Debates of Nov. 30th, 2018

International Trade

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the Prime Minister used his best negotiating tactic to forestall Trump to abolish tariffs on steel and aluminum. He was going to deprive the cameras of his presence at the signing of the USMCA. Great negotiating tactics.

However, after all of that, the Prime Minister went ahead and signed the agreement without getting rid of the tariffs on steel and aluminum. The deal should not have been signed with these tariffs still in place. Why are the Liberals going ahead and betraying our steel and aluminum workers?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we are very focused on eliminating the unjustified and illegal tariffs imposed by the U.S. on Canadian steel and aluminum. This is a top priority for our government.

We have put in place strong responsive measures to defend our workers that have been well received by Canadians. We have also signed the auto section 232 side letter, which gives Canada important protections against the threat of U.S. automotive tariffs that would have hurt our economy and thousands of good-paying jobs on both sides of the border.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of jobs in the steel and aluminum sector are in jeopardy, but that is not all. There is also a clause that gives the United States oversight of Canada's dairy sector.

This is the third time in three years that the Prime Minister has weakened supply management, this time by signing a document that hands control of our system over to the Americans and puts our sovereignty at risk.

Why are the Liberals always using our farmers as a bargaining chip?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP says certain things in the House, but behind closed doors, it admits that this agreement will protect thousands of Canadian jobs. The NDP leader actually applauded the agreement at an event in Ottawa on Tuesday, October 30. The NDP member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is also the NDP's Quebec lieutenant, called it the best deal possible.

Member for Brampton East

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot say it enough. This is a bad agreement for farmers and aluminum and steel workers.

When he was elected, the Prime Minister said he was going to do things differently. He said he would put an end to conflicts of interest and any appearance of conflict of interest.

After the investigations into the Prime Minister himself and into the Minister of Finance, and as the commissioner is looking into the case of the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, now it is the hon. member for Brampton East who is being investigated. This time the RCMP is involved, which makes it even worse.

What is happening in the Liberal Party? Do they think they can do whatever they want?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said a lot of things. He can do what he wants, but he knows full well that the RCMP works independently from the government. On this side of the House, we respect the work of the RCMP.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not seem to be taking this very seriously.

This is not trivial. When the member for Brampton East sat on the Standing Committee on Finance, he asked some very troubling questions, such as, “How many resources does FINTRAC have to go after each little $10,000 transaction? If I'm money laundering, I'm not doing transactions in the millions to catch attention. I'm doing them at the $10,000, $15,000 limit to get away with it.”

If those questions drew the attention of the RCMP, why did they not draw the attention of the Prime Minister?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we take all of this quite seriously. I repeat that the RCMP operates independently of government. I understand very well that the member is also very interested in this matter. However, on this side of the House, we respect the independence of the RCMP, which will continue to do its work.

International Trade

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals said that the Prime Minister would not attend a new NAFTA signing ceremony with Donald Trump if the steel and aluminum tariffs were still in place.

Workers in our steel and aluminum sectors have been greatly affected by these tariffs, and yet we saw the Prime Minister with Donald Trump this morning, signing this deal.

Can the Liberals confirm that the tariffs have been removed?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has always been clear that the section 232 tariffs and the negotiations on the new trade deal are entirely different issues. Section 232, after all, is actually a national security consideration, and it is absurd to suggest that Canada could pose any kind of security threat to the United States.

It is overwhelmingly in the best interests of both Canada and the United States that these reciprocal tariffs be lifted. In the meantime, our strong responsive measures to defend our workers will remain firmly in place.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, the Liberals said that the Prime Minister would not grace Donald Trump with his presence at the signing ceremony of the new NAFTA deal if the steel and aluminum tariffs were not removed.

This morning, we saw the Prime Minister standing side by side with Donald Trump at that very ceremony. So much for claiming to have the backs of steel and aluminum workers. Why did the Prime Minister capitulate to Donald Trump and give him the signing ceremony he said he would not?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised to hear the response from the opposition this week criticizing Canada's retaliatory measures in response to the illegal and unjustified section 232 tariffs. Last Monday, they called our response dumb, and yet it has been well received by Canadians and was supported by the Conservatives at the time. Firstly, the Conservatives are asking us to capitulate on NAFTA. Secondly, they are asking us to abandon our retaliatory measures. It is a darn good thing they are not at the negotiating table.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister and the government plan to repeat that to our steel and aluminum workers who continue to suffer as a result of those tariffs.

On November 7, on behalf of the Government of Canada, our ambassador to the United States said that Canada would not sign as long as the steel and aluminum tariffs remained in place. This morning the government signed, and yet the tariffs are still in place.

Why does the government say one thing and do the opposite?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian industry stands behind our measured, perfectly reciprocal dollar-for-dollar response to these illegal and unjustified tariffs. I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the Canadian Steel Producers Association has said, “Canada’s retaliatory tariffs are vital in protecting the jobs of 23,000 steelworkers, stabilizing our domestic market, and creating the opportunity for Canada’s steel producers to enhance supply chains.”

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is very simple.

As long as the free trade agreement remained unsigned, we had leverage to pressure the American government to lift its tariffs on steel, aluminum and softwood lumber. There are 80,000 workers in Quebec alone who are directly affected by those tariffs.

In a lovely photo of all the leaders taken this morning, the Prime Minister signed. Since he signed, one would expect that those tariffs had been lifted, but they are still in place.

Why?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, section 232 tariffs and the negotiations on the new trade deal are entirely different issues. Our position remains clear and firm. These tariffs are entirely illegal and unjustified. The new NAFTA agreement is further proof that our government puts Canadians and workers at the forefront of every single one of our decisions and actions. Just as we fought for Canadians at the NAFTA negotiating table, we will continue to fight against these tariffs for our steel and aluminum workers.

Carbon Pricing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, they put Donald Trump at the forefront of their agenda on trade, capitulating to him.

Back here at home, Canadians are suffering under carbon taxes. In Calgary, the school board just reported that it had to spend $3.3 million on carbon taxes and had to cancel five school buses, affecting 400 school children, because the carbon tax was too expensive to keep those buses in operation. Ironically, school buses are good for the environment because they put everybody on the same vehicle, instead of more cars on the road.

How many Ontario school buses will have to be cancelled when the Liberals impose their new carbon tax on January 4?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that there is a new generation of Conservatives who do not seem to understand that climate change is real, that it is having a real impact. In fact, there are some, like the member for Cariboo—Prince George, who do not even seem to think that climate change is real. We know that we need to take action and to take the measures that make the most sense. When we look at putting a price on pollution, we have the president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada saying, “We support the price mechanism because it provides the economic incentive for consumers to change their behaviour and for businesses to invest in technologies that progressively reduce their emissions over time.”

What Canadians want to know is what exactly is the Conservative—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Well, Mr. Speaker, our plan certainly is not to hammer school children, consumers and families with higher taxes and then the quote the lobbyists of CEOs to defend it all. In fact, those same CEOs have gotten themselves exemptions from the carbon tax while making everyday Canadians pay.

The government's own documents admit that the carbon tax will have to be six times higher than the government admits right now. That means a 66¢ per litre tax on gas. Will the minister confirm that the tax is going to go up 66¢ a litre if this party is re-elected?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to present the document that explains exactly how pricing pollution will work. In provinces that have not stepped up and want to make it free to pollute, we have said that we will take all of the revenues from the price on pollution and give them back to Ontarians, give them back to Manitobans and give them back to Saskatchewanians, because we know we need to do right by the environment and we can also make life affordable.

Once again, what Canadians want to know is what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Carleton asked a very good question and I am trying to hear the answer. I am having a hard time, so I would ask the members to quit shouting across and let the hon. Minister of Environment finish her answer.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could just talk about what doctors from around the world are saying. They are saying a price on pollution is the best treatment for a major public health crisis afflicting the country: climate change. Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, said, “You need a price on carbon and a price on pollution.” Canada as of today has both. Not only does it tackle climate change, it also unlocks the $30 trillion economic opportunity of clean growth. We can grow the economy, we can tackle the climate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Foreign Affairs

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to news reports, many experts say there is definite proof that Canadian weapons have been used in the Saudi-led war in Yemen. They say photos and videos clearly show Canadian armoured vehicles and rifles on the scene and that Canadian companies train pilots taking part in hostilities.

We are talking about potential complicity in war crimes. Will the government wake up and launch an immediate independent investigation?