Debates of Jan. 31st, 2020

Canada-United States-Mexico Implementation Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

I am wondering what he thinks about the delegation of people from Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean who came to Ottawa this week to express their concerns and disclose the results of the study conducted by the Groupe Performance stratégique. This group examined the economic impact that the failure to include a definition of aluminum similar to the definition of steel in the protocol of amendments would have on Quebec over 10 years, from 2020 to 2029.

Does he believe that those people are not Quebeckers?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could respond to the member in French. I am working on that right now.

This is a great deal for Canadians and for the people of Quebec. The respected Premier of Quebec has one of the highest approval ratings across the country. The Bloc Québécois must defend the interests of the Québécois, and it is in the interests of the Québécois that the agreement is ratified and adopted.

The trade between NAFTA, Quebec and the U.S.A. is $57 billion. It preserves the culture exemptions and preserves supply management when the U.S. was calling for its complete dismantlement. When the new NAFTA is ratified, we will have a guarantee that 70% of aluminum contained in a car built under NAFTA must come from North America. At the moment 0% of aluminum in NAFTA must come from North America. In my books, 70% is better than zero.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about NAFTA, but first I would like to thank the hon. Speaker for the opportunity of a lifetime earlier, having sat in the chair with some of the most important people in Canadian history.

Conservatives are the party of free trade. There can be absolutely no doubt about that. Our party is responsible for negotiating some of the largest and most important trade agreements in Canadian history. The importance of that cannot be underscored too much. Our economy today is greatly reliant on the great work of previous prime ministers from the Conservative Party. Indeed, we benefit from that today in our daily lives and in our productivity and wages.

Because of the importance of free trade, I will signal today that it is my intention to support NAFTA .7, however, it is not without deep reservations that I do so as the new NAFTA .7 will have significant impacts on the aluminum industry, the forest industry and an industry that is very important to my riding, the dairy and supply-managed sectors.

National unity should be a key issue that we discuss in every debate. It is incumbent upon members of other provinces to reach across. As the member from Ontario, I have to acknowledge and tell the members, our brothers and sisters from Quebec, that I believe this agreement has an unfair and disproportionate impact on Quebec.

Much of the 2019 discourse focused on a little company called SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister's decision to direct his Attorney General to act on a deferred prosecution had a significant impact on Canada. Of course, Canada is seen across the world as a beacon of virtue, honour and light. Unfortunately, that beacon dimmed a little with his actions.

In the Ethics Commissioner's report, it was found that the Prime Minister's attempt to influence his Attorney General breached the Conflict of Interest Act. Acknowledging mistakes were made, he stood and said he would not accept full responsibility, saying he will always stand up for Quebec jobs. That statement is very troubling because it means almost limitless actions to protect maybe one job in Quebec. Is he willing to put in peril the rule of law, one of the most sacrosanct principles, just to protect one job in Quebec? Apparently so.

Also, the reality of that statement was found to be untrue because the CEO of SNC-Lavalin said there were not Canadian jobs at stake with respect to the deferred prosecution agreement.

I believe that the final bit of any credibility left in the statement that the Prime Minister will stand up for jobs in Quebec fell apart with the signature of NAFTA .7. To be clear, it is the worst deal for Canadians. The pain from this diminished deal is disproportionately felt by rural Canada and by Quebec.

The dairy industry is an incredibly important part of the economy in Northumberland—Peterborough South. There are 66 dairy farms in my riding. They contribute over 34 million litres of milk to our community. I have been told over and over, most recently at a debate during the election by a farmer who said he was not going to ask for anything except that we stop going through the negotiations bartering their livelihood, farmers' futures, as the first bargaining chip that goes down. Farmers are more important than that and they deserve better treatment than that.

Quebec's dairy industry is also extremely significant. There are nearly 8,000 dairy farms averaging 55 cows per farm and three billion litres of milk are produced, which accounts for about 30% of Quebec's total agricultural production. NAFTA .7 will do significant damage to the dairy industry by reducing the market by nearly 4%. We lost that production without receiving any equivalent compensation from the United States and that is because it is difficult for our producers to get into the U.S. and European markets.

Those markets, as I am sure many members are aware, are barred by tariff and non-tariff barriers. One great example of that is the U.S. pasteurization standard. Due to technicalities in the market, it is nearly impossible for Canadian producers to hit that. However, our milk is safe, it is perhaps the safest in the world, and the only reason to apply that standard on our producers is to block entry into their markets. Why could we not have made progress on that important issue?

Perhaps just as significant as the reduction in quota and the reduction in market size is the elimination of classes 6 and 7. The milk that comes from our wonderful cows becomes many different products, such as cream, whole fat and skim. However, the reality is that the market is limited for skim milk, but classes 6 and 7 would allow that skim milk to be sold competitively. In the absence of classes 6 and 7, that skim product now becomes unsaleable and unmarketable, and could be a wasted by-product, adding to the cost and perhaps even limiting the market.

This is not a good deal for the folks in the dairy industry. It is not a good deal for our dairy producers from coast to coast to coast. When we look across the nation, we could have gotten a better deal, and it is not just me saying that this is not a good deal for our dairy. Bruno Letendre, the head of the Quebec milk producers association said that “the agreement is a bad one for the Canadian industry” and that our Prime Minister “negotiated on his knees, and I'm being generous.”

There simply can be no question that the dairy industry and the supply management sector have been damaged. However, supply management has been great for the Canadian economy. It has been great for the Canadian consumer. We have amazing milk in Canada, which is among the safest in the world. Therefore, I was shocked when a Liberal member across the way earlier today said that supply management was not a good system for our consumers. That is completely untrue and objectively false.

When we look at this agreement, we acknowledge that there has been something taken away from supply management. It is clear, because the government has signalled that it will have a compensation package. However, when I talk to our farmers, they do not want another government handout. What they want is to be left alone so that they do not live in fear that, the next time a Liberal negotiator walks up to a free trade agreement, the first bargaining chip put on that board is the farmers of our country. It is not right and it is not fair.

On the impact to the aluminum sector, I have to say that the government members have done an extremely poor job in communicating. Instead of engaging us as the opposition, as partners, they have attempted to gloss over it. Therefore, I will be forthright with members. The aluminum protection is better, because it was not there before. However, the Liberals also have to acknowledge that, to be fair, this protection is undermined, if not completely undermined, by the fact that the aluminum does not have to be melted or poured in North America. I was pleased to hear, during the conversation from members on the other side, an acknowledgement of that, but they should have done that from the beginning instead of trying to sail over these issues.

My ask of government members is that, in future communications with opposition parties, they simply acknowledge the loss issues rather than attempt to sail over them. The intellectual dishonesty of selling too hard leads to distrust, which is never useful, particularly in a minority Parliament.

Further, I ask that the government be transparent and answer the following questions.

What will the economic impact of NAFTA .7 be? The Liberals have the numbers. Please share.

What are the details of the dairy compensation package? How many millions of dollars will the dairy industry lose as a result of this deal?

What is the potential exposure of the aluminum market to foreign dumping? Why was the aluminum industry not afforded the same protection as steel, and if it had been, what would the economic benefit be?

This deal, beyond a shadow of a doubt, shows that the Liberals will not stand up for jobs in Quebec when it means doing the hard job of negotiating with President Trump, and will only act when it is politically expedient to do so.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have been speaking with the dairy producers and dairy processors of Canada who have been working on a committee of agricultural trade to look at impacts and things he has addressed with respect to economic impact, mitigation and compensation strategies going forward.

We are very deeply involved with the people in dairy industry to ensure we do what we can to protect them. They have told me, and maybe to the member across the way has heard this as well, that it is important to label Canadian dairy products being produced in Canada, so Canadian consumers can make the right decisions.

Would the hon. member agree that if Canadians knew that it was Canadian milk, they would buy Canadian?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that Canadians want to support Canadian business and that we continue to support the supply management sector.

I look forward to having further discussions. These are the types of discussions we need to have across the aisle. We want to be brought into these negotiations. It has been said that Conservatives can even be useful at times. We would love to hear those discussions.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that one of the biggest losers in the CUSMA agreement is the supply-managed dairy sector, a sector that is very important to my riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

One of the things I am a little bit confused by is that in his remarks, the member talked about his support for the supply-managed dairy sector. I am trying to reconcile that with the past attacks from his party on that very same sector. Perhaps he could elaborate on that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the official opposition and our party have been very clear about our support for supply management. We will continue to do so.

I am here every day to represent the farmers of Northumberland—Peterborough South and the farmers of Quebec, who produce the best milk in the world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to think that Manitoba might share in some of that best product in the world.

However, I want to give assurances for my colleague across the way that the government has been a very strong advocate for supply management, and nothing has changed. We have seen that advocacy, whether it is in this trade agreement, CETA or the Trans-Pacific agreement. We recognize that it is important, not only for Canadians but specifically for industry representatives, such as our dairy farmers and others.

Could my colleague comment on how important it is that we collectively, as a House of Commons, make a very strong and powerful statement that we are there to support supply management?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, to be clear, I think all Canadians produce the best milk in Canada, including the great province of Manitoba.

I would also like to thank the hon. member, in the spirit of good, honest humour here, for the way he rails against brevity. We certainly appreciate that. I have learned a lot as a new member.

Yes, we should all stand together. That is what I am really asking for, that as we go forward as a minority Parliament, we work together for all Canadians. I look forward to working with the wonderful members on the other side, to hear all about their great ideas at the various committees and that we are doing the best we can for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague for his very flattering speech about the dairy industry. It is obvious that he knows his file really well.

Now that we have a minority government, my colleague will surely be pleased to learn that the members opposite will no longer be able to block the studies on financial compensation that we have requested.

Why did they not want us to know what it was going to cost the Canadian dairy industry? I imagine that in the wonderful spirit of co-operation the Liberals will say yes when we ask for studies on compensation.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to seeing the studies. Once again, I look forward to a wonderful spirit of collaboration.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about the new North American Free Trade Agreement. Whether we call it NAFTA 2.0, the USMCA or CUSMA, this agreement is a testament to the hard work of Canadians from across the political spectrum, from business to agriculture to labour, who came together to put Canada first and present a united front, a team Canada, to reach an agreement that would preserve access to our most important export markets and the millions of jobs that relied on that access.

During these negotiations, over 47,000 Canadians shared their views with the negotiating team, including over 1,300 stakeholders representing small businesses, indigenous groups, women entrepreneurs, academics and youth. The non-partisan advisory council included former Conservative ministers Rona Ambrose and James Moore, NDP strategist Brian Topp and leaders from labour and industry. Their advice and perspective helped make this agreement possible.

I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her leadership and determination to pull this deal off. Under challenging circumstances, she got an agreement that not only preserves our market access, but makes real forward progress in areas such as protections for women's rights and minority rights, and the strongest ever labour and environmental chapters.

Free and fair trade helps to support the quality middle-class jobs that support families in communities across the country.

My community of Scarborough has a strong industrial base that relies on access to global parts and particularly the North American market. The economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico have become so integrated that before a project is complete, it could move across the border several times.

Falcon Fasteners is a Scarborough company that sells a wide range of collated nails and brads across North America. Any type of nail one can think of, it probably makes it. It has grown from a two-person operation in 1956 to a North American leader today, from its base in Scarborough. It relies both on access to the North American market and access to affordable quality steel to make its products. This trade agreement secures that access and will allow it to continue to grow its business.

Many companies in Scarborough rely on access to foreign markets.

Berg Chilling Systems has provided hundreds of industrial refrigeration systems to customers in more than 50 countries. The Scarborough branch of Héroux Devtek specializes in landing gear for aircraft and serves a global market. eCamion is a developer of leading-edge modular energy solutions. The Cableshoppe is an IT services and solutions company that works across borders to deliver the right technology to its clients.

Those are just a few of the Scarborough-based companies exporting their expertise and leading edge technologies across Canada and around the world. Swift passage of this trade agreement gives them the confidence to continue to invest in and grow their business and create more quality jobs, confident they have a predictable and level playing field on which they can compete. It was not just about getting any deal; it was about getting a good deal.

Let us talk about gender equality. For example, for the first time, this agreement includes enforceable provisions that protect women's rights and minority rights. This includes labour obligations regarding the elimination of employment discrimination based on gender. This is also the first international trade agreement that recognizes gender identity and sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination in the labour chapter.

Why is gender equality so important? A McKinsey Global Institute report estimates that women's economic equality could add $150 billion to Canada's GDP by the year 2026. However, women face barriers to full labour market participation, such as gender-based discrimination and lack of training.

More women participation in the global economy is good for all of us.

Let us talk about protecting Canada's cultural industry.

Canadians are justifiably proud of our arts and cultural community. It is a $53.8 billion industry that represents over 650,000 quality jobs that support our middle-class families from coast to coast to coast. It is not just the actors we see on the screen and the artists whose music we stream. It is the many thousands of technicians and professionals who support their work.

By preserving Canada's cultural exemption, Canada has the flexibility to adopt and maintain programs and policies that support the creation, distribution and development of Canadian artistic expression or content, including in the digital environment, and this is important in the streaming era. That is why we stood firm to protect the cultural exemption and our economic interest. Canada's cultural industries are world class, and we all always defend our cultural sovereignty.

Let us talk about protecting our environment.

My constituents are deeply concerned about climate change and want to see Canada and the world doing all we can to protect our climate and our planet for future generations. I am pleased that the new NAFTA has an enforceable environment chapter, which replaces a separate side agreement. This chapter upholds air quality and fights marine pollution in Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Why do environmental protections belong in a trade agreement? It is about a level playing field and protecting the planet by protecting workers in all three countries. Commitments to high levels of environmental protections are an important part of trade agreements.

Perhaps no industry in Canada is more cross-border integrated than our auto industry. Canadian auto plants assemble more than two million vehicles every year. The automotive sector is Canada's largest export industry, supporting over 525,000 jobs and contributing $18 billion annually to our economy. Canada is a global leader in emerging automotive technologies, such as lightweight materials, advanced safety systems, software and cybersecurity and alternative power trains. Free trade is essential to our auto industry, and the new rules of origin in this trade agreement level the playing field for Canada's high-wage worker.

Our negotiators secured a side letter that is already in force. It is a gold-plated insurance policy against 232 possible tariffs on cars and car parts. Canada is the only G7 country with this protection.

This is a great deal for labour, and members' do not need to take my word for it. Jerry Dias of Unifor, one of Canada's largest unions, has said that this is a much better deal than the deal that was signed 24 years ago.

Hassan Yussuff, of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that this deal “gets it right on labour provisions, including provisions to protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of gender.”

It is not just labour. Business is on board as well.

The Business Council of Canada said, "We applaud your government’s success in negotiating a comprehensive and high-standard agreement on North American trade."

Saskatchewan Premier Moe called this trade deal good news for Saskatchewan and Canada. Premier Kenney of Alberta said he was relieved that a renewed NAFTA had been concluded.

The renewed NAFTA defends Canada's farmers, it offers new protection for our auto sector, it protects out culture and it sets out new labour standards for gender and minority rights and environmental protections.

Let us have a robust debate. Let us implement this trade agreement. Let us keep Canada's economy growing. This is a progressive trade agreement that will benefit our economy for years to come.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree there are a few things that are better than they were in the last agreement. I will admit that.

However, I am concerned about the sovereignty. In clause 32, it states that if Canada begins negotiations on a trade deal with any non-market economy, such as China, we must notify the U.S., submit the text of any deal and get permission to continue those negotiations. If the U.S. disapproves, it could exclude Canada from CUSMA.

Does that work in reverse? Does the United States have to come to Canada and get our permission, and if not, why not?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada has negotiated hard over the last year for a modernized trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. We do recognize the importance of getting a deal that is good for Canadian workers, good for Canadian businesses and good for Canadian communities across Canada.

I hope we can work together to make sure that we ratify this agreement as soon as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am loath to admit it, but I find myself in agreement with my NDP colleague. He asked why there is a provision in this trade deal that allows the Americans to effectively veto Canadian engagement in negotiations with other countries. Why is that there? Why would we cede our sovereignty? Is there a parallel provision giving Canada the same power to veto American engagement in these kinds of negotiations?

My colleague who gave the speech did not answer the questions from the NDP, so I will ask the same questions again. Why would we cede our sovereignty in this way? Does the same provision apply to Americans as applies to us?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have worked very hard. It is important for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses that we have a robust debate here and ratify CUSMA to make sure that we can protect Canadian jobs and that our business community has the assurance they can have free trade with their major trading partners, the United States and Mexico.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested when the member spoke about the cultural exemption we were able to obtain in the new NAFTA.

I would like to ask the member what would have been the risk to our cultural industry if we had not obtained that exemption and what it means for our cultural industry. In my riding and in Quebec, we have many important producers, film directors, artists and musicians which represent 75,000 jobs in the province of Quebec alone.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have always stood up for our cultural industries. It means protecting a $53.8-billion industry, representing almost 650,000 quality jobs for middle-class Canadians, and includes 75,000 jobs in Quebec alone.

We stood firm to protect the cultural exemption and our economic interests during the renegotiations of the new NAFTA.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time that I rise to speak in this Parliament.

I would like to sincerely thank the constituents of Manicouagan for putting their trust in me and electing me for another term. I would also like to thank the team that supported me over the past months: my family, my spouse, my three children—Loïc, Charlotte and Ulysse—my friends, the people who work with me and those who wish to serve the North Shore with dignity, integrity and energy to advance the development of our region and Quebec. I will tackle all the challenges entrusted to me by the people of the North Shore and Quebeckers with humility and respect, as well as with conviction and determination.

Today we are debating a bill that could significantly affect the Quebec economy for the next decade or more. Bill C-4 will have major repercussions for Quebec, especially because of the large volume of Quebec exports to the United States.

We have been doing business with the Americans for over three centuries and, more often than not, our trade relationship has been beneficial to Quebec's economic development. In fact, almost 70% of our exports go to our neighbours to the south. New York state alone receives about 10% of all our world exports, as does the small state of Kentucky, which has a population of 4 million.

Given how important a free trade agreement is to Quebec's economic future, each member of the House has a duty to take the time to carefully examine all the details of the agreement and to ensure that all its victims have a forum to tell us about the harmful consequences that passing Bill C-4 will have on their industry.

It is only natural to want a “full, frank, and vigorous debate”, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. To think that we do not need serious, legitimate and therefore necessary discussions about the negative impacts of Bill C-4 on Quebec and its regions, on the stability of international trade, on unfair import practices and on the environment shows a lack of respect for Quebec voters and for workers in the dairy and aluminum industries.

I will focus on aluminum workers in particular, not just because there are two smelters in my riding, including the biggest smelter in America, but also because I can foresee the impact that the agreement will have on my constituents.

We are talking about aluminum because this economic sector is crucial for Quebec. The North Shore, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Quebec need good jobs in order to prosper. However, in its current form, the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico places no less than 60,000 aluminum sector jobs in jeopardy.

We will all agree that the government can hardly claim to be looking after Quebec's economic development if it accepts, without any serious negotiation, a free trade agreement that may seriously jeopardize six major projects in Quebec's aluminum sector representing $6.2 billion in investments, according to an impact study carried out by Groupe Performance Stratégique. The study estimates that these private investments could generate more than $16 billion in economic spinoffs from 2020 to 2029. That is $16 billion that Quebec would have to go without for the next 10 years.

It is important to understand that the only reason these investments in Quebec are in jeopardy is that the government failed to take Quebeckers' interests into consideration when it signed this agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Perhaps the government does not fully appreciate the importance of regional development and land use. Although the Prime Minister claims he secured guarantees that 70% of the aluminum parts used in automobile production in North America must be from North America, the fact remains that he did not bother to also ensure, as he did for steel, that the aluminum content in those parts would also come from North America. Worse still, he is playing games with the figures, which is just misleading.

The Prime Minister's carelessness and lack of faith in the intelligence of voters is leaving the door wide open for Mexican auto parts plants to import aluminum from China, even though Canadian and U.S. courts have determined that Chinese aluminum was being dumped.

As written, CUSMA makes it possible for Chinese aluminum to flood the North American market, even though Canada and the United States have anti-dumping duties in place. Chinese aluminum needs only to be processed in Mexico in order to circumvent the protections we have collectively put in place. In other words, we could wind up with car parts that are supposedly North American but in fact contain “made in China” aluminum.

For free trade to be truly free and profitable for everyone, we must make unfair trade practices such as dumping impossible.

Allowing car parts made with Chinese aluminum to be considered North American in origin is an insult to Quebec's expertise in the aluminum sector, especially since our aluminum is the greenest in the world. The Liberals seem to think that Chinese aluminum is Quebec aluminum. Just ask Quebeckers if they agree. It is absurd.

Primary aluminum produced in Quebec releases 67% less greenhouse gas than aluminum produced in the Middle East and 76% less than Chinese aluminum. Why would a government taking steps to close coal-fired power plants in Canada be so supportive of Chinese aluminum when 90% of the electricity used to produce it comes from coal? That makes no sense.

Providing aluminum the same protection as steel is not just an economic decision. It is a political one.

If the government had given any consideration at all to Quebec's interests, its economy, its regions and its workers, it would never have signed an agreement whose every concession is detrimental to Quebec. If the Prime Minister's team is really working for Quebeckers, it should fight for Quebec as vigorously as it fought for Ontario steel.

It is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois that every single concession in the free trade agreement should be made at the expense of key sectors of Quebec's economy, and as such, even though it supports free trade, the Bloc Québécois cannot support Bill C-4. The Bloc encourages hon. members to not blindly accept a bill that is deeply unfair to Quebeckers.

If Quebec had negotiated the agreement, it would have negotiated it in its own interest and never would have compromised the growth of key sectors of its economy.

We are talking about my riding and my constituents. Hon. members will agree that we cannot allow the government to sacrifice aluminum workers back home just to satisfy Ontario's economic interests. The Bloc Québécois is the only party that is truly standing up for the interests of Quebeckers, and I am one.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the disappointing things about the CUSMA is that there is no mention of the Paris agreement.

If stronger enforceable provisions on the environment had been included in this agreement, could they have been used to promote Quebec's aluminum?

I would like my hon. colleague's thoughts on that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question.

I do believe that, if a government decides to commit to meeting the Paris targets, it must take them into account when negotiating economic deals like CUSMA. It must recognize that any agreement it enters into must also work towards achieving those targets.

Of course I completely agree with my colleague. These sorts of provisions could have been included, and aluminum could have been one solution to help reach those targets.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleague across the way. One of the concerns across Canada is about when we can anticipate the legislation to pass. There seems to be a wide spectrum of support, including from different provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec.

Does the member feel that there is any opportunity for the Bloc to maybe have discussions with some of the other stakeholders, including the Premier of Quebec, to see if there might be more common ground that would see us all support this agreement?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is a thorough party. For example, one topic we just spoke about was the Paris agreement.

I would like the governing party to share our enthusiasm for meeting the Paris targets by the deadline.

The government seems to be in a hurry with the treaty, yet the same cannot be said for the Paris agreement. I do not understand the double standard here.

As for the reference to Mr. Legault and the comments he made, I think we need to consider the context, since we are a thorough party and I consider myself a thorough person. He said that he is not happy. He is not happy that the government is unwilling to deal with aluminum.

The Premier of Quebec sees that one of Quebec's industries is struggling, and I think he would very much like to find ways to protect aluminum and our workers.

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

Madam Speaker, having had the opportunity to tour an aluminum smelter in my colleague's riding, I can indeed attest to this industry's importance to Quebec.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. I have spoken mainly to the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who is also very concerned about Quebec's aluminum industry. It is a bit rich to say that only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the aluminum industry. I would like my colleague to at least recognize the work done by the other two opposition parties to defend Canada's and especially Quebec's aluminum industry. We produce the best aluminum in the world here in Canada.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This gives me an opportunity to say that I would love to highlight the work that the official opposition is doing with us on the aluminum file. Note my use of the word “would”. The Conservatives voted in favour of the motion, while the Bloc Québécois voted against it. Naturally, there needs to be some consistency between words and actions. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that we have the best aluminum in the world. I urge the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to join us. We keep inviting him to join us every time we speak out, but sadly he declines.