Debates of April 25th, 2018

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his kind remarks about our committee, but more so him personally, because the reason our committee is so effective is people such as him. He has brought passion and commitment to the committee, and it rubs off on all of us, frankly.

The hon. member spoke briefly about the revolution that is starting on wood. I know more about wood now than I did before. Perhaps he could tell me if this will have a greater impact on the construction industry at large.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I think that this will change the construction industry dramatically. We will be seeing more and more buildings manufactured inside plants, in parts, and then those parts will be moved to the site and put up very quickly. Buildings will be constructed much more rapidly and in a much better way.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to help close the debate on Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). I also want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for putting forward this legislation. When I joined the natural resources committee just after Christmas, we were in the midst of a study on wood, and of course, it was well timed for his bill to come forward.

Let me be clear. The Government of Canada fully agrees with the spirit and intent of the member's proposed legislation. The proposed legislation aligns well with the government's goals of supporting the Canadian forest industry, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, these goals must be balanced with the government's commitment to a fair, open, and transparent procurement process for all suppliers.

I believe that the amendment to this bill that was passed by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources achieves the balance that we seek. That is why I am encouraging all members to support the bill with our amendment. Let me take this opportunity to explain a little further.

At second reading stage, we had occasion to highlight the importance of Canada's forestry industry. Our forestry industry helped build Canada, and it still makes a significant contribution today. Last year alone, it added $22 billion to our GDP. Forestry plays a leading role in the local economies of the more than 170 rural towns where sawmills, pulp and paper mills and other forestry operations can be found. The industry employs more than 200,000 Canadians and also represents 9,500 jobs in indigenous communities, making it one of the largest employers of indigenous people. This is why initiatives to support Canada's forestry industry like those in Bill C-354 deserve our careful attention.

That said, we were concerned that the bill as originally presented by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay would contradict certain long-standing Government of Canada principles, policies, and obligations and lead to perhaps some unintended consequences. As a point of reference, the proposed bill had stated that the minister “shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.

The government is committed to fairness, openness, and transparency in the procurement process. These fundamental values of the policies of Public Services and Procurement Canada cannot be deviated from. Although Canadians expect their government to support a sector as important as forestry, they also expect the government to adhere to the basic principle of fairness in its procurement.

Depending on how the legislation is interpreted and enforced, it may well violate Canada's obligations under important trade agreements, such as the Canadian free trade agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Contract spinoffs have the potential to be significant, particularly in a sector that relies so heavily on access to export markets, mainly the U.S.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources reviewed the bill. I would like to thank my fellow members of that committee as well as the parliamentary secretary for the careful review of the proposed legislation. In fact, we heard many of the same considerations that I have just reiterated.

I am delighted that my colleague, the member for Markham—Thornhill, who sits with me on the committee proposed an amendment so that the legislation would read:

In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing—including a material, product or sustainable resource—that achieves such benefits.

Ultimately, the committee accepted this amendment and referred the bill back to the House. I believe that the amendment is very important and will help make this legislation more effective and ensure that our shared goal of supporting Canada's forest industry is on a sound footing.

Our discussion on Bill C-354 today also provides us the opportunity to reflect on steps the government is taking to help the forestry sector to embrace innovation and continue to be a vital part of our communities and our economy.

For example, the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change promotes federal, provincial, and territorial co-operation in order to encourage the greater use of wood in construction. Building codes will be updated to reflect that.

This will be encouraged in part by work that is under way to investigate the updating of the National Building Code of Canada. Currently, Natural Resources Canada and the National Research Council are conducting innovative research and development with a goal of updating our National Building Code to allow for wood buildings up to 12 storeys. Moreover, wood and wood products are important contributors to the Government of Canada's infrastructure needs.

Public Services and Procurement Canada policy requires contractors to propose materials that meet the needs of a project, including sustainability and performance criteria, and that conform to the National Building Code of Canada.

In fact, Public Services and Procurement Canada alone is spending approximately $160 million a year on average for office fit-ups and interior finishes, of which approximately 15% is directly related to the use of wood products.

I would also like to highlight the important work of Public Services and Procurement Canada in supporting the government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The department is making government operations more sustainable through green building practices, including the use of sustainable materials, the move toward optimizing our space usage, and lowering the energy consumption of our federal buildings.

Buildings are a significant source of greenhouse gases and contribute 23% of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions. As we know, the government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal buildings and fleets by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.

As providers of accommodation to the Government of Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada is in a unique position to have a direct and significant impact on the greening of government operations. It is the first federal department to complete a national carbon-neutral portfolio plan that takes into account all real property-related greenhouse gas emissions and energy reduction initiatives that the government has undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases.

Take for example the investment we have made in the energy services acquisition program, through which we are modernizing the heating and cooling system that serves about 80 buildings in Ottawa, including many of the buildings on and around Parliament Hill.

In advance of this modernization effort, we are piloting and testing wood chips for use as a possible biomass fuel. The results of this pilot project will help determine the potential for expanding this option to other federal heating and cooling plants.

Similarly, Public Services and Procurement Canada continues to take an integrated and holistic approach to project design and construction, which includes the use of a variety of sustainable materials, such as wood, while giving environmental, social, and economic factors due consideration.

Its goal is to meet sustainable performance standards, such as leadership in energy and environmental design, commonly referred as LEED, and Green Globes. These performance standards encourage the use of products and materials for which life-cycle information is available, and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable life-cycle impacts. Projects involving Government of Canada buildings in Quebec City and Yellowknife are the latest ones to meet those standards.

In closing, Public Services and Procurement Canada will continue to lead the way in embedding environmental considerations, and specifically greenhouse gas reductions, into the design and approval stages of its proposed projects.

Bill C-354, as amended, will also support our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support our forestry sector. At the same time, it will support our commitment to an open, fair, and transparent procurement process. In short, the Government of Canada is committed to leaving to future generations of Canadians a sustainable, prosperous country. I would encourage all my colleagues to support this initiative.

I would also like to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his work in helping to craft important amendments to his original legislation that both preserve the original spirit and help further our government's plan to help support the forestry sector and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate this evening. It is on an interesting bill that essentially seeks to give preference to the wood industry in federal government construction projects. I commend my NDP colleague on his common sense, well intentioned bill, but unfortunately, we believe it would promote one industry over another. On the Conservative side, we believe in the free market and prefer not to give one resource a leg up over another.

About seven or eight years ago, there was a big debate in Quebec City around the construction of a new arena, which we know today as the Centre Vidéotron. Among the events held at the centre are the Remparts de Québec hockey games. Apparently, Patrick Roy is going to be the new coach, but we are still waiting for an NHL team. However, that is not what I want to talk about.

There was a big debate in Quebec City about whether the arena would be built out of wood or conventional materials. As I was saying earlier, people have good intentions when they say that since Canada produces lumber, which has the greatest impact on our economy, this would propel the industry into the world market. With greater recognition, we would do better. Products can be made out of both softwood and hardwood, and there would be increases in exports and the quality of wood. People wondered if this new Quebec City arena could be an opportunity to show that we can build large buildings out of wood.

However, people soon realized that the cost, as well as the risk and the timeframe, would grow tenfold. The idea was abandoned. I vividly remember Mr. Dutil—he still heads up the Canam Manac empire, a jewel of Canada's economy located in Beauce, home to an MP whom I know quite well and am quite fond of. Beauce's spirit of entrepreneurship is also what drives the free market. Mr. Dutil publicly stated that he did not believe for a minute that any of the 125 members of the National Assembly knew how to build buildings. “Let us do our job; you do yours and we will do ours.” That is why we decided, the members of my party and I, to not interfere in the free market.

That does not mean we oppose forestry. Far from it. About 10 years ago, Quebec City built the Chauveau soccer stadium on Ormière Boulevard, in my riding. It is a very innovative stadium. I go there all the time to attend community activities put on by local organizations. It is in fact a wooden structure. It is amazing and it inspires us. It is a good thing. They did it that way because they needed to. The market was left to decide what building material would work best in the circumstances, and wood won. That does not mean wood was given preferential treatment. It simply means that a decision was made in this case to build the stadium out of wood. Anywhere else, it might have been steel, concrete, aluminum, or any other kind of building material, like brick or glass. Let us leave the market to choose, because any kind of interference on our part would only lead to lawsuits, financial disputes, and public outcry. The reality is that the concrete, aluminum, steel, brick, and glass industries could challenge the decision, and we would be no better off.

We believe in the industry's potential for expansion. That is why, when we were in government, we created the expanding market opportunities program in 2013, at the urging of the Hon. Denis Lebel, who represented Lac-Saint-Jean for 10 years and cared deeply about the development of the forest industry. The goal of the program was not only to expand markets, but to increase investment in companies, in lumber mills, in order to develop new environmentally friendly processes and open up new areas of innovation. The program was also intended to give us a competitive edge over the United States, our partner and major competitor.

Case in point, about two months ago, I had the pleasure of visiting the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I would remind the House that sadly, the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord have gone without representation in the House of Commons for almost six months now.

It is time for the Prime Minister to call the byelection. In fact, I would like to remind the House that our party has an excellent candidate in the riding, Richard Martel. He has been there for the people in that riding since December, and we certainly hope that Canadians in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord will be able to cast their ballots soon.

As I was saying, I made my way to a small village in that riding that most people had probably never heard of at the time but that later drew the world's attention when Samuel Girard won a gold medal. I am talking about the village of Ferland-et-Boilleau, which has a population of 600. I mention this village because it is home to a forestry co-operative that works with wood, harvests timber, and sells it throughout North America. This co-operative broke new ground by distilling new essential oils from wood. They offered me some, but I purchased them. As pleasant as it is to receive gifts, it is important that MPs support the local economy. I vaporized some at home and it smelled really nice. I felt as though I was in the forest.

In short, we support the lumber industry, but we also support the free market. Innovative products and unknown sectors have yet to be discovered. That is what innovation is all about. If this bill is passed, we believe that it will be challenged in the courts and antagonize people in other areas of the construction industry who will ask why one sector is being favoured over another, and rightly so. People from the concrete, aluminum, steel, glass, and brick sectors will not be happy.

I am sorry to disappoint my colleagues, but that is part of the democratic process. We will not be supporting this bill. We do not think it is a bad idea, but the problems that this bill will create prevent us from supporting it.

Ultimately, we should let the market take its course and let people make their choices. I have confidence in the Canadian wood industry, which is strong and is being led by competent business people who know how to market their products without any direct help from the government, without preferential treatment or a free ride, not to put too fine a point on it. We must let the free market take its course. I am sure that the Canadian wood industry will figure out a way to come out on top, as it has for centuries, without begging anyone for help.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a moment to say how surprised I am at the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent's remarks.

His remarks were germane to the debate at second reading stage. The bill has since been amended, clearing up the issues he raised in his speech. I am somewhat surprised, as he is usually so thorough and never cuts corners when studying legislation. To my great surprise, he seems to have failed to understand the nature of the proposed amendments.

Allow me to recap so that everyone understands this bill's history. When it was first introduced, it sought to give preferential treatment to wood and to prioritize its use in federal buildings. It was then referred to a committee, where experts appeared to explain in simple terms that wood did not need preferential treatment and that there was no need to prioritize it over other materials. The problem is that the use of wood is often not even considered. The industry has often said that it does not need preferential treatment and that all it wants is to make sure builders consider wood. The bill was amended accordingly.

For example, architecture students are not even taught that they can use wood or they are given only a few hours of instruction on the subject over the course of the entire program. That is why people do not often think to use wood. We do not even get to where we can consider its potential benefits.

As amended, the legislation will ensure that people know to ask. When building a structure, they will consider the building materials available to them and weigh the environmental benefits of using non traditional materials. If they see that there is a significant advantage to using wood, they may decide to do so.

There is, in fact, no preferential treatment. The market will still be free. Every industry can promote the advantages of its own materials. The wood industry is simply asking us to consider using wood. It is confident that it can convince people to use wood without getting preferential treatment because it knows that its products have a lot to offer in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon capture, on top of having a positive impact on the Canadian construction industry.

We therefore went from a preferential approach, in the first incarnation of the bill, to a comparative approach, whereby markets remain free. No one is being forced. The bill simply states that any potential repercussions on the environment will be considered and taken into account. That is the main difference between the original bill and where we are now. If we only look at what wood has to offer, all its benefits become clear.

I have seen a concrete example of this in my riding. For the longest time, the Long Point First Nation community did not have a school. It was very sad. The children had been attending a school in the next town that was shut down by the school board. The school was in really bad shape. It even had mould. The kids spent years in a makeshift classroom in a gymnasium with no windows. This had serious repercussions on the kids' morale.

The town finally got a new school designed by an architect who had a really incredible vision. The school is in the shape of a beehive. There are hexagons in every part of the school, and it is built entirely out of wood. It is extraordinary. The children are now in a learning environment that motivates them. The atmosphere is completely different. This clearly shows how it is possible to build beautiful buildings out of wood.

It is a really long drive, since the town is quite far away, but if anyone has a chance to come and see the school some day, they will see how amazing it is. It is a perfect example of just how effectively wood can be used.

I think everyone can appreciate a bill like the one my colleague introduced, especially in its current form, with the Liberals' amendment. I know that they worked with my colleague in committee to get everyone to agree on the amendment so that the bill would be acceptable to everyone. In its current form, it is an excellent bill that meets the reasonable demands and needs of the industry. It can have a significant impact on the forestry industry and on the environment, since the use of wood has environmental benefits. Buildings are not built to be destroyed, but when they must be destroyed, those built out of wood have a much smaller environmental impact. Furthermore, they have a lesser impact on the local community and on the surrounding wildlife.

I think that the use of wood is a forward-looking solution. Large buildings can be built quickly and at a lower cost. Wood-construction technologies have evolved quite a bit. What was unthinkable before is now easily achievable. Changes have made it possible to build wood structures that are more than six storeys. Some buildings in my riding were built with a lot of wood, which gives the projects a unique touch. We can be proud of raising awareness of the use of wood in building construction.

The forestry industry has been mismanaged in recent years. In the last Parliament, I moved a motion on a national forestry strategy, and I moved it again during this Parliament because it is still current. Although my colleague's measure is extremely important, if we really want to support the forestry industry, we have to develop several strategies, and the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, along with the industry and the indigenous communities, will have to sit down together.

Together we can come up with all sorts of solutions to find the way forward for our forestry industry, which has a lot to offer. The problem is that we tend to overlook all that it can bring to the Canadian economy, not to mention the various products we use. Sometimes we end up missing out because we failed to consider a particularly interesting option that did not necessarily require preferential treatment to be successful. Sometimes a simple idea can spark the best solution. If no one tell us to determine the viability of a solution, it remains an unexplored idea and we are no further ahead.

I hope that hon. members will consider my colleague's bill. I also hope that the Conservative members will take the time to read the amendment in order to fully understand its scope, since it changes the bill considerably. I also think that it is time for the Conservatives to adapt their speech to the new version.

Lastly, I had the chance to meet the forest committee of the Union des municipalités du Québec. The committee members have a lot of concerns about the forestry sector and I think they deserve to get more support. It is a multi-pronged challenge, especially when it comes to the skills shortage. We have to do better when it comes to the forestry. I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of my colleague's bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I announce the next speaker, I just want to advise him that I may interrupt him, although it looks like we may have enough time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate this evening on Bill C-354, an act whose spirit and intent are both commendable and easy to support. Indeed, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has proposed legislation that reflects our government's own efforts to support and grow Canada's forest sector, efforts that not only acknowledge the forest industry's long-standing importance to the Canadian economy and local communities but also recognize its equally bright future.

While Canada's forest sector has endured more than its fair share of challenges in recent times, from historic fires and devastating infestations to unwarranted duties and tariffs from our neighbours to the south, Canada's forest sector continues to reinvent and transform itself for this clean-growth century. In fact, Canada's forest industry stands out today as one of the most innovative parts of our Canadian economy.

The timing could not be better. The world is at a pivotal moment, a time when climate change is one of the greatest challenges our generation will face and a time when investing in clean technology is the new imperative for a low-carbon economy. Canada's forest industry is central to this.

The Minister of Natural Resources has even gone so far as to say that there is no global solution to climate change without the forest sector, and there is a very good reason for that. As we all learned in high school science classes, forests are our planet's lungs. They absorb vast amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and store it for decades, which makes the forest industry unique among our resource sectors and creates huge opportunities for wood and wood products and for the mostly rural and indigenous communities that produce them. That is why the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change includes commitments from senior levels of government to promote the greater use of wood in construction projects, including $39.8 million in federal funding over four years to support these efforts. That is why we have also joined with our provincial and territorial partners to endorse a forest bioeconomy framework, a comprehensive approach we have moved quickly to implement as we seek to make Canada a global leader in the use of sustainable biomass to transform our economy.

The challenges of a changing climate also represent an unprecedented opportunity for the forest sector, and our government is doing its part. Here are some quick examples.

Last fall, our government launched the clean growth program, with $155 million for clean-growth technology development and demonstration projects. Importantly, one of the program's five priority areas is advanced materials and bioproducts. The clean growth program will help to accelerate their adoption.

Then there is the green construction through wood program that funds demonstration projects to increase the use of engineered wood in non-traditional construction projects, such as tall buildings, low-rise commercial buildings, and bridges. The program also supports the necessary research that will allow tall buildings as part of the next cycle of the National Building Code of Canada, through collaboration with the National Research Council. This is critical, because previous building code changes have already had an impact on the adoption of wood in construction. In fact, there are currently close to 500 mid-rise wood buildings across Canada that are either completed, under construction, or at the planning stage because of code changes nationally and provincially. This number is also expected to increase significantly in the coming years as familiarity with the building code changes and grows.

These efforts are the result of broad partnerships including forest sector research organizations, academia, industry associations such as the Canadian Wood Council, federal and provincial governments collectively, and municipalities.

We have worked together on research, building codes, material development, education, and outreach to create awareness and knowledge on wood construction. Our government is supporting this move to wood through innovative projects across the country and around the world. At the University of British Columbia, for example, federal funding helped build a new 18-storey student residence that now stands as the tallest hybrid wood building in the world. The magnificent Brock Commons tall wood structure is not only an engineering and architectural showpiece; it is an environmental game changer, storing close to 1,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide and saving more than 1,000 tonnes in greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent of removing 511 cars from the road each and every year.

On the other side of the country, we supported the construction of the 13-storey cross-laminated timber condominium building in Quebec City. The Origine project includes a 12-storey mass timber structure on a concrete podium.

As well, we have been taking Canadian ingenuity to the world. There is no better example of that than the new Sino-Canadian low-carbon ecodistrict project in Tianjin, China. It is a $2.5 billion project showcase of Canadian know-how and Canadian lumber to create a sustainable community covering almost two square kilometres.

The first phase of this ecodistrict features 100 wood-framed townhouses incorporating Canadian energy efficiency technologies, which is not just creating new markets but new demand for Canadian wood products. Once completed, the eco-district will serve as a demonstration of how green building materials and technologies can help China realize its goal of ensuring that 50% of new buildings meet green housing standards by 2020. The Minister of Natural Resources was in China last June to renew a memorandum of understanding to maintain the momentum this project has generated and enhance Canada's support for green building in China.

As these examples illustrate, the forest sector can continue to play a central role in many of the most important issues of our time, leading environmental performance, driving clean growth and innovation, and advancing indigenous partnerships, turning climate action into a competitive advantage.

These were the motivations and goals behind Bill C-354. We should all support the bill from the member opposite, at least in principle. However, we just cannot put it into practice without some crucial amendments.

As others have pointed out in the House and at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the bill, with the way it was previously worded, was problematic. It raised questions around fairness in procurement. It also had the potential of running contrary to Canada's trade obligations, both at home and abroad. While these concerns are important, they are not impossible to overcome. In fact, I believe that the amendment proposed by the member for Markham—Thornhill and passed by the Committee on Natural Resources resolves this concern quite nicely.

Let me remind the House of the wording of the amendment. It reads:

(1.1) In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing—including a material, product or sustainable resource—that achieves such benefits.

This amendment would support the Canadian forest sector. It would support other sectors and suppliers. It would ensure fairness, openness, and transparency in the federal procurement process. The bill, as amended, would create good jobs, a stronger economy, and shared prosperity for generations to come. I encourage all members to support this bill as it has been amended.

The hon. member brought forward Bill C-354 with passion and vigour on the subject, and I thank him for it. He spoke vigorously about it in committee and convinced us all that this was a worthwhile venture and something we should all be proud of as members of Parliament. It is something all Canadians can be proud of.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before resuming debate, I would like to inform the hon. member that I will have to interrupt her speech at some point, but that she will be able to finish the next time the House resumes debate on this issue.

The member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise to support Bill C-354, which was introduced by my colleague from British Columbia.

I would like to begin by reminding my colleague from Louis-Hébert, that I think he is looking at the wrong version of the bill. Before it was amended in committee, the first draft of this bill indicated that preference should be given to construction projects that promote the use of wood. That is no longer the case because the experts who appeared before the committee said that the industry did not need a preferential approach. They simply asked that wood be considered as a possibility from the start, because that is not currently common practice in the construction industry.

After hearing from experts, amendments were made in committee, so now the bill favours a comparative approach rather than a preferential one. The bill is short and simple. The summary reads, and I quote:

...that the Minister may, in developing requirements for public works, allow the use of wood or any other thing that achieves environmental benefits.

This refers to the minister of Public Works. The clause simply states:

(1.1) In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefit and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.

This responds to the questions and points raised by the Conservative member who spoke earlier. I think this can help him reconsider his position.

The wood industry has had enough challenges in recent years. Workers from several sectors of the wood industry in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia told us that the government should think about integrating wood in construction. Recent innovations and technologies have made wood a potentially very beneficial material. We want to reduce our carbon footprint, and, in the cycle of life, wood has a very small footprint compared to other materials, such as concrete or steel. Using wood could make it easier to achieve the targets the government set under the Paris Agreement. This would give an economic boost to workers in regions across the country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will have six and a half minutes the next time this bill is before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Agriculture and Agrifood

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to be here in the House to speak about a crucial sector of the Canadian economy, namely our agriculture industry.

On December 8, 2017, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a question, and it was answered by the parliamentary secretary. By way of background, my perfectly simple question asked why the Liberals were abandoning farmers.

The parliamentary secretary's answer was about supply management. He reminded us of the Liberals' traditional position of supporting supply management. I strongly suspect it is the same answer we are going to get tonight. However, my question, which the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food did not answer, had other elements. I talked about how the Liberals had abandoned farmers by calling them tax cheats during the tax reforms, trying to take away their deferred cash tickets, and refusing to split Bill C-59 at the time.

Members will recall that back in December 2017, we predicted a crisis in grain transportation. We anticipated that grain transporters in western Canada would have trouble exporting their grain and that a crisis would erupt in the transportation system. We called on the Liberals to take action. Unfortunately, our calls fell on deaf ears, as did the calls of farmers and the industry. A serious crisis did develop, and grain farmers are still suffering the consequences today. That is the reality.

I asked why the Liberals were abandoning farmers. Sadly, not much has happened since. Actually, to be precise, a lot has happened, but to no effect. We have been presented with a budget that made absolutely no mention of agriculture. That is a fact. Now we have proof: since December 8, 2017, in regard to agriculture, the Liberals have abandoned Canadian farmers. What has happened since then? The grain crisis.

The Senate sent amendments to Bill C-59 back to the House. Those amendments could make Bill C-59 acceptable if we manage to adopt them. The Senate sent its amendments to the House over two weeks ago. We have not heard a thing. That is the government response to the amendments to Bill C-59. No news, and the crisis is ongoing. The Liberals refused to pass an order in council to resolve the crisis.

Now, once again, we have a very serious problem before us. What happened in the meantime? Oh, right, the NAFTA negotiations. Something did happen. The parliamentary secretary can give us all the reassurances he wants about supply management, but I have just one little thing to say to him. Despite his and his government's reassuring words, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and its president are demanding that the government get tougher and stand firm. They want the Canadian government to say, loudly and clearly, that supply managed sectors will not be opened up to American producers any more than they already are and that we will not sit back and let them impose tariffs on other products.

My question this evening is this: will the parliamentary secretary pledge to the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and us that supply management will not be opened up any more than it already is? The president is not asking for protection; he is just asking the government not to open up supply management any more.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable who is a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and is doing an excellent job. I have had the opportunity to visit his beautiful area of the country and its abundance of maple syrup producers.

That said, the success of the country's agriculture and agrifood industry is a priority for our government. That is why we regularly consult with farmers and why we are taking appropriate measures to help the sector remain competitive in the long term.

We have set the goal of expanding Canadian annual agrifood exports to $75 billion by 2025. Budget 2018 builds on the investments in agriculture made in budget 2017, particularly the Canadian agricultural partnership, a supercluster initiative. This measure takes the necessary action to build a competitive, sustainable, and fair Canada where equality reigns. In Canada, where science and innovation help create economic growth, the Canadian agricultural partnership came into effect on April 1. It includes a $3-billion investment over five years that will help strengthen Canada's agriculture, agrifood and agri-based products industry.

The Transportation Modernization Act is also a priority for the government. It will make Canada's transportation system more transparent, fair, and efficient. It will help bring Canadian agricultural products to domestic and foreign markets.

The government is also defending the main interests of the agriculture and agrifood sector as it negotiates several free trade agreements. On March 8, Canada and 10 signatories signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in Santiago, Chile. Given that Asia-Pacific is a growing market for Canada, the CPTTP is excellent news for the agriculture and agrifood sector. This partnership will help create export markets, put Canadian agricultural producers on an equal footing with their main competitors, and ensure Canada's economic growth.

The government is also actively ensuring that the Canadian agriculture sector benefits from market opportunities created by the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

Last November, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food spent 10 days in China, our second largest export market for agrifood products, to promote Canadian agricultural products. This trip paved the way for stable trade for agricultural products such as canola and meat.

We will continue to invest in our farmers, livestock producers, and growers across the country. The agriculture and agrifood sector in Canada is an innovative and highly specialized sector and a key driver of Canada's economy. The government supports Canadian farmers and adopts policies that will give the industry a competitive advantage in growing global markets.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is worrisome. The UPA asked the government to confirm that it will not make any more concessions in the negotiations with the Americans. There was no such confirmation. We are still waiting for a trans-Pacific partnership implementation bill to be introduced because if we are not among the first six, the other countries will take advantage. Again, the Liberals are abandoning the producers.

This is the latest crisis. The president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait, Bruno Letendre, says that we should not be implementing a labelling policy that will confuse consumers. Dairy products are healthy choices and should be recognized as such. He is launching this appeal to counter Health Canada giving its blessing to carbonated soft drinks. It is saying that there is no problem with carbonated soft drinks, but we have to label dairy products such as yoghurt and cheese because they contain saturated fat. However, science tells us that it is good for our health. That is why we feel that the Liberals are turning their backs on Canadian producers.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that his colleague from Beauce wants to do away with supply management, whereas we have never changed our position in that regard.

We continue to defend supply management. I want to reiterate that the success of the agriculture and agrifood industry is a priority for our government. Budget 2018 will continue to enhance the competitiveness of Canada's agricultural industry. We signed agreements with the provinces and territories under the Canadian agricultural partnership, which took effect on April 1. We introduced a bill to create a more transparent, fair, and effective rail system, which will help grain farmers get their products to market. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders to defend the interests of Canada's agriculture and agrifood industry as part of the government's broader trade agenda.

Taxation

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question that I asked the Minister of National Revenue last fall about the disability tax credit fiasco, which had a major impact on people with type 1 diabetes. Since I have only four minutes, I would like to briefly remind the House of what happened.

Overnight, the number of people with type 1 diabetes being denied the tax credit by the Canada Revenue Agency inexplicably began to soar. Such a thing had never been seen before. A person with type 1 diabetes who had never had any trouble getting the disability tax credit before was suddenly being turned down by the CRA on the pretext that they no longer met the criteria.

That could happen in one or two exceptional cases. Last fall, however, an astounding number of people started contacting members on both sides of the House to complain about this situation, which was reaching unprecedented levels. The minister kept insisting that there had been no change in the criteria and that there was no reason to worry, even though the reality on the ground was that a staggering number of people were being denied the tax credit.

Eventually, the minister was forced to apologize, because concrete evidence, in the form of CRA emails, proved that an internal memo had been sent to agents telling them to review disability tax credit applications more closely, especially those from people with type 1 diabetes. She had to apologize because the facts were checked by the media and the opposition, who finally uncovered the truth. If the minister had to apologize, it is because something had in fact changed. This shows that she did a poor job of managing this file, to say the least. She confused everyone, as did the public servants who appeared before the committee. One message had been sent to the agents on the front lines, while the government was sending a completely different message.

As a follow-up, I would like to ask the government to tell us how many people were affected by this incredible fiasco. How many people suffering from type 1 diabetes in Canada were affected and became ineligible for the tax credit overnight? We hope that they won their case with the Canada Revenue Agency and that they have finally received their tax credit. There have been changes at the agency and we hope that other changes will be made in order to clarify the rules.

How many people were affected by the fiasco created by the Minister of National Revenue?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise once again in this House to help my hon. colleague get a better understanding of the disability tax credit. While I am certain that this may not surprise my colleague, I can once again assure him, as I have many times in this House, that the eligibility criteria for the DTC have not changed. Unlike the previous Harper Conservatives, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians with disabilities not only receive the credits and benefits to which they are entitled but are able to advise the CRA on how best to administer them.

One of the most important steps we have taken is to reinstate the Disability Advisory Committee, which, again, the previous Harper Conservatives abolished in 2006. After more than 10 years without a voice at the table, Canadians with disabilities, their stakeholder organizations, and medical experts are now able to engage with the Canada Revenue Agency. Through this process, they provide insight on how to best ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

Our government values evidence-based policy-making. The Disability Advisory Committee allows us to hear directly from experts to ensure that the steps we take moving forward improve the agency's services. We have also taken concrete steps to make it easier for Canadians to apply for the disability tax credit.

Nurses form the backbone of many Canadians' health care. As a nurse myself, I know that nurses often follow their patients very closely. That is why I was proud that our government allowed nurse practitioners to certify the medical information and the effects of the impairment on the credit application form. This will make the application process more accessible for individuals who do not have frequent access to a doctor.

Let me be absolutely clear. Most applications for the disability tax credit received by the CRA are approved, allowing more than 700,000 Canadians to claim the credit on their annual tax returns. The agency does not have a target approval rate. Each case is processed on a case-by-case basis. We are continuing to improve the agency's transparency in the application and administration of the DTC. The agency has published detailed statistics on its website. Data related to this important credit, including the number people claiming it, the amounts claimed, and the number of applications accepted and rejected, will be published annually. We have also recently established the position of chief data officer, who will provide leadership and oversight as the agency takes steps to enhance its approach to data management.

Our government is absolutely committed to ensuring that all Canadians receive the benefits and credits to which they are entitled.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we get the same response all too often from this government.

As soon as the Liberals find themselves in an unpleasant situation, and that is putting it mildly, as soon as their mismanagement is exposed, they react. That is when they suddenly decide to create a panel of experts, because a problem needs solving. However, the problem needs to be uncovered by the public, the opposition or the media, otherwise the government does nothing and lets things go.

If no one had spoken up and said that their tax credit had been denied, even though they had been getting it for years, if we had not found out that so many people were experiencing the same thing, the government never would have done anything. It would have eliminated the tax credits for people with disabilities, for people with type 1 diabetes. It would have slipped under the radar.

Why does the government always wait until it finds itself in some sort of appalling situation before doing anything and taking action?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada is at its best when all of society benefits and everyone is included. Our government is committed to ensuring greater accessibility and opportunities for all Canadians, especially those with disabilities.

With all due respect, if my colleague asks the same question, he will get the same response. Once again, more Canadians claimed this important credit last year than ever before. That is good news, and we hope to see this trend continue upward. I sincerely hope that I finally, perhaps for the last time, answered my hon. colleague's question.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, for months last year, the Prime Minister and the revenue minister patted themselves on the back and made all kinds of claims regarding their attempt to recoup income taxes in particular from tax havens. There were repeated questions from different parties on the opposition benches that challenged them on what was being done to ensure the recovery of money from those who seek to evade taxes in Canada through tax havens.

They would say things like what the minister said on November 6:

In fact, over the past two years, we have invested nearly $1 billion to combat tax havens. This investment has helped our efforts to recover nearly $25 billion.

They have recovered nearly $25 billion according to that statement on November 6. The same day, she said, “Our efforts have borne fruit. We are about to recoup $25 billion.”

These are the kinds of things the government has said.

Then on November 16, CBC ran a news story and exposed what they called “a lot of baloney”. CBC said that it was complete nonsense, that the $25 billion the government had referred to was really a multi-year number, mostly a result of domestic audits, not from offshore evasion. It included things like GST evasion or lack of remittance. Actually, only $1.8 billion in annual evasion or aggressive avoidance was included in that $25 billion that the minister, and the Prime Minister for that matter, repeated over and over again last fall.

Officials in the department clarified and made the point that a lot of that money will never be collected, that this was money they assess, and believe will be assessed, and that by the time they are finished with the objection process, litigation, tax court, etc., perhaps half of that money may be collected. This is not the offshore evasion piece that members of both parties on the opposition benches have questioned them about.

That brings me to the question I asked the minister on December 5. I said:

Mr. Speaker, the government has been targeting small businesses and people with disabilities while patting itself on the back for supposedly recovering $25 billion from cheaters, including from offshore shelters.

She went on to reply, with a subtle backpedal, that they were on track to recoup $25 billion as a result of audits conducted over the past two years. No longer was that the number they were actually going to recover through going after offshore evaders.

For months the minister was misleading and completely disingenuous in the statements she made in the House to many questions about the serious issue of offshore evasion and avoidance. Therefore, I wonder if tonight we could perhaps hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue what they actually think they may be able to accomplish with their stated goal to collect and recapture taxes from offshore evaders and avoiders.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, after a decade of the Harper Conservative government sending cheques to wealthy millionaires and billionaires and their miserable track record of the growth for the middle class, Canadians made a choice for change.

I would remind my colleague that in 2015 Canadians made that choice. Canadians chose a party that would cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the top 1%. Canadians chose a party that would send more money to nine out of 10 families, pulling hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, instead of a party that sent cheques to millionaires.

Canadians also chose a government that would take the fight against tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance seriously. That is exactly what we are doing.

Critical to these efforts are government investments to give the CRA the right tools in this fight, and our engagement and leadership with our global partners, placing us at the forefront of international efforts.

Allow me to bring to the attention of the House some of our recent activities to increase offshore compliance.

We have created a full-time team dedicated to addressing offshore non-compliance. The CRA has also hired additional auditors and increased the number of teams dedicated to scrutinizing the tax affairs of high risk and high-net worth taxpayers.

As of March 31, 2018, for offshore-related cases, audits of more than 1,112 taxpayers were under way and the CRA had more than 41 ongoing criminal investigations for tax evasion.

In 2016-17, CRA actions resulted in 37 convictions, more than 50 years of jail time, and $100 million in court fines.

The agency reviews all electronic funds transfers of over $10,000 to and from four offshore jurisdictions of concern every year. Let me be absolutely clear. We are ensuring that individuals with holdings in jurisdictions such as the Isle of Mann and Guernsey are complying with Canadian law.

In addition, the CRA is reviewing selected neighbourhoods in Canada to better compare lifestyle to income, particularly where corporations, trusts or non-residents own residential property. This work is providing CRA auditors with multiple information sources with which to conduct their audits and improve their efforts to detect potential tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

The CRA is also focused on identifying promoters of abusive tax schemes. The agency's work in this area has resulted in roughly $92 million in third-party penalties and, since 2016, against tax professionals who have facilitated these schemes.

We will continue to seek to bring tax cheats to account. That is a priority for our government. We are on track to ensure we keep fighting for this. That is what Canadians expect.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again, there were no real answers there. The government spent months claiming that it had collected $25 billion from offshore cheaters, which was not true. That was not a correct statement. It was factually dishonest to say that. It took the media calling it out on that to point out that this was, as it put it, a bunch of baloney.

Tonight we have heard the government again seeking, it would seem, extraordinary credit for having 37 convictions in a period of one year, which is not atypical from what the numbers have been over many years in other governments. It is a handful of criminal convictions in one year, which is not really much of a track record.

The next election is coming and it is getting pretty boring to simply hear that the Liberals won in 2015. Canadians need something better than that.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it a little rich to hear the Conservatives talk about their record. It was their government that cut significant amounts from the Canada Revenue Agency, back in the Harper Conservative era.

Our government is firmly committed to combatting tax evasion and tax avoidance. We have made investments and we have seen the result of those. We want a fair tax system that works for all Canadians.

For the individuals or corporations that try to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, I have one thing to say. They have nowhere to hide. Our government stands on solid ground in this regard. We are on track, we are meeting our targets, and we are delivering results.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

(The House adjourned at 8:04 p.m.)