Brenda Shanahan

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

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?

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

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.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

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.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for such an interesting speech.

I do have some questions. We heard the Conservatives say that their party negotiated an agreement when Mr. Harper was in power. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that agreement.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, there were a couple of things in his speech. This is something that is not going to happen overnight, but indeed, it has been a long-standing dispute for a number of reasons. However, Canada has won in the arena of the neutral international trade dispute organizations.

I would like to hear his comments about that, and also hear why Conservatives voted against supports, time and time again, that our government put forward for the softwood lumber industry.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I listened to the speech of the hon. colleague with great interest. Regarding the international tribunals, I would like to hear his comments about how the international trade dispute mechanism works or does not work.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I really appreciate my colleague's question, but I think he has it wrong.

This government has put a lot of effort into defending the forestry industry in co-operation with the Government of Quebec. At the same time, we are supporting the industry with many investments both in the industry and in communities.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I believe the hon. member is talking about the former president, Barack Obama, and not a prime minister. I get it that he is speaking to the strong relationship that the two leaders had at that time, and indeed it continues as a friendship, as with the current president.

As we know, it is not just friendship alone that is instrumental in international trade agreements. There are many interests at stake. I think that is where the team Canada approach is a very important one, where we work federally, provincially and territorially, and also with industry partners, again, reaching out to counterparts in the United States who may not realize that there are certain private interests that are trying to capitalize on this trade dispute to their own detriment.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, the team Canada approach that was critical in our government being able to arrive at NAFTA 2.0 was one that was widely hailed as being extremely innovative.

When I think of U.S. consumers and producers using Canadian softwood lumber, many of them are not aware and many of their state representatives are not aware of how important those industries are to them. The win-win solution for both sides is to understand that there is a mutual win when we work together, our two countries, in making the best use of this industry.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I have been following this dispute since I came into this House as a member of Parliament. The thing that struck me was, at the core of the long-standing dispute, the differences in how our two governments handle forest lands and the product thereof. In Canada, they are public lands and there is a stumpage fee that is charged to companies. In the United States, they are privately held interest.

I think that basic decision, which must have been made at some point many years ago, shows the difference. Here in Canada, this is a natural resource that belongs to the country, whereas the United States chose to go a different way. As it turns out, it is hurting its own citizens and consumers by not availing itself of Canadian lumber.