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.
Zoe Royer Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I echo the comments of the parliamentary secretary, my colleague. We are always looking to work with other members across the aisle. We are fully open to that, and the purpose of this debate is to hear all of the great suggestions. It actually makes for better policy when we work together.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chair, my colleague from British Columbia is a strong advocate for her province and really understands the needs of the softwood lumber industry. She is a strong advocate for the workers and the businesses of this sector. I would like to hear her views on how the different measures we have put in place to help the industry have been received and what we can do to better help the softwood industry facing tariffs right now.
Zoe Royer Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, on the measures being put in place, for example, we heard the parliamentary secretary earlier talking about some of the delays in the banks around BDC and providing the funds needed to support the industry. We are working every step of the way with the sector and the banks to make sure the urgency is met and that workers in the industry feel supported across British Columbia and Canada.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Chair, I just want to say that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford told me that Chemainus is curtailed, not closed, so I wish to clarify the record.
However, I would like the member to clarify the record. She talked about significant wins. Has she spoken to anyone who works in softwood lumber, or is this a speech that has been given to her so she can mouth the words? For people in areas like Merritt and Grand Forks, who are seeing no work, and places like Chemainus, which has curtailments that are causing people to leave their apartments and their homes, this is a big deal. I would like an answer from her.
What significant wins, and has she spoken to anyone in the industry who actually says that this is a significant win for them?
Zoe Royer Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I understand the emotion in this matter. Our Pacific caucus, which is 20 members strong and has members representing every part of the province of B.C., had a panel of experts from forestry speak to us. For us, we are working with them side by side, looking for solutions, what is working and the areas we need to improve.
Pauline Rochefort LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)
Mr. Chair, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise tonight to speak in support of Canada's forestry sector.
This important sector, as we know, employs nearly 200,000 Canadians. It relies on efficient, reliable and cost-effective transportation supply chains, from trucks and railways to ports, to move its products to domestic and global markets.
The Forest Products Association of Canada reports that the last five years have, unfortunately, highlighted the fragility of Canada's freight transportation network, which has been affected by bottlenecks, accidents and frequent labour disruptions. Tonight, I would like to address the matter of the fragility of our transportation network, particularly as it relates to the forestry sector, the softwood lumber dispute and trucks transporting forest products that rely on dangerous sections of the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario.
First, I will give a bit of contextual information. The average overland distance travelled by a forest product shipment is roughly 1,200 kilometres, with most sawmills and paper mills being in, as all my colleagues know, remote, rural and northern regions. About half of this is by rail to the United States and to seaports for offshore exports, and the other half is by truck.
When rail service falters due to congestion, crew shortages or strikes, trucking can only partially backstop the gap. It takes approximately three trucks to replace every boxcar of pulp and paper or four trucks for every centre beam of lumber and wood products. If rail service were to cease entirely, as it did briefly in 2024 due to simultaneous work stoppages at CN and CPKC, the sector would require additional trucks far beyond its trucking capacity to supply. Nonetheless, this did happen in 2024, and it highlighted the importance of trucks and our roads to bring forest products to market.
In northern Ontario, that would be along the more than 3,000 kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway, which includes Highway 11 and Highway 17. Unfortunately, these segments of the Trans-Canada Highway are just about the only remaining sections of the highway that are two-lane highways, and so all trucks travelling from east to west, from southern Ontario to eastern Canada or western Canada as they connect from Quebec to Manitoba or from Manitoba to Quebec, must do so along dangerous two-lane highways. This creates serious national-level vulnerabilities. I will explain why, specifically for the forestry sector.
Between January and September 2025, just to give an example in my area, the North Bay to Cochrane section of the Trans-Canada in northeastern Ontario experienced the equivalent of 32 days without any movement of people or goods. If we extrapolate that to the year's end, that is 40 days when no trucks, no people and no cars could move along the highways. Basically, the MTO in Ontario is projecting that by 2030, trucks will represent almost 50% of the traffic along the roads. These are not regional numbers; these are national supply chain numbers. Basically, that is why, in Ontario, all of the municipal associations in northern Ontario are calling for widening the highways in northern Ontario in support of the forestry sector.
Although the safety and reliability of highways in Ontario falls partly under provincial jurisdiction, I nevertheless wanted to raise this issue here tonight, because it is an important factor affecting the competitiveness and resilience of our national forestry sector. Furthermore, the safety and reliability of supply chains in northern Ontario and across Canada and the softwood lumber dispute are not separate issues. I conclude that they are one and the same issue that ensures the strength of the Canadian economy.
In closing, I would like to commend our government on its work to defend forestry businesses and workers that are affected by U.S. tariffs. I am very proud to be part of a government that will always defend the interests and do what is best for Canadians and the Canadian economy.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Chair, as the opposition critic for transportation, I was quite intrigued to actually hear a Liberal talk about transportation. However, this is a take-note debate on softwood lumber, and that had only maybe a touchpoint on it. I would suggest that if the member is really serious about seeing improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, then it is provincial, and unless it is on indigenous reserves, a Canadian Armed Forces base or a national park, it has nothing to do with the federal power.
I have a question for the member. Instead of wasting the time given to a very serious issue with a local issue of concern that she is obviously trying to put a little spotlight on for a clip at home, could she comment on the $1.25 billion this government has brought forward, which no companies that I know of or that I have heard of have accessed? Does she believe that this needs to be a priority and that the government needs to at least give the money it says it will give?
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Mr. Chair, I am very happy to know my colleague is a member of the transportation committee, so he would know that since World War II, most of our Trans-Canada Highway routes have been supported by our federal government. Actually, in 2023, in Newfoundland, our government announced shared funding of the Trans-Canada Highway widening with the province. There are multiple examples. This is simply to say that this weekend I travelled 200 kilometres from my home community of North Bay to New Liskeard. I saw three major accidents with major trucks, one lumber truck, along that particular route. It is a significant problem in my section of Canada that I think is very important to bring forward.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, as we know, the softwood lumber crises began about 40 years ago. They ebb and flow, so much so that they have unfortunately become a kind of background noise as of late.
I would still like to share some of the things I have seen here since 2019, when I was first elected. First, I saw the renegotiation of NAFTA, when the government unfortunately did not seize the opportunity to review the dispute settlement mechanism. If it had, lawsuits would not be so drawn out and we could avoid situations like the ones we are seeing now.
Then, in 2021, I saw the Biden administration impose punitive new tariffs on our industry, and immediately afterwards, the international trade minister organized a mission to Washington, but only to discuss the other issue at hand, namely the risks that the Biden administration was posing to the automotive industry in Canada.
On the heels of those same new tariffs, I also saw that the words “softwood lumber” were not even included in the international trade minister's mandate letter a few weeks later.
I see that the Chair is asking me to wrap up—
The Chair Conservative Tom Kmiec
The member's time is already up. I must give the parliamentary secretary an opportunity to respond.
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Mr. Chair, I understand the gist of my colleague's question, and I am glad he mentioned historical amnesia. The other day, one of my colleagues used the term “historical amnesia”. It is also true that the softwood lumber dispute dates back some years.
However, I want to point out that when the dispute was resolved in 2007, American and Canadian manufacturers agreed to create a $5-million fund in Canada to be used for market development. Market development is very important. In the future, perhaps that fund could be used to help fix the infrastructure and transportation issues that I mentioned this evening.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chair, I hold my colleague, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, in high regard. She is a strong voice here in Ottawa for rural communities. I would like to hear from her about the work she is doing in her riding to stay informed of the needs and realities of stakeholders in the northern Ontario lumber industry, so that she can represent them well here in Ottawa.
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Mr. Chair, there is one thing I did recently that I would like to mention. I went to Kapuskasing to represent the government and confirm the announcement of the funding that FedNor is providing to Kap Paper. I was able to meet with all the workers in that industry. This is certainly not an easy time, but these people and this company greatly appreciate the work being done by our government. They understand the importance of this work. I saw and heard this for myself during my visit.
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Chair, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from North Island—Powell River.
Today, I am going to talk about my region, the Lower St. Lawrence and Chaudière‑Appalaches. It is a corner of the country filled with hard-working people, small businesses, rural roads and community pride. In short, people there just want to work and earn a decent living. The Lower St. Lawrence and Chaudière‑Appalaches are home to about 600,000 people spread out across several hundred municipalities, including 75 in my riding alone. It is a land where every job counts, a land filled with hard-working Canadians and tight-knit communities.
These regions are also supported by major employers from the forestry sector that are the lifeblood of entire municipalities. For example, Groupe Lebel has a major presence in a number of RCMs, five of which are in my riding. Maibec is a key player in wood processing. Matériaux Blanchet is heavily involved in innovation. Bégin & Bégin, Groupement forestier de Témiscouata and Groupe NBG are family businesses that support hundreds of families and are among the largest wood processing companies in Quebec.
In my riding, their plants are economic institutions. They not only support residents, they support businesses and rural communities too. Every year, we harvest 4.2 million cubic metres of timber, or nearly 15% of all the timber in Quebec. This supports more than 590 businesses in all sectors combined. I want to emphasize that I am talking about hauling companies, next-generation loggers with state-of-the-art machinery that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and operate, businesses that sharpen the plants' blades, mechanics who maintain the plants' machinery, as well as electricians and electrical mechanics. They are all key jobs in this sector of activity that are essential to the forestry industry and form part of this major industrial and manufacturing chain.
Forestry provides close to 13,700 direct jobs in our plants, in addition to thousands of indirect jobs in trucking, maintenance, retail and services. In 2021 alone, it generated $1.3 billion in work income in my region. Now, all of that wealth is threatened by the U.S. tariffs.
For years, the industry has faced duties on Canadian softwood lumber. Currently, the U.S. is imposing a 45% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, while European lumber is entering the U.S. with a 10% tariff. I have a simple question: How is it that European lumber pays a 10% tariff, but Canadian lumber pays 45%? We are neighbours with the Americans. We are partners. However, we are the ones being penalized the most.
During the debate tonight, I heard some of my colleagues talk about how far away Europe is from us. In Saint‑Pamphile and Saint‑Just‑de‑Bretenières, it would take us less than seven or eight hours to drive to the United States to sell our lumber there. Now, the U.S. is bringing in just as much lumber from Europe, with tariffs at 10%. Canada is completely losing its markets.
The industry is now rightly demanding the release of the $10 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duties that the United States is holding. We are talking about $10 billion that has been tied up for 10 years. Who has been in power for 10 years? The Liberals. Meanwhile, what are we hearing in Ottawa? The Prime Minister is saying that there is no pressing need to discuss tariffs with Washington, that there are no burning issues to discuss. Where does this Prime Minister live? Certainly not here.
The money being held in U.S. coffers belongs to workers and should be reinvested in plant, equipment and wages in Canada. This is urgent. There are 13,000 jobs at stake. They say they care. When 500 businesses are at risk of going under, it is urgent. If they care so much, they need to provide support.
I am glad I made this speech. I am wondering if I still have some time left, because I have a lot more to say. One thing is certain: We cannot leave these jobs, these people and these families in limbo, as is currently the case. It makes no sense. The Liberal government has had 10 years to solve this problem, yet it still has not been able to do it. I hope the Liberals will finally give us some answers tonight so that we can solve this problem, which has been going on for far too long.
Caroline Desrochers LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure
Mr. Chair, I understand that the forestry industry is very important in my colleague's riding. I want him and the families in his riding to know they have my support.
With Build Canada Homes, we made a commitment to double housing construction. We know that this will help our forestry industry because it will get all these contracts.
If 13,000 jobs are on the line in my colleague's riding, I have to wonder why he voted against budget 2025. This budget introduces Build Canada Homes, provides investments to help businesses innovate and invests in programs that will help workers. I would like my colleague to explain why he voted against that and against the 13,000 jobs at stake in his riding.
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Chair, the answer is quite simple. We do not want more bureaucracy. What we want is to be able to build homes.
Currently, the number of houses being built in Canada is at its lowest level since the 1970s. What has the Liberal government built? It has not built any houses during all these years. Instead, it has built bureaucracy. That makes no sense. All these bureaucrats are not the ones building houses.
Obviously we need wood, and we have wood in Canada. We also have a market right next door in the United States. We are partners with those people. In 2006, Mr. Harper resolved this issue in just 80 days. Ten years later, it still has not been resolved. That is why I voted against the budget.
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Mr. Chair, all I am hearing from one side of the House are proposals that do nothing to address the current situation. Thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost, and the Build Canada Homes program is not going to bring them back.
That said, with all due respect to my colleague who just spoke, what I took away from his speech was a description of the current situation. There are industries, there are workers, there are job losses and there are negotiations that need to be happen. However, I did not hear any proposals.
I would have liked to know whether he and his party are of the same opinion as the industry and the unions. Among other things, we talked about the possibility of maintaining connections to employment through subsidies. Is my colleague in favour of that measure? It would help companies weather the crisis and let workers know that they have support and will be able to return to their jobs afterwards.
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Chair, we listen to the industry just as much as the Bloc Québécois does. The Bloc Québécois do not know everything. We listen to industry as well.
We proposed several measures to the government that it could have included in its budget to allow housing construction, such as cutting red tape. The idea is not to create new agencies for building houses. Public servants are already looking after that in Canada. The Liberals insist of adding more and more bureaucracy and red tape. Someone said earlier that it was awful.
That was announced in August, yet we have not even seen the programs or the money. Why? It is because of bureaucracy. It might take another year before we see any of the money. Implementing programs is all well and good, but people do not want programs. They want a market.
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Chair, we know that this agreement was not renewed in the past 10 years.
I would like my colleague to tell me how important the forestry sector is to the prosperity of his community. How is the sector important to his riding?
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Chair, forestry is critically important in my riding. It is not complicated. We are right next to the United States, to the American border.
I will give a very simple example. One of the largest manufacturers, Groupe Lebel, sources lumber from the United States, transports it to Saint‑Pamphile for processing and resells it to the United States. That means it is American lumber, not Canadian lumber. That lumber is now subject to a 45% tariff. The company buys the lumber, and it has to pay a 45% tariff when it sells it back to the United States. Does anyone think that is viable?
As my colleague from the Bloc Québécois pointed out, these 45% tariffs are unsustainable. What industry could survive financially while paying these kinds of tariffs? It is the government's responsibility to ensure that these tariffs are lifted so that we can have a viable industry in our regions.
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Chair, “Who cares?” is what the Prime Minister said when asked when he had last spoken to the U.S. President about Canada's ongoing trade negotiations. The Prime Minister claimed that he had no “burning issue” to discuss with the United States at the moment and that he would speak to the President again “when it matters”.
To the over 200,000 Canadians who earn their living in forestry, who harvest our wood, mill our timber, and provide the lumber from which we build our homes, and whose blood, sweat and tears built cities like Campbell River, Powell River and Port McNeill, it matters, and it matters to their families, to their communities and to this country. More Canadians work in forestry than in the steel, aluminum and automotive sectors combined, and they are getting killed right now, especially in my home province of British Columbia.
On the coast alone, harvest volumes have collapsed to half. More than 5,400 jobs have been lost. Mills have closed and others are curtailed, and we are now harvesting only one-third of our annual allowable cut. It could be about to get even worse, because if just one more major mill closes, if just one more domino in the supply chain falls, the entire industry faces the very real possibility of total collapse, and there are two major reasons why.
The first reason is that the Prime Minister promised he would have a deal with the Americans by July 21 to remove the punitive and baseless tariffs and to provide some certainty for an industry eager to return to its feet. That did not exactly happen, did it? Instead, American tariffs on Canadian softwood, far from being removed, have tripled under the Prime Minister, and his response, beyond some flippant comments like “Who cares?”, is nothing. In fact, to add insult to injury, Canada, one of the most forested jurisdictions in the entire world, is now importing raw logs from the United States.
I will just remind Canadians of the backstory to all this. In 2006, the previous Conservative government signed a much-celebrated softwood lumber deal with the U.S. that expired in late 2015. The Liberals have had more than 10 years, under three different U.S. presidents, to renew or otherwise modify this deal. I would say they have done nothing, except the truth is that they have done worse than nothing, which brings me to the second reason this industry that built so much of our country is in crisis.
That second reason is the current government's reckless and arbitrary commitment to close up to 30% of Canada's lands to economic activity, including forestry, as part of the United Nations' 30x30 policy, a policy that risks exacerbating uncertainty around permitting delays and access to fibre, and that was suffocating the industry before the latest tariffs even came into place.
There are mass closures that have nothing to do with permitting delays and access to fibre but have everything to do with ideology and ticking the box of bureaucrats and activists in New York, and for what? It is to put our industry and our workers at a competitive disadvantage and to send our forestry jobs to Brazil, to Russia and to the United States, countries with lower environmental standards than our own. This is at a time when forestry in Canada and the 200,000 Canadian workers that it employs face an unprecedented existential crisis due to predatory trade action from the U.S.
Every day, I see the effects of all these policies in my riding: people out of work; families cutting back; lineups at the Comox Valley Airport of individuals desperate for work, seeking whatever they can at mines and energy projects hundreds or thousands of miles away; and young Canadians, be it in Campbell River or Port Hardy, whom I talk to, who see no future for forestry at all. All they see is uncertainty and a perpetual downward spiral to nothing.
However, it does not have to be this way. Canada has the best forestry workers and the best forestry companies of anywhere in the world. We have an industry that can operate sustainably for generations to come, and we have a product in softwood lumber that builds our homes and is the envy of countries right around the world.
There is no reason why the industry should not have a bright future of growth, success and prosperity, but if the government does not act to secure trade access to the U.S., to diversify our markets and to lift ideological restrictions on access to fibre, the current trend will continue, a trend of decline, of pessimism and of slowly destroying one of the foundational industries that built our incredible country.
For the sake of future generations and for Canada, I urge the Liberal government to rise to the occasion, finally do what needs to be done and deliver on what it promised.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chair, we launched our buy Canadian policy because we wanted to become our own best client. Through our investments in Build Canada Homes, our projects of national interest and our investments in infrastructure, we will focus on Canadian lumber. We want to build our country with our resources.
Does my colleague agree that it is important for our government to strengthen domestic demand for lumber in order to reduce exposure to tariffs imposed by the United States? Does he view stimulating the domestic market for lumber as something positive?
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Chair, while it would be great to boost some domestic demand for softwood lumber, that is not the problem. This is an export industry. About 90% of Canada's softwood exports go to the United States. That cannot be replaced with domestic demand.
We can build all the homes we want, and we are all in favour of building homes here on the opposition side of the aisle, but if we do not fix the issues with access to trade markets and access to the United States, this industry will collapse. It is collapsing right before our eyes. In the process, while we are securing that access, the government should get out of the way and remove this ideological access to fibre that the 30 by 30 United Nations commitment is currently doing.
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my colleague why he thinks the Liberals have not reached an agreement after governing the country for 10 years.
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for the question; that is a great question. The truth is the Prime Minister promised that he would have a deal by July 21, and he did not get one.
Instead, the Liberals have gone around poking the U.S. administration in the eye. Their solution to everything seems to be to print and hand out more money. The truth is that this industry in British Columbia, and on the coast of B.C. in my riding, is completely falling apart. Coastal mills are closing, and 5,400 people have been put out of work. If just one more of these pulp mills or sawmills closes, the domino effect could be a collapse of the entire industry.
I cannot speak for the Prime Minister on why he is incapable of delivering on his promise and getting a deal. What I do know is that this is what he campaigned on, and he is not getting it done.