Debates of May 1st, 2019

Opposition Motion—International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, most certainly Canada has not been showing strength under the Liberal government and under the Prime Minister when it comes to trade disputes. We saw that in the renegotiation of NAFTA. We ended up with a worse deal than we had before. How is that possible? Some aggressive bargaining happened and the Liberals stood and talked about it.

We are not doing well with respect to trade. We are having disputes with our closest trading partners. We are now talking about farmers who are at great risk. We could be doing a lot. Why are we not sending an attaché to China right now? Why is that not happening? Why is the agriculture minister not in China? Why is she in the House? That makes zero sense.

Considering the fact that this is our largest export, why on earth are the Liberals not showing any strength by getting to China and resolving this issue? It is a baffling question. I have absolutely no idea why the Prime Minister refuses to have the backbone to go and stand up for Canadians. It is extremely frustrating across the spectrum.

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

Madam Speaker, based on what my colleague just said, I wonder if the government should take drastic measures immediately instead of taking the diplomatic route to resolve this problem. It is a serious problem that affects a major market for Canadian canola farmers.

What does my colleague suggest? Is she suggesting that we take drastic measures at the risk of losing these major markets?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am baffled by that question, to be quite honest. I am not sure what the member is suggesting. Is he suggesting force, that we go in militarily? I do not know what that question even means.

We have been pretty clear about what we are suggesting, which is to go to China and to appoint an ambassador to China. Let us talk about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Let us pull out of that. We could be doing many things. I do not know the member's definition of force, so I will take him at his word that he means to be strong. The New Democrats are asking the government to stand up, to be strong and to take these other initiatives.

Let us send someone, a trade attaché, to China. Let us resolve this face to face. Let us get an ambassador over there as soon as possible, because this is only the beginning. China is already threatening us on other commodities. We need to be prepared.

We have not even talked about the fact that lives are hanging in the balance. The lives of Canadians who are detained and imprisoned right now are hanging in the balance because we have no diplomatic tie there. No one is going to China where Canadians are being detained. Canadians are being sentenced to death right now in China and the government is sitting in Ottawa. It is not sending our foreign affairs minister, nor our agriculture minister, nor our Prime Minister to China to do what needs to be done, and that is to stand up for Canadians.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Essex for the excellent speech she gave. She spoke at length about canola, and I will be focusing first and foremost on the diplomatic issue.

This situation has been going on for over three months. Our ambassador to China was fired, resigned or was “asked to resign” over some awkward remarks he made about the highly sensitive case of Huawei's chief financial officer being held here in Canada. This resignation or firing made sense, because he had definitely crossed the line.

However, as we have been saying from the beginning, this government's mistake was not having a plan B. For all his flaws, Mr. McCallum, the former ambassador, had a special relationship with China. He understood the spirit, the thinking and the diplomatic philosophy that was needed to approach the Chinese government. That is extremely important in diplomatic circles. Just as we hope that ambassadors representing other countries in Canada understand how the government operates, we need to be able to demonstrate the same knowledge at our embassies abroad. Mr. McCallum had that special relationship with China, but now it is lost. That is why it was doubly important to replace him promptly.

Three days after Mr. McCallum's departure, Guy Saint-Jacques, a former Canadian ambassador to China, said that if the ambassador could not be replaced immediately, we should at least send a special envoy. This would have shown that we take the situation and our relationship with China seriously. The fact that stand-ins and backups are currently representing the Canadian embassy in China is not necessarily an insult, but I must say that it does not show respect for China. This has created all kinds of problems, and the canola issue is one of them.

We know about Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, the two Canadians who are currently in prison. In three months, two Canadians have been sentenced to death. This is obviously in retaliation for Canada's inability to maintain sensitive, reasonable diplomatic relations with China.

I want to quickly address the canola situation. This is a problem because, as my colleague mentioned, this product is right at the top of the list. We know very well that China's decision to revoke the canola export permits has nothing to do with the quality of the product. The decision was quite obviously made in retaliation. Other Canadian products like pork, peas and soybeans are currently in jeopardy. What will happen if China decides to move forward and ban these Canadian products from the country? At what point will the government step up and say that this is unacceptable? We must fight and complain to the World Trade Organization. We must use the trade tribunals. My colleague mentioned that other countries do not hesitate to do this with us. If the reason truly is unfair, as is the case here, then we should start using the tools at our disposal.

What is the government going to do now that canola is under attack? If soybeans and pork are targeted, will it finally wake up and do something? In light of the government's inept handling of this diplomatic relationship, I am seriously starting to doubt it. This is a problem because things are not going to get better.

I believe it is now clear that China is feeling out this relationship and sees that we are not reacting. It sees that we have no intention of appointing a Canadian ambassador to China, that we have no intention of sending a special envoy to open the dialogue. The Prime Minister has not even bothered to call his Chinese counterpart. There is no acceptable line of communication open to Chinese representatives. Therefore, chances are that in order for Canada to get respect, it will also have to show signs of strength. I am not referring to military strength, as the parliamentary secretary seemed to allude to, but we have to establish our own means of retaliation. The issue of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, in which we have invested $256 million over five years, is part of this.

Why invest in an infrastructure bank when we have our own? In both cases, it is a bad idea. Infrastructure banks serve to facilitate the privatization of public assets and income.

Investors in an infrastructure bank, whether it be the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or the Canada Infrastructure Bank, want a return on their investment. If they want a return on their investment, there must be some way to achieve that. This is done through user fees, such as tolls, which are forced sources of income. These are forced fees for these pieces of infrastructure. The public loses control to the private sector. Our governments have made us complicit in the way the private sector is taking over, taking control of our infrastructure, or Asian infrastructure in this case, with the government's blessing.

Some $256 million has been invested in that bank, with the goal of obtaining a 1% share of the bank. At first the government tried to sell us on this idea by saying that it would serve as a gateway for our businesses, which could benefit from contracts with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Well, first of all, the bank's articles of agreement prevent it from giving preferential treatment to any country when awarding contracts, whether that country is a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or not. Second, no Canadian firm has been awarded a contract since the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That settles that.

If we want to send China a clear message that it is not playing by established trade rules and if we want to stand up for ourselves, we can pull out of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We can also exert pressure by filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization, as the former Canadian ambassador to China, Guy Saint-Jacques, suggested. We also plan to have a delegation at the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing. Chinese athletes are currently training in Canada. We can graciously send them back to their country to send the message that the situation is unacceptable and this is our way of standing up and expressing our displeasure. I am not saying that this would improve the relationship, but at this point, nothing can.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that this needs to be resolved through diplomatic channels. I agree, but we do not have an ambassador. Canada has not had an ambassador in China for three months, and the government has not given any indication that it intends to appoint one.

It is true that we need to use diplomatic channels. That only makes sense, but the government needs to make that the priority. The government needs to stop improvising all the time and start taking the situation seriously.

One can hope for the best by being nice to a giant like China, but that is not what has happened so far, quite the contrary. The government needs to hire or appoint an ambassador as soon as possible. The Liberals need to appoint someone who is very familiar with China and who understands the situation so that we can open a real dialogue.

If the government does not intend to do that, which appears to be the case right now, then we need to start thinking about sending a special envoy to open a dialogue, which should have happened three months ago. Right now, there is nothing to indicate that the government plans to do that. If it does not, then the Minister of Foreign Affairs or, ideally, the Prime Minister, needs to contact their counterpart in China to try to rethink and improve that relationship, to reach and understanding and to pave the way for the new ambassador.

We will support the Conservatives' motion in spite of its omissions. This is a complex situation, after all. We are going to support it because the Liberal response to the canola crisis and to our companies' exclusion from the Chinese market is unacceptable.

The Liberal response is unacceptable and far too tepid. The absence of a Canadian ambassador to China is compromising diplomatic relations, making it very difficult to resolve a number of problems. For various reasons, we should never have invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Pulling out of this bank would send a clear message that we are standing firm against the pressure being exerted on Canada.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, my question is about one of the frustrations I am hearing from farmers back in western Canada about the fact that they cannot seem to get attention from Ottawa and make the Liberal government recognize how important this issue is, how seriously it needs to be treated and how they need action as soon as possible.

Does he have any advice for this House and the farmers back in western Canada about what we can do to make sure that the government understands the consequences of the Liberal leader's foreign trips and that when he goes abroad and upsets all the customers we sell commodities and products to, it impacts us here at home? Can he give us any advice on what we can do to hold the Liberals' feet to the fire so that we can get the results we need for our farmers?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I know he was involved in the grain sector in the past. The canola issue is also important.

I think that the Canadian Canola Growers Association and canola producers have done their job by putting pressure on the government and asking a few weeks ago for the appointment of an ambassador to start fixing the problem. They are a powerful voice for the industry, but they are not being heard.

There have been many calls for an emergency debate. My colleague spoke about the fact that she asked to discuss the canola issue in committee. When her request was approved, they held just two insignificant meetings and no report followed.

It is clear, then, that the government is not interested in taking a thoughtful and systematic approach to this issue, and that we must continue to fight together with our partners. In the case at hand, we are working with canola representatives, but eventually it may be representatives of the pork or soybean sectors, although I hope it does not come to that.

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

Madam Speaker, the issue has been going on for many weeks now, and it is only in recent days that the New Democrats and the Conservatives have given it any attention in question period. That is true.

This is a government that has been working with provincial entities, our producers and other stakeholders to bring together what we have witnessed today, which is a tangible action that is going to make a difference. There is also a commitment to continue to work with provincial jurisdictions and stakeholders to ensure that we can look at alternative ways to get products to market.

I believe that the producers and others recognize that this government has the backs of our farmers. Our actions clearly demonstrate that. Does the member have anything to say about the package announced today?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, everything he said at the start is totally false.

As I said in my speech, the Conservatives made a few requests for an emergency debate. Debates were requested several times as soon as this whole thing started. My colleague spoke about this situation in committee, where members asked not only that the minister appear, but that we hold a meaningful and full debate on the canola issue. That request was initially denied and at the end of the day, two meetings were granted. What he said at the beginning was false.

We have another problem right now. The canola issue is a major problem, but it is just one aspect of Canada's current diplomatic crisis with China. Since December, and more specifically since January, the government has been improvising a lot in this extremely important relationship that we have with this world giant. Three months into this crisis and we are nowhere near a resolution. In fact it looks like things might escalate with reprisals targeting not only Canadian canola farmers, but possibly pork and soya producers, as well.

All we want to do is to condemn the Liberals' obviously improvised approach to Canada's relationship with China. That is why we will be supporting the Conservative motion.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to put a human face to this debate this afternoon. A lot of farmers in my riding, across western Canada and even some in Ontario and Quebec are really concerned with the lack of inactivity from the government and how it has put their livelihoods at stake and in jeopardy.

It has been said that the Liberal leader is out fiddling around while canola farmers burn, and that is very true. That is exactly what is happening today.

I also want to say how frustrated I am with this situation. I am frustrated because we have tried over and over again to give this situation the attention it deserves, to try to create a positive situation and get a game plan put in place to get a positive resolution for our farmers. The Liberal government has basically blocked everything we have done. It has used procedural tactics to do that.

This afternoon I do not get a full 10 minutes to talk and I do not get a chance to answer questions. Other colleagues want to talk on this topic today, but they will not get that chance. This is because the member from Winnipeg keeps blocking us over and over again. We have made nine requests for an emergency debate and he has used procedural tactics to stop that every time.

When we asked for an emergency debate on this issue at agriculture committee, the Liberal members would not allow it. They will not even call their own Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to talk about this issue. It is embarrassing. Then the member for Winnipeg North says that the government has farmers' backs. That is absolute hogwash and farmers know that.

I was in Winnipeg last week and I sat down with a group of producers. It was really emotional. I am really concerned about their mental health. I am worried about suicides on the farm because of the implications those guys over there have put them under.

One farmer told us last week that he had not even decided yet what he would seed. He was going to hit the field this Monday, but he did not know how many acres of canola, how many acres of oats and wheat and barley he would to seed. He was not confident that the Liberal government would resolve the canola issue.

Canola is a very expensive crop to seed. The inputs are fairly high. That farmer would like to have some confidence in the government and know that the government is taking this issue seriously for him to take the risk. He would like to see the possibility of this market reopening so he can get a good price for his good quality product.

What did we hear from the government last week? Nothing. What did we hear from the government two weeks ago? Nothing. It did say it would put a working group together. What did we hear from the government from March 11 forward?

On March 11, when this first came out, the Minister of Agriculture was in western Canada, but she did not stop in Saskatchewan. She did not talk to canola producers. We had to shame her into coming back. We had to inform her that she did not need a passport to come to Saskatchewan. That is embarrassing.

Last Tuesday the Prime Minister was in Saskatoon for private meetings. I do not know who he met with, but I know the premier said he never met with him. He never met with canola producers.

We have a crisis going on in the province of Saskatchewan. We had two things going on last Tuesday. We had a very bad grass fire and we had many canola producers trying to figure out a path forward before they seeded. The Prime Minister was in town and he would not even talk to a farmer. He would not even talk to the premier. Talk about who is having private meetings and for what. We do not know.

Let me get back to the farmer about whom I was talking. He told us about the economic consequences of what had happened. Right now, of his 1,000 acres of canola, he has lost roughly $50 an acre and he figures it will get worse. That is $50,000 out of his back pocket. I want to ensure that everybody understands this. That money is out of his back pocket, not CP's, not JRI's, not the shippers who ship it across the ocean. They all get their cut. It is the farmer who will pay. The farmer will lose the market value. Again, we get a shrug and an “oh, well.” That is the way it is with the Liberals. It is what they did to forestry workers, and they are doing the same thing now to farmers and canola producers.

I talked to another farmer. He showed me the canola in his bin. He told me that canola producers had a tough harvest last year, that some of the canola was not of the best quality and would not keep the way it should. He said that it needed to be moved. He is now looking at a falling market and a situation where he will have a tough time moving his canola. He will do the best he can, because that is what farmers do. They do the best they can, given the situations they have to face. There is no question that we grow the best crops in the world. Farmers will take the environment and all those conditions in stride and do what they can to ensure they survive.

What they do not need is the Liberals shutting down markets around the world, and that is what the Liberal government has done.

Let us look at the situation right now facing farmers. With regard to durum in Italy, what has been the response from the government? Nothing. With regard to pulses in India, what has been the response from the government? Nothing.

Saudi Arabia is a big market for Canadian farmers. We sold a lot of barley and canola into that marketplace. Because of one tweet, it is not buying anything from Canada. I am not saying we should not be talking to the Saudis about human rights and women's rights; we should be. However, when we cut off all economic activity with Saudi Arabia, we have zero influence in that environment right now. How do we move those yardsticks in a positive fashion?

We have a non-tariff trade dispute with Vietnam at this point. What is the government's response? Nothing.

Now there is China. No wonder the Chinese said that it could put a tariff on canola or just shut it down. The Chinese know we will do nothing, because we have such a weak leader on the world stage. Therefore, they can do whatever they want because there will be no response from the Liberal government.

The people paying for the mistakes the Liberal government is making on the international scene are our manufacturers, forestry workers and, in this situation, our farmers. It is unfair to ask them to pay for Liberal mistakes. The Liberals are making mistakes day in and day out.

In fact, one farmer in Winnipeg asked me to do farmers a favour, to steal the Prime Minister's passport so he could not leave Canada and do any more damage abroad. The Liberals have done so much damage. There is so much work to be done and we know the Liberal government is not up to it. Therefore, in October, we will ensure there is a government here that will be up to it and fix all of that damage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1302

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from April 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-419, An Act to amend the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act (credit cards), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Credit Card Fairness Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-419.

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

Vote #1303

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.