Debates of Nov. 29th, 2018

Indigenous Affairs

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of late show debate I really like, where we are moving closer to being on the same page. When it has been decided this is the right community to move to, the right place upstream, there are some very beautiful large trees on the site which I believe they have decided would be best. Those trees indicate it is not flood prone, as trees that big do not grow overnight, as one of the experts noted. In the effort toward truth and reconciliation, is this country prepared to do what it should do, which may cost as much as $800 million or could cost $1 billion? We have to move a community to a place where they can live, not a place where every year we spend millions to move them in a state of emergency and where the schools are portables. We can do better. We must do better. However, I think we need the political will to say that when it comes to it, and we know what we want, we will write the cheque.

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous Services has been very clear in her support for Kashechewan's short-term, medium-term and long-term goals, including its desire to relocate the community. However, a multi-stage process will take time, and in the interim, we must continue to provide quality short-term services for the community, functional housing and infrastructure.

Our government is 100% committed to working closely with Kashechewan First Nation to support a healthy and sustainable community. The plans include working together with federal partners and Ontario ministries to take into account concerns about the annual flood risks at the current site.

Telecommunications

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if memory serves, the question that I am raising today dates back to September 21 or 22. At that time, the Quebec election was coming up.

At the end of August, the Government of Quebec announced that it would invest in two cell tower projects. At the time, the Government of Quebec was getting fed up with the federal government because it was constantly changing its mind about the cellphone issue. As a result, Quebec decided to pay for the federal government's share of the cell tower projects itself.

I have been asking the government for over a year to come up with a plan for cellphone coverage. Unfortunately, every time I ask a question about the cellphone networks in rural and remote areas like mine, the government responds by talking about the Internet. Sometimes, it goes as far as to say that a plan is coming, but still nothing has been done. The next election is drawing ever closer and I am getting frantic because I do not know whether anything will end up happening.

It is important to understand that cellular service is crucial for the safety of people who live in remote regions. In many places, there are extremely busy roads and main highways linking the biggest towns in rural regions that still have huge areas with no cell service. This is having a serious economic impact and adverse effects on people's safety. Everyone understands the impact on safety. It is absolutely inconceivable in this day and age that someone would be unable to call 911 in the event of a traffic accident or specific problem.

On top of that, this has serious economic repercussions. Imagine having to go to a meeting and, after driving for 30 minutes, you learn that the meeting has been cancelled. That means wasting one full hour of your time driving to a meeting that never takes place. It is not only the time involved, but also all the travel costs, including the mileage, the wear and tear on the vehicle, and so on. In terms of efficiency, this is having a significant impact on businesses, particularly on workers who travel by car. No matter how many questions we ask, the government still does not have a plan.

I want to know why it is that every time I ask a question about cell service, I get an answer about the Internet. Why is the government leaving it up to provincial governments to invest in these projects? Why is it doing absolutely nothing? The government is completely washing its hands of the issue.

Lots of people ask me why their cellphone gets a signal when they are travelling all over Africa, and it costs a lot less, but when they are in Canada, a G7 country, they do not have a cellular network that works even on some main roads. Why is the cellular network more reliable in Africa than in a country like Canada, a G7 country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her question. I am pleased to respond to her comments about wireless network coverage.

Canadians need access to telecommunications services, including wireless services, in order to participate in the digital economy. This is why the government's telecommunications policy is based on three main objectives: quality, coverage and affordability.

Mobile coverage is indispensable, and gaps in service are frustrating to Canadians. The government has taken steps to expand the mobile wireless network in rural areas. This involves requiring that providers provide service in rural areas in accordance with the terms of the appropriate spectrum licences so that Canadians across the country have access to state-of-the-art wireless services.

The government is also looking to the future. Data traffic from the growing number of connected devices will only increase over time. Wireless airwaves, known as spectrum, are essential to supporting increasing demand for data. The government is responding through the release of different types of spectrum. For example, the 600 megahertz spectrum band is excellent for providing rural and urban areas with mobile services because it can carry signals over long distances and deep into buildings.

That is why our upcoming 600 megahertz auction will require carriers to deploy beyond the major urban areas. These requirements are more stringent than in the past and place an emphasis on promoting rural connectivity.

Mid-band spectrum allows for a mixture of providing coverage and capacity. The government initiated a consultation to release additional mid-band spectrum, known as 3,500 megahertz, while supporting the provision of services in rural areas.

The release of spectrum is part of the government's broader rural strategy, which also includes the connect to innovate program. This program will invest up to $500 million by 2021 and bring enhanced high-speed Internet to over 900 rural and remote communities.

Also, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, recently announced the details of its $750-million broadband fund. As part of the fund, the CRTC set a goal that wireless coverage should include major transportation roads to the greatest extent possible.

Wireless projects will be chosen by geographic coverage and kilometres of road covered. The CRTC will begin the competitive process to select projects in 2019.

Supporting new technology also requires investment in network infrastructure. In 2016, Canadian telecommunications companies invested over $11 billion in their networks. Wireless 4G or LTE networks are available to 99% of Canadians.

The government understands the need for high-speed Internet—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are making progress. I managed to get half an answer pertaining to cell service and wireless networks. At least we are talking about the same subject for once. I want to thank my colleague for making the distinction between Internet and cell service. That said, although he seems to be starting to understand the problem, I would really like him to answer one question.

The two projects in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean that I talked about have received massive support from the local community, who believed their needs were being met. That is why the Quebec government decided to cover the federal government's share too.

Can my colleague tell me whether the federal government will commit to reimbursing Quebec for the portion that the feds were supposed to invest but Quebec had to invest instead?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have an answer regarding the two specific projects because that was not part of the question I was given.

In closing, I want to reiterate that our government is committed to fostering an environment conducive to investment in this crucial sector of our economy. I want to assure this House and Canadians that the government is fully aware of the vitality of the telecommunications sector for all Canadians.

We remain committed to our objectives, which are to support competition, choice and availability of telecommunications services and to foster a strong investment environment.

Steel Industry

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I asked about the structural steel construction of the new LNG Canada facility. After determining that China was dumping and subsidizing structural steel, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal applied countervailing duties. LNG Canada sought an exception from those tariffs so that it could ship in steel modules from China. It appears that the Government of Canada has granted exactly such an exception.

It is understandable that the government wants to pull out all the stops to facilitate a $40-billion project. However, we should recognize that this project will not contribute very much to our economy if $39 billion is spent on imported components. On the contrary, I would argue that the construction of LNG Canada should be seized as an opportunity to develop Canada's steel industry.

As much as I would like to advocate that these steel modules be built in Regina, I recognize that it would not be feasible to ship them over land to the west coast. However, if they can be shipped from China, perhaps they could be shipped from Canada's east coast or perhaps we need to look at developing the construction facilities on Canada's west coast to build the modules right there. Therefore, we should take this as an opportunity, a historic chance, to build up our steel industry. There are all kinds of ways that the government could try to support this industrial development. However, the first and obvious step would be to uphold the existing tariffs on Chinese structural steel and not to grant an exception for LNG Canada to ship in modules from China rather than build them here.

I have talked about Canada's steel industry. Another aspect of the LNG Canada project is the regulation of tanker traffic on our west coast. Yesterday, I saw Canada's best premier, Rachel Notley, speak to the Canadian Club here in Ottawa. Unfortunately, only one other member of this House attended that event. It is too bad that other MPs missed the speech because Premier Notley raised a very good point, that the LNG Canada project inevitably means a large number of tankers on the north coast of British Columbia, which seems inconsistent with Bill C-48, which put a moratorium on oil tankers on the north coast of B.C.

I supported Bill C-48 because it seemed like a reasonable compromise to limit tanker traffic on the north coast and allow it on the south coast. That seemed consistent with the plan to export oil through the Trans Mountain expansion. However, since that project is now stalled, I think we need to re-examine whether it makes sense to ban oil tankers while increasing the number of LNG tankers. Maybe the government has a good reason for that, but I think we need more of an explanation.

Therefore, I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary. Why not use the LNG Canada project as an opportunity to develop Canada's steel industry? Why continue to ban oil tankers on B.C.'s north coast while the government supports LNG tankers in those same waters?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will treasure this moment as being a moment in the House with the hon. member for the CCF Party.

I will channel my inner Tommy Douglas and do my best, although I warn members that it does not appear to be exactly the question that I was prepared for.

The Government of Canada continues to defend Canada's steel industry and to support the country's workers.

We have a robust and reactive trade remedy system to deal with undervalued and unfairly subsidized steel imports into the Canadian market. In recent years, we have taken steps to enhance our response to unfair trade. This summer, the government announced a series of measures to improve the effectiveness of Canada's trade law enforcement.

These measures include regulatory amendments to improve the effectiveness of Canada's trade remedy system, particularly by providing the Canada Border Services Agency with the tools required to fight the circumvention of duties.

They also include regulatory amendments to improve the country of origin labelling regime in order to provide customs officers with additional tools to verify the country of origin of certain steel products and to better align with the U.S. system.

Finally, there are additional funds to bolster the enforcement of trade rules, which will require a 50% increase in the number of employees at the Canada Border Services Agency working solely on investigations and compliance with trade remedy actions.

When the United Sates imposed unjustified and counterproductive tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, the Government of Canada reacted the same way. On July 1, 2018, Canada began to impose reciprocal countermeasures, dollar for dollar, on U.S. imports of steel, aluminum and other products representing $16.6 billion, while continuing to work to have the American tariffs completely removed. We are continuing that work today, even after the USMCA agreement was signed.

While the Government of Canada continues to work with the United States to remove the tariffs on steel and aluminum, we are aware that these tariffs and our own Canadian countermeasures could have an impact on businesses and workers. For example, given the longstanding integration of the Canadian and American supply chains, the Government of Canada recognizes that the corrective measures taken by Canada against U.S. imports may cause problems for Canadian manufacturers that depend on American steel and aluminum. That is why the government undertook a process to allow Canadian companies dealing with exceptional circumstances to apply for targeted relief.

Those measures represent a balanced response that will support Canadian producers and manufacturers.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that the parliamentary secretary may not have come here this evening prepared to talk about tanker regulations that did seem flow from the broader issue of the LNG Canada project. I would just encourage the federal government to take seriously the question posed by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley.

The parliamentary secretary did a fine job of summarizing the government's actions for special import measures. I think the government has done a decent job of strengthening our system to respond to unfairly traded products, such as Chinese steel, and that system resulted in countervailing tariffs on Chinese structural steel.

The question that I asked originally, and that I asked again this evening, is this. Why is the government backing down from its own system and allowing this exception for LNG Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for elaborating on his question. I will undertake to, first of all, deliver his opinion on Premier Notley's role and that her comments should be carefully looked at, and I will deliver the primary question he has asked this evening.

I will undertake to do that on his behalf, and I thank him for that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 6:45 p.m.)