Debates of Dec. 10th, 2019

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #6

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

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

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House. This is my first time outside of question period to be speaking in this session of Parliament and it is a real honour to have the confidence of the electors of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes who returned me to the House.

The work of the last Parliament continues. Following the investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, there was a report that bears the name of the member for Papineau, the Prime Minister. I will go to great lengths to not use the actual name of the report in this House. However, it is the second report bearing the name of the member for Papineau from the Ethics Commissioner. It is very concerning that there was, again, a finding by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that the member, the first minister, the Prime Minister, contravened the act.

That leads me to the question that I raised in the House during question period. The Prime Minister has great power that comes with his office. With it, of course, comes tremendous responsibility. That responsibility includes maintaining the confidence that Canadians have in their public institutions. When we have the Prime Minister under investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, it is incumbent on the Prime Minister to provide all information, produce documents and witnesses to allow the commissioner to do his non-partisan, important work on behalf of this House and on behalf of all Canadians.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner told Canadians and this House in his report that he was not given full access, but was in fact obstructed by the Prime Minister in his attempts to complete his report. That is very concerning.

Not only did that obstruction occur with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, but it also happened when the RCMP undertook an investigation and made inquiries on this matter. I asked the Prime Minister if he would co-operate with the investigation that the RCMP was undertaking. Now that the election is over and now that Canadians have returned us to this place, it is important that we give Canadians the opportunity to have a renewed faith in this institution and in all of us.

Will the Prime Minister allow the RCMP to do its work on behalf of Canadians? Will the Prime Minister lift the veil of secrecy? Saying that it was granted an unprecedented waiver is a word salad. It does not provide clear answers to Canadians. Canadians want the veil of secrecy lifted.

The former attorney general was fired. The Prime Minister's former principal secretary resigned in disgrace. The former clerk of the Privy Council was fired too. It was very much the Saturday night massacre referred to by the member for Vancouver Granville.

Will the Prime Minister stop his obstruction and let the RCMP complete a full investigation into his interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will make two quick comments that I think are important and then provide a personal opinion.

The responsibility of any prime minister is to stand up for jobs across the country while upholding the rule of law. We have been open and upfront with Canadians about all of this. This issue was discussed repeatedly in the last Parliament. Members raised it often in question period, and the justice committee held public hearings and heard testimony from many witnesses. To provide Canadians with the transparency and fairness they deserve, we provided an exceptional waiver to the former attorney general in a way that preserves, rather than undermines, solicitor-client privilege, the right to a fair hearing in cases that are currently active, the integrity of the position of director of public prosecutions, and the rule of law in our country more generally. The Prime Minister has accepted the Ethics Commissioner's report and has taken full responsibility.

Over many years, I have watched different leaders' approaches to the issues of the day, and one thing I would remind the member opposite of is that, when the Prime Minister became leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, one of the first things he did was talk about the importance of transparency and accountability on the issue of proactive disclosure related to members of Parliament and the ways they spend public tax dollars. It took a while, but eventually the Conservatives came on board in recognizing the merit of what the then leader of the Liberal Party was talking about. It took a little longer for the New Democrats to come onside. The point is that, from day one, we have had a leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, who truly and genuinely believes in transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

These are important issues to the leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, and this government. If we were to take a look at the bigger picture of what has taken place over the last number of years, we have been very respectful of our independent officers, whether it is Elections Canada officers or the Ethics Commissioner. When recommendations are brought forward, we respect them and we listen. In cases that have been cited, there have been actions by the Prime Minister to ensure things are put in place to prevent incidents from occurring that might be misperceived. The Conservative Party has consistently, over the last years in opposition, taken the approach of character assassination, which is yet another example where Conservatives are more concerned about the character of an individual as opposed to the substance. If they looked at the substance, they would find that the matter has been dealt with fully and extensively.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows full well that the Liberal caucus was plagued by ethics scandals throughout the last Parliament, whether it was fishing contracts given to families, forgotten French villas, illegal Bahamian vacations or interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It is not always about one's feelings being hurt; one needs to own up and be accountable. That is the message Liberals need to understand. They need to lift the veil of secrecy and let the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner do their work, because we know that there is more than just smoke; with the Prime Minister, there is a fire.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on one of the comments of the member opposite. He talked about a French villa being hidden, and he referenced the Ethics Commissioner. Shortly after the election of the minister in question, virtually weeks after, there was a publication in The Globe and Mail, or maybe the National Post, that talked about the home located in France. To say that the minister was intentionally trying to hide something when it was widely broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people well in advance, shortly after the election, was maybe a bit of a political agenda and wanting to take shots that were very personal in nature. We have seen that the Conservative Party likes to get into the gutter and take personal shots at members.

Forestry Industry

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the first question period in the House, I spoke about the softwood lumber crisis in British Columbia and asked the government about its plans to deal with that issue. To be quite frank, the answer was not very satisfying with respect to that or even the acknowledgement of the extent of the crisis.

Hopefully, the government realizes the extent of the crisis, because it certainly has not taken any time to acknowledge it yet. For the people who might be listening, it is a very difficult time, especially in the interior of British Columbia with respect to the softwood lumber crisis.

This was not the first time I have brought it to the government's attention. In June, I talked about the Canfor sawmill in Vavenby, 170 jobs lost; Tolko Industries closure in Quesnel, 240 jobs lost; and the Norbord closure, 160 jobs lost. This has continued at a very rapid and concerning pace across British Columbia. About 20 mills have closed and it seems to be growing every day. Thousands of workers are out of work in at least 27 communities. It is not just the workers in the mills, this impacts the contractors and many others.

The Canadian Press posted a headline on December 2, which said, “Hundreds of B.C. communities and thousands of workers struggle to survive in forestry industry carnage.” That is how people are describing this.

To give an example, a car dealer in one of the communities has repossessed 10 cars in the last while. The dealer said that one person begged him to accept a load of wood for his car payment so he could have his car at least until Christmas.

These are real people, real families and real struggles.

The workers sometimes have benefits that have been afforded to them through the EI or through severance. However, there are also all the logging truck drivers and contractors who do not have those benefits.

Another gentleman come in to see me. He has four young children. He has a logging truck. He has payments on his logging truck and as a private operator, he does not have the safety net that so many others do.

This is an important crisis in British Columbia and what has the government's response been to date?

Four years ago, when the bromance was very strong between the Prime Minister and President Obama, they committed to getting this job done. However, it was not in the mandate letters. The Prime Minister then said that his important responsibility with respect to SNC-Lavalin, which took him to the ethical wall, was protecting jobs.

There has been radio silence with respect to this issue. It has not been in the throne speech. There has not been a plan. We see the recent NAFTA. One of the biggest trade irritants between Canada and the U.S. has been softwood lumber, and that was not even discussed. When we reopened the discussions on NAFTA, that was a time to deal with the biggest trade irritant.

We are looking for a plan from the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, hundreds of millions of dollars is what we are talking about. The issue has been at the forefront and a priority for this government from day one.

We are proud of our world-leading forestry sector, which supports over 218,000 good-paying, middle-class jobs for workers and communities across the country. The softwood lumber industry is a key component of our highly integrated forestry sector and the fundamental economic anchor for many communities across Canada.

We are keenly aware that the forest sector has recently been facing significant economic headwinds, which have had serious impacts on workers and communities that rely on this sector. The forest sector is facing a series of challenges including a reduction in the supply of harvestable timber and weaker demand in overseas markets, which is resulting in lower international lumber prices as well.

Another challenge is the duties unjustifiably and unfairly imposed by the United States on Canadian exports of softwood lumber. The Government of Canada is standing by our industry, our communities and our workers, contesting U.S. measures on softwood lumber through five legal challenges under chapter 19 of NAFTA and the WTO dispute settlement system.

Canada considers that the U.S. duties are inconsistent with both U.S. law and the international trade obligations of the United States. In past rounds of the softwood lumber dispute, Canada has always been successful in its challenges of the U.S. duties, as the U.S. claims have always been found to be without basis. We strongly believe that this will once again be the case.

In fact, our legal strategy has already met with success, and panels established both under chapter 19 of NAFTA and the WTO have already found fault with, respectively, the U.S. decision regarding alleged injury to U.S. industry caused by imports from Canada, and also the way the United States calculated its anti-dumping duties. We will continue to pursue these cases intently, along with all of the others.

In the meantime, this government understands the harmful impact that the U.S. duties have on Canadians who rely on this important segment of the forestry industry. We have always shown that we have Canadians' backs. This is why, in June 2017, this government announced a softwood lumber action plan, which includes $867 million in measures to support affected workers and communities.

The federal government will continue to work closely with provinces, territories and industry stakeholders to protect Canadian jobs and ensure a united pan-Canadian approach to the softwood lumber dispute.

This is an issue that has been ongoing for far too long. The Government of Canada has been taking action where it has seen a number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, get engaged in a very real and tangible way.

The member makes reference to the plight of one worker. There are many workers who are experiencing difficult times as a direct result of what we believe are unfair actions. That is the reason we are not only going to stand tall and stand for our workers, but are also going to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to an industry that is in need. Never have we wavered on the issue of supporting such a vital industry, because it is about people and communities.

If there is anything this government has demonstrated quite well over the last four years, it is that it genuinely cares and it is going to be there for the workers in Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest those words are cold comfort. The Prime Minister did not even put softwood lumber in the mandate letters of the ministers for the last four years. He promised a resolution.

The Prime Minister came to Kamloops where people had lost their jobs and he did not even acknowledge this crisis existed. With SNC-Lavalin, he went to the wall and said it was his job to protect jobs, and there has been nothing. The Liberals talked about the money that went to the softwood lumber industry for the transition agreement, but it is predominantly recycled money that has always been there.

We have communities in crisis. What we want to see is a plan for industry, a plan for communities and a plan for the individuals who have been impacted so terribly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what is happening.

The softwood lumber action plan comprised funding specifically targeted at helping affected workers. This included, for example, $9.5 million for a work-sharing program for employees affected by the temporary reduction in business activities, and $80 million for labour market development agreements to help workers upgrade their skills and transition to new opportunities.

Furthermore this government allocated, through budget 2019, over $250 million in additional funds to the action plan programs to help producers tap into new markets and diversify production.

As I indicated, the Prime Minister and the minister are very much aware of the issue, and the Liberals are taking proactive measures to minimize the negative impact and make sure our workers and communities are being well served.

International Trade

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, building on my question from last Friday about the issue with our canola producers across Canada and their inability to access the Chinese market, I want to go back to the throne speech. What was not in the throne speech is a very telling and loud statement on where our agriculture sector stands with the current Liberal government. In fact, agriculture was barely mentioned in the throne speech, which sent a very disconcerting message to our producers across Canada. We have a crisis with our trade embargo to China when it comes to canola, among other products, and it is very clear the Liberal government does not see this as an issue, let alone a priority strong enough to include in the throne speech.

My question on Friday was whether there was a plan or initiative by the government to address the canola crisis with China. I want to build on that and state the extent of this issue in terms of the Canadian economy.

There are more than 40,000 canola producers across Canada. This means more than $20 billion for the Canadian economy and more than 250,000 jobs are all at risk. This has been the case for almost a year.

When this crisis was first put upon us, we gave the Liberals some very concrete potential solutions they could follow up to try to address this issue with China. They included naming an ambassador to China, which took them more than eight months to do, and filing an official complaint with the WTO, which also took them more than eight months to do.

The WTO itself is now crumbling. The fact that the United States is not appointing judges to the WTO puts this issue in further peril for Canadian canola producers, as there may not be an avenue to resolve it if this judgment body does not exist, which is certainly a possibility in the next few weeks or months.

The other thing we asked the government to do as a potential solution, or at least to show China we meant business and were serious about this issue, was withdraw funding for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. More than $250 million from Canadian taxpayers is being given to the Government of China for it to build infrastructure across Asia. This includes pipelines, subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, to be built in China rather than here at home. Taking at least one, two or three of these measures would have shown a position of force on the part of the Liberal government that we meant business with China.

The government set up a canola working group. Have the CFIA and a canola working group unequivocally ruled out that there are no pests in our canola, which China has claimed or identified as being hazardous? Have they ruled out the idea of pests being a reason for the trade blockade by China on our canola?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, today Canada's canola industry contributes almost $27 billion a year to the Canadian economy, a contribution that has actually tripled over the past 10 years. That is why the canola trade issue with China is a top and very important priority for the Government of Canada.

Canadians take pride in this industry. Canola is a product of Canadian innovation, including by our scientists at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The government continues to work closely with industry to reopen access to the market. In April, we formed an industry government working group, co-chaired by the Canola Council of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with representation from the prairie provinces.

The working group continues to meet regularly, with discussions focused on developing strategies to resolve the market access issue with China, supporting the sector and exploring alternative markets. Some of the insights and advice that we receive deal with issues such as monitoring the impact of the market access issue, engaging with China, diversifying markets and supporting the sector during this difficult time.

We are working closely with the Canadian canola industry every step of the way. The member made reference to the throne speech and issues in the Prairies. I know and can appreciate just how important it is, whether it is canola or wheat, that the Government of Canada be engaged with the different stakeholders, in particular, our provinces and the producers and others, to ensure that our product is being treated fairly and being allowed to get to market.

Whether I was on the government benches, within the government caucus sitting down with colleagues or in opposition, I can assure the member that I have been consistent, whether it was canola or wheat. For example, for years, in particular in 2014, possibly going into 2015, we had so much wheat, piles of wheat in the Prairies that went through the winter and that we could not get to market, and we had empty vessels sitting on the coast in British Columbia. The government of the day was having a difficult time getting that wheat out to market. I am very much aware of how important it is that we work with the stakeholders.

Canola is a sense of pride in the Prairies. Many prairie farmers and people in the science community have been affiliated with its whole development because there has been a great deal of work in the science community dealing with the issue of canola.

We have a first-class world product and Canada leads the way. There is a great deal of confidence and so much potential. It is one of the reasons why we have a Minister of International Trade and a Minister of Foreign Affairs who constantly look for other potential markets because we know that we have a good quality product that is being grown in the Prairies.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is not the reassurance that Canadian farmers want. He is telling them exactly what they already know. Absolutely we have the best-quality canola in the world and it is a $27 billion industry for Canada. Unfortunately, 40% of everything we grow here is exported to China, our most critical trading market for canola, which because of Liberal bungling and ineptitude we have lost.

The frustrating part is that it was not mentioned in the throne speech. It is just the next level in the things we have lost. Our pulse exports to India are down by $600 million. We have lost durum wheat to Italy and barley to Saudi Arabia. What does it take for the Liberal minister to meet with her counterpart in China, which she has not done, to try to address this situation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the work that we have been doing with the stakeholders. Responding to our discussion at the canola working group, we have enhanced the advance payments program and implemented the stay of default, and we have extended the deadline for AgriStability.

These key changes to our programs are intended to help canola producers deal with the impacts of this disruption in the canola market. Under the changes, we increased the interest-free cash advances available to canola producers from $100,000 to $500,000 for the 2019 program year, and total advances of up to $1 million are now available for canola and all other commodities, up from $400,000. This change is permanent and will be available beyond 2019.

With our provincial partners, we also extended the AgriStability enrolment deadline by two months. Looking ahead, we continue to diversify our trade in global markets to give our growers more markets for canola and to help mitigate risks of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time is up. I know the hon. member enjoys expressing his views and those of his government. He will be able to continue to do that tomorrow.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:02 p.m.)