Debates of Nov. 25th, 2025

Softwood Lumber Industry

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

Mr. Chair, during the budget debates, we talked a lot about government spending that made no sense, along with an $80-billion deficit. For one thing, this government extended tax credits for the oil industry until 2040. These tax credits for the oil industry are collectively going to cost us $100 billion. In the meantime, the struggling forestry sector is getting not one penny. That is why we are here this evening.

Does my colleague agree with me that it makes no sense to give $100 billion in tax credits to the oil industry and absolutely nothing to the forestry industry?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have travelled through B.C. to many pulp mills and sawmills and have spoken to owners and CEOs about the situation they are in. They told me that they do not need a bailout in the form of more loans. They do not need further debt. They have been getting deeper and deeper into debt for the past decade because of the inactions of the government in helping this sector.

They would like to see negotiations. They want to put people to work. They do not want one shift; they want three shifts going 24 hours a day, as they have had in the past.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Chair, this is classic Liberals. They stumble along until we are in the midst of a crisis and then say, “What would you guys do?” It is pretty obvious: We would be negotiating a softwood lumber deal.

The Liberals had lots of opportunities to do so. I remember the bromance between Justin Trudeau and Obama. They could have made it a priority and had a softwood lumber deal then. I remember when Joe Biden came to visit and the Liberals were swooning all over him. They could have used that opportunity to get a softwood lumber deal.

What does my hon. colleague think about the missed opportunities the government has had to sign a softwood lumber deal?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is a very difficult question. What I would like to know right now is who in the government is in the United States tonight negotiating for the people who cannot put food on their table, are waiting in lines at the food bank and do not want a handout. They want their jobs.

Who is there right now? Who is there tonight? Who will be there tomorrow? I want every single Liberal sitting here tonight to go there as a group, with representatives from all parties, and get a deal for the people of Canada.

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Chair, tonight's debate is not academic. It is not in theory, and it is not a matter of charts and tables on some Ottawa desk. Tonight's debate is about workers and small towns. It is about the people who built this country with their hands and who are watching their livelihoods get crushed because the government cannot get a deal.

In my riding, in Miramichi, we do not need a briefing note to understand what is happening. We are living it. Earlier this year, because of the Prime Minister's failure, Arbec Forest Products announced a shutdown of its Miramichi mill, where 29 jobs were permanently eliminated and 113 workers were directly affected. That is 113 families and 113 paycheques. That is just one mill in one community in one corner of Canada.

This is not just a Miramichi story. The pain from the government's failures runs across New Brunswick. In the northwest, in places like Perth-Andover, Nackawic and Woodstock, mills are fighting the same headwinds, the same duties and the same impossible math. If we were to talk to the contractors in Carleton County, the haulers on those back roads and the families whose livelihoods depend on the steady market, they would tell us that they are feeling the squeeze just as hard.

When one part of New Brunswick's forestry economy gets hit hard, the pain runs through the whole province. Our province does not have Bay Street hedge funds to fall back on. We have mills, truckers, woodlot owners and communities tied together by work and by timber. When federal leadership collapses, it is not Ottawa that pays the price. It is the people in every corner of New Brunswick who depend on forestry to keep their towns alive.

Across this country, the story is the same. It is a failure of the Prime Minister who promised elbows up. Because of the government's failure, we have seen more than 25,000 direct jobs vanish. It is nearly 90,000 total jobs when we count the ripple effects and the truckers, the mechanics and the suppliers. Every one of these losses sits on the conscience of a government that has gone 10 years without securing a softwood lumber agreement. It has been 10 years, three American presidents and not one deal.

However, who did get a deal? It was Stephen Harper in just 80 days. It was not 80 years, but 80 days. The government has not even managed a deal in 3,650 days. The result is softwood lumber duties of 35%, with some producers facing more than 47%. Then, in October, as if that was not enough, President Trump slapped another 10% section 232 tariff on lumber and a 25% tariff on wood furniture and cabinets, which is set to rise as high as 50% next year. Combined, many Canadian producers now face over 45% in duties and tariffs. Almost half of their product's value is gone before it crosses the border.

The U.S. Treasury has taken over $10 billion from Canadian forestry companies since 2017, which is money that should have stayed in rural towns, in mill upgrades, in workers' paycheques and in the real economy of this country. Instead, it is sitting in Washington in Donald Trump's pockets thanks to the failed banker turned failed Prime Minister.

Unifor has said, “Forestry is in an absolute crisis...we're at a breaking point”. COFI has begged the government to show the same urgency for lumber that it shows for steel, aluminum and energy, and what did the government offer? It offered a $1.25-billion support package, which was announced in August. Not one dollar of it has delivered, and not one loan guarantee has been approved. There has not been one worker support rollout, not one timeline set and not one piece of diversification funding allocated. What that is called here at home is nothing.

This is what the government has done; that is what it has delivered. Meanwhile, mills are closing and families are scrambling. Young people are leaving small towns because the work is drying up. This is not just a policy failure; it is a national failure of leadership.

However, the Prime Minister does not seem too worried. He has been in 18 countries in eight months, but how many sawmills has he been to? He has walked plenty of red carpets, but not one log yard. He has shaken hands with foreign dignitaries, but not with one logger who just lost his job because Ottawa could not get a deal.

Small towns like mine, places like Miramichi, Blackville, Doaktown, Rogersville, Chipman and Minto do not want a charity. They do not want photo ops or another press release. They want their jobs. They want a country that fights for them the way they have fought for Canada. What they see is a government that surrendered our leverage, our industry and our workers, and they see a government that insulted them with election slogans of elbows up.

Conservatives reject that, and we know what forestry means. We know what it means to the men and women who put their boots on at 5 a.m. and work hard to build a nation. We are here tonight to say this crisis is real, the pain is real and this debate matters. We will not stop until Canada has the government willing to negotiate fair softwood lumber agreements and is willing to stand up to the United States.

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

Mr. Chair, the forestry industry is central to the economy of the province of New Brunswick, and the U.S. administration's unjustified tariffs are having a significant impact on the sector.

I heard my colleague voice several criticisms about our approach, but I did not hear many concrete suggestions on how we can actually help this very important sector.

On our side, we have implemented measures: $1.2 billion to access liquidity and a buy Canadian policy to stimulate domestic demand. We are working to reach a really good agreement with the United States. We do not want to sign just any agreement. We want a good agreement that will meet the needs of Canadians. These are several concrete measures that my colleague has opposed.

Instead of criticizing, could he suggest constructive solutions on how we can support this sector, which is so important to New Brunswick?

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Chair, there are two points that I thought of when the member asked his question. One of them was about what we do. We are not the government; we are in opposition. The Liberals are the ones who stood up and said they had their elbows up and that they were going to have a trade deal by July 21. They got absolutely nothing. The mill workers in New Brunswick, along with the rest of them in Canada, do not want a handout. They want their jobs. They want to get up in the morning, pack a lunch, go to work and bring their paycheques home to support their families. They do not want the government to support their families for them.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, earlier this evening, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, I said that tonight we cannot settle for mere slogans. Saying “elbows up”, “who cares” or “we care” four times is not good enough for people in the forestry sector.

A proposal is on the table. Unfortunately, no one in the Conservative Party has been able to tell us whether they support it or are not interested. No one will answer us.

I will rephrase the proposal for my colleague. People in the forestry sector are asking the government to absorb 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. That would save jobs.

Does my colleague agree with that?

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Chair, I could not understand completely what the member was saying—

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

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order.

My colleague says that he did not understand the question, so there is clearly an interpretation issue. If we intend to abide by the Official Languages Act, I suggest that my colleague rephrase his question so that my colleague can hear it properly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

From what I understood, the member was saying that he did not understand all of the interpretation. He is not saying that he did not understand the question. I will let the member decide for himself whether he understood what was asked, yes or no.

The interpretation was not right. Is that what the member was saying?

I would ask the member for Jonquière to briefly repeat his question.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are not content with empty slogans like “elbows up” and “who cares”. We need proposals.

There is a proposal on the table. Unfortunately, my Conservative colleagues have not taken a position on it. This proposal calls for the government to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month.

Does my colleague agree?

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Chair, we have not seen any proposal. We want to see the government negotiate with the U.S. to get a trade deal that is fair for Canada.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Chair, when asked if he was picking up the phone and talking to Donald Trump, the Prime Minister said, “who cares?” We care. We care deeply about the workers in the softwood lumber industry. There are 15 mills that operate in my constituency. My friend Peter works at one of those mills. These are the folks who are affected by this. The Liberals have had 10 years to fix this problem, and now today they are saying we need to diversify our markets. They have had 10 years to diversify our markets. Stephen Harper signed 42 free trade agreements around the world, and the Liberals could have worked to ensure that we had diversified markets for our softwood lumber. What does the member think about that?

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague. When I look at Miramichi—Grand Lake, I look at the Doaktown mill. Doaktown has 800 people in the community. They have 165 jobs. We look at Chipman. There are 1,200 people in the community and 250 at the mill. That cripples those areas. When those jobs go, that is the end of those communities. Those people are moving out west. They are moving to different parts of the country or across the province.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is getting late and I would like to apologize.

I want to start by thanking many colleagues who have been in the take-note debate tonight. I am only participating virtually because I am simultaneously in the committee doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-12. Timing is tricky, and I know that I have only five minutes. I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Many of the speeches tonight have been extremely powerful. I have been trying to observe them all, as we can imagine, back and forth between Zoom rooms while defending amendments to protect refugee rights. I want to say from the outset that the forest products industry is terribly important to Canada, and that, as a British Columbian, I grieve for every mill town that has lost its mill, for workers who have no wood to process.

As some members have mentioned already, the hon. member for Jonquière, for example, the forest industry is facing a perfect storm, and it is imperfect in its impact on the communities.

It is horrific. A lot of the impacts have been climate change-related, with insect infestations, the pine beetle outbreak in B.C. and wildfires, which have contributed to a hard time for supply and a hard time for forest workers.

I have been working on forest policy issues for a long time. I wrote my first book on Canada's forest policies in 1998 and the second in 2005. Through all of it, one persistent irritant has been the U.S.'s constant raising of objections to the structuring of our forest industry, unfair objections that claim we are subsidizing our forest industry. What I would like to suggest in my time tonight is that, as the U.S. is once again doing this, we need to think outside the box. We have been trying, for decades, to fix the softwood lumber disputes with the United States. Let us think about protecting our industry through new approaches to economic sovereignty.

Again, referencing the hon. member for Jonquière, I think it was a solid idea to think about paying some of the duties so that we protect the industry. I would also like to suggest that it has been more than decades, centuries, since we have thought of ourselves as hewers of wood and drawers of water, having a rip-and-ship mentality to how we handle our natural resources. What if we said no more to allowing a pellet industry to start selling pellets to Japan and the U.K. out of good, solid logs, as proven in research by Ben Parfitt from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives? What if we said no more to this fake carbon credit to the U.K. in taking Canadian logs and turning them into pellets to ship them overseas? No raw logs should leave this province or the country without being processed first.

I also want to suggest, in the time that I have, that it is time Canada created a strategic reserve of Canadian softwood lumber that the government buys. At this point, it is not as much as it used to be. There is $11 billion to $15 billion a year of Canadian softwood that ends up in the U.S. We could keep it here, process it here and use it to build Canadian homes. We could have structural lumber that creates greener building materials. We could continue to hold our softwood lumber here, use it here and process it here. Even one raw log exported is one raw log too many.

We could engage indigenous nations to work with us to ensure the sustainable management and the logging of our old growth and do more to ensure that every log harvested in Canada is processed in Canada. We could get those logs to sawmills and use them in Canada where we need them. Let Trump apply tariffs if he wants to, but we will not be shipping them any forest products anymore until they stop their practices that are prejudicial, illegal and unfair to Canadian forest-based communities.

I would urge the House to listen to all those strong voices and also thank every member in this place who spoke of the pain and suffering that forest communities are experiencing as mills close and tariffs increase. This is an urgent priority, just as important as aluminum and steel, and every member of the current government needs to recognize that.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, my colleague touched on something we have not discussed enough so far tonight: the effects of climate change on the forestry sector. She is absolutely right; it is creating challenges in terms of the spruce budworm and the pine beetle, and of course it is making forest fires larger in areas quite far away from where we have ever managed woods, because there are drier and hotter conditions causing them.

I am wondering if my colleague can expand on those thoughts, because I think they are vitally important to the conversation. Climate Change is the defining issue coming at us, and while we deal with a number of crises, we cannot lose focus on the big crisis that is slow-rolling and in front of us.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, what we experienced in British Columbia, and a lot of people in the rest of Canada may not know it, was the first really large economic impact from the climate crisis, which was the pine beetle outbreak that killed an area of lodgepole pine forest in the interior of B.C. equivalent to two times the size of Sweden. It happened because we lost the cold snaps in winter, when it used to hit -35°C, which was what limited the pine beetle spread.

Warming contributed to the dead forest that contributed to the fires, which contributed to economic losses and trauma for everyone concerned. They are connected issues, but as Trump increases his tariffs, we have to protect the communities that have already been through so very much with mill closures and damage from the climate crisis.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Chair, when we are talking about big issues at a national level that are affecting literally thousands upon thousands of people, and when we are talking about macroeconomics and international trade deals, what can often get lost and overlooked is the localized picture and the individual.

This is near and dear to my heart, and the forestry sector is near and dear to my heart on a personal level, because I was raised in a forestry worker's home. My dad worked in a pulp mill for over 50 years, prior to retiring at the age of 69. He worked as late as 69 years old because the mill went down in the community where I grew up, Nackawic, when my dad was 51 years old. As a result of that, the devastating effects he went through, such as loss of pension and other challenges, had an impact not just on him but on the whole community.

I hope that the House keeps in mind the personal devastation that forestry workers are experiencing right now. I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have gone through times in my life when a good salary, or any salary, could not be counted on. Sometimes I was between jobs, facing unemployment insurance, and struggling. However, as parliamentarians, we do not worry, right? We are going to get our paycheque no matter what. However, we have to earn it, and the way we earn it is to never to forget that we represent individual Canadians, and that the personal is political.

We fail when people think that the mill's closing in someone's town does not affect us, or when it does not make us so angry we could scream every time we know that raw logs are being shipped out, when mills would love to run more shifts and hire more workers but cannot get the logs. We have to let communities know that we care; that, at least, is some consolation.

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

Mr. Chair, I must be the only member of this House who, just before being elected, worked on paper machines. I think I know the forestry industry well. I know what it is like to work 12-hour shifts during the day, at night or on weekends on paper machines. There is no one in this House who can say they know that better than I do.

My colleague, whom I really like, is fighting to protect the environment. I would like to know how she feels when she sees the current government putting billions of dollars into subsidies for the oil and gas industry and not a damn penny for the forestry industry, even though it is the industry that is best positioned to combat greenhouse gases.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean is absolutely right.

The fossil fuel industry and other industries are getting significant subsidies, but nothing is being done to address the concerns of the forestry sector. Why? This is unacceptable—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Chair, before I get started, I just want to respond to a comment by my colleague from New Brunswick, who talked about the impact on forestry workers and communities. He talked about his family connection to the forestry sector. I also have a family connection. My great-grandfather and my great-grandmother lived in Ocean Falls, where my great-grandfather was a papermaker. My grandmother and my late grandfather also were there, and my mom was there. When Ocean Falls went from a thriving community of 3,500 people to the 70 people it is today, as it collapsed, we saw intergenerational families disperse, and we saw the impact that had, not just on community but on families, and the cost of that. We have to do everything we can to ensure that it does not happen in communities like Port Alberni and the community where my colleague lives, and we need to work collectively.

Today I am honoured to bring the voices of workers, of people in the forestry sector, communities and first nations in the riding of Courtenay—Alberni, who are here lobbying for the federal government to take this issue seriously. We know the softwood lumber industry is a $23.3-billion industry that generates around 200,000 direct jobs, but it also is responsible for 182,000 indirect jobs for Canadian workers and supports livelihoods in over 300 communities across this country.

We need to take an “all hands on deck” approach. We need to rethink how we are looking at the forestry sector. As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said, it is an opportunity also for us to start maximizing the use of our fibre. As we tackle the housing crisis, we can use mass timber and modular construction supported by Canadian softwood lumber, which also can help cut build times in half for affordable housing and reduce emissions associated with homebuilding by up to 60%, but we need to treat this like an emergency, as we did during the COVID pandemic. The government is not moving at that pace.

In addition, obviously we need to retool, but supporting biomass utilization and including it as a source of clean energy also makes both economic and environmental sense. It supports billions of dollars in economic activity while comprising only one part of an all-out, necessary, hands-on-deck approach to reducing the prevalence and spread of wildfires.

With respect to this take-note debate, as we know, it is critical timing, because the softwood lumber industry is in crisis. Since 2017, tariffs have drained nearly $10 million from Canada's forestry sector, and the B.C. softwood lumber industry is facing tariffs of up to 45%. Trump's tariffs on softwood lumber are higher than those currently in place on Vladimir Putin's Russia.

It is not just tariffs; softwood lumber is also on the front lines of the climate crisis. Wildfire damage has cost Canadians over $1 billion annually, and this figure will only increase over time. Without urgent action, the massive emissions wildfires produce will trap us in a devastating cycle of environmental and economic degradation.

In August, the Prime Minister announced $1.2 billion in new funding to support the forestry sector, which is far less than for the other sectors. Worse, that money has not gone out to producers. They have not been able to access the promised relief, and they are still waiting for that money to come through. Further to that, only $50 million of that money, 4%, is earmarked for worker supports. I have said it before in the House, and I will say it again: That is not a plan; that is an insult. What is worse is that many owner-operators and contractors remain excluded from those worker supports, despite how crucial the softwood lumber industry is to our economy.

The Prime Minister continues to be in the U.S. talking about other sectors and not talking about forestry. Right now, we can look at the news, and the headline is about bailing out the steel industry. Well, I can assure members that it will not be the same as what he is offering the forestry sector. We know that, and we are going to continue to act in support of productive ideas, but we are also going to be propositional, as we were with the biomass tax credit, which will hopefully generate and unlock around $6 billion in investment.

We all also need to make sure that team Canada and the U.S. are working collectively, together with major strategic interests, as we have with energy, critical minerals and continental supply chains, hydroelectric energy, softwood lumber and Arctic co-operation. We need a more comprehensive, high-level negotiating framework, similar to what the EU has achieved, which could provide the leverage needed to resolve softwood and other long-standing issues. We need a team Canada approach. We need the government to act with urgency.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I want to extend a special thanks to my colleague because of his work on the biomass ITC, which he was instrumental in helping bring forward.

I want to offer a comment that I hope the member will respond to on the trade negotiations with the United States and the psychology of the U.S. President, about which I will be modest in my comments. He is a deal maker, and he does come from a deals-beget-deals environment. Given his interest in some of the other sectors, I wonder if my colleague would respond to the notion that perhaps by starting with the things that Donald Trump is most interested in discussing, we could build momentum toward a softwood lumber deal.

Before I hand it over, I want to say that we will fight every day for the forestry sector.