Randy Hoback

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I rise today to speak to the softwood lumber dispute between the United States and Canada, and the over $8 billion in tariffs that the Americans have collected from Canadian businesses.

As adviser to the leader of the official opposition on Canada-U.S. relations, I wish to give my unique perspective on what I have learned in Washington and on the challenges that the Liberal government has created in reaching a negotiated deal.

This situation is one of the Prime Minister's own doing, and it is reflective of his lack of care for the forestry sector as a whole and for the thousands of Canadians who are impacted.

There has been $8 billion in tariffs collected as a direct result of the Liberal government's failure to prioritize Canadian workers, indigenous communities and our natural resource sector. It did not need to be like that. There is a desire on both sides of the border to resolve this matter, as Americans and Canadians recognize the importance of the industry. There is no excuse for not reaching a negotiated deal.

Over the last 42 years, Canada and the United States have reached agreements on softwood lumber. The most recent agreement, softwood lumber agreement five, was in place from 2006 to 2016.

SLA 5 was in place because the former Conservative government understood the importance of the forestry sector to Canada. We understood that the forestry sector was mutually beneficial to both Canada and the United States. When we went to Washington, we made sure that we worked collaboratively with our American partners to reach an agreement.

The Liberal government has done the exact opposite. It has completely ignored the situation and has refused to address the dispute at the highest levels of government. When the agreement expired in 2016, the Liberal government should have made it a priority to negotiate a resolution with the Americans, but instead, it delayed and looked the other way.

As the years passed, the hon. ministers of international trade blamed the American government, claiming there was no desire to resolve the dispute in Washington. I wish to contest that point. Over the years, American legislators, associations and companies have publicly made it quite clear that they want the softwood lumber dispute resolved, and for good reasons.

The United States does not produce enough lumber for its own needs. In a letter dated May 17, 2021, addressed to the United States Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, over 90 members of both parties in the House of Representatives urged the U.S. federal government to resolve the matter with the Government of Canada, saying, “We now call upon you to represent American interests on this critical issue by pursuing a balanced agreement with Canada. We, as Members of Congress, stand ready to discuss this issue and potential solutions with you.”

Additionally, on May 12, 2021, members of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations wrote to the Secretary of Commerce and USTR Tai, saying, “We write to urge you to take action to resolve the longstanding trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada on softwood lumber” and also saying, “These imports are vital to support the ongoing housing boom”.

It has not been American denial. It has been the Liberal government's refusal to acknowledge the issue at the highest levels of government and to advocate effectively for a solution to the softwood dispute.

Most interestingly is that the Standing Committee on International Trade published a report in November 2023 analyzing the problem and the possible remedies. During those hearings, Government of Canada officials noted that the Minister of International Trade raised the issue of the current dispute directly with President Biden. She raised the issue.

According to officials at Global Affairs Canada, the Prime Minister also emphasized the harm of American tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber producers and employees, yet in the report, recommendation 4 states, “achieving an agreement with the United States regarding trade in softwood lumber products ultimately will occur only through direct head-of-government negotiation”, and it also says, “the...softwood lumber dispute should be made a high-level priority in dealings with the U.S.”

They had the President of the United States in Ottawa last March, yet again, the Liberal government failed to advocate for Canadian jobs and Canadian interests adequately.

This report, the timeline and the situation we currently find ourselves in demonstrate that the Prime Minister has routinely failed to resolve the dispute and has failed to make the interests of Canadian workers a priority when dealing with the United States.

The previous Conservative government successfully negotiated a deal, yet the Prime Minister has failed to provide the attention this dispute so desperately requires over the last five years.

Why has he continued to fail to negotiate a deal if these Canadian jobs are so important to the Prime Minister? Why does the Liberal Government not give the issue the attention it desperately needs?

The softwood lumber dispute will not resolve itself overnight. It requires actual leadership to get it done. We, as Conservatives, know that we can get it done. We also know that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 8th, 2024]

With regard to government funding for initiatives to alleviate homelessness, broken down by year for each of the last five years: (a) how much has been spent by the government, in total and broken down by province or territory and by major metropolitan area for each department or agency that provides such funding; (b) what are the details of all funding provided, including the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) location of the recipient, (iv) amount of funding, (v) type of funding, (vi) program under which the funding was provided, (vii) purpose of the funding or project description; (c) how much has the government spent to administer programs aimed at reducing homelessness; (d) how many homeless people, including all forms of homelessness, were there in Canada, broken down by province or territory and major metropolitan area; and (e) for each number in (d), (i) what is the yearly change in terms of both numbers and percentages, (ii) what is the total change over the past five years in terms of both numbers and percentages?

[Carbon Tax, February 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, while common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost, crime or corruption after eight years.

A typical family of four will now pay $700 more in groceries in 2024 because of the Prime Minister's carbon tax. On April 1, he is increasing the carbon tax yet again, by 23%, as part of his plan to quadruple it, increasing the misery for Canadian families.

Families in Saskatchewan cannot afford this increase, yet the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister will keep hiking this tax, regardless of how expensive groceries and fuel become. He does not understand that if one taxes the farmer that grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, the tax passes down to the person who buys the food.

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

[Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act, February 12th, 2024]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft).

Madam Speaker, I think that people in my constituency and right across Canada are going to be very happy with this motion. This is something the Conservatives are going to take action on.

Today, I introduce my bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code for motor vehicle theft. My bill would toughen the penalties for repeat car thieves who are acting on behalf of organized crime. While Liberals attend photo ops and meetings, Conservatives are going to take action on this issue and show results for our constituents. I look forward to support on this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[First Nations Resources, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, for hundreds of years, first nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians in Ottawa.

The Indian Act hands over all resource land and money to the federal government. This means that first nations have to go to Ottawa to ask for the tax revenues collected from resource projects on their land. This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists, not first nations. The direct result of this Ottawa-knows-best approach has been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, unsafe drinking water, and despair.

Conservatives have listened to first nations, and today, the Leader of the Opposition announced his support for an optional first nations resource charge that would enable them to take back control of their resources and money. Putting first nations back in control of their money and letting them bring home the benefits of their resources would also help get local buy-in for good projects into the future. Only common-sense Conservatives will fight for real economic reconciliation by supporting first nations taking back control of their lives.

[Public Safety, February 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the costly Liberal-NDP coalition, Canadians are struggling to pay their rent, buy groceries and heat their homes. On April 1, the Liberal-NDP government will quadruple the carbon tax, further driving up the cost of living and making the lives of all Canadians more expensive.

New data shows that after eight years, violent crime has increased by 39% and homicides by 43%; gang murders have more than doubled, and violent gun crime has increased year over year. A common-sense Conservative government would ensure that repeat violent offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial, and we would bring back mandatory jail time for serious violent crimes.

On this side of the House, we want to axe the carbon tax, build homes, fix the budget and stop the crime with jail, not bail. Let us bring it home.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, since January 1, 2023: (a) how many bilateral meetings has the minister had with representatives of foreign nations in the Western Hemisphere, in total and broken down by country represented; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of meeting (in person, phone, Zoom, etc.)?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to the government's projections related to hydrogen production in Canada: (a) what are the government's current projections for production for the year (i) 2025, (ii) 2030, (iii) 2035, (iv) 2050; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) grey, (ii) blue, (iii) green, hydrogen?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to section 3.56 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Hydrogen's Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions": of the models referred to in the section, what specific models were used and what were the conclusions of each model?

[Carbon Tax, December 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians hate the carbon tax. We see premiers suing the government, first nations taking the government to court and people lined up in breadlines at the food bank, because they cannot afford to eat.

Farmers feed this country. They do not understand why the Prime Minister continues to tax the inputs they must purchase to grow food. They are taxes that their competitors do not pay, yet the Liberal rural affairs minister has just made a spectacle of herself, stating that the country needs to vote for more Liberals if people want an exemption to this unfair tax.

The Prime Minister has instructed his appointed senators to gut the Conservative bill to remove carbon taxes on farmers, and we have the NDP leader willing to vote against farmers in the House of Commons to keep the Prime Minister in power. Canadians agree: The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government are just not worth the cost.