House of Commons Hansard #60 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women Members debate the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, marking the start of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. They highlight the ongoing femicide crisis, particularly affecting Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQI+ individuals. While the Liberal government outlines funding and legislative measures, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois criticize budget cuts and the Prime Minister's abandonment of feminist foreign policy. New Democrats also call for greater action on MMIWG2S+ recommendations. 4400 words, 35 minutes.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 Second reading of Bill C-15. The bill implements Budget 2025, addressing economic impact through investments in housing, infrastructure, and social programs like the national school food program. Opposition parties criticize the bill's omnibus nature and the government's fiscal approach, arguing it drives up debt and creates a "productivity crisis." Debate also covers the repeal of the luxury tax and concerns about Veterans Affairs funding. 52200 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Criminal Code Second reading of Bill C-220. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit judges from considering a non-citizen's immigration status when sentencing, aiming to ensure that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes face deportation consequences. Conservatives argue this will prevent a two-tiered justice system and uphold the value of Canadian citizenship. Liberals and the Bloc Québécois express concerns about judicial independence, proportionality, and the impact on individuals' lives, suggesting the bill is ill-conceived and not evidence-based. 8600 words, 1 hour.
Softwood Lumber Industry Members debate the ongoing softwood lumber dispute with the U.S., where tariffs have tripled to 45%, leading to mill closures and job losses. The government details financial supports, legal challenges, and domestic demand initiatives. Opposition criticizes "10 years of failure," demanding immediate action, a negotiated deal, and exploring options like buying back duties or a national working table to protect communities. 35400 words, 4 hours.
Bill C-220 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 2, Alexandra Mendès in the chair)
The Deputy Chair Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members how the proceedings will unfold.
Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments.
Pursuant to order made on Friday, November 21, members may divide their time with another member.
The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.
We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
moved:
That this committee take note of the softwood lumber industry.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to talk about such an important issue. It is really quite encouraging that we seem to have unanimous support with respect to having the debate this evening. I like to think that, no matter what side of the House a member sits on, we all recognize how valuable Canada's softwood industry is to the entire nation. I genuinely believe that we have a government, whether it be the Prime Minister, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, the minister responsible for natural resources or, I would suggest, virtually the entire caucus, that is very much concerned about the impact the trade war is having on Canada.
I will be sharing my time, by the way.
The impact is quite significant. I do not think we could overestimate the individuals who work directly in the industry, the entrepreneurs, the businesses and the communities, or the impact of this unfair trade war that is taking place, where once again the lumber industry is being targeted.
Unfortunately, this is not a new issue. The softwood lumber issue has been an issue for many years. It even predates my being elected here in the House of Commons 15 years ago. In fact, if we were to do a bit of history on it, we would probably find that it goes back into the eighties when there was a controversy because the United States did not feel as secure as it should have and was not as sympathetic to the consumers of the United States as it should have been. Unfortunately, whether it was the lumber barons or whoever else, the different vested stakeholders felt it necessary to put pressure on the U.S.A. authorities, which ultimately led to the tariffs and duties we have seen applied to this very important industry.
When we think about the jobs, we are probably talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of approximately 200,000. It is a significant number of jobs. When we think about the value of the industry to our nation, to the GDP, we are talking billions of dollars every year. That is why it is not only the people working directly but everyone working in the industry indirectly who are affected by these unfair tariffs that have been put on Canadian softwood lumber. We do not have to be from the province of British Columbia or Quebec or other jurisdictions that export softwood lumber.
This is why I am pleased we are actually going to have this debate today. I will be very interested in hearing what kinds of solutions or thoughts members have to address the issue.
The Prime Minister has been very aggressive on the whole trade file. Even though that will have an impact, we have other ministers who are seriously looking, and I am looking at the Minister of Finance in particular, at providing supports in the interim, because I believe, much like with the trade agreement, that we need to ensure that we continue to move forward with discussions that will ultimately see the best deal for the industry. That is something all of us, at least in the Liberal caucus and I would like to think all members, would like to see: the best deal for Canadians and, in particular, the industry.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Chair, I have been a member of the House for 10 years, and I think this might be the first time I have heard our hon. colleague actually mention the word “softwood”, although he gets up time and time again every day.
It is interesting that the Liberals put up a member of Parliament from downtown Winnipeg, when really it is the smaller communities that are impacted, but he did have some facts straight; there are over 200,000 workers in the forestry industry, which is more than in auto, steel and aluminum combined. In our province of British Columbia, over 30 mills have closed, including 14 in my riding.
In 2015 the Liberals promised a softwood deal within 100 days of taking office. It has been more than 2,900 days. The Prime Minister says that it is not a burning issue and that it does not matter. My question for my hon. colleague is this: Will he fly to my riding and tell little Lucas from 100 Mile Elementary school that his parents, who lost their jobs, do not matter?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Chair, the member opposite does not have a monopoly on caring for an industry. One does not have to live in B.C., or any other specific province, to care about what is happening to the workers of Canada.
Shame on the member for trying to impute motive, trying to give the impression that the Prime Minister or other members do not care. This is a government that cares about what is happening, and we show that by the investments and support we are putting in.
We cannot just wave a wand and make the problem disappear. It takes time, and we are prepared to take the time and to support the industry and the workers so we can get the best deal we can. We cannot just click our heels and have the problems disappear. The Leader of the Conservative Party might believe that to be the case, but that is not reality.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Chair, this evening, we will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate the government's incompetence. I just want to start with a little update, for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary.
Usually, when we talk about a subject, we should try to understand it first. The issues for the forestry industry are the countervailing and anti-dumping duties. Tariffs are also an issue, and these are at 10%. The biggest issue that is making life difficult for people in the forestry industry is these countervailing and anti-dumping duties.
If the parliamentary secretary does not understand that, I am beginning to understand why the government is incapable of taking action on this situation: anti-dumping and countervailing duties are repaid once the dispute is settled.
I was saying that to help my colleague. I hope he will understand the situation better. I hope that tonight we will hear speeches from the Liberals that offer solutions, not empty talking points.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Chair, I have had the good fortune of being able to talk about this issue on numerous occasions, whether it was about the softwood industry or the hardwood industry, just generally speaking about the types of things we can do to make a difference and support the industry while we are going through these difficult times. For example, there is the buy Canada plan and the expansion of building homes in Canada. These things all help.
There are also the financial support programs that the government is providing, such as direct support for employees, and we are looking at loan support for the industry. The government recognizes there is a need to support the industry and the workers during a difficult time, and that means, at the end of the day, that we do have to continue to work.
To try to imply that the government does not care is very misleading. To try to imply that the government is not aware of the details of the issue is very misleading. We do care, and we will continue to work on the issue.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Chair, because of the Liberals' 10 years of failure to get a softwood lumber deal, the U.S. has collected over $10 billion in anti-dumping duties. The Canadian government abandoned the court cases to get that money back. Why did it?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Chair, I am sure the member is aware that the federal government has been working with premiers, in particular in the province of B.C. There is a committee. We are looking at ways we can continue to support the industry.
Again I would reinforce that, at the end of the day, we need to be looking at ways we can support the industry, while at the same time trying to get rid of the tariffs and the duties that are being unfairly imposed on the Canadian lumber industry.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Chair, U.S. tariffs are having a major economic impact on the Canadian softwood lumber industry, a pillar of our Canadian economy and a key economic driver in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. As a member of Parliament, this issue is top of mind for me in Ottawa, and I am actively engaged in discussions with my colleagues to advance our interests on this matter.
I understand very well the importance of the forestry sector for our communities. My father works in the woods as a forester. My neighbours, friends and, in particular, people from across my riding work in this sector, in our sawmills, directly in the forest, in transportation, in machinery, in pulp and paper production, and in various related economic activities.
I live in the forest in Kedgwick River, and I see trucks going by my house every day to supply our sawmills. I grew up witnessing every day just how much the forestry industry contributes to the economic vitality of my region. The jobs it creates are the main source of income for many families in my riding. Our businesses are firmly rooted in our communities, contributing financially to many local initiatives. The economic benefits of the forestry industry have a positive impact on all other industries in my riding. That is why this issue is so important to me as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
I want to emphasize that the tariffs imposed by the U.S. administration are unjustified and harmful to workers, businesses and families on both sides of the border. Our government is working with all levels of government to resolve the current softwood lumber dispute. Of course, we want to negotiate a new economic relationship with the United States, including a softwood lumber agreement, but it must be on favourable terms.
In these times of economic turmoil, our government has implemented a series of measures to help businesses and workers affected by U.S. tariffs. I am pleased to note that budget 2025 did not overlook the softwood lumber sector. We have put in place a $700-million program administered by the Business Development Bank of Canada that provides guarantees to financial institutions to facilitate access to financing and letters of credit. The goal is to give businesses quick access to the liquidity they need to maintain their operations. This support will be targeted at the businesses most affected by these unjustified tariffs because they export to the United States.
There will also be an extra half-billion-dollar investment in various forestry-related programs to help the sector diversify, grow its activities and support value-added production. Other measures announced in the budget will also support both businesses and workers affected by this tariff dispute through the strategic response fund. In fact, the Forest Products Association of Canada, which represents several members of my riding, has described these budgetary measures as welcome assistance.
We have launched our buy Canadian policy. In the past, we literally built Canada from our forests and the work of our forestry workers. Today, we want to continue building our country with our wood. At the heart of our strategy is the desire to buy Canadian and become our own best customer by using more Canadian lumber in our projects. For example, we want to double the pace of residential construction, support numerous infrastructure projects, and back major projects of national interest. We will do so with Canadian resources, giving preference to domestic lumber. In this way, our government is strengthening domestic demand in order to reduce exposure to volatile U.S. tariffs.
As a member of Parliament, I am in constant communication with the workers and business owners in my region so that I can clearly understand their reality. This helps me stand and fight for specific local issues in Ottawa. One of many examples is the particular situation of the eastern white cedar. I also promote the importance of key players in the sector, including forestry operators. They often own small or or medium-sized businesses and provide good jobs back home. The work that forestry operators do is essential. They are the ones who harvest the wood in the forest. These businesses play a critical role and the current circumstances are a challenge for them too. That is why I am making sure that their concerns are heard during discussions of the softwood lumber file. The same goes for our companies specializing in forestry machinery or industrial equipment.
In conclusion, jobs in the softwood lumber sector have deep roots in our communities and, I repeat, our government is determined to protect the sector and Canadian workers, including workers in Madawaska—Restigouche.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Chair, forgive me. I appreciate that our hon. colleague has some knowledge and that his communities have been impacted by the Liberal government, by his Liberal team's failure over the last 10 years. I appreciate that he understands the importance of forestry in his riding and in his community, but I cannot see how he shows his face on the doorsteps of forestry companies, when it has taken the government 10 years to get to this point. The Liberals like to blame the new U.S. administration for all the worries we have with the issue, but the reality is that their failures of the last 10 years are to blame.
I want to ask our hon. colleague how he shows his face on the doorsteps of forestry companies.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Chair, as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, I am in regular contact with business owners and forestry workers. People back home understand that the U.S. tariffs are completely unjustified and harmful. It was not our government that asked for them; it was the American administration that imposed them. However, our government is there to help the businesses and workers affected.
Just look at the budget, which includes measures of more than $1.2 billion to provide access to liquidity. It is a budget that my opposition colleagues have opposed. If people seriously want to help the softwood lumber industry get through tough economic times, then they should vote for the budget that includes measures to help the industry.
As a Liberal member, I am proud to go home to my riding to talk about the work that our government is doing here in Ottawa to help businesses across the country, including those in Madawaska—Restigouche.
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Chair, I was actually a victim of one of those crises. I lost my job in 2005. I worked for a company with 222 employees. The same thing is happening now.
Groups came forward with solutions a few weeks ago. If this trend continues, if the government does not wake up, there will be no more companies left to Build Canada Homes.
Has the government considered the fact that, eventually, if there are no more businesses, even a magic wand will not enable us to meet the objectives?
Can we actually give forestry companies all the help they deserve?
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Chair, my colleague is absolutely right. Our country was built thanks to our forests and our forestry workers. Through Build Canada Homes, the softwood lumber sector will be essential for building hundreds of thousands more homes.
She referred to the closure of sawmills. It is never an easy situation for our families, our workers and our industries. That is why we must be there to support them. It starts with targeted measures in the budget to the tune of $1.2 billion. It also includes the strategic response fund that we set up to help the businesses and workers most affected by the current tariffs. It also involves other measures that we can put in place to support the softwood lumber sector.
As the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, I am in constant contact with workers and businesses in my riding to listen to them, to hear their proposals, and to share their comments with my colleagues so that our government can then implement public policies that are truly tailored to the needs of the sector.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Chair, I guess I am an optimist. When I was thinking about the debate this evening, I was anticipating we would have a good, healthy debate. The member has put forward a lot of things the government is actually doing, and I have made reference to a couple of things the Government of Canada is doing to support the industry and the workers.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is important that all members have the opportunity to say what they would do to help resolve the issue, how we can contribute. We on the government benches look at it in terms of supporting the workers, supporting the industry, by providing financial support through the build Canada program. Could the member add to that?
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Chair, it really is important for me to take part in this debate this evening because the forestry industry is the main economic driver in my riding. We have put a number of measures in place to help this industry weather the economic turbulence. We may need other measures as well.
I am thinking in particular of the intermediaries, those who are affected by the tariffs but do not export their products directly to the United States, which is what forestry operators have to do.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Madam Chair, the Prime Minister famously promised during the election that he would negotiate a win with the U.S. President and get a deal by July 21. Here we are in December, months after his self-imposed deadline, and there is still no win, still no deal, still no elbows and still no jobs. Since he became Prime Minister and promised an end to U.S. tariffs, they have actually doubled on autos, aluminum and steel, and they have tripled on Canadian lumber, a subject about which the member for Cariboo—Prince George will be speaking as I split my time with him. That brings the tariff to 45% on Canadian lumber, the highest in Canadian history.
Before we go to the normal Liberal transition that they make around this time, from making promises to making excuses, when they suggest that there is nothing they could possibly do about American tariffs on Canadian lumber, let us be clear: Prime Minister Stephen Harper negotiated an end to, and refund of, American softwood lumber tariffs within 79 days of becoming prime minister. The Liberal government has been in power for 10 years, and it has not been able to get rid of the tariffs that were imposed on Canada mere months after then prime minister Trudeau took office.
Furthermore, since the current Prime Minister came into office, not only has he failed to achieve the same as Stephen Harper did, with more than double the time as Prime Minister that Stephen Harper took to get a deal, but the tariffs have tripled, reaching levels not even imaginable before he took office. One might have asked what it is that he could have done differently. This Prime Minister not only failed to make softwood lumber a negotiating priority in his dealings with President Trump, but he unilaterally backed down. He reversed Canada's dispute of multiple legal disputes against the illegal and indefensible tariffs.
I will read a headline right out of Bloomberg: “Canada ends fight against some U.S. softwood lumber duties”. The article states, Ottawa “has revoked two separate claims disputing U.S. anti-dumping duties”.
It was claimed that this was a “strategic choice”, that the Prime Minister was making some kind of brilliant chess move, backing away and giving a major concession to the U.S. administration without getting anything in return.
Let us be clear: There is not a single American tariff that the Prime Minister got reduced in exchange for this concession. It was a unilateral climbdown, and since that time, the U.S. President has not only increased tariffs but also broadened them to new products not previously covered, such as cabinetry and trucks. The Prime Minister, who claimed that these tariffs were an existential threat to Canada requiring his immediate election back in the spring, now says, “Who cares?” when he is asked about how the talks are going with the U.S. We have gone from “elbows up” to “Who cares?” That is the distinction between the pre-election Prime Minister and the post-election Prime Minister.
I will tell members who cares: We care. We care about the workers at the 30 sawmills in British Columbia that have closed under the Liberal government's diplomatic failures. We care about the 150 union workers laid off at the Ear Falls sawmill.
We are concerned about the workers at Chantiers Chibougamau.
We care about the 150 workers who lost their jobs at 100 Mile House in B.C. amid market challenges. We care about the 350 workers at Sinclar Group Forest Products now facing a 40% production cut.
This is a massive industry of over $20 billion that has more people working in it than steel, aluminum and autos combined. We need these jobs. Conservatives would put negotiating the end to the softwood lumber tariffs at the front of our objectives. We would take all taxes off homebuilding so that we can use more Canadian lumber to build more affordable homes. Housing, after all, is a tariff-proof industry, because after we build those homes in Canada, they do not face U.S. tariffs. We would speed up permitting, free up land and build more homes, all of which would revitalize and rebuild our logging and mill towns so that they can have great jobs, providing the best lumber anywhere in the world.
Claude Guay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Madam Chair, I have a comment and a question for the Leader of the Opposition.
My comment is that it sounds to me as though there is selective amnesia from the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservatives, because this has been going on for 40 years. He just reminded us of one time under Prime Minister Harper, but it has really happened five times over 40 years, and this is the fifth time. Therefore, let us talk about the whole situation.
My question for the Leader of the Opposition is this: He is very good at criticizing the Prime Minister on every single step, but I have never heard what his plan would be to negotiate with the President of the United States. I would love to hear that from him.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Chair, the member claims that this is a 40-year-long dispute, but he omits the fact that in the 10 years Conservatives were in power, we successfully negotiated an end to the softwood lumber tariffs. Furthermore, that was one time in 10 years, during which, by the way, the Americans actually paid back $4 billion of previously collected tariffs. By contrast, those tariffs came back in when the Liberal government took office. The Liberals have had three presidents and 10 years to reverse the defeat that happened under their watch. Not only have they not done it, but the tariffs went from their original 7% to 15%, and then when the Prime Minister took office, they went up to 45%. That shows how much worse things are today than when the Liberal government took office, particularly when the current Prime Minister took office while making grand promises that he was a three-dimensional chess player who could outwit the world and get us a deal.
I will tell the member what I would have done differently. I never would have dropped the legal challenges. I would have kept fighting to get our money back. I would have fought for every mill and logging town in this country. That is what I would have done differently.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Chair, people in the forestry industry are not interested in listening to nasty remarks and verbal game playing tonight. People in the forestry sector are not interested in hearing about who cares about the situation and who does not. They want to hear that people are ready to commit and that they are considering the solutions that have been put in place.
A proposal was made and it has been on the table for three or four weeks. However, I do not hear anyone in the opposition taking ownership of it or talking about it.
People in the industry say that the countervailing and anti-dumping duties, or at least a portion of them, need to be bought back. It will not cost the government anything. Predatory hedge funds are doing it.
I want the Leader of the Opposition to tell me that he is prepared to support this measure and that he is prepared to support the forestry sector by giving it some breathing room.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Chair, I did put forward solutions. I said that we should make softwood lumber a priority in our negotiations with the Americans to reopen this historic market, a market that continues to increase its softwood lumber imports from Europe.
Then, we should restart our legal challenge to the U.S. tariffs, which are illegal.
Finally, we need to massively ramp up home construction by removing the taxes and red tape that are preventing Canadians from building homes. We are building fewer homes now than we did in 1972 because of red tape, bureaucracy and taxes. These homes could be built with Canadian softwood lumber.
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Madam Chair, I met with lumber workers this morning, representing mill town workers from Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, from Golden, Sicamous and Salmon Arm all the way to Kamloops. They are concerned about the jobs already lost and the jobs that are on the line. They talk about a Prime Minister who says, “Who cares?”
I would like to hear from the leader of the official opposition as to why we should care. It is not just the jobs in the mills themselves but all the others who are reliant on them as well.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Chair, absolutely; in fact, I would go even further. I thank the member for fighting for forestry communities right across British Columbia. I would go even further than he does. It is not just livelihoods. There are literally mill towns and logging towns that will not exist if this continued tariff applies. They are unable to sell their product into the United States competitively with a 45% tariff, an unprecedented tariff level.
We need to save these mill towns and these jobs by opening up the market.