Debates of Nov. 28th, 2016

Report Stage

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, this was the point that I was trying to address in the first part of my speech. We need to take measures to help seniors today, which is important. There is a range of things we could do, whether it is investments in affordable housing, or raising the GIS or OAS. A national pharmacare program would be a great benefit for seniors, but we do not hear the Liberals or Conservatives talking about that.

The point I was trying to make was that we should be thinking of this as a policy for young people, and that was not a bad thing. It is okay to make good policy for young people in our country as well. While there are a lot of things we need to do for seniors, I do not think it is a reason not to proceed with this particular change simply because it, in and of itself, does nothing for seniors. This is a policy for young people. That is okay. When we talk about pension planning over 30 or 40 years, that inherently will be for young people. That much time is needed in order to have an effective and successful retirement plan.

We are having the conversation, and this is going to benefit my children. I am very happy to vote for something that will be of benefit to them, even though it will not benefit my grandmother.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague who always delivers such eloquent speeches.

I would like his opinion on something that is going through my mind. The Liberals are boasting about a bill that is nothing more than a long-range 50-year plan.

It would be like me telling my two-month-old daughter that I was going to put $1 a month away for her education and in 20 years it would amount to a lot of money. That is sound management, but it is nothing to write home about. The truth is, there are serious problems that need to be addressed right away.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, there certainly are serious problems that need to be addressed.

We have to do something about affordable housing, health, and drug prices. It is good to adopt measures for young people, but that is not an excuse to not deal with these other problems. We must not choose just one or the other of these issues. We must address them at the same time.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Housing

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, this will be my fifth Christmas as a parliamentarian.

For five years, I have been hoping that the government, either Conservative or Liberal, would give an extraordinary Christmas present to the people of Mauricie by finally dealing with the problem of pyrrhotite once and for all.

There are two aspects to this important issue. The first, of course, is financial support for the victims. This part has already been resolved and we know the government's response, in that it has offered $10 million a year, over three years, for the pyrrhotite victims. Although this is well below what is needed, we welcome these amounts.

The other problem, which is just as important as the first, is the review of the quality standard for aggregates used in concrete, and I will explain to the House why this is important.

On the one hand, it is important because many victims still do not know whether they will receive compensation, given that the provincial claims program uses a standard that is not scientifically proven and compliant with a certain consensus reached at the first trial.

The judge in this case also asked that the quality standard for aggregates used in concrete be reviewed to ensure that it is based on clear scientific evidence. I would like to add that this is the only way that the Government of Canada can ensure that the problem facing the Mauricie, as well as an increasing number of other regions in Canada, does not continue to grow and does not extend beyond the current victims.

We must also keep in mind that policies and standards are generally reviewed every five years. The standard on aggregates in concrete was therefore reviewed in 2015, which would be funny if it were not so shameful.

The 2015 review of this standard did very little. Since no scientific study was conducted to arrive at a specific number, as was done for the European standard, for example, the standard merely indicates that the stone aggregate used to mix concrete should not contain more than 0.1 pyrrhotite. However, “should not” does not set out an obligation.

Every time I asked this question, to either the Liberal government or the previous Conservative government, I was always told that this was a provincial problem because the building code falls under provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to remind members that the Quebec building code is made up of federally established standards. There is a whole series of standards that must be followed. Reviewing the federal standard for aggregates used in concrete would help ensure that all of the other resulting standards are followed.

My question is simple. Does the Liberal government intend to do something about the quality standard for aggregates used in concrete?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, the member for Trois-Rivières is very familiar with the steps this government has taken to assist homeowners in Quebec whose foundations have been affected by pyrrhotite. We are taking actions even though the federal government bears no responsibility for this problem. This is something we have made clear on previous occasions, and in our platform.

Perhaps a more detailed explanation for the member will be helpful. Indeed, some hon. members may not be familiar with this issue, so let me begin by providing some background.

In the mid-1990s, contractors in some parts of Quebec began to use concrete containing pyrrhotite, a mineral that can cause deterioration, over time, as slabs are exposed to water. Hundreds of homes in Trois-Rivières and Maskinongé have been affected by the problem, which typically requires the costly replacement of the foundation.

The member for Trois-Rivières believes that the federal standards for the aggregates used in concrete is at the root of the problem. This is simply not the case.

First, it is important to understand that the provinces and territories regulate the design and construction of new houses and buildings. This is why, when Canadians want to build or renovate their homes, they apply to the local municipality, not the federal government, for the necessary permits.

The National Model Construction Codes are prepared under the direction of the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, with the goal of promoting technical consistency of regulations and market uniformity across Canada. However, it is up to the authorities that publish building codes in each province and territory to decide whether to adopt the codes.

More to the point is that the use of expansive aggregates such as pyrrhotite in concrete has been prohibited under the National Building Code for more than 20 years. The fact is that federal construction standards banned the use of pyrrhotite in concrete before these problems began to emerge in Quebec. The member for Trois-Rivières is asking the federal government to do something that has already been done.

It is also worth noting that in June 2014, the Quebec Superior Court concluded that professional technical consultants, suppliers, and contractors involved in the supply of faulty concrete were responsible for this economic and human tragedy.

However, our government is more concerned with doing the right thing than assigning blame. That is why in budget 2016, we included a commitment to provide up to $30 million, over three years, to help homeowners who are dealing with the consequences of pyrrhotite.

That commitment is now being fulfilled through an agreement signed by the governments of Canada and Quebec on July 11.

Under this agreement, the Société d'habitation du Québec has been given the green light to begin delivering the federal funds through the existing Quebec program to compensate homeowners who have been impacted by pyrrhotite. This is the quickest and fairest way to deliver assistance to affected homeowners.

I would encourage the member for Trois-Rivières to recognize the government's efforts in this regard.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, not only do I recognize these efforts, but I referred to them in my first question.

My second question will be far more direct. The government's representative told us that even though the government is not assuming responsibility, which I do not understand because it is a federal standard, it is prepared to do the right thing.

I have a very specific question. Is the federal government participating or does it intend to participate in the research program set up by Laval University, the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, and the Centre de recherche sur les infrastructures en béton to finally have a scientific base for evaluating the quality of aggregates used in concrete?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member's frustration, as he is working on behalf of his constituents, I believe he is aiming it at the wrong target. As I noted earlier, the National Building Code has prohibited the use of pyrrhotite in concrete since 1995, and the Quebec Superior Court recently ruled that responsibility for this problem lies with technical consultants, suppliers, and contractors who were involved in supplying the faulty concrete.

What has changed over the past year is that our government has engaged on this issue. I think the hon. member appreciates that. While the previous government was indifferent to the financial hardship of affected homeowners, we are collaborating with the province to provide $30 million in federal assistance to them.

I am sure the member will acknowledge that this is the right thing to do.

Softwood Lumber

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have risen in the House to ask many questions of the government on softwood lumber, and I have yet to receive an answer on this very pressing issue. I have heard the government squabble back and forth with the Conservatives about which government has neglected this file the most. Canadians will lose their jobs, and all I hear from the government is a child's argument that well, they did not do it either. Enough with the finger pointing. Canadians deserve answers.

Two months ago, I asked the Minister of International Trade what her plan was to protect jobs. Everyone knew that it was only a matter of time before we were hit with new tariffs and unfair trade measures by the United States. Now the industry has filed a petition calling for duties, which we know can be applied retroactively.

While it is true that we have never lost a case before us, it is also true that these cases are extremely expensive and have resulted in the closure of over 400 mills and the loss of over 20,000 jobs. This has had a serious impact on many communities across this country where people rely on good-paying jobs in the forestry sector.

I hear the minister telling us that she is talking to the U.S. trade representative, but talk will not change the fact that we will lose more jobs without a plan. At this point, we are calling on the minister to tell us how specifically she intends to support this important industry in Canada to ensure that mills are not closed and jobs are not lost.

I hope that when I ask these questions today of the government, we will finally get the answers that thousands of Canadians want to know. Will the Liberal government provide loan guarantees? How much will it provide? How will it be regionally applied? Can the minister assure people working in the forestry sector that they will not lose their jobs because of the current government's inaction?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

Our government is guilty of neither negligence nor inaction. The softwood lumber industry is very important to Canada. It is a key component of Canada's forestry sector and the Canadian economy because it generates some 260,000 jobs.

The industry is also an economic driver for many rural communities. The United States is Canada's main export market for softwood lumber, so it is clear that maintaining stable, predictable access to the American market is critical to the industry's ongoing success.

The government recognizes that, which is why it has made the softwood lumber file a priority since coming to power. The minister, Ambassador MacNaughton, and I have done a lot of work on this file, and we will continue to do so. We have taken part in an exhaustive consultation process with Canadian stakeholders, a process that is still ongoing, to ensure that Canada's negotiating position reflects the whole range of Canadian interests. Consultations revealed a clear preference for a negotiated agreement, and the Liberal government acted accordingly by opening talks with the United States earlier this year.

In a joint statement with President Obama on June 29, 2016, the Prime Minister described the main features of a new agreement. In addition, in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the United States, the minister regularly discussed the softwood lumber issue with her American counterpart, Ambassador Michael Froman, including at the APEC summit in Lima just recently.

Officials from Global Affairs Canada have also been working tirelessly on this file as they continue intensive negotiations with their American counterparts. Since October 2015, there have been 18 negotiating sessions in addition to regular informal discussions, all with the goal of reaching a new softwood lumber agreement.

Canada finds it unfortunate that the U.S. forest industry has asked the Department of Commerce and the ITC to investigate the countervailing and anti-dumping duties regarding Canadian softwood lumber imports. These claims are unfounded. The Government of Canada would prefer to come up with a negotiated solution. However, Canada will relentlessly defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, including in the case of disputes, whether before the WTO, under NAFTA, or before the American courts.

The Liberal government will continue to work with the provinces and territories, the industry, workers, and other stakeholders to defend Canada's interests. We want to get a good deal for our softwood lumber industry, not just any deal.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's concern for forestry workers in our country. He spoke about inaction, and raising the issue is inaction. At this point we need assurances for people who work in this sector. A petition has been filed. Jobs will be lost. If it is a priority, then where is the plan? There has been no answer on the loan guarantees. There has been no answer on how much money these might be, and there has been no answer on how they would be regionally applied.

If Liberals' are not going to stand up for forestry jobs in this country, I can assure all Canadians, especially the 260,000 people who work in the forestry sector, that the NDP will.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government will continue to work hard to make progress on the softwood lumber file. Canada prefers a negotiated agreement, but it will not hesitate to vigorously defend the interests of Canada's softwood lumber industry before the courts. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the softwood lumber industry, considers it a priority, and gives priority to this file.

We will negotiate a good agreement for Canada and not just any agreement. We will continue to work with the country's stakeholders to move forward in the softwood lumber file.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:47 p.m.)