Debates of Nov. 25th, 2025

Softwood Lumber Industry

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, I am going to pick up where our hon. leader just left off. It always comes down to home for me. It is friends and families and it is the communities in Cariboo—Prince George or across our country that are affected by the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost.

I have some information for my colleagues across the way. I worked in logging. I ran skidder, and I ran chainsaw for a time. I bucked for a time. I am proud to, maybe, be one of the only ones in the House who knows what it is like to have white bread sandwiches with chain oil on my hand and go out to the blocks early in the morning. I remember a time when our communities were dotted with signs that said that the families there were proudly supported by forestry.

What we are seeing now in the 10 years, and where our frustration lies, is that we have somebody who has been here for a minute trying to say that we have selective amnesia over this. I believe he is from downtown Montreal.

We have people in our ridings and within our communities who are absolutely devastated. I spoke of Lucas at 100 Mile Elementary School. These families are financially ruined. They do not have a job to go back to. These mills are our major producers. They are the major tax base for our communities. When these mills leave, these jobs leave and the families leave.

Why are we angry? Why am I frustrated? It is because for 10 years, I have stood in the House and pressured these guys. The importance of softwood has not even been on their radar. This past weekend, the Prime Minister looks in the camera and says, “Who cares?”

He does not have a “burning issue”. This is a burning issue. It has been a burning issue for 10 years. We were promised a deal, under the first Trudeau administration, within 100 days. We heard of a new-found bromance between the Prime Minister and the new administration south of the border. There have been three administrations, and it has not been a priority. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. Over 200,000 jobs hang in the balance. We have the other side saying not to worry, that the cheques are in the mail.

Where is the job? That is what they want. They do not want charity. My riding is made up of proud families. There are a lot of families right now in communities all across our province. We will hear from all our colleagues who are here tonight taking part in this and that they are all affected by it. It is very real.

I appreciate the gentleman from Madawaska—Restigouche who spoke about the impact on his riding. The fact of the matter is that it is his government. They can blame anybody they want, but the reality is that it falls squarely at the foot of the Prime Minister, the previous prime minister and the government, in terms of why we do not have a softwood lumber agreement in place.

Whether it is the regulatory burdens that they have also done or the duplication, it is absolutely ruining this once proud industry, and that is shameful. We have absolutely decimated a cornerstone industry within our country, once proud and now absolutely devastated. We need to fight for it. They care. Forestry matters.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Chair, I just want to correct the hon. member. I may seem to have been here for only a minute in the House, as I have just been elected for the first time. However, I was in business for 40 years. I have done a lot of business with pulp and paper and the forestry industry during my career, so I understand the industry very well.

Conservatives say they care. We have announced $1.25 million, including liquidity, help with salaries, transformation—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Just let me finish.

Madam Chair, if they are so smart and know better than we do what should happen, I have heard their comments and I would like to hear what they would offer. If the answer is that they would do a deal with the Americans, I would love to hear their strategy on how they would do a deal and what they would leave on the table and concede to the Americans in order to get a good deal. That is what the Prime Minister is trying to do.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, it is typical of a Liberal to deflect, put the blame on everybody else and ask, “What would you do?”

The Liberals have been in government for 10 years. They have done nothing for 10 years. In 10 years, we would have gotten a deal done. We did in our previous Conservative government. In 79 days, we got a deal done. Not only did we get a 10-year deal, but we negotiated a one-year grace period in between, which the Liberals squandered.

The failure lies squarely at their feet. They can deflect all they want and point fingers all they want. Those are weak arguments.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I rise in the House this evening with a great deal of pride and respect to represent and speak on behalf of the people in my riding, the workers, entrepreneurs and businesses that have been struggling for far too long.

In my region, in the Lower St. Lawrence, in Rimouski-Neigette, in La Mitis and in La Matapédia, the forestry industry is our lifeblood, just as it is for Les Basques, whose residents I salute.

We have to remember one thing. When the industry gets brushed aside and does not get support, the whole region suffers. This directly and indirectly hurts the area's entire economy.

I would like my colleague to tell me in concrete terms how the government can claim to be protecting our regions when it allows the United States to impose a 45% tax. That amounts to $10 billion in illegitimate tariffs. Furthermore, it refuses to implement the one measure that could immediately save jobs, which is to buy back half of the countervailing duties.

Why is the government abandoning our workers when Washington has been acting in bad faith for the past 40 years?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, the reality is that the government cannot say it is standing with the forestry workers.

Our hon. colleague mentioned something very appropriate: When one job is lost, the multiplier is that three to five jobs are affected. In my riding, it does not impact just Quesnel or 100 Mile if a mill goes down. It impacts our whole region. It impacts the car dealerships. It impacts the food and grocery stores. It impacts real estate. It impacts schools. It impacts the tax base for those municipalities.

The government abandoned the $10 billion that was left at the border by our forestry producers. It is the producers' money that the government abandoned because of some great strategic chess move, checkers move, or whatever it was. The government thought it was going to outsmart the guy down south, but the tariffs have tripled. That $10 billion is still sitting there, lost.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Chair, the member for Cariboo—Prince George has been passionate about this. He has been hammering on this for over 10 years now. I recall being in the chamber in the other building when the trade minister at that time spoke of a framework within 100 days. We are now 106 months past that promise.

I would like to have the member for Cariboo—Prince George explain further why this is so important, not just for the individual jobs that are at stake here but to the entire communities that rely on those jobs and the spinoff jobs.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, it has been 2,900 days since the then trade minister stood up and said that the Liberals would have a framework or a deal within 100 days. It has been 2,900 days. We have had 10 years of failure, of their promising that “the cheque is in the mail”, telling us they can do this and we should just wait and see. They wonder why we are so frustrated.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chair, I talk to a lot of business owners and workers in the forestry sector, and they all agree that what they are going through is the perfect storm. It is important to explain the context so that people really understand what is happening in the forestry sector.

Not that long ago, we experienced unprecedented forest fires that kept small forestry operations out of the forest even though they are an essential link in the chain. They lost a lot of money. This has impacted the entire chain.

After the forest fires, we had the woodland caribou problem, which caused anxiety all around and put work plans on hold. Even though the order was not finalized, it caused cash flow problems because the banks were nervous about the forestry sector. After that, we had insect infestations that made it very difficult for many in the forestry sector to access fibre.

On top of all that, since 2017, we have been dealing with the softwood lumber dispute with the United States with countervailing and anti-dumping duties. What we have here is a perfect storm. People in the forestry sector are calling our office to tell us that we should expect to see consolidation. Businesses are going to disappear. There are people who will not be able to fulfill their contracts. Jobs will be lost.

The forestry sector is the economic heart of many regions, such as mine, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The same is true for Abitibi, the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé and the North Shore. Many regions of Quebec have small municipalities that rely exclusively on the forestry sector.

I have been here since 2019, and unfortunately I have never seen any real will on the part of the government, nor on the part of the opposition, which cared very little about the forestry issue. We are having a take-note debate this evening, and I hope that we will be able to find solutions for the people of Petit-Saguenay whose sawmill has shut down, for the people of Saint-Michel-des-Saints—I will come back to that later—and for the people of Amos and Port-Cartier. I hope that we will have enough respect to find solutions for these people.

As I was saying earlier, the forestry sector is experiencing a perfect storm. To understand it, we have to think of the sector as a big chain. When one link is cut, the entire chain stops working properly. What is happening now is not just equivalent to cutting just one link, but cutting five or six links. This crisis has been dragging on since the early 2000s. In the early 2000s, the forestry sector supported 95,000 jobs. Today, there are barely 30,000 left.

Not so long ago, the government announced measures. On August 5, it proposed to offer $700 million in loans. To this day, the government is still struggling to get that measure off the ground. The sawmill in Saint-Michel-des-Saints does not qualify for it. People here in Ottawa seem to have no clue when it comes to the forestry sector.

As a final point, I would like to talk about a proposal that has been around for some time, one that was made here by representatives from Chantiers Chibougamau, Arbec, Groupe Rémabec, Domtar, the FTQ and Unifor. These folks all came here to say that they had found a solution. Right now, $11 billion in anti-dumping and countervailing duties is lying dormant in trust in the United States. At first, people were saying that the government should buy back some of these duties. I understand that that is a big pill to swallow. That is why these people joined forces. They got together and decided that the best solution would be for the government to buy back 50% of the duties they had paid at the end of each month.

It was a compromise reached by people in the industry, who said that the government could buy back 50% of the duties they would have paid at the end of each month. What would that mean? It would mean that the industry could continue to operate and that no workers would lose their jobs. Those folks could continue to trade in softwood lumber with the United States while we wait for the worst of the crisis to subside, because right now construction in the United States has basically come to a standstill. Our companies could remain operational, which means that they will be able to respond in the future, when this government has its much-touted Build Canada Homes program up and running.

That seems to be the most acceptable solution, and it has the support of everyone in the industry. Unfortunately, it seems that the government refuses to listen. We are getting radio silence from it, not a “yes”, but not a “no” either.

Earlier, I tried to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. Everyone is playing a game of cat and mouse, and no one wants to take a position. The forestry sector cannot wait any longer.

People are talking about a $500-million investment that will transform the sector, but the timing is off, because the transformation will take 10 years.

Someone needs to wake up. I want answers from my colleagues tonight.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on the importance of this sector.

He knows full well that the government is pulling out all the stops to find a way to help the industry. I also want to thank him for his proposal.

I have two questions for him.

It is clear that this could be seen as a subsidy for U.S. consumers, since Canada would be paying the tariffs in their place. How can we ensure that it would not be perceived that way?

Washington would likely view this as a subsidy for Canadian companies and could decide to raise tariffs. We know how Washington reacts when foreign governments get involved or intervene. The President could wake up one morning and decide to double, triple or quadruple the tariffs. We have seen him do it in the past.

How can we prevent this from happening?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chair, I completely forgot to say that I would be sharing my time. I may speak again a little later. I will just quickly respond to my colleague. I do not know how that can be arranged.

There are already predatory hedge funds that are buying up between 30% and 70% of certain companies' countervailing duties. These hedge funds buy countervailing duties as though they were financial products, and that does not violate our international trade agreements.

The beauty of this is that the forestry sector managed to recover 80% of the money that was held captive in the United States when the last dispute was settled in 2016, despite the fact that we lost $1 billion, as we saw. In my opinion, it is not too much to ask the government to pay 50% of the money, knowing full well that the dispute will eventually be resolved. If the government is not prepared to do that, it is because it is afraid of being afraid or because it does not trust its ability to resolve this issue. The 50% is actually within reach. The money sitting in the United States belongs to the companies. The government cannot dispose of it as it pleases, since it belongs to the companies.

What we want is a settlement. Once there is a settlement, the government can pay itself back.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Chair, like my colleague, I represent a region, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, that is obviously very heavily forested. It borders the United States.

In my region, as in his, jobs are extremely important in communities, especially smaller ones. He referred to some of the communities in his region. It is not just forestry jobs that are affected by the current U.S. tariffs. The entire community and municipal sector is affected by these events.

The solutions proposed by the industry are very good, but they inevitably carry risks.

I would like my colleague to explain what those risks are. Is it still worth it for the government to take those risks in order to give back to businesses what they have given so far, which is $10 billion over 10 years?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chair, to be very clear, there is a proposal that has been under consideration for a long time, which is that the government could buy back the entire $11 billion that is tied up in the United States. That is a massive sum. What we are presenting today is not that. At the end of each month, the government would buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties levied on every transaction with the United States.

Let me paint a clear picture. When $1,000 worth of wood is shipped to the United States, the forest producer pockets only $550, because $350 goes toward countervailing and anti-dumping duties, and another $100 goes toward customs duties and taxes. No economic sector can survive with ratios like that. Nobody can absorb a 45% liability.

If the government wants the forestry sector to survive intact, what it can do, while it waits to get through this crisis and for negotiate an agreement, is pay 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. This does not violate our trade agreements. Predatory hedge funds are already doing this. It would simply be a matter of the government giving the forestry sector a serious helping hand.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to say hello to the people tuning in this evening from Rimouski-Neigette, La Mitis, La Matapédia and Les Basques.

This is an extremely important debate for the people back home in the Lower St. Lawrence. The forestry industry is a major economic pillar. It supports over 6,000 direct and indirect jobs. It encompasses nearly 250 businesses. Our region alone accounts for 10% of Quebec's softwood lumber production.

Forestry is a real driver of regional development. It contributes to the vitality of hundreds of municipalities and communities in the Lower St. Lawrence. Where I come from, a wooden pallet is not some prop that only can be found in stores. A wooden pallet represents a paycheque for our families. It represents a paycheque for workers in our region. It represents a sawmill that continues to open its doors every morning.

For the past 10 years, it has felt like the government was turning a deaf ear. It is almost as if it has so little understanding of the regions that it does not even understand what the forestry industry is. Now, the Americans are imposing 45% tariffs and nothing is being done. The government is in complete denial. We have been calling for an emergency debate for weeks. That was not a priority either. We have a Prime Minister who travels all over the world, yet he is not even capable of coming here to solve domestic problems.

I would like my colleague to explain to me whether he really thinks that the forestry industry and the regions of Quebec are a priority for the Liberal government.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chair, in everything I have heard the government say about the trade dispute with the United States, it keeps saying time and again that it is looking for an agreement on steel, aluminum and energy. It is important to understand the sectors involved. Aluminum is produced in Quebec. I know that aluminum processors are struggling, but primary aluminum producers are able to pass on the tariffs. They are able to survive for now, which is not the case for the forestry sector, where the companies are not passing the tariffs on. They are paying them. I do not know of any industry that can operate with a 35% to 45% loss. There are no such industries. No one can do that.

I do not know if they are waiting for companies to drown, but clearly there is either a misunderstanding or a lack of will. The government does not want to deal with the issue. It has not done so since 2019. Now we are in a period where there could be a breakdown, and we could lose the entire industrial landscape that has been developed in Quebec's forestry sector. In my opinion, all regions of Quebec will suffer in a way that the government has yet to calculate.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful speech.

First and foremost, I would like to point out that an error was made in good faith during the debate. I call on all parties to allow us to repeat the second five-minute segment and, in the spirit of debate, to allow my colleague to share his speaking time with me, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We know that this debate is fundamental for Quebec, and Quebec's regions need to be heard.

I appeal for clemency and respect from the Chair.

[The Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows that we cannot seek unanimous consent in a take-note debate. I do not know what procedure would allow us to change the orders, but I will ask the clerks at the table.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chair, initially, I was not supposed to share my time. I was supposed to speak for 10 minutes, but I was cut off after 5 minutes. The mistake was not ours.

[The Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I did not interrupt the hon. member, I simply indicated to him that he had five minutes left. Discussions are under way on this matter, and we may have an arrangement for the hon. members. Consequently, there is time for one question for the hon. member for Jonquière.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

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

Madam Chair, our government is working to negotiate an agreement with the United States, but not just any agreement. We want a good agreement that will serve the interests of Canadians—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche must be in his seat to speak.

[The Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Perhaps members are not aware, but they are not required to be in their seats during a debate of this nature. No, members do not have to be in their own seats.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

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

Madam Chair, I will repeat my question.

Our government wants an agreement, but not just any agreement. We want an agreement that truly serves the interests of Canadians. The public is well aware that we are in a position of strength when we are united in our negotiations with the United States. During the last election campaign, however, the Bloc Québécois proposed that negotiations for Quebec be managed separately. The people of Quebec decided otherwise by electing 44 Liberal members from Quebec.

Does my Bloc Québécois colleague recognize, as his province's electorate does, that it is better to be united in these turbulent economic times than to try to sow division in our negotiations?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chair, there is a very simple principle: Quebec's elected officials should defend the interests of Quebec, and Ontario's elected officials should defend the interests of Ontario. This government's top priority right now is to build a pipeline and develop a carbon capture and sequestration strategy. The Liberals are all in agreement about that, but that does us absolutely no good in Quebec. The government is killing a key industry in Quebec. I hear very few Liberal members expressing concern about the forestry sector, but they are all there to applaud when it comes to a pipeline and to carbon capture and sequestration.