Debates of April 8th, 2024

Softwood Lumber

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Chair, the first thing I would say is, what can we do now? For 10 years now, since this party came to power, something has needed to be done about softwood lumber. The Liberals are talking about state-of-the-art products, but it is already hard enough to offload our two-by-fours.

The government needs to do two things. First, it needs to talk about the issue. I am not sure that it has. I have never heard the government talk about it. Perhaps the government discusses it behind closed doors, but I think that when a government wants to engage in diplomacy, it must ensure that the media relays its message so that people know that the issue is one of its priorities. I have never heard anything about that. Second, the Bloc Québécois has reminded the government many times of the measures that could be taken. We are prepared to work together and discuss the issue, but not like this, not in a way that I feel is very out of touch with the reality of our workers. I would invite people to come to my riding when workers are suffering because they are no longer able to sell their lumber, when shifts have to be cut, when people are sent home, when small towns think about shutting down. They will not talk the same way. I want the government to discuss the situation with us. We have all kinds of solutions. My colleagues all talked about them earlier.

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

Madam Chair, the member for Manicouagan and I worked on the fisheries committee earlier today and I always value her input.

The question for the member just now from the parliamentary secretary has me puzzled. He was asking her what she thought could be done better. I thought it was the government's job to do the best it can for Canadians. Obviously that is not happening because even he is asking what could be done better.

Would the member agree with me that the government has absolutely failed on this and that it is looking now to everyone else for answers because it does not have them itself?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Chair, indeed, not having a solution to offer the lumber industry and Quebec, I would say, is a failure of all governments. In my mind, it is just one more reason to gain independence.

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

Madam Chair, I too sat on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with my colleague, and I really appreciated her fighting for rural Canada. Whether it be her in Quebec or me in British Columbia, we work well together.

I was reading a quote that was sent to the Standing Committee on Finance. It was in a pre-budget consultation submission put forward by Paper Excellence. The company wrote:

Greater Support for Indigenous Lead Development in the Forest Bioeconomy—

We are advocating for increased support for economic opportunities in Indigenous communities to foster the development of the forest bioeconomy and promote partnerships and collaborations through the expansion of the Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships (INRP) program.

Does my colleague agree? Again, while we see Liberals and Conservatives pointing fingers at who is to blame for 42 years of failed softwood, what I have really liked about the Bloc is that the members have brought forward solutions tonight. We have to talk about solutions because what the Conservatives and the Liberals have been doing is not working.

Does my colleague agree, in the upcoming budget, that the federal government needs to invest in and expand the indigenous natural resource partnerships program, and how critical it is that we support indigenous-owned and indigenous-led businesses and initiatives?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and tell him that I hold him in high esteem as well. We have worked a lot together on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

In a riding like mine, talking about development always means working in partnership. This makes perfect sense to us. For example, we work with the Innu people and the Naskapi nation. We want that economy to develop, too. Whether we are talking about first nations, non-indigenous people or both, given that we work in partnership, the fact remains that we also need to be able to export our products. Of course, we can help first nations, but we also need the government to do its job. It has not done its job for nine years, or 42 years, even.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Chair, it is an honour to rise once again in the people's House to share about a very important subject that is near and dear to my heart. This dispute has been ongoing for now over eight years without resolution. Quite frankly, for all of the rhetoric saying that this is a top priority of the government, that it needs to be resolved and that the government is seized with the issue, we are now eight years out and there is still no solution. Workers across the country in the forestry sector are wondering at what point it will be resolved. They wonder what the future is for their livelihoods and for their families.

In the region that I represent in western New Brunswick, there are several forestry-related jobs at mills and factories. In fact, it is quite personal to me in that my father worked in a pulp and paper mill for over 50 years of his life. He carried a bucket to work every day with his lunch in it, the old lunch pail, the aluminum one. I have it in my office on my shelf as a reminder that I am here because of people like my dad who carry those buckets every day, who work hard in the forestry sector and keep our mills going. They keep the lumber moving and keep products going overseas to help nations over there, but they also provide good employment for people here at home.

I will never forget the time in the early 2000s when the mill went down. My dad, at that point, had worked over 30 years in the pulp industry. What does a man do after working in that one sector for over 30 years and then, all of a sudden, losing his employment plus his pensions and everything he paid into? Overnight it disappeared. It was devastating for that community, where several hundred jobs and several thousand indirect jobs were affected. The community was reeling. Thankfully, through some direct intervention and people getting very active, another company came in and took over. A year later, the mill was up and going again.

My dad was able to get back to work. He worked another 20 years there and was able to get back on his feet. Throughout those years, he was able to make a good living for our family. Whether it is a pulp mill in Nackawic, a softwood lumber mill in Florenceville-Bristol or the one in Plaster Rock, there are literally thousands of people in western New Brunswick whose livelihood depends upon a healthy forestry sector. These are good-paying jobs, and hard-working men and women work in the factories and mills to provide for their family.

We can no longer just talk about getting to a solution, getting to the table and perhaps someday seeing a solution come to this issue. We need a proactive government that will prioritize this. It can be done. We know what happened under the previous government when former prime minister Harper was in place. That government got to a resolution within 79 days. If it could be done then, it can be done now, but we need a government that is going to be at the table, aggressively fighting for the Canadian worker. The health and vitality of our rural communities depends upon, in part, a healthy forestry sector, including the softwood lumber trade.

Tragically we have seen, in the last eight years, over 183 forestry-related and logging-related companies go bankrupt. How many thousands of jobs does that represent, not only on the west coast or the east coast but across the country? The time for prioritizing our forestry sector and getting to solutions around this issue, as it relates to the softwood lumber dispute, is now. How does that happen? It happens through direct engagement, through making it a priority and being relentless in our pursuit. Do not say it is a priority; prove it is a priority. Get to the table. Be forceful. Make sure something happens.

I know that our American friends are very much aware of the fact that their housing costs are increasing, in part for a reason. It is about supply and demand. Canada can help supply much-needed additional lumber for the construction of houses there that would help with their housing prices. There is a case to be made economically for more Canadian lumber getting into the U.S., and we can make that case.

I know from my conversations with some U.S. counterparts, on a personal level as I am in a border riding, that they have an appetite and a willingness to talk about that. They recognize the challenge and know how Canada can help meet their resource needs. The U.S. has resource needs; it is a big and growing country. Canada is its most valued trading partner and we are the closest in proximity. Canada can be the supplier of these things.

Let us get to the table and get this resolved as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Chair, we know the Conservatives say that the Liberals have not made the softwood lumber agreement a priority, but I can tell members that the Conservatives have made partisan politics a priority.

I want to talk about solutions. I will read from a letter I sent to the minister calling for the federal government to support the biomass proposal that it did put in the fall economic statement. I cited that “With one-fifth of Canada's clean energy businesses being indigenous owned, biomass investments reassert Canada's commitment to their 94 Calls to Action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous-owned biomass facilities, such as the [Natural Resources Canada]-supported Whitesand Bioeconomy Centre, can create hundreds of...jobs for local Indigenous communities while simultaneously meeting local energy needs.”

Hopefully, we can actually get back to solutions. I want to know if my colleague supports expanding the indigenous national partnerships program and funding for companies like Iskum, the new consortium on the west coast of British Columbia. Does he believe that we should be prioritizing investing in indigenous-owned businesses and that we should be working toward solutions that are outside the box, instead of the 42 years of pointing fingers? Obviously, we need to do our due diligence on international trade, but we also need to change what we are doing here at home.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague from the west coast.

We share a passion for getting to solutions on this issue, and engaging with our indigenous friends and indigenous partners on this is critical. It is a huge piece to the puzzle, but it must go beyond just one particular group of individuals or Canadians. It must take on all those who are affected by this across sectors and include what the stakeholders are saying, what the mill owners are saying, and include those who work in the sector. Many times, in the debates in the House, we make decisions and talk about things in esoteric terms, and we lose sight of the workers whose lives are most impacted by the decisions we make, whether it is in natural resources, in fisheries or in any of the energy sectors. Oftentimes, decisions are made without true consultation and without considering the lives and the livelihoods that are going to be most impacted by these decisions. I would encourage all of us to make sure that we are meaningfully at the table to make sure that this situation gets resolved sooner rather than later. It must be a priority.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his speech.

I recognize that you just got into town and that it has been a busy and hectic day for you.

It has been eight years, and I know for myself, personally, in the last four years, I have been asking for updates because it is so important for people in Kootenay—Columbia, for all the workers and for the forestry industry, which is one of my biggest industries.

Do you think that the time we have been waiting now is excessive, especially in the last eight years? Also, can you tell us how we would go to the people who are in this industry and say that it's just going to take a few more years?

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that he should speak through me. I cannot answer the questions.

The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia for the tremendous work he does on behalf of those in the forestry industry and for standing up for those who work in that sector, like I do in my region of the country, in eastern Canada and in Atlantic Canada as well as in western New Brunswick.

What is going to be so needed is that this becomes a priority, instead of just another talking point: “Oh, yes, we're working on it”, or “We're thinking about it”, or “We're going to negotiate” or “These things take time”. We need urgency, and this needs to become a priority. The government can make what it wants to be a priority, and the workers from coast to coast need to become a priority for this government sooner rather than later.

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

Madam Chair, as members know, the lumber industry supports thousands of jobs and communities across the country. We are working collectively to make sure that we are protecting our softwood lumber industry, but I would like to know why the Conservatives, including the member opposite, voted against funding to support the softwood lumber industry that our government put forward.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Chair, once again, they love to play this game, but the role of the official opposition is to hold the government to account and to make sure that it comes up with better answers for Canadians' problems and with solutions to the challenges that Canadians are facing. However, that vote was not a vote on a particular line item within a big, huge budget or a spending bill; that was a vote of non-confidence in a government that needs to be replaced sooner rather than later.

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

Madam Chair, I have only 20 seconds, but I can say it very succinctly.

It was promised within 100 days. We are now at eight years and 97 months, or 2,929 days. The Liberals have not gotten it done. It is time to get it done.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 10:19 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, March 21, the committee will rise.

(Government Business No. 38 reported)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:19 p.m.)