House of Commons Hansard #313 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
Kim Rudd Liberal Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
In terms of the work we have done through Generation Energy, as an example, 380,000 Canadians contributed to a conversation on Canada's energy future. It is about inclusivity. Conservatives forgot indigenous people. We did not.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order. I know it is getting late, but I want to remind members that whoever has the floor needs respect. The hon. member for Abbotsford was not interrupted during his questioning, and I would ask that he respect the member speaking.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I have looked up the mandate letter the Minister of Natural Resources received, dated November 12. It says that in relation to environmental assessment and working with the environment minister, he is to “restore robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments of areas under federal jurisdiction”.
I want to highlight that part, “federal jurisdiction”, because the expert panel the government mandated to look into environmental assessment, at a cost of over $1 million, came back with the clear advice that federal jurisdiction include, “at a minimum, federal lands, federal funding and federal government as proponent, as well as: Species at risk; Fish; Marine plants; Migratory birds; Indigenous Peoples...; Greenhouse gas emissions”, and the list goes on.
However, the government chose to ignore the mandate letter, to ignore its campaign promises, and to deliver in Bill C-69 not reviews of environmental assessments for areas of federal jurisdiction but only for major projects, which will be found on a list we can see later. The government explicitly said it does not include federal funding. It explicitly said that this is not about federal jurisdiction, for instance, for permits issued by the Minister of Transport under the Navigation Protection Act or permits issued by the Minister of Fisheries. Therefore, the undoing, the wrecking of environment assessment law by the previous government, is being entrenched by the current government.
Why did the Minister of Natural Resources ignore his mandate letter?
Kim Rudd Liberal Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Madam Speaker, obviously I will agree to disagree with the hon. member.
I am very confident in saying that the Minister of Environment has lived up to her mandate letter and beyond. It is really about moving forward, and moving forward in the country means ensuring all Canadians get to come along with us. It is not just for those Canadians who have the ability to come and have a say, but those who do not are provided the opportunity to do that.
With respect to the consultation process, it provides supports to people who want to come and have a voice at those tables. It provides online consultation opportunities for people who cannot otherwise get there. It is about inclusivity. It is about listening. At the end of the day, when we hear from everyone who wants to have a say, we are building trust in Canadians. We will move projects forward in the country only by doing that.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I would like to remind the next speaker that I will have to interrupt them in roughly 12 minutes.
The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South claims to have heard from her minister that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development discovered that many people were interested in the matter and wanted to get involved in this environmental issue. As a member of that committee, that is not what I saw.
I hope that we will be able to improve this bill, which is at third reading tonight, and that the government will listen to reason. In all sincerity, the goal of our interventions is to improve the bill, in order to make it more rigorous and more effective at improving our actions as citizens when it comes to the environment. I am speaking specifically about the act to enact the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Yes, I am a little out of breath after reading the bill's title. This government promised not to use omnibus or mammoth bills. The Liberals have proven once again that they do not keep their word. They are not fulfilling the campaign promises they made in 2015, and Canadians are realizing that more and more.
We will be talking about part 1 of the bill, which enacts the impact assessment act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.
Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.
Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act. At 400 pages, the bill is very complex. Introducing a bill like this one undermines parliamentarians by preventing us from doing effective and rigorous work to ensure that Canadian legislation is well crafted.
The Liberals are determined to label us as the “big bad Conservatives” and the “anti-environment Conservatives”. Even though it is late, I would like to repeat in the House that no member of the official opposition gets up in the morning intent on destroying our planet. Quite the contrary.
I would like to review some of the concrete measures the previous Conservative government took. I would like to remind the House that we created the clean air regulatory agenda. We instituted new regulations to reduce emissions from cars and light trucks. We instituted new regulations to reduce emissions from heavy vehicles and their engines, and we announced our plans for stricter regulations for that sector. We proposed regulations to align ourselves with the U.S. Tier 3 standards for vehicle emissions and sulphur in gasoline. Our relationship with the United States was a good one. We set targets for hydrofluorocarbons, black carbon, and methane. We established new regulations to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. We put in place measures to support the development of carbon capture technologies and alternative energy sources. We enhanced the annual report to government on main environmental indicators, including GHGs.
I would call the members' attention to my next point. We, the Conservatives, got rid of tax breaks related to the oil sands. Anyone who thinks we did nothing for the nine years the Conservative Party was in power before the Liberals took office is absolutely wrong. The Liberals are spreading misinformation. Those were just some of our government's actions. Taken together, our measures secured a positive environmental record for Canada and led to a proven reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2014, the last full year of our government, we managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 15%. Yes, the Conservative government did that. We worked so hard, that when the Liberal government came to power and went parading about in Paris, it used the greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the big scary Conservatives, those anti-environmentalists who could not work with scientists. We set greenhouse gas reduction targets and this government used them. This confirms that we did a good job. The government should shut up and stop saying that the Conservatives are working against the environment.
More specifically, the environment is important within the Conservative Party's Quebec caucus, as it is to all Conservatives in the House. I would like to share some of specific actions that Conservative caucus members from Quebec have taken.
I hear one of my colleagues in the House laughing. I was trying to copy him by participating in the Shaved Head Challenge. It probably suits him better, but it is temporary in my case.
The member for Lévis—Lotbinière planted over 500 trees on his property. The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, meanwhile, has a cottage. He is lucky, but he is an entrepreneur who worked very hard and added this cottage to his property before he was elected to the House of Commons. Guess what his cottage has? It has solar panels. Yes, he is a Conservative who is not polluting and who cares about the environment. He also has a wind turbine to produce energy.
Let us also not forget that our political lieutenant for Quebec gets around in an electric car. Well done. We are proud to show that we are fully aware of the importance of the environment. I would also like to add that, for my part, I formed a committee on the circular economy. We are people of action, and the environment is important to us.
I will now get back to the bill. The May 31 edition of Le Devoir ran an article by Louis-Gilles Francoeur under the headline “Political appointments undermine environmental assessment process”. Mr. Francoeur is a former vice-president of the Quebec Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement and former journalist at Le Devoir. Here is what he said:
Bill C-69, which will govern federal environmental assessment in coming years, has been proceeding through Parliament with striking media indifference.... One issue is the process of appointing members to the review panels responsible for assessing large projects under federal authority, like the recent Energy East oil pipeline project. Politics can be a main factor in choosing review panel members, as the proposed bill now stands. That is hardly compatible with the independence required in this function.
The Liberals said that they would govern without interference and that they would implement a system and take the necessary steps to ensure that everything was done in an impartial manner. However, clause 33 of the bill says:
The Minister may only approve a substitution if he or she is satisfied...
This is a privilege that is being given to the minister.
Subclause 39(1) says:
...he or she may enter into an agreement or arrangement with any jurisdiction referred to...
Subclause 75(2) mentions an exception:
The obligation does not apply with respect to any designated project for which the Minister has approved the substitution of a process...
Lastly, subclause 183(6) says:
The Minister may, by order, grant one or more extensions of the time limit specified under subsection (4).
I am not making this up. These are real clauses from the bill. In light of these provisions, how can the Liberals claim to have implemented transparent, impartial measures that will lead to a reputable process and restore public trust?
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's trip to India was billed as an opportunity to foster relations between India and Canada, but that opportunity was squandered when the Liberals caused a diplomatic incident and embarrassed our country on the global stage. It was shocking enough to learn that a convicted attempted murderer had attended official events. Unfortunately, that was not the only revelation to come out regarding the India trip.
As part of the Liberal delegation, the member for Brampton East made sure that his business associate, a construction CEO, got access to high level ministers, including the Prime Minister himself. The member receives income from this company and therefore stands to personally profit from any increased business that the company receives as a result of his participation in the India trip.
The Liberals have responded to these allegations by talking about the importance of creating ties between Canadian and Indian business and community leaders. We can all agree on the importance of increasing trade and helping our businesses prosper, but that is not the issue at stake here.
The issue is that all Canadian businesses should have equal access to these events and opportunities. Those with ties to Liberal MPs should not have an unfair advantage and MPs should never use their position to further their private interests. When this happens, it undermines the faith that Canadians have put in all of us as Parliamentarians.
This behaviour also flies in the face of the ethics code that each and every MP agrees to when he or she is elected to the House of Commons.
I took the step of sending a letter to the Ethics Commissioner to request that he conduct a formal investigation into the matter. I have received a response, stating that the incident does merit him taking steps toward an investigation. I am pleased that we will have answers about this incident and that the member from Brampton East will be held accountable for any wrongdoing on his part.
Everyone who is elected to the House of Commons to represent Canadians must be held to the highest ethical standards. My Conservative colleagues and I will continue to work hard to hold the Liberal government accountable for its bad behaviour.
What is the Liberal government doing to ensure its members follow basic ethical rules?
Andrew Leslie LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the question of my hon. colleague vis-à-vis trade with India and the very unfortunate increase of up to 50% on specific commodities. In this case, I would like to focus our attention on peas and lentils.
This is a priority for our government. Canadian agricultural exports to India have been increasing over the past decade, which is fantastic news, from around half a billion dollars to trade in excess of $1 billion in 2016 and 2017. I would like to start by emphasizing that we are extremely disappointed and concerned with the measures put in place by the Government of India. In that context, I share my colleague's concerns.
These measures by India lack transparency and have created an unpredictable trade environment. Over the past few months, India has used several different types of measures that have negatively impacted Canada and the global pulse market.
The first relates to the fumigation requirement. Since 2004, Canada has been receiving a series of country-specific exemptions, called derogations, from India's requirement that pulses be fumigated prior to leaving Canada. Canada's position is that we can effectively meet India's plant health concerns without the need for fumigation. However, for the first time, on October 1, 2017, our country-specific derogation was not renewed. Trade with India can continue through a general derogation, which allows for agricultural products to be fumigated upon arrival, which of course is more expensive and time-consuming. The penalty for not meeting the fumigation requirements is cost-prohibitive and significantly impacts the competitiveness of our pulse sector in India. This general exemption expires on June 30, 2018.
The second measure is an increase in import duties. Since November 8, 2017, India has increased duties on dry peas to 50%, as referred to by my hon. colleague, lentils to 33%, and chickpeas to 66%. India's tariff increases are usually given without notice and are applied immediately to all shipments, including those in transit at the time of the increase.
The third measure was put in place on April 25, 2018. It is a limit on the volume of imports for pea shipments. This is not a ban on pea imports, but a limit of 100,000 tonnes allowed during a three-month period, which is applied to all countries.
These measures are designed to limit trade of foreign pulses to India and have created a lack of predictability and transparency in the global pulse market. They reflect an attempt by India to address domestic challenges, which include a bumper crop of pulses in 2017-18.
We have a deep concern with these measures, and we are taking a number of actions. Through high-level engagement, the government has expressed deep concern and disappointment with India's very restrictive policies. We take the commitment to resolve this issue seriously, and we will work with our Indian counterparts to ensure that they do the same. Of course, we have done an enormous amount of technical work to demonstrate that we have a rigorous inspection process that ensures that India's plant health concerns are met. We have also invited Indian officials to Canada in the coming months to review our grain handling system and to see for themselves that fumigation is not necessary.
On the issue of duties, although India is within its World Trade Organization rights to increase duties within certain constraints, Canada is concerned that no notification was given before implementation, and of course this impedes the free exchange of goods.
On the issue of limiting the volume of imports for pea shipments, we are reviewing whether India's—
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Madam Speaker, the Conservative government of Canada prided itself on a principles-based approach that encouraged democracy and justice abroad in addition to expanding the Canadian economy and increasing foreign investment. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's trip to India was more about photo ops than about the economy.
It is disheartening that a member of the Liberal delegation seems to have used his position to help a business associate gain privileged access to ministers. If this trip was truly about the economy, all businesses should have had equal access to these opportunities. It is unacceptable that those who have a connection to the Liberal Party have privileged access over those who do not, and this speaks to the Liberals' objectives abroad.
Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to close by underlining the fact that, while there will always be challenges with regard to trade, Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is set for strong growth well into the future.
Our government knows that trade drives our jobs and our economy. That is why we have set a target of $75 billion in agricultural exports by 2025. Last year, we hit a new record of $64.6 billion in agriculture and food exports, which is an increase of $2 billion from 2016. Our government is building on that success with the signing of the CPTPP and the coming into force of CETA, which could boost our agricultural products by another $2.5 billion.
Through budget 2018, we have invested $75 million to boost our trading presence in China and other key markets for Canadian farmers. Diversification is the key. Our government will continue to ensure that we help Canadian farmers and agribusinesses take advantage of new export opportunities.
I agree with the hon. colleague that the current conduct of India vis-à-vis trade, specifically pulses and chickpeas, is unacceptable.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, in March, I rose in the House to call on the government to present us its plan for spending billions of dollars on infrastructure over the next 12 years, a plan that the municipalities are still waiting for.
The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities told me that nearly $180 billion would be released in order to build the necessary infrastructure that Mr. Harper's Conservative government had neglected for 10 years. That is all well and good, but as the Parliamentary Budget Officer pointed out, it would be nice if the Liberal government established a real plan for spending all that money and building the high-quality infrastructure that our constituents expect.
I would like to share with my colleagues my deep concern about the government's lack of transparency and organization in managing our infrastructure. In response to my most recent question on the Order Paper, I was told that the plan to invest in Canada consisted of a number of programs and initiatives implemented by 14 departments. The programs target different types of infrastructure, and therefore there is no funding criteria standard. Wow.
The federal government is not tracking the requests received or the scheduled payment dates for any of the programs. I do not see how the so-called plan is being managed.
The NDP believes that our country needs public investment right now to ensure that our roads, airports, and public transit systems meet Canadians' needs.
Our public infrastructure is the cornerstone of our country. That is why we must ensure that the $180 billion invested over the next 10 years will benefit all Canadians and our municipal and provincial partners. I also want to draw the Liberal government's attention to small municipalities, which, in my opinion, deserve more attention from Ottawa.
As a former municipal councillor with the City of Saint-Hyacinthe, I am convinced that the realities and needs of small municipalities are quite different from those of big cities. I truly believe that the the federal government should consider their specific needs and realities when making decisions about infrastructure.
I have sat on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities several times. I listened to witnesses who explained how a lack of financial resources can sometimes prevent small municipalities from submitting projects that their communities need.
For example, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that the traditional process is onerous for small communities. Other witnesses said that some very small municipalities are understaffed and do not have an up-to-date inventory of their infrastructure funding needs.
The NDP therefore believes that it is imperative that the federal government establish means and mechanisms to further support these small municipalities so that they can identify their own needs for infrastructure funding. We believe that it is the federal government's duty to be more flexible and to make the process less onerous for small municipalities that need the government to take their realities and unique characteristics into account.
I also believe that we should expect a lot from a government that often describes itself as progressive and says it is concerned about climate change.
InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings
Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs Québec
Liberal
Marc Miller LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities
Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight that, as has been said before, we have a comprehensive infrastructure plan that is delivering to Canada for Canadians. These projects are creating economic growth as noted by the Bank of Canada, and opportunities for Canadians as we build healthy, livable, and sustainable communities. Our infrastructure plan was presented in budget 2016, and we expanded that in the year's fall economic statement and the funding was profiled, as members may recall, in budget 2017.
The government's investing in Canada plan is made up of three important elements: $92 billion in renewed programs, $14.4 billion in investments in projects that make much-needed repairs to existing infrastructure, and $81.2 billion to support infrastructure investment in five priority areas over the next decade. They are notably public transit infrastructure, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation infrastructure, and infrastructure in rural and northern communities, which is particularly responsive to the member's question, especially as it represented a change in what we had planned to do, notably through advocacy of rural members. I would encourage the member opposite to take note of that, and even more so as the federal government's share increased a larger percentage in the last bilateral agreements that we have been negotiating with provinces, which will alleviate the burden on smaller communities.
I want to focus on the new investments made by our government.
In budget 2016, we launched the phase one of our $180-billion investing in Canada plan. Phase one supports a wide variety of infrastructure projects, including public transit, water, waste water, and affordable housing projects in communities across Canada, including indigenous communities.
Since then, the Government of Canada has approved over 29,000 projects for a total estimated value of $13.2 billion in federal funding.
We are also making considerable progress on our commitments made under budget 2017. Under the second phase of our plan, 11 federal departments, as the member opposite highlighted, are delivering 24 programs and nearly all have launched.
We are committed to transparency and, as highlighted in budget 2018, we have reprofiled funding over the years of our plan. This is an issue of cash flow management and not one of lack of activity, as the members opposite might suggest, which is entirely erroneous. The funding in our investing in Canada plan remains available. If funding does not flow in a given year, it is reprofiled to future years, ensuring that the federal funding remains available to project partners when they need it.
We remain committed to working openly and transparently as we develop programs that will provide necessary funding for infrastructure Canadians need and use every day.
Our government understands that infrastructure is the foundation of building a strong economy, creating jobs for the middle class and creating opportunity for those who work hard each and every day to be part of the middle class. These investments we have made to date demonstrate our commitment to Canadians, and we look forward to building even stronger, more sustainable, and inclusive communities for the 21st century.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that our public infrastructure can adapt to the reality of tomorrow and the effects of climate change.
The NDP believes the government must consider the possibility of implementing a protocol like the one proposed by Engineers Canada to assess infrastructure climate risk and vulnerability and recommend ways to adapt to extreme weather events and future climate conditions.
The government must enable small municipalities to access this protocol so they can build lasting public infrastructure. The NDP believes that Canadians should be able to count on infrastructure funding for viable, long-lasting infrastructure that can stand up to the challenges of climate change.
Marc Miller Liberal Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to respond directly to the question by stating that we have put several billion dollars in focusing precisely on what the member opposite has discussed, which is climate change and making sure we are building infrastructure that is responsive and resistant to climate change, which we know is occurring, which we know is made by humanity, and which we know we need to adapt to for the 21st century.
We rely on the expertise of our local partners, who decide which projects will help them grow the economy, build inclusive communities, and support a green, low-carbon economy.
We are proud to provide federal funding to achieve those objectives. During phase one of our plan, as I said in the first half of my presentation, the federal government approved over 29,000 projects for a total estimated value of $13.2 billion in federal funding. That does not include funding awarded to communities, provinces, and municipalities, among others. The vast majority of these projects are under way.
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise this morning now seeking answers to a question I originally raised in March about the then impending steel and aluminum tariffs on U.S. imports. Clearly those tariffs have become a very real and difficult reality for the manufacturers and workers in those sectors in Canada today.
At that time, more than three months ago, the NDP was calling for the Prime Minister to take immediate action to protect the more than 146,000 good-paying jobs. The New Democrats demanded immediate action by the government to get a permanent exemption to this unfair tax from the Trump administration.
Canadians know that these tariffs have been imposed upon us unfairly. They know that Donald Trump has used the U.S. section 232 investigation and the justification of protecting national security as an excuse to impose these tariffs. Canada has always been America's closest ally and partner in trade and in defence.
Canadians also know that President Trump has his own divergent agenda. In fact, after the actions that he and members of his administration took against Canada this past weekend, I was prompted to stand in the House yesterday and ask for unanimous consent to show solidarity and a united front against Trump's divisive bullying tactics.
That is why my motion called for all members of this place to also stand in solidarity with workers, farmers and manufacturers. My motion was one step. The retaliatory tariffs imposed by the Government of Canada against the U.S. are just another step.
I want to know, in these early hours, answers to multiple questions, questions that Canadians are asking themselves today.
How will the Government of Canada, in light of the uncertainty of trade relations with the U.S. and the NAFTA renegotiations, protect our industries and thousands of Canadian workers who are greatly concerned for their jobs?
Rather than taking defensive and proactive action immediately, the Liberal government will not impose the retaliatory tariffs until July 1. Why has the government not acted more swiftly, like Mexico or the EU?
How will the Liberal government continue to work to secure a permanent exemption?
How has the government prepared for a contingency of the offshore of diversion of steel to the Canadian market?
What will the government specifically do to support workers? Will it make some more offers as it did for softwood lumber? Will it extend the duration and coverage of employment insurance and provide retraining packages?
Ultimately, will the Liberals keep their promise to allow trade unions the right to file complaints under the Special Imports Measures Act?
These are all questions that Canadians today are asking of the government. I am proud to stand here and ask them on behalf of the NDP.
I would like to read part of a press release that was released today, June 12, by the United Steelworkers. It urges the government to act swiftly to impose the retaliatory tariffs. It says that it “joins...the country's steel producers in expressing concern that the counter-measures should be implemented as soon as possible.” We see both labour and steel producers united in this call.
The USW says, “Canada should not wait until July 1 to respond to the unjustified U.S. tariffs.” The USW represents thousands of steel and aluminum workers across the country.
This is a submission on the Canadian counter measures to U.S. tariffs. It is signed by Ken Neumann, who is the Canadian USW national director.
Last, I would like to read a quote from him. He says, “Canada’s steelworkers need support similar to what was afforded to Quebec’s aluminum workers and Canada’s forestry workers. The government of Quebec has offered $100 million in loan guarantees to support the aluminum industry based in that Province. Canadian steel communities are already hurting...”
What will the government do to help?
Andrew Leslie LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be here at 25 minutes after midnight.
Over the past several days, we have seen members of this House united in denouncing the recently announced U.S. section 232 tariffs, and united in supporting our government's strong stance in responding to these tariffs. I want to thank the member opposite for her particular work on this issue, and for the unanimous consent motion that so clearly demonstrated our united front in this very important regard.
These unilateral tariffs imposed by the United States under the pretext of national security are unacceptable and an affront to the long-standing security partnership between the United States and Canada, and Canada has no choice but to respond. Indeed, Canada is imposing reciprocal and proportional tariffs against U.S. imports worth $16.6 billion, equivalent to the value of Canadian exports hit by U.S. tariffs. They were very carefully chosen and very carefully applied.
These tariffs will be implemented following the 15-day consultation period, on July 1, Canada Day, which allows Canadians to express their views on the proposed countermeasures in this intervening period of time. This period is important to ensure that we have the best possible retaliatory list. Therefore, we need ideas from Canadians. We need their input and advice over the next couple of days to make sure that the targets have been adequately and carefully selected.
Our tariffs will also be coordinated with those of the European Union. We have also launched dispute settlement cases under NAFTA chapter 20 and World Trade Organization rules to challenge these tariffs. Simply put, we are taking every action to defend Canadian workers and industry.
Canada and the U.S. have been close allies in NATO and NORAD for years, and we are even recognized in U.S. law as part of the American military industrial base, contributing to the united security of the continent. As a former soldier who has fought alongside our American friends, and in my case, literally family, I submit that using national security concerns to impose such tariffs on Canadian products makes no sense.
U.S. duties on steel and aluminum harm U.S. and Canadian workers both, because our economies are so highly integrated. Of course, these tariffs imposed by the Americans cannot go unanswered. The Prime Minister has been clear. Canada's response will be proportional, measured, and reciprocal.
On NAFTA, Canada remains prepared to engage in a good-faith negotiation towards a modernized agreement. Indeed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs leaves early this morning to go back down to Washington. In order for discussions to move forward, there will need to be a shared commitment to rules-based trade, improving North American competitiveness, and achieving an outcome that brings benefits to both our countries.
Our approach and our positions in these negotiations have been consistent since the beginning. We will continue to vigorously defend Canadian interests and values. As the Prime Minister has said directly to steel and aluminum workers, we are united in this great House and we have their backs.
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Madam Speaker, the uncertainty of trade relations with the U.S. is already having a serious affect on our industries, and thousands of Canadian workers are greatly concerned for their jobs. Absent proactive action, the Liberal government is letting Canadians endure one round of punitive trade tariffs after the next, which threatens significant job losses for Canadians.
The Liberal government must secure a permanent exemption, but it also must be fully prepared if the permanent exemption is not secured. This includes preparing for the contingency of offshore diversion of steel to the Canadian market and extending the duration and coverage of employment insurance.
New Democrats urge the government to address the very real problem of cheap imports directly or indirectly entering the North American market, including increasing resources to the CBSA to investigate and respond to the increased dumping of products. Canada cannot become a dumping ground for foreign steel.
I hope the Liberal government will take these actions seriously and act urgently.
Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the excellent points she just raised.
We will always protect workers in the steel and aluminum industries. For example, in March and April, the Prime Minister announced a new set of measures to address potential steel and aluminum diversions or dumping into Canada stemming from U.S. tariffs on certain countries. To that effect, we have a record of up to 72 trade remedies, as they are called, which are instruments that are required to circumvent and prevent just that sort of behaviour by international steel producers.
These measures will allow, as well, the Canada Border Services Agency to better address the issue of circumvention and to stop foreign companies that are trying to dodge duties. To that extent, we have invested an additional $30 million in additional human and other resources to better investigate, supervise, and constrain. These measures will help protect Canadian industries and also demonstrate our willingness to fight unfair trade practices.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:29 a.m.)