Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Petitions, December 9th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very dangerous intersection in Sainte‑Marie‑Madeleine in my riding. Accidents happen there all the time. There have been quite a few news reports about them lately, including in Le Journal de Montréal.

I know I am going to hear about how road signage is a municipal matter. However, there is a railway, and that means Canadian National and Transport Canada are involved.

Every local stakeholder is calling for movement and action on this. Everyone agrees that CN and Transport Canada are not working together. I have personally tried to contact both of them, but my efforts have been in vain, which I find unacceptable.

In June, right before the parliamentary session ended, I tabled this petition in the House. Then, as everyone knows, there was that pointless election that put us all back at square one, and all the documents that were tabled became null and void.

I am therefore tabling the petition again. The first time around, it had 1,200 signatures. This time it has 1,155, which is roughly the same number of petitioners.

Why am I presenting a parliamentary petition? It is because of the legal obligation to obtain a response after a specific number of days.

The petitioners want all stakeholders to meet and sit down together. This would include staff from my office, staff from the office of the Quebec National Assembly member for Borduas, and officials from Transport Canada, CN and the Quebec department of transport.

A meeting is not too much to ask. It needs to happen soon. We need to do something. Until then, the accidents, injuries and deaths will continue.

[Forestry Industry, December 2nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is the main target of the United States in this new chapter of the softwood lumber dispute.

Ottawa is not standing up to the Americans to defend our industry. Ottawa should have made the Americans understand that Quebec has a completely separate forestry regime that must be examined separately from that of the rest of Canada, since Quebec's regime complies with the North American trade regulations.

Today, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development is in Washington to talk about softwood lumber. Will she demand separate treatment for Quebec?

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Chair, my colleague mentioned that he ran for the position of Speaker of the House. I thank him for taking the time to call me about that. I do, however, sense a bit of relief on his part that he is not in the Speaker's chair, so he can continue to defend his constituents.

I get the impression that he wants us to show some backbone. Now how do we do that? What actions should we take? My colleague and I want the same thing, we are looking for the same results, but how should we proceed at this point?

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Chair, again, I have a question for my colleague across the way.

Would the government, the Liberal Party, be prepared to consider an amendment to CUSMA? She gave some examples from CUSMA regarding recourse, potential dispute settlement mechanisms, but would the government be prepared to improve the issue of disputes so as not to unduly drag out these disputes when time is against us, and also to include a permanent advisory committee on the softwood lumber issue?

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Chair, I wonder if my colleague shares my reading of the situation. I find one thing fascinating. We are in a take-note debate, and yet the government has very few solutions to offer. We have an industry and workers who are suffering, and all we are getting is a mishmash of empty rhetoric. No concrete action is being taken.

In concrete terms, what measures, what policies does my colleague have to propose given that the government clearly does not have any?

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Chair, my colleague spoke of great missed opportunities. The Bloc would support two amendments to CUSMA.

The first would be to regulate these infamous disputes, which are dragging on while our industry is going bankrupt. The Americans are using all kinds of smoke and mirrors to slow down the processes.

The other would be to create a standing advisory committee on softwood lumber through CUSMA. I introduced an amendment to that effect in the House in March 2020.

Could we count on the Conservatives to work with us on this issue?

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Chair, since my colleague is from British Columbia, if I am not mistaken, I would like to hear what he has to say about the stumpage system in his province. The stumpage system in British Columbia is set by the government, as opposed to the Quebec system, where prices are set by the market. That seems to be the sticking point for the U.S. How would my colleague defend British Columbia's system under free trade rules?

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Chair, several factors are playing into this. One is definitely the diplomatic fiasco I talked about earlier, and another is a kind of bad faith on the Americans' part. That is undeniable.

Generally speaking, Quebec did its part to implement a system that complies with the free trade rules. Unfortunately, the system is undermined by other provinces' stumpage fees. That is the conclusion we came to.

Does my colleague think Quebec's unique system should be recognized as such during future negotiations?

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question and the opportunity to provide some details.

With respect to the benefits of forestry, we have seen some extremely innovative businesses. They are developing derivatives, wood-based bioproducts, rather than relying on yesterday's energy sources. I think that is one way forward along with other energy sources of the future.

We are a nationalist party. We are not against economic nationalism. There are issues we have to deal with on a continental and global basis, and the environment is one of them.

It took centuries for trees to develop. It is almost miraculous. All kinds of studies on trees show that their benefits are legion, ranging from oxygen to well-being. Some studies show that they improve well-being and create cool islands. Trees are all pro, no con. They supply us with extremely high-quality wood.

There is no doubt that the forestry industry has not always been up to snuff. I recall a film that made an impression in Quebec. It was called Forest Alert and was produced by Richard Desjardins, a great Quebec artist who is popular with all my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

Fortunately, things have changed, and this is a sign that social movements must continue to mobilize. Today, we have a great industry. We have a great sector that can always do better, of course, as long as it has the support of the public and a strategy, and political priorities are put in place.

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Mr. Chair, I commend my colleague and former peer from the Standing Committee on International Trade. We had a lot of fun working together. We had a very good rapport.

Usually a visit from the Minister of Trade is spent with her eating up the time for questions. When we ask a solid question that calls for a short and solid answer, we get a response that begins with a long preamble involving thank yous, kowtowing and that sort of thing just to eat up time. Then we are told that they are working hard for Canadians, that this is a priority, that they are working vigorously on this and so on, yet we never get an answer from the minister. In fact, we have never gotten one from most of the ministers in this government.

I do not feel reassured. Even if I did, I would be wrong to feel that way. It would be naive of me. We got the answer a week ago.