Madam Chair, I want to start off by saying I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
I want to thank the great people of Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies for their support.
For the last decade, Canada has been locked in the same exhausting, costly and frankly predictable dispute with the United States over softwood lumber. For a decade, it has been Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian communities who have been forced to shoulder the burden of the ongoing trade conflict. It is not a new issue and not a surprise. It has been staring at us in the face for years, yet somehow, despite all the warnings, all the promises and all the opportunities to act, the Liberal government has failed to secure a stable, lasting agreement, leaving the forestry sector to navigate the longest period in Canadian history without a negotiated settlement. It is not progress. It is not leadership. It is failure.
Softwood lumber is not just another commodity. It is one of the foundational pillars of Canada's economy. It supports more than 200,000 direct and hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs. It sustains hundreds of rural, northern and indigenous communities. It feeds our domestic construction industry, fuels innovation and generates billions of dollars in exports. When the lumber sector thrives, Canada thrives, but when it is threatened the shockwaves ripple across the entire country.
Right now, the sector is under threat. Punitive U.S. duties, which are unfounded, protectionist and arbitrary, continue to hammer Canadian producers. Nearly $10 billion in duties have now been accumulated. That is $10 billion that should be supporting workers, innovation and reinvestment here at home sitting instead in an international account.
What has the Liberal government done in response? It has done nothing that has made any meaningful difference, nothing that has moved the needle for struggling mills and nothing that signals to Americans or Canadians that the dispute is being treated with the seriousness it deserves. Year after year, we hear the same lines from the government: that they are working on it, that talks are ongoing and that a solution is close. However, here we are 10 years later with less certainty, less stability and fewer tools to protect our producers than we had before.
Let us talk about the past deals for a moment because history matters here. Previous softwood agreements, when they actually existed, provided at least a degree of predictability. They allowed producers to plan, invest and grow. The 2006 softwood lumber agreement provided clarity and protection, including caps, and prevented the kinds of disproportionate duties we are seeing today, especially for value-added producers who are now punished for simply selling higher-value finished products. That agreement did not happen by accident but because Canada had a government unwilling to accept endless uncertainty, a government prepared to negotiate with focus and determination, and a government that understood the needs of the forestry sector.
What do we have now? We have a vacuum, a leadership gap, a government that appears more comfortable with reacting to a crisis than preventing them. Without an agreement, investment dries up, mills do not modernize, producers hesitate to hire, projects get shelved and opportunities vanish. Once the jobs are gone, once a mill closes, once a community loses its primary economic engine, it rarely comes back.
We are seeing that risk at play across the country. British Columbia is already dealing with reduced harvest levels, wildfire impacts and fibre shortages. It must get more value from less wood just to survive. How can that happen in an environment where the federal government cannot secure predictable market access?
From our fourth-generation sawmill, Kalesnikoff, Ken said that the softwood lumber dispute is beyond its control and that the current rates of 45% tariffs are unsustainable. He said that businesses are drawing on their lines of credit to pay payroll. At J.H. Huscroft, a 100-year mill, Justin said, “We need a plan for three years, just to feel secure” and he said that they have a million dollars in annual shipping bonds, but they don't have access to it.”
At another small family-operated mill, Porcupine, Craig said, “The combined 45% plus tariff is a severe challenge to any business in the industry.” At the ATCO sawmill, with 70 years in business, Scott said that all mills rely on each other for success and that when one operation fails, everyone fails. At the logging contractor Hummers, Nick said that he had to lay off half their staff, that shipping to the U.S. was not economical and that Europe was slow as well. He said that even local mills have cancelled some of their orders.
The question is simple: How long will they be forced to wait before the government finally delivers the leadership it has been promising for a decade?