez-faire attitude that the government has had on this issue for over 20 years. The federal government has never had a strong, clear desire to support the forestry industry, even though it claims that the forestry industry is one of the most promising industries in the fight against climate change.

When we harvest a tree in the forest, we have just sequestered and captured carbon. The more we build from wood, the more carbon we sequester and capture and the better our record on greenhouse gas emissions becomes. However, there has never been a Conservative or Liberal government that has been willing to include the use of wood in its tendering in a binding way.

An NDP member introduced a bill to that effect, but it is not binding, so what does it really accomplish in the end? It is little more than a petition or wishful thinking. We need to use lumber more, but we are not giving ourselves the tools to do so. We are not giving ourselves the tools to help the forestry industry with measures that are actually very simple. We are doing even less when it comes to helping the forestry industry with economic levers. Those do not exist in Canada. The only explanation I can think of is that perhaps it is because Quebec is the biggest player in the forestry industry and because no one has enough power in their party to exert the influence necessary to change things.

The solution is fairly simple. We need to become independent. If we were a country, we could do it ourselves.

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

Mr. Chair, the member is talking about solutions again. That is what we need more of tonight. It is good to see my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia bringing forward that approach as well. Let us talk about how we could move forward. What we have had for most of the night is partisan bickering about the 42 years of failed negotiations with the United States.

Tonight we have this take-note debate. What would be the outcome that my colleague would like to see tonight in terms of how we use the fibre in our communities and how we add value the most? There is this false dichotomy that we cannot protect the environment and have jobs at the same time. We have to do both, and we can do both.

Does my colleague see potential opportunity in tonight's debate, if the government were actually listening?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, absolutely, there are plenty of opportunities. There are also success stories. One example is Chantiers Chibougamau, which will provide the beams and infrastructure for all the buildings at the Paris Olympic Games. These examples exist, but unfortunately, the main problem is that the entire forestry processing sector cannot get any support from the federal government, even though this sector could have a considerable influence on our greenhouse gas emissions.

I would simply point out that $2.5 billion has been invested in carbon capture and storage strategies. Now the big companies are pulling out of these projects because, ultimately, they are doomed to fail. That is where our money is going.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the chance to rise in the House tonight, because I feel it is important to take part in this debate, which is more important than the solar eclipse. I say that because the forestry industry, sawmills and softwood lumber are important to the economy of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

On February 1, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced plans to substantially increase the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it levies on Canadian softwood lumber. These duties could nearly double starting in August, with major negative consequences for us and elsewhere in Quebec and Canada.

As we know, the forestry industry has already been impacted by the forest fires that raged last summer. Some 4.5 million hectares of forest burned. As a result, local sawmills have had to slow down production or simply stop altogether. For example, at the end of March, Resolute Forest Products announced that it was suspending operations indefinitely at its sawmill in Comtois, near Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon. Members will recall that this town was hit hard by the forest fires, and all residents had to be evacuated because the town was in danger.

The company blamed the weak lumber market and the rising cost of raw materials in the wake of last summer's wildfires. About 50 workers at the Comtois sawmill alone have been affected. Imagine how many more workers could be affected if the U.S. raises its countervailing and anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber. These are difficult times all round, and the government has an obligation to take action and find a solution to prevent these increases. All these good jobs have to be saved. As everyone knows, the cost of food and housing has gone up and is still going up. Now more than ever, families need to hold on to their sources of income.

The traditional approach, where the government issues a press release expressing its disappointment or challenges U.S. decisions in court, is not working. The government must do more and support our forestry sector more than ever. The Bloc Québécois urges Ottawa to staunchly defend Quebec's forestry industry in the face of increased U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber. It demands that the government step up and immediately implement concrete measures to protect the forestry industry from U.S. trade tactics.

Time is running out, and it is appalling that the federal government has still done nothing to support Quebec forestry companies facing a sharp increase in tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imposed by the United States. As a key trading partner of the U.S., the federal government has a responsibility to secure acceptable trade terms for the representatives of the Canadian forestry industry, a sector that is strongly represented in Quebec.

Forestry is the economic backbone of many regions in Quebec, including my own. It accounts for thousands of jobs and a large portion of our exports. As I mentioned earlier, the forestry industry was hit hard by last summer's wildfires, and the same thing could happen again this year. Our forestry industries are facing a number of financial challenges, including trouble getting access to liquidity. The situation is fragile and could easily fall apart if our industry does not receive the necessary support. The federal government must act responsibly and intervene quickly on softwood lumber.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing meaningful steps that this government must take. First, the federal government must truly help the forestry industry get through the crisis with a loan and loan guarantee program, to match the amounts being withheld by the United States in taxes. Second, it must work to amend CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, to better frame the litigation process and to no longer allow for unfair delay tactics. Third, it must call for a tax exemption for wood from private forests since the American lobbying allegations have to do only with the public forest. Fourth, it must recognize Quebec's forestry system, which operates via auction and is consistent with the requirements of free trade.

The conditions are right for the government to make the case to the U.S. government that it needs to end its unwarranted tariffs, which are harmful for both our economy and its own. Also, it is important for the government to make the U.S. understand that in trying to protect their forestry sector, the Americans might end up hurting their own economy by causing the price of building materials to increase in the U.S., preventing thousands of American families from becoming homeowners.

Let us protect our regions, our economy and our forests for a better future.

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

Mr. Chair, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, and I understand that the forestry industry is very important in her riding. I understand that very well.

Earlier, several of our colleagues said that the past agreements were not good enough and that $1 billion was even left on the table during the Harper years. We understand that we need to reach an agreement but not at any price. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about the team Canada approach, where we work not only with the federal departments but also with the provinces, Quebec and the industry when dealing with our American counterparts.

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

Mr. Chair, there are solutions for the forestry industry in Quebec and Canada. The lethargy we are seeing right now is a result of the fact that nothing has been done for 20 to 40 years. The federal government does not stand up for our forests.

We all know what is happening with the forest fires and flooding. With the forest fires, think of the families who are worried and who do not know whether they will have a home. The animals in northern Quebec and Nunavik are not there any more. The caribou are disappearing. Black bears are now in Kuujjuaq and elsewhere.

These are things we need to think about. This is not normal. The government needs to act quickly.

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

Mr. Chair, this is a very serious issue. Since 2016, 183 companies in the forestry sector have gone bankrupt, and tens of thousands of Canadians in British Columbia, Quebec and all over Canada have lost their jobs.

Tonight, in this debate, we have heard the critic from the Bloc Québécois speak to this matter and we have heard the Conservative trade critic speak to this matter, but we have not heard from the minister of international trade from the government, nor have we heard from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade.

Does my colleague agree with me that this shows just how unimportant this matter is to the Liberal government and that this is a big reason why this dispute has not been resolved?

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question. For once, I agree with the Conservatives.

The fact is, the government is not acting on this issue. This cannot wait, yet that is exactly what is happening right now. The Comtois sawmill is closing and about 50 families will have to move. Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon is not that big. For these people, it is a matter of time. The government has to act quickly. Thousands of workers are at risk of losing their jobs.

What is the government doing to help Quebeckers?

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

Mr. Chair, the NDP has always been there, pushing the governments of the day to negotiate fair trade agreements, as opposed to free trade agreements that disadvantage Canadian workers and Canadian resources. When it comes to the softwood lumber agreement and the renewal of this agreement, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to get the job done.

Earlier, I spoke of solutions that would help the forestry sector when I read quotes from the mayor of Kapuskasing. The member for Kenora never spoke to the solutions that Mayor Plourde put forward. Instead, he chose, as Conservatives have been doing all night, to focus on attacking a hard-working MP and other NDP MPs. He chose to attack the MP for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, who we know has always been there for her constituents.

Let us think about that. The member has been elected to this House five times since 2008. Conservatives were nowhere to be seen when the forestry sector workers were losing their jobs, not in Smooth Rock Falls, not in Dubreuilville and, most recently, not in Espanola. They prefer to score cheap political points instead of dealing with the real problems and finding solutions.

I have a question for my colleague. She knows that this is happening tonight. They are not offering solutions at all. Maybe my colleague can speak about how disappointing it is. We are having this take-note debate, an opportunity for us to bring solutions to this House, to get some work done and to support workers in communities like my colleague's. Could she speak about the importance of actually using time in this House to do just that?

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

Mr. Chair, look at what happened last summer with the forest fires. The government did not take action after the forest fires in northern Quebec. We know that nearly all of northern Quebec went up in flames. The government needs to act quickly when there are disasters like that. I do not understand why the government cannot take action. It seems to act faster when things happen in western Canada than when they happen in Quebec. What is it doing for Quebec?

The best solution to all our problems would be for Quebec to become a country.

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

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I am honoured to rise tonight to speak in this take-note debate on softwood lumber as an elected representative of the hard-working forestry and related service-industry companies and their families in the North Okanagan—Shuswap. In small towns with sawmills, like Lumby, Salmon Arm, Sicamous, Revelstoke, Enderby, Chase, Armstrong and others, the Canadian softwood lumber dispute is an important issue. It is important because of the jobs that so many families rely on to put food on the family dinner table, the jobs that pay for their children’s clothes and schooling.

I want to take us back to March 2016. In a CBC News article dated March 12, 2016, Canada's international trade minister was noted as saying that the current Prime Minister's official visit to Washington helped secure a “real breakthrough” in the contentious softwood lumber negotiations. The trade minister at the time, now the federal finance minister, was quoted as saying, “I don't want people to think this is going to be done and dusted, and we don't have to worry about softwood negotiating for another 10 years. But what we have committed to is to make significant, meaningful progress towards a deal—to have the structure, the key elements there a 100 days from now.” We are now in April 2024, eight years or 97 months or 2,929 days later, more than 29 times longer than the message that the trade minister, now finance minister, was so cheery about in March 2016. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

After eight years of the failing government's failed softwood lumber negotiations, sawmill owners, their employees and their families are still paying the price of the government’s ineptitude. Sawmill companies have not invested capital in modernizing their mills to remain competitive because duty dollars are being collected and held by the U.S. Workers are still working with equipment that has not been updated, if they have not lost their jobs already. It is not just the sawmills' direct employees. It is the spinoff jobs, which are even greater in number. The loggers, the road builders, the mill equipment manufacturers and the service providers, from tire shops to lunch trucks and work clothing stores, could be doing greater business and making further contributions to our communities if only the government had done its job and gotten a deal done long before now.

The companies, employees and their families in places like the small towns I mentioned and other small communities across the country have waited patiently, getting their jobs done while waiting for the government to get its job done, but their patience has run thin and the government has failed to get the job done. These hard-working people need some certainty in their future, more than just promises. They need a government that is recognized as a valued partner in trade agreements, rather than one that can be taken advantage of. They need a government that understands the common-sense approach that is needed at negotiating tables. If the government strongly believes that the U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber products are unfair and unwarranted, then why has it not resolved this issue before now, or is it because it simply does not care?

The anti-dumping and countervailing duties charged, collected and held by the U.S. are now over $8 billion or, according to some, over $10 billion. One would think that the money-hungry NDP-Liberal government would be clamouring and bending over backwards to get those dollars into Canadian hands so it could find some way of taxing them. I am tempted to say that it baffles me and countless other Canadians as to why the government has failed so badly at getting a deal done, but it is not surprising after the many failed promises of the big-on-promises, small-on-delivery government. It is simply not worth the cost.

It is time the government recognized its commitment to serving the people of Canada, instead of making the people of Canada serve the government.

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

Mr. Chair, like many of the speeches we heard from the Conservative members tonight, there were lots of slogans and buzzwords, but no actual substance. While our government was providing historic supports for the forestry sector, with over $368.4 million over three years to renew and update forest sector support, over $130 million to accelerate the adoption of transformative technologies and products, and over $12 million to provide economic opportunities for indigenous communities in the forest sector, the Conservatives did nothing but oppose. I would like to hear from the member opposite why, if the Conservative Party truly cares about our softwood lumber industry, it dogmatically opposes any efforts to help support it.

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

Mr. Chair, the member's question is a regurgitated question from the PMO. I am not sure how many times it has been asked tonight.

Conservatives do care about the softwood lumber agreement and the families who depend on the jobs that are so reliant on this industry. We are having this take-note debate tonight to draw attention to a minister who has failed to get this job done and a succession of ministers who have failed to get this job done.

As I quoted, it was March 2016 when the government said it would have a framework in place in 100 days. We are now at over 2,900 days. That is why it is important. It is why Conservatives believe it is important and why we keep pressuring the government to get the job done.