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.
Corey Hogan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Chair, I wanted to inquire about the comments around 30 by 30 and access to economic fibre. I feel that it is hard to blame 30 by 30 for a lack of fibre when, as noted, B.C.'s tenures are not being fully used. In fact, when I look at Scandinavian countries and European countries with a much smaller footprint, they tend to be quite robust in their generation of fibre. This is a very large country.
Given that, can the member expand on why he thinks 30 by 30 specifically is to blame?
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question. I am sure he knows, in talking to forestry companies, especially in British Columbia and right across this country, that other than the trade issues with the United States, access to fibre is the number one issue that these companies face. It is the number one issue facing the industry and preventing it from going forward and being successful.
As far as 30 by 30 goes, that is just another ideological restriction. That is just another source of uncertainty that scares away investment, that scares away companies from making hiring decisions and investing in mills and that scares away what should be one of the most profitable and prosperous industries in our entire country.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on this topic. I know that his community has faced mill closures, as has mine. The Tolko mill in High Level has just reduced its mill operations by one-third. It has sent one-third of its people home. It says that it can survive this uncertainty that we are facing for a bit longer, but it is concerned about not having a structural change in this country.
What are the member's comments around that?
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this industry on the coast of B.C. is one sawmill or pulp mill closure away from total collapse. It is barely hanging on. It is losing money at this moment. It has been struggling for a while. If we do not get a trade deal soon, if we do not get access to fibre soon, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and thousands of additional jobs are at risk.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time.
I rise today with a profound sense of solidarity and optimism to speak for the tens of thousands of Canadians whose lives and livelihoods are entwined with our nation's softwood lumber sector. These men and women, from the forests to the mills to the communities they support, embody the spirit of Canadian resilience, enterprise and hope.
Canada's softwood lumber industry is a foundation for prosperity. It drives rural economies, sustains urban development and represents the best of our collective ingenuity. When the U.S. imposes duties and tariffs that harm this sector, as it has done periodically over the last four decades, it is not just about numbers on a ledger; it is families, futures and dreams that are put at risk.
As for my home province of British Columbia, we heard first-hand at the natural resources committee from Kim Haakstad of the British Columbia Council of Forest Industries. We also heard from Andy Rielly of the Independent Wood Processors Association of British Columbia. Both Kim and Andy spoke of the importance of forestry to the economy of our province. In fact, Ms. Haakstad said, “In many towns, forestry isn't just an industry; it really is the community”.
This past summer, the United States doubled existing duties and then applied an additional tariff last month. This unprecedented burden is impacting our businesses and communities. It is impacting workers and their families. It is putting Canadians' livelihoods at risk. However, in every region, Canadians have shown their strength and unity, finding ways to support one another, reimagining opportunities and never losing sight of what we can build together.
As parliamentarians we are entrusted with the responsibility to defend Canadian workers and ensure our industries have the tools and support required to thrive both in the face of challenge and in times of transition. This government has recently introduced $1.25 billion in programs and measures to help businesses and workers adapt to the impact of these unfair U.S. duties. Funding for innovation, product and market diversification, training, and retraining is aimed at creating new jobs, strengthening local economies and developing skills for the jobs of the future. Our actions are guided by a single principle: no Canadian is left behind.
We know that our workers are among the most skilled and dedicated in the world. From forestry professionals to truck drivers and from engineers to entrepreneurs, Canadians in the lumber sector contribute not just to our economy, but to our national identity. Their ingenuity and grit ensure that our forests are managed sustainably, our products meet the highest standards and our communities remain vibrant.
Indigenous communities are vital participants and leaders in the forest sector as well. Their stewardship has shaped how we view our environment and our responsibilities as caretakers of the land. This government continues to work alongside indigenous partners, including through joint ventures, resource management initiatives and employment programs, to build inclusive, thriving futures for all.
The impact of unwarranted U.S. duties and tariffs on our lumber has been felt far beyond any Canadian sawmill's gates. When a mill closes or downsizes, the effects ripple through local schools, hospitals, businesses and service providers. Every job loss touches lives in ways that cannot be measured in statistics alone. Still, Canadians persevere, standing together, supporting one another and finding new ways to move forward in unity, despite deep frustration and even anger brought on by the United States's decision to impose unjust tariffs and duties on Canadian softwood lumber and additional forest products.
This government's response to these unjustified duties and tariffs is not limited to domestic assistance. Canada is vigorously contesting and has vigorously contested the unfair U.S. duties through established mechanisms, challenging them under CUSMA and engaging in legal action in U.S. courts. We remain confident in our legal and diplomatic efforts. At every step, we are guided by our values and by the resolve of the workers and communities we represent.
The government is also working to diversify markets, encourage value-added production and promote sustainable forest practices that give Canadian products an edge around the globe. This strategy is anchored in our core values of collaboration, innovation and optimism for the future.
The Canadian spirit shines brightest through times of challenge in small towns and big cities—
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for recognizing the challenges that are facing our industry. However, the Prime Minister did say during the election campaign that he was going to get this deal done. Many Canadians from across the country voted for him because they thought that he would get this deal with Donald Trump done. Donald Trump endorsed him after all.
Why are we still living with no softwood lumber deal in this country?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, the extraordinary and unjust tariffs that we are facing right now were not actually present during the election. The Prime Minister did negotiate with the United States and, in fact, 85% of our products, in general, are tariff-free. They are covered under CUSMA.
Our fundamental problem with the United States and the softwood lumber arrangement is that the United States administration believes that it does not need our lumber. As long as it thinks it does not need our lumber, it puts us in a very bad negotiating position to try to negotiate. The fact is that it is wrong. The U.S. does need our lumber. When it realizes that it does need our lumber, it will sit down with us and talk in good faith. When it is ready to sit down and talk with us in good faith, we will be more than willing and able to do so.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, there are several layers to that question. There are, of course, the assistance programs and solutions that we are proposing in the short and medium term, because there is a real emergency. I think they are clear. We have discussed them. We have not been able to get a clear answer on this.
Now, my colleague is on the government side. We also know that there will soon, very soon, within a year, be a review or even a renegotiation of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. That is a possibility.
Is it not time to properly regulate the dispute resolution mechanism to prevent trade actions from dragging on unnecessarily and bankrupting our industries?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I certainly would love to see this resolved under the new version of CUSMA.
The fundamental problem, as I mentioned before, is that at the moment the United States administration does not believe it needs our lumber. The President said so back in September. He said, “We don't need their lumber, because we have our own forests.” The United States is wrong. It does need our lumber.
Once it starts to realize that, once that percolates into the American economy, the U.S. administration will be able to sit down with us in good faith, and we will be able to negotiate a deal that is good for Canada. We have to be in a good negotiating position in order to make a deal that is good for Canada, and the United States has to make sure the deal is good for them as well. A good business deal is good for both parties.
Corey Hogan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Chair, something my hon. colleague just mentioned has triggered a question.
One of the things this chamber needs to understand is that one of the reasons why the United States feels that it does not need Canadian software lumber right now is that lumber prices are very low by historical standards. When prices come up, that pain is going to be felt much more acutely by American consumers. Obviously, we do not want to wait for that.
Does the hon. member believe we should continue to support and provide additional supports to the forestry sector?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, absolutely, we must continue to support the industry. We must continue to provide alternative directions. We must continue to build out our use of wood products domestically and to develop market diversity so that we can sell more offshore. The United States does not have to be our only external market. We can sell to the world. We have a product that is worth selling to the world, a product that the world needs and that the world wants.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Chair, right now Donald Trump is actually claiming that Canadian forest products are a national security threat to the United States. It is absolutely absurd. In fact, British Columbia and Canada are now facing higher softwood lumber tariffs at 45% than Putin's Russia. Clearly, we need a more comprehensive, high-level negotiating framework, similar to what the European Union achieved.
Would my colleague not agree that we need this leverage to resolve the softwood lumber and other long-standing issues? Why is the government not pursuing this approach?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, we certainly do need to pursue other approaches, but we are still faced with the fundamental fact that the President of the United States thinks that he does not need our lumber. He is, of course, very wrong about that. We will continue to work with him and work with the administration to let them know that they do need what we have.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, I was not sure it would be my turn at this point, but I am pleased to rise to speak.
Once again, we are having this take-note debate. This must be the third time we have had such a debate in the evening since I became a member of Parliament. However, I am sure there have been many more for a crisis that has been going on for 40 years. Unfortunately, this crisis is so recurrent and repetitive that it has become a bit like background noise. It is as though it no longer elicits a reaction, and the government simply shrugs its shoulders, which is unfortunate. It is extremely unfortunate, because people and families are affected. There are regions that are affected. Then there are the consumers who are affected. There are folks who will suffer as a result.
I often give talks at high schools in my riding. I often use forestry as an example. People ask me what influence the federal government has. They often feel that municipal government has more influence in their life. When the garbage truck does not show up, they call their city councillor and the problem is solved the following week. I often use the example of lumber to show that the federal government does have a role to play. Lumber tariffs seem distant, foreign and very remote, but in fact, they have repercussions here. They make lumber more expensive and unaffordable, forcing companies to lay off workers here at home. It means someone coming home before Christmas and telling his family that he no longer has a job, that he will not be able to buy them gifts and that he is going to have a hard time making ends meet at the end of the month.
This has been going on for 40 years. I have been a member of Parliament since 2019, and I have seen a lot of missed opportunities in my time. I remember our first debates on renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. We examined the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, which was meant to replace NAFTA. The dispute settlement mechanism issue was left unresolved. The Americans know they are going to lose the legal proceedings. They know it full well. They know they are going to fail. They are playing the long game. Their strategy is to force us into bankruptcy, to block us by slowing our competitiveness and preventing us from modernizing as we should while they make gains on their side. They are biding their time. That is why we need cut-off dates for legal proceedings under CUSMA.
The Trump administration brought back the tariffs, but I remember a take-note debate we had back when the Biden administration increased them in 2021. Several colleagues were there at the time; some are still here. We wore masks back then, but it was the same colleagues. Despite these new tariffs, there was no mention of the issue in the Minister of International Trade's mandate letter, published a few weeks later. That just shows how lightly the issue was taken.
We saw the minister rush off to Washington to talk exclusively about the auto industry because there was a plan by the Biden administration that would harm our domestic industry. Softwood lumber was not on the agenda. When other tariffs were announced later, I remember being invited to the World Trade Organization summit. I did not go, but I was invited by the international trade minister. Softwood lumber was not on the list of topics she wanted to discuss either.
The result, as we can see today, is that we have assistance programs that are woefully inadequate. This is part of a general philosophy of complete indifference, as evidenced by the constant delays.
I remember asking the Minister of Industry some questions a few weeks ago in the House. She told me that she knew that the forestry industry was important in my riding. There is no forestry industry in my riding. My riding is an hour away from hers. There is no forestry industry in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. It is an hour away from hers. I asked those questions in my capacity as my party's trade critic.
I am being told that my time is up. There are so many other things I wanted to talk about this evening, but there are still questions and comments.
At some point, the government has to recognize the problem and take it seriously. That is what matters.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for his great speech on this topic. I wonder if he has any comments on the fact that we are only holding the Prime Minister to his own words. He promised that he was a master negotiator and that he was going to get us a software lumber deal within 100 days, by July 1, or something like that.
I would also point out that the Liberals have been in power for a decade while the U.S. has been under three different presidents. I remember the Justin Trudeau bromance with Obama. I thought they would fix the softwood lumber deal because they got along so great. The Liberals had lots of accolades for Joe Biden, who came to visit us right here. They never got the softwood lumber deal. I just wonder what the member has to say about that.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, I get the impression that this has not been a top priority. I have given several examples of missed opportunities, of times when this should have been at the forefront and at the top of the list. However, the industry has always been ignored, even though it is an extremely important industry, one that is also important to the Americans.
During a mission to Washington, I met with representatives of the National Association of Home Builders. They are radically opposed to what is going on and are wondering whether the folks in charge are crazy. At a time when there is a housing crisis and millions of Americans are struggling to find housing, construction costs are going up. Home ownership is extremely difficult, access to housing is just as difficult and, suddenly, we find out that this is happening.
Alliances could have been built, but the government's approach has clearly failed so far. It was supposed to resolve the issue in a matter of weeks or months at the most, but the situation remains unchanged as of today.
Claude Guay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Chair, I would like to put a question to my colleague, who has a great deal of experience in the House and has been through these recent crises.
What does he suggest as a long-term solution to this crisis?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, as I have said and my colleagues have repeated several times, the short- or medium-term solution is immediate assistance.
As I said earlier, the long-term solution would be to resolve this issue within the framework of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which will be reviewed no later than next year. There needs to be a mechanism in place in case of trade actions, because no one can guarantee that the bad faith shown by an administration will suddenly disappear. Future administrations will still be able to behave the same way, which is why we need to set a real time limit, as we were meant to do from the beginning.
The notion of imposing a time limit on the dispute settlement mechanism between states was raised from the outset. The maximum period discussed was one year. In the end, that changed. It was supposed to be one year, but that excluded the time needed to appoint arbitrators. That is where the Americans found ways to stall and draw things out. This aspect will have to be addressed head-on in the next review.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Chair, in my home province of British Columbia, we are asking the government to treat forestry like the other sectors, such as the auto sector and the steel and aluminum sector, when it comes to relief, but right now that is not happening. There is a $1.2-billion bailout that is as slow as molasses rolling out the door. There is $50 million allotted for workers, and there are 200,000 workers in this sector.
I would like to hear from my colleague how the Quebeckers who rely on forestry jobs and the communities that rely on forestry feel the forestry sector is being treated compared to the other sectors that are being hit and hammered by Donald Trump's tariffs.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, that is an excellent question, and I do not understand why lumber is not regarded more as a major industry and considered a major material.
For years now, government reports have indicated that we could radically increase the amount of wood used in construction as an alternative to concrete, because it is more environmentally friendly and emits far less greenhouse gas. It is an industry that will create more cooling islands in cities. In short, it contributes in every way to decarbonization for the future.
Indeed, this industry has not always been above reproach. We remember Richard Desjardins' film—
The Chair Conservative Tom Kmiec
I will have to stop the hon. member there, as we have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Chair, I am sharing my time with my colleague for Miramichi—Grand Lake.
I rise today to address an issue of profound urgency, an issue that strikes at the heart of countless communities across B.C., our nation and my riding: the crisis facing Canada's forestry sector.
For more than a decade, this vital industry has been neglected by the government. Now, we find our ourselves on the brink of disaster. The recent decision by the United States to impose a 45% tariff on our softwood lumber exports is a direct threat to the livelihoods and stability of small towns that have relied on forestry for generations.
It is important for every member of the House to fully grasp the consequences of this crisis. We cannot sit by and do nothing. Many of the negotiations that have occurred concerning tariffs between the U.S. and Canada have barely mentioned softwood lumber. Forestry is a backbone for so many rural communities. I have been touring my riding, from Princeton to Grand Forks to Castlegar. Our forestry businesses are suffering, and our people are suffering.
In many small towns, the local mill can be the largest employer, and generations of families have relied on these well-paying stable jobs to build a future, raise their children and contribute to the local economy. When a mill shuts down or scales back its operations, the impact ripples through every corner of the community. It is hard for those who live in an urban area to understand that retraining is not an option for most when a mill shuts down and jobs are lost in a rural town. What is the only option for many is leaving that town.
Two mills in my riding have closed completely in the past decade, but others have and are scaling back tremendously as we speak. In Grand Forks, which had a recent mill shut down and then another just in the last couple of weeks go to one shift, it has left families scrambling. I met a young couple who had moved to the town just a few years ago. They bought a home, put down roots and felt hopeful about a fresh start in a community they were proud to join. The husband got laid off with the recent closure, and now they are facing the harsh reality that without work they might not be able to pay their mortgage and keep their home. They told me they were agonizing over whether to uproot their family and their children once again, this time heading north in a desperate hope of finding new employment, or staying to see if the tariffs may be lifted and the jobs might come back again.
These losses extend far beyond mill workers and contractors. When a mill shuts down, it affects the entire local economy. The grocery store feels it, as do the hardware store, the restaurants, the cafes, the gas stations and volunteer organizations. Schools lose families. A mill closure is not just a business shutting down; it is a slow hollowing out of an entire town. Our forestry communities need a federal government that will stand up for them and champion the value of Canadian wood products. The people I met are not asking for handouts; they want their jobs back. They want to work.
The current situation demands urgent action, not a Prime Minister who says, “Who cares?” If we fail to act now, more communities will face the same devastation; more families will be forced to leave towns they love, and more businesses will close their doors. We do not need ghost towns. I stand here today because people affected by this crisis deserve to have their voices heard in this chamber. They deserve leadership and meaningful solutions. We owe them nothing less.
Claude Guay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Chair, I hear the hon. member asking for action. The government is taking action. Is it perfect? Maybe it is not perfect. We are listening to the industry, but I did not hear the member suggest any solution to what we agree is a very difficult situation. If they do not want a handout and they want a deal, I would like to know what concessions they are prepared to give to the Americans to get a deal.
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Chair, it is difficult to talk about any type of concession or deal when the government is not even in negotiations with the Americans. How many times have I heard that the Liberals have gone across the border, which is very few and not enough, to talk with the Americans and Trump but not even mention softwood lumber?
These people are in a desperate situation. They do not deserve to be ignored. Our towns are in a desperate situation as well.