Natural Resources Committee on May 5th, 2026

Yes. With respect to the forestry sector, I would say that you are exactly right. Most of the forest industry is provincially regulated. Fibre access is determined by provincial jurisdiction.

What we really need to see—and I believe you'll see some recommendations along this line—is the federal and provincial governments working more closely together to make sure that we are doing this. We need to support and stabilize the forest sector across the country, and that can't be done by just the federal government. You're absolutely correct. It has to be federal and provincial governments working hand in hand.

I would hope that we can get to that place because, honestly, we need a sustainable forest sector not just for today, but for generations to come. It is a manufacturing sector. It's important to the industrial economy of our country, and we have to get it right. We've gone through a decade of companies basically being crushed with these softwood lumber duties, and that has prevented many of them from investing in mills and plants in Canada. It has made it very difficult for them to operate. In some cases, they are losing investment all over the place. The reality is that we have to come to terms with that.

We also have to get to a place in which we are using procurement in Canada at the provincial and federal levels to use more wood products. What we have seen is almost a hollowing out of some of these manufacturing facilities. We've just had two furniture-making facilities in the province of Quebec close, basically because of what we are seeing with the United States.

How do we, as provincial and federal governments, come together to support our industrial capacity in Canada? I fear that if we don't get this figured out, it's going to be too late. More collaboration is absolutely required.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Currently, we have 10 provincial governments, three territorial governments and a federal government. Is it not practical that we should have a minister of forests who can look after all of Canadian forestry? This is one of the biggest problems: The three levels of government are not working hand in hand. It's making it very difficult.

The second thing I wanted to ask you about is your viewpoint on the tariffs the U.S. has levied. This has been going on for the last 25 or 30 years. We go to court. We win those cases. America lobbies. They're so strong. We get some money back, and they're back into it. Can you give us your viewpoint on that?

National President, Unifor

Yes. I believe that there are a number of things we can do to have more collaboration between provinces. It starts with having a structure. I would say that not just provincial and federal governments need to be part of that but employers and unions too. We can create a tripartite structure in which we are developing and making sure that an industrial strategy for the forest sector is being implemented and being evaluated. There are touchpoints to use so that we can make sure it's working. We can force people to come to the table to ask, “How can we make sure that we do not just preserve and stabilize this industry but transform it?” There's much that can be done.

I understand the very challenging nature of the softwood duties that we are experiencing from the U.S. We have some companies right now in Canada that are facing an almost 50% duty and then a tariff on top of that. It is almost impossible to operate in terms of that kind of environment.

The reality is, though, that the U.S. does need our lumber. They need to be able to have a supply from Canada and a stable, secure supply in Canada. It also means that we have to look at our own domestic policies within the country to make sure we're using as much wood product as we can through procurement at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, and then to look at how we can accelerate building homes in Canada so that we're at least taking care of some of that issue domestically.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Terry Duguid

Thanks to both of you.

Colleagues, we know there's a strong connection between the forestry sector and the energy sector. We are studying energy exports. That's a reminder for both sides of the table.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

It's very good to point that out, Mr. Chair. I'll talk about forestry.

Ms. Payne, you may be aware that a proposal was made to the federal government regarding the tariff crisis. This proposal came from a joint discussion between Daniel Cloutier—who is from your organization and whom you must know—people from the forestry sector, and businesses. Basically, the government was asked to take on a portion of the countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and customs duties, but especially the countervailing and anti-dumping duties, since that money exists at the border. I think it's over $13 billion right now, and you quite rightly pointed out that no business can survive with margins cut by 45%. I'm still waiting for the government's response.

When we look at the role of Export Development Canada, or EDC—whose representatives were here a while ago—and when we look at EDC's reports for 2022 and 2023, we see that $9.3 billion in all kinds of financial support was granted to the oil sector in 2022. It was more or less the same thing in 2023. That means that there's an enormous amount of fiscal capacity for the people in the energy sector, but absolutely nothing for the forestry sector, which often leaves the impression of a double standard.

I'd like to hear you speak to the critical situation that people in the forestry sector are currently experiencing.

National President, Unifor

I know Daniel very well. He is my good friend.

I believe the proposal was a good one, because it would have allowed capital to flow into the forest sector. Companies would have had capital to invest in mills. You are probably aware that many of our mills have lacked investment over a period of time for lots of reasons. One of them is that, so much of the time, profits coming out of the industry have basically gone into these duties, and this has prevented upgrades in the mills.

On the other side of things is, how else can we support the industry? This may mean that until the industry gets stabilized and back on its feet, we have to look at the energy side of things too. Energy is a very big cost in some provinces, but not all. In some provinces, energy is a very big cost to the operations of these mills. That can be looked at. I know Ontario has done a job of looking at the cost of energy for industrial users, particularly in the forest sector, to try to maintain the sector and protect it during these very difficult times.

We should, can and must be looking at any number of things to support the forest sector, not the least of which is access to fibre.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Terry Duguid

Thank you.

Mr. Malette, you have the floor for five minutes.

Mr. St-Pierre will wrap us up at the end of this panel.

Conservative

Gaétan Malette Conservative Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON

Madame Payne, you're representing 120,000 workers. You've mentioned Thunder Bay, and you mentioned also Via Rail. I know that in the region where I'm at, that corridor through Sudbury, Chapleau and White River is extremely important. It's operating at very low efficiency.

What do you see for remodernizing some of the fleet of Via Rail? If we don't have jobs, we don't have much. What would this represent in the Thunder Bay region if we worked at revamping the Via fleet for workers? How many workers would that be?

National President, Unifor

Thank you for the question.

As you are probably aware, we're currently in a phase in which the federal government is considering the tendering process for the second lot of Via trains. We know that our members in Thunder Bay, with their knowledge and their skills, are more than capable of building these trains. We've been a strong proponent of making sure that we build our own capacity in this country, and that we keep it and maintain it. One thing we can be doing is making sure that those Via trains are built in Thunder Bay. This will also benefit many parts of Quebec as well in terms of the engineering work.

Overall, how do we, as a country, make sure we keep our own capacity to build and manufacture? If we're to protect the sovereignty of our country, it also means protecting the manufacturing backbone of communities such as Thunder Bay. It also means we use Canadian steel and Canadian aluminum. We put all of these “buy Canadian” provisions around what we manufacture. That will employ Canadians across the spectrum, not just in building trains but in the supply chain of what's required for those trains. That is also true of how we build ships.

All of these industrial policies that we look at as a country.... We need to build things. We are an industrial country. Let's make sure we keep doing that. Let's make sure we're protecting good jobs in Canada and using good, strong procurement dollars—billions of them—to put Canadians to work.

Conservative

Gaétan Malette Conservative Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON

Along the same line, but looking at the whole sector of oil and resources, how can the government provide the certainty that investors need to commit capital to Canada's energy sector to create more jobs?

National President, Unifor

The reality is that Canada is a stable, secure, safe place to do business. We also have, perhaps, the best workforce in the world. These things should be important enough so that companies want to invest here. Obviously, it's making sure, on the other side of it, that these companies do not just invest here but also stay and maintain the infrastructure, which is also critically important. The fact is that we supply a lot of stability to companies that want to operate here, and we have resources. It's not as though those resources are going anywhere. If they want to make profits, Canada is the place where the resources are. Having a stable regulatory environment as well, of course, makes sense, but we have to take into account that we should get something back for that, and this means good jobs for Canadians.

Conservative

Gaétan Malette Conservative Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON

Northern Ontario has been struggling in many regions. The youth are leaving the regions. What would you do? How can we change that?

National President, Unifor

I believe part of changing it is making sure there are good jobs there. I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador, so, MP, I understand the challenge of trying to keep people in places where sometimes we're economically challenged. Northern Ontario is also rich in resources. Whether it's mining, whether it's the ability to have skilled workers to build trains, as well as to manufacture, operate and build infrastructure, it's incredibly important that we put the resources around that being able to happen.

I would also say we need to provide strong public services for northern Ontarians. That means they should have access to good health care and good education, the same way we do in other parts of the province.

May 5th, 2026 / 11:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Terry Duguid

Thank you both.

Wrapping up our first panel is Monsieur St-Pierre.

Mr. St‑Pierre, you have five minutes.

Liberal

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for allowing me to intervene in my first commentary on this committee.

Colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to work with you.

Mrs. Payne, thank you for being here today and for the great work that Unifor does. Our government announced last December a methane emission regulation that allows for the reduction of about 72% of emissions by 2030 and about 75% by 2035. I'm curious about whether you can comment on what types of employment opportunities the methane regulations pose for Unifor members and the sector more broadly speaking.

National President, Unifor

That was a good start, I would say, but we need to get to how we fix regulations to make sure that we are catching the leaks before they become leaks. That means that companies need to have a robust auditing system, and audits and inspections should be done by workers. The way that we activate the methane gas protections is to make sure that we have workers doing that work.

Right now, I would say that we are deficient in that regard, so it really becomes about making sure that the companies are doing what we expect them to do. The regulations are one part of that, but it's also about employing workers to ensure that the infrastructure is being maintained and inspected and that it's being audited. If you don't have enough people doing that, we're going to continue to have a problem in terms of the release of methane leaks into the atmosphere.

Liberal

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

I have a follow-up question on that. You mentioned auditing. There are also detection services or methane mitigation technology.

Are there any lessons that Canada could learn from reducing emissions in the methane sector? How can we export this knowledge to other parts of the world? How can we seize this as an energy export opportunity for Canada?

National President, Unifor

Absolutely. If we're able to develop new and better technology in this regard, then of course we would want to showcase it and sell it to the world, but the reality is that, even with the technology, you will still need workers to maintain the infrastructure. That is where I would like to see the focus, because I know what our members do every day, and I know the difference they can make here.

In many ways, they're energy workers, but when they do this work, they're also climate workers. It's really important to have people on the job to stop the leaks from happening in the first place.

Liberal

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Thank you.

Canada also has a very robust clean tech sector. Can you comment on the opportunities for Unifor members and for the sector, generally speaking, when it comes to the clean technology sector and the opportunities for us to export some of this technology globally? What kind of employment opportunities does it create for your members?

National President, Unifor

I'll speak about one specifically because it's really important. It was the creation of a battery plant in Windsor, Ontario, the NextStar battery plant, which, of course, is extremely important. Yes, it's about building EV batteries, but it's also now about how we use batteries to store energy. This is going to be incredibly important for our country. It's a great opportunity for workers. We currently have 900 to 1,000 people working in that facility.

Of course, as you probably know, there is a second facility being built in St. Thomas by PowerCo. There are lots of opportunities in this regard too. It means having training programs and our public colleges aware that these are the opportunities and building the upskilling training programs that would be required to transition workers from one part of the economy to the clean tech part of our energy sector.

Liberal

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

I have about 45 seconds remaining.

I know Unifor has been pretty involved in what's called a just transition discussion. Can you comment quickly on the impact for Canada and around the world? What does just transition mean for Unifor?

National President, Unifor

We don't use that term anymore in our union. We use economic justice, I would say. How do we look at other opportunities? If automation is happening, and if other things are happening in the sector, how do we make sure that we're preparing workers to work in other parts of the energy sector?

The reality is that it doesn't mean they have to transition out of the energy sector. It might mean moving to another part of it. It might mean they're moving from being on the production side to being on the inspection side, the auditing side or support of the infrastructure side. We have to look more broadly at that rather than thinking it's just transitioning out of the energy sector.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Terry Duguid

Thank you.

Colleagues, this brings this panel to an end. On your behalf, I would like to thank Ms. Payne for being before us and being on the firing line for a whole hour.

You may have noticed that I've allowed a lot of latitude in this particular session. I don't think we've had Ms. Payne with us before. She is obviously very involved in the forestry sector.

Ms. Payne, we have a forestry study under way that isn't completed, and I think our members took the opportunity while you were before us to ask you questions on that important sector. Thanks for your flexibility.

National President, Unifor