Debates of Nov. 25th, 2025

Softwood Lumber Industry

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Chair, the government keeps trying to tell us that $1.2 billion is a big number while telling us that $78.3 billion is a small number. The Liberals say that relief is on the way, but our communities tell me that it is going to come too late. The assistance programs that this government is rolling out, first of all, took six months to announce, and I am told that companies are being told that it will be three to six months before their applications are even adjudicated.

One in six manufacturing jobs and one in 28 jobs in all of B.C. depends on forestry. Why is it taking this government so long to act?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Chair, obviously both are big numbers. We know that the number in support of forestry needs to get even bigger, so stay tuned, because later this week we will have something additional to say on that.

In terms of the flowing of funding from the previous announcements, we have just discussed the $700 million in liquidity, which is flowing right now. That money is making its way through. Some businesses have gotten that money, but not enough, which is exactly why the minister read the riot act to banks, to be blunt.

In terms of the other money, that is both an extension of the IFIT program, which is happening right now, and additional funds that will be available in the new year. Now that the budget has passed, let us get that budget implementation act going too. However, that money is for longer-term retooling; it is not about immediate support.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I am honoured to rise today to speak on behalf of forestry workers in my riding on Vancouver Island. I want to be clear that the debate is not just about forestry workers; it is about whole communities and about broken promises from the Prime Minister and the government.

It has been months of the Prime Minister's making promises he just cannot keep. He ran his campaign this year on the promise of getting Canadians a deal with the United States. He even gave himself a deadline of July, but there has been nothing except a tripling of tariffs on softwood lumber. Tariffs on lumber are now at an industry-killing 45%. Mills cannot afford this, and workers cannot afford to lose their jobs, but that is the situation that mills and workers in my riding are facing.

As we have heard from my colleagues tonight, it is not just on Vancouver Island but across British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada. However, this is a failure of not just the last few months. Canadians have been waiting a decade for a softwood lumber deal. We have had 10 years of promises from the Liberal government to get a deal signed, yet there is nothing.

There has been over eight months for the Prime Minister to get a deal with President Trump, yet just this weekend the Prime Minister said, “Who cares?” when asked about the last time he spoke with President Trump. I will tell the House that forestry workers care, Canadians care and I care.

Families in my riding are scared. Shifts are curtailed. Workers are not working. Families who are already struggling with the rising cost of living are at risk of being unable to feed and house themselves. Amanda, a woman in my riding whose husband works at a local mill, said that she is terrified of what will happen should her husband lose his job. She works full-time, but she knows that her job alone cannot support her family of six. She does not know how she will afford to raise her four daughters if curtailment continues or, worse, if a total shutdown happens.

I have heard stories of families moving into campers because of curtailed shifts. They cannot afford to keep their homes. Across the riding, there are now tiny villages of people living in their campers.

The effect of the closures is not limited to forestry jobs. I want to be clear that the closures have affected entire communities, beyond those jobs. Across Canada, over 25,000 direct jobs have been lost in the forestry industry. Those losses have led to approximately 90,000 indirect job losses. That means that for one direct job lost, there have been three to five indirect jobs also lost.

When these workers lose their job, they stop contributing to the economy. For some communities that means that grocery stores are closed, restaurants are out of business and shops do not have the clientele to survive. Do members not believe me? Let us walk down the main street of Duncan, Crofton or Chemainus, and I will show them businesses that are shut down all over, even without full closures at the mills.

Beyond workers, the mills themselves contribute a significant amount in tax dollars to the communities they are a part of. For example, Crofton Mill in my riding contributes approximately $6.5 million annually in municipal taxes. That helps vital infrastructure and community programs in North Cowichan. These are programs that would not survive without that money coming in, which makes the closures even more detrimental to the community.

The closures are not just about the forestry industry; they are signs of a total economic failure. The situation is dire for mills, for workers and for our communities. The party opposite's solutions are subsidized loans, handouts and benefit packages. This is the equivalent of a band-aid on a severed artery. Worse yet, the Liberal band-aid solution is funded by more debt and more printed money that, as we know, as always, serves to make our economic problems only worse, a vicious cycle of handouts funded by debt that only extend a failing industry by months rather than rebuild it.

The solution is to negotiate a fair deal on tariffs with the United States. The Prime Minister has proven that he is either incapable, unable or not caring. Forestry workers would probably say that he is all of the above.

That is why I am calling on the Prime Minister to do what he promised and deliver a deal on softwood lumber to protect our hard-working loggers, truckers and mill workers. I am calling on the Prime Minister to care. If if he cannot or does not care to get the deal he promised Canadians, it is time for him to step aside and allow the rest of us to do what we were elected to do, to fight for Canadian jobs—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

My colleague has been in Parliament for only a short time, but I believe he has really distinguished himself in that short time as being a very competent, capable and conscientious member of Parliament.

We have been without a softwood lumber deal for literally thousands of days. When Conservatives were in power, we got a softwood lumber deal very quickly. What does it say to Canadians that the Prime Minister is more worried about jet-setting than about saving Canadian mills and Canadian jobs?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's kind words. He has asked what that says to Canadians. What Canadians are seeing is failure. They want a deal to protect and save the industry, not handouts that are going to be, as I said, a band-aid on a severed artery.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, we recently put several measures in place to support the softwood lumber industry. I am thinking about the more than $1.2 billion in liquidity, in assistance programs and all the other measures we put in place to help businesses and workers affected by the tariffs.

There is our buy Canadian policy, which will give priority to our softwood lumber in our infrastructure and homebuilding projects, especially for the investments we are making in Build Canada Homes, which will require significant use of Canadian lumber.

All of these measures are set out in budget 2025. I am proud to say that I voted in favour of this budget. When I go back to my riding and I talk to stakeholders in the softwood lumber industry, I can look them in the eye and tell them that we are working on more measures, but that we have already put various measures in place to support the industry.

My colleague voted against these measures, so would he be comfortable going back to the softwood lumber industry stakeholders and telling them that he voted against the measures to support them?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite referred to handouts, which is more printed money. It only makes inflation rise, costs rise and the problems worse. It does not solve the problem.

I do agree that diversification is part of the solution, but ultimately the solution is negotiating a deal and getting rid of the 45% tariffs. Europe has 10% tariffs. Those are actual solutions that would save an industry that is dying. Handouts will not achieve that.

Therefore, no, I did not vote for a budget that will not work.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I heard the question from my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. I am a little surprised. He asked the opposition if it was ashamed to have voted against the budget. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of his answer.

Perhaps he should tell the people of Abitibi, Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean who have lost their jobs that there may be a few problems going forward, given that the Prime Minister clearly told forestry workers to retrain.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Chair, if I understand the question correctly, I am happy to say that I am not ashamed of voting against a budget that does not work, and I would leave the member from the party opposite to answer that question if they feel ashamed.

However, as I said before, the budget will not work. Specifically with respect to today's topic of software lumber, continuing to borrow and print more money makes the economy worse; it does not solve the industry. We need negotiated deals so we can sell our lumber to markets in the United States, our primary customer, and elsewhere. I am proud of my decisions, and I hope the members opposite can look at the people in their ridings and make the same statement.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague and I share mills on Vancouver Island that actually are integrated in their supply, whether in Crofton or Port Alberni.

This is really important. The Prime Minister is going down to Washington and talking about the auto industry, steel and aluminum. I am not saying these are not important, but we never hear about the Prime Minister's talking about forestry and the softwood lumber agreement.

Does my colleague agree with me regarding what kind of message that sends to forestry workers on Vancouver Island and throughout British Columbia and Canada?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Chair, in his message, the Prime Minister was very clear when he said, “Who cares?”

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour but sad to stand up to speak on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. My riding has been affected by mill closures for the last seven years at least, and when the Prime Minister talked about the last time he spoke to President Trump about a trade deal, his response was, “Who cares?” I would ask the Prime Minister to talk to all the workers who have lost their jobs, talk to all the families that need the support of these jobs, talk to municipalities and communities, and talk to society to see if they care, because I definitely care.

In fact, I had to dust off my old speaking points from the B.C. legislature from when I was arguing the same thing. We need to save jobs, not shut down the forestry mills in B.C. What happened with the mills shutting down B.C.? We exported more raw logs overseas. We should be doing more manufacturing, but anywhere from 15 to 30 mills have shut down in B.C. alone in the last seven years. That affects families.

The student who wants to graduate from where she went to school her whole life has to think about moving and leaving her friends. Corporations can get up and leave any time they want. In fact, a lot of them move to the United States for lower taxes and fewer regulations. People cannot do that. Corporations can, and the banker Prime Minister knows this. He is the elitist banker.

The Prime Minister says that it is not a “burning issue” to talk with the President of the United States regarding trade. That is being out of touch. That is not having any sympathy or any empathy for the Canadians who rely on jobs, whether they be in mining, forestry, LNG or pipelines. Brookfield has the luxury of hiding $6 billion in a tax haven in Bermuda. A lot of us do not have that luxury. A lot of the people in B.C., especially in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, are burning through their savings. This is not right, and it is not fair for the Prime Minister to say, “Who cares?” and that there is no “burning issue”.

Why did the slogan change? The Liberals went from “elbows up” to “Who cares?” which is so insensitive, especially in Canada when we are talking about two million people now going to food banks, 700,000 of them children. This should not be happening in a first world country like Canada. We are rich in resources, but we are poor in leadership. That is sad. That is a shame. We owe the next generation better than that, and I am not even talking about the generational debt the government has incurred.

The Liberals are talking about investments. That is not investment. They are introducing new money. It is not the same as printing money, but the concept is the same: When we bring in new money without addressing the GDP, inflation goes up. This is what we are taught in high school. I am surprised the banker does not know this, but what does the Prime Minister say? When the Liberals are talking about investing $500 million of Canadian taxpayer money in a space agency in Europe whose campus, just by coincidence, is owned by Brookfield, he turns around and tells Canadians they have to sacrifice, meaning they have to sacrifice their jobs as mill workers, auto workers and steelworkers.

Canadians have to sacrifice, and by the way, they have to pay more taxes. There is a hidden tax through the industrial carbon tax and another hidden tax with the International Maritime Organization, which the government intends to vote in favour of. It does not having the courage to tell Canadians face to face about this international tax. The taxes would not go to a Canadian organization.

Canadians need help. They need jobs. They do not want handouts. I come from the Indian Act. I worked for 20 years to get our band away from Indian Act funding. Its paternalistic nature actually makes people dependent.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will do the same thing to my colleague as I have been doing all evening. I am going to ask him a very simple question.

The proposal that is currently circulating, and what people in the forestry sector are asking the House to do, is to set up a program that would buy back 50% of the countervailing duties.

Unfortunately, when I asked the Leader of the Opposition about this tonight, he would not answer me. I hope I will be more successful with my colleague.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we should address the trade agreements first. The United States is our biggest trading partner.

By the way, the government fails to mention that, in 2006, Harper not only got a softwood lumber agreement in 80 days, but also recovered $4 billion in duties collected by the U.S. government. This government has failed in not addressing the softwood lumber agreement and is failing in not collecting the duties the United States is currently holding onto.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, the Forest Products Association of Canada welcomed the measures we have put in place to respond to the unjustified tariffs imposed by the U.S. administration.

In particular, representatives mentioned that procurement reforms, funding for the tariff response, workforce supports and biofuel incentives are positive measures for the future of the forestry sector.

However, the Leader of the Opposition criticized these support measures last week, which is rather surprising because, in my opinion, the Forest Products Association of Canada knows very well what the industry needs.

Will my colleague encourage his leader to reconsider his comments and to instead support measures that will give businesses the liquidity they need to continue operating during this period of economic turmoil?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, better yet, I would love for these corporations to reopen the mills that they shut down in Vanderhoof, Fort St. John, Merritt, Bear Lake, Port Alberni, Fraser Lake, Surrey, Houston, Terrace, Chetwynd, Midway, Powell River and Mackenzie. Once they reopen those mills, then we will have a conversation with the corporations.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I would like to thank my learned colleague for an excellent speech. In fact, if anyone wants to know the Liberal attitude toward this, I was sitting in the House during question period, and the President of the Treasury Board laughed when we were speaking about mill closures in B.C. He essentially said that we were making it up.

Shame on him. He should be made to apologize. I wish every single Liberal here who has their head down in shame would acknowledge and denounce this, but they will not. One of them is laughing right now. What riding is he from?

It is the member for Calgary Confederation. I welcome him to the House. He has certainly made a name for himself in a short time, laughing at mill closures. Shame on him. He should apologize right here, right now.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, the Liberal government has no idea what it means to lose a job, to live in poverty or to live on welfare.

The Liberal answer is that they are going to come up with a program to soften the blow, when Canadians want to actually pay their own way. They want good-paying jobs, and we had that in B.C. We had it in Canada. We had good-paying jobs.

What does the Liberal government say? Instead of elbows up, it is “Who cares?” There is no “burning issue” to talk about with the President of the United States. That is a shame.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, in 2017, when Donald Trump was in his first administration, he took aim at Canada when it came to steel tariffs.

What did we do? We created a team Canada approach. We flooded Washington, across party lines. Our regional caucuses in the Pacific Northwest Economic Region were down in Spokane. We were working together. Right now, that is not happening. We are not seeing the government work across political lines to bring in a team Canada approach.

Has the member been approached and asked to go to Washington or down to the United States to start working on this for Canada?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, no, I have not. In fact, I do not think the Prime Minister even asked his own Liberal government to go down to the United States.

It is not like what former prime minister Harper did in 2006. Nothing has been done, because they do not care. There is no burning issue to go down there to talk to President Trump.

[Zoe Royer, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am sharing my time with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

Canada and the United States have shared one of the most successful trading relationships in the world. Our economies, supply chains and workers thrive when trade flows freely under CUSMA, yet even the closest of partners encounter trade challenges. From aluminum and steel to energy and critical minerals, one issue continues to stand out: The persistent and deeply frustrating softwood lumber dispute that has resurfaced too often over the past several decades.

We are now in the fifth chapter of this dispute since the 1980s, and the cycle is familiar: The U.S. imposes unfair duties, Canada challenges them, and time and time again, independent panels agree with us. History shows that both countries benefit most when we reach a negotiated solution that restores stability and predictability for the sector.

Today, we are again deep in active litigation. Canada is vigorously defending the interests of our workers, communities and world-class producers. This round carries an even heavier burden, as our industry faces not only anti-dumping and countervailing duties but also U.S. section 232, national security tariffs on wood products.

These measures have real consequences. Softwood lumber is a cornerstone of Canada's forest sector and a vital economic anchor for many rural and northern communities. It supports thousands of well-paying jobs and contributes billions to our economy. With nearly two-thirds of our softwood lumber destined for export, and the U.S. as our largest market, unfair barriers hurt not just companies but the families and towns that rely on this industry.

Our government understands these impacts. We have stood with the sector every step of the way, providing targeted support to workers and producers and mounting a coordinated legal and diplomatic response. Canada's legal strategy is strong and united. In close partnership with provinces and industry, we are pursuing 15 active challenges to U.S. duties across multiple venues, including chapter 10 of CUSMA, chapter 19 of NAFTA , the WTO and the U.S. Court of International Trade. These mechanisms have served us well before, and we remain confident that they will again affirm Canada as a fair and principled trading partner.

We have already secured important wins. In 2019, a WTO panel found that the United States used improper methods to calculate anti-dumping duties. In 2020, another ruling overwhelmingly supported Canada's position on countervailing duties. More recent NAFTA panels have identified significant flaws in the U.S. approach and non-compliance with its own laws. Additional decisions, including under CUSMA, are expected in the months ahead. Some of these might result in refunds of duty deposits, offering real relief to Canadian producers.

Even as litigation proceeds, Canada remains committed to constructive engagement with our American counterparts. The minister is in regular contact with Secretary Lutnick to emphasize the need for a durable, mutually beneficial outcome, and the Prime Minister has raised this directly with the President.

Until a lasting agreement is reached, Canada will keep up the pressure. We will fight unfair measures through every legal and diplomatic tool; we will stand with our workers and communities, and we will continue to insist on a fair, predictable trading framework that allows our softwood lumber industry to compete and thrive. That is our government's commitment, and we will deliver it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Chair, after 10 years of Liberal failure to secure a softwood lumber deal, the member says tonight that the Liberals have made significant wins. However, tariffs have tripled to 45%, costing Canadian producers over $10 billion. There are closed mills in communities like Houston, Vanderhoof, Port Alberni, Chemainus, Merritt and Grand Forks.

Will the member admit that Liberals look as though they do not care about forestry workers or that this is simply because they are completely incompetent when it comes to negotiating a softwood lumber agreement? Which one is it?

[Zoe Royer, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, why has Canada not solved this yet? This dispute has existed for decades, for 40 years, under governments of different stripes. The problem persists. The U.S. system allows its industry to push for these duties, but Canada consistently wins. We win at WTO, NAFTA and CUSMA. We are pushing for the durable agreement our workers deserve.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.

Earlier, my colleague from Jonquière asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources a question. He asked him whether he was open to the Bloc Québécois's proposal. Actually, this proposal comes from the industry and the unions, but the Bloc Québécois supports it. It consists of asking the government to buy back 50% of the countervailing duties. The parliamentary secretary told us he was open to the idea and wanted to consider it.

Can my colleague tell me whether she too is open to this proposal, which is supported by the Bloc and, again, comes from the sector, by which I mean not just the industry, but the unions and municipal officials as well? Is she open to the Bloc Québécois's proposal?