House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nafta.

Topics

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, what an honour it is to stand in this House. I think this might be one of the first times I have the chance to actually speak at length since the election. It is always good to stand in this House.

Today we are talking about the USMCA or CUSMA—

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. I just want to remind hon. members that one of their colleagues has the floor at the moment. If they want to continue their conversation, I urge them to do so outside the chamber.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, just before we were so rudely interrupted, I have never done that myself.

We are here to talk about the USMCA, or CUSMA, NAFTA or “halfta”, as it has been called.

It should come as no surprise to my colleagues that I am deeply passionate about my province of British Columbia and my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. The issue at hand that has not been addressed in CUSMA and has not been addressed by either the current government or the previous Liberal government is that of securing a new softwood lumber agreement.

Over 140,000 jobs in my province, whether directly or indirectly, are forestry related. One hundred and forty communities across the province of British Columbia are forestry dependent. Over the course of the last year, we have had 25 mill closures. That is 10,000 jobs lost just over the last year because we do not have a softwood lumber agreement and because accessing our fibre is getting harder, with a carbon tax on top of that. These are making it much harder for our forestry producers to compete.

More and more forestry producers have been divesting themselves of Canadian operations since the Liberals became government, whether it was in their first term in the previous Parliament or during this term. More forestry companies have divested themselves of Canadian operations and are investing south of the border. Members heard that right. More Canadian companies are fleeing our market and investing in U.S. markets. Why is that? It is because it has become easier to do business there and they have a favourable work environment or a favourable investment environment.

We talk about the familial ties between the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. is our closest trading partner. Why is that important? I always bring it down to families and how our trade agreements and our policies have their impact. The things that we do here in Ottawa or in our provincial capitals right across our country, the policies that are developed and the agreements that are developed, impact our families.

My family and so many families in our ridings are tied to forestry. My riding is a forestry riding. A lot of our jobs are cornerstone industries, such as agriculture, forestry, oil and gas, and mining, but whether it was the Speech from the Throne in 2015 or the Speech from the Throne in 2019, forestry was left off the books. There was not one mention of forestry.

I will bring the House back to the early days of our previous Parliament. The Prime Minister and his then Minister of International Trade said they were going to get the job done, that they would secure a new softwood lumber agreement. It was early 2016 when a big state dinner took place in Washington. Everybody was invited. Even the Prime Minister's mom was invited. One person was left behind, and that was the then minister of natural resources. Sadly, he did not get an invitation. I guess he did not rank high enough to be there.

One of the very first statements that our Prime Minister made in 2015 on the world stage was that under his government, Canada would become known more for its resourcefulness than for our natural resources, and boy, that is true.

We have taken a lot of hits with the Liberal government because it sidles up to third party groups like Tides Canada, WWF, and Greenpeace. The government allows these groups to permeate the highest levels of office, and that indeed then permeates our policy. They look down upon our forestry practices. They look down upon our natural resource producers, such as oil and gas.

I want to talk about forestry again. Sixty-two per cent of our provincial land base is forest. In the province of British Columbia, we harvest less than 1% of our forests. For every tree that is harvested, three are planted, yet the government continues to look down upon forestry producers.

The province of British Columbia is the largest producer of softwood in the country, and our number one trading partner is the U.S. Therefore, securing a softwood lumber agreement, one would think, would be very important and top of mind. However, here we sit five years later with no softwood lumber agreement.

I will take members back to early 2016 when a state dinner was taking place and the then minister of international trade said the Canadian government had a new-found friendship between the Prime Minister and President Obama. As a matter of fact, I believe it was called a bromance. He said that, within the next 100 days, they were going to secure a solution to the softwood lumber irritant. I believe he said 100 days back in 2016.

Here we sit, time and time again, asking the question. We are told the Liberals' hearts go out to the hard-working forestry families. This is very similar to what they said to the oil and gas workers in Alberta: “Just hang in there.” Sadly, we cannot hang in there much longer.

Time and again, the government members have stood in the House and answered questions on softwood. As a matter of fact, in June of last year, in the dying days of the session, I stood and asked about all the mill curtailments and closures and the job losses in the province of British Columbia. A member, who was a British Columbia MP, who I do not believe made it back to the House and maybe this is the reason why, stood in the House and proudly said, “Job numbers are great. Employment is up and we are doing great.” What a tone-deaf response.

The fact of the matter is that, in my province, every day people open up newspapers and see the job losses, the work curtailments and mill closures. Just before Christmas, in 24 hours, 2,000 jobs were lost. That was just in 24 hours. If that was an auto plant in Ontario, or maybe a manufacturing plant in Quebec that had ties to the Prime Minister, I bet somebody would stand and say, “Enough”, and it would get some form of bailout. However, because it is in British Columbia, which is a long way away on the other side of this country, it seems it is too far and it is forgotten time and time again.

Liberals continue to say that they stand with our forestry families. Time and again, they put their hands on their hearts, maybe wipe away a tear with a tissue, and say they stand with our forestry families.

Are they standing with them in the unemployment lines? Are they standing with them when the banks foreclose on their homes, or are they standing with them when they are facing bankruptcy? That is the reality today. That is what we are facing, and that is shameful.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Greg Fergus LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government

Madam Speaker, I do not have the experience of my colleague from British Columbia, but I have had the honour and the privilege of working in federal politics for decades.

I remember that, in 2005 or 2006, the World Trade Organization examined a softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the U.S.

After a series of rulings were handed down over a five-year period, we were about to obtain a ruling in our favour. When the Harper government came to power, it terminated this process in order to make peace with the United States, and signed an agreement that would be in force for only 10 years. As a result, we are now back to square one.

Does my honourable colleague not believe that it would have been in our interest to see the dispute with the U.S. through to the end and to ensure the free trade of softwood lumber forever?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, our previous Conservative government put to an end the longest and most costly trade dispute between Canada and the U.S.

Not only did we do that and bring some consistency and some assurances to our forestry industry, we also negotiated a one-year grace period. We got the agreement and the discussions to a certain point in 2015 where, regardless of which group became government in 2015, it should have been able to push this over the goal line.

However, all we have seen is dither and delay, and this has not been a priority from day one. The Liberals have admitted it is so, in not as many words, over the course of the last five years. Now all we are seeing is more excuses and finger-pointing.

The reality is that they have been in government for five years. For five years they have asked our forestry companies and our forestry families to wait and said that they had their backs. They do not, and we have seen that time and time again.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I am noticing a general lack of focus on the fact that this trade agreement has not done a substantial job of addressing issues of gender equality. This is something that I have seen on both sides of the House today.

I am wondering what the hon. member thinks about CUSMA's failure to address gender equality in any sort of way, other than in the superficial language used in this agreement.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I'm sorry, but I did not hear the question in that.

I will echo our colleague's comments. She is new to the House, but I will echo her comments. Once again, we see another Liberal failure, lots of Liberal promises, but another Liberal failure in addressing any issues that matter most. In our riding of Cariboo—Prince George, and across all of British Columbia, we were hoping for more. Sadly we have gotten much more of the same as what we had seen in the last four years. That is too bad.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Madam Speaker, when my colleague talks about softwood lumber, agriculture or manufacturing, the difference between the previous Conservative government and the current government is that we kept all of our stakeholders at the table throughout the negotiations. What we are hearing from stakeholders over and over again is they have been left in the dark.

I am wondering if he could talk about the response he has had from the forestry workers and companies in his riding, and if they have been kept up to date on this issue.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, our forestry producers have been somewhat at the table, but not at the table to the extent that they would like to be.

As we have heard time and again, the Liberals like to negotiate in secret and then come out and make some grand announcement as to how it has gone, but our producers, whether they are agri-food or forestry, would like to be more at the table and in charge of, or working in concert with, what the trade negotiations are.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Madam Speaker, as it is my first time rising in the House in debate, I would be remiss if I did not thank the wonderful constituents of the riding of Saint John—Rothesay for re-electing me and sending me back to this beautiful House and this beautiful city to represent them. It was a hard-fought campaign.

I want to thank and congratulate other candidates like Rodney Weston, Armand Cormier and Ann McAlllister for offering spirited debate and great dialogue throughout the campaign. Again, it is an honour to be back here.

I was looking at some records the other day, and I have been in Ottawa almost 600 nights over the last four and a half years. Everybody recognizes the large commitment we all make and the time that we take away from our families. I want to recognize my beautiful wife Denise and my sons Khristian and Konnor for supporting me, putting up with me and standing with me over the last four and a half years.

I want to thank my wonderful campaign team: my co-campaign managers Kevin Collins and Nora Robinson; and last but not least, Jeannette Arsenault and my wonderful office staff for doing great things for the riding, representing my constituents.

It is an honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States and the United Mexican States.

I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for her outstanding work in negotiating the new North American Free Trade Agreement, known as the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, with the United States and Mexico. It is thanks to her hard work, leadership, vision and perseverance that we now have a modernized and improved free trade agreement with our North American partners.

As the member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay, I represent a riding with an economy dependent on international trade and, as a result, thousands of workers in my riding depend on their elected representatives to ensure Canada's trading agreements protect their jobs, rights and environment. This is why I am proud to stand here today to speak in support of legislation that intends to implement a modernized NAFTA, which contains unprecedented measures to protect the well-paying jobs of workers in my riding, whose jobs depend on trade with the United States and Mexico, ensure labour standards are upheld and protect the environment.

Before my previous life in hockey, I was involved for 15 years in international trade and business with an aquaculture company. I travelled the world and extensively throughout the United States. If anybody knows the value of a trade agreement, of lowering barriers, lowering and eliminating tariffs and creating an environment of free and open trade, I certainly do. It produces thousands of jobs in my riding and hundreds of thousands of jobs right across the country.

Saint John is a key node in Canada's global trade network. The port of Saint John is Canada's third-busiest seaport and eastern Canada's largest port by volume. It serves Canada's largest oil refinery, the Irving Oil refinery, and handles a diverse cargo base. It handles an average of 28 million metric tons of cargo annually, including dry and liquid bulks, break bulk and containers originating from and destined to ports all over the world.

My riding is also home to a second world headquarters, Cooke Aquaculture Inc., an international aquaculture firm that employs thousands of people, has sales in the billions of the dollars and was started by the Cooke family. Glenn, Mike and their father Gifford live literally 35 minutes from my office. It is a success story that is an example of leadership.

Our port is also in the midst of a historic expansion. It is currently undertaking a $205-million modernization of its west-side cargo terminal. This transformational trade infrastructure project was made possible by the $68.3-million investment by our federal government. In addition, CP Rail announced in November that it will begin serving the port of Saint John as it has purchased close to 800 kilometres of track which runs from Saint John deep into the state of Maine. This means that the port of Saint John will soon be connected to both of Canada's class I railways.

The new NAFTA, which our government is seeking to implement with the bill before us, would ensure that the port of Saint John is able to fully leverage its expansion and the incredible opportunity by preserving our tariff-free access to the American market and ensuring that the other North American ports it competes with comply with the same rigorous environmental standards as it does when it comes to preventing marine pollution through its enforceable environmental chapter.

I am thrilled to tell members that New Brunswick is on the cusp of becoming an international leader in manufacturing and export of small modular nuclear reactors. In 2018, ARC Nuclear Canada and Moltex Energy established offices in Saint John when the provincial government announced its nuclear innovation cluster funding for which they were both chosen as participants. With this announcement, the province of New Brunswick instantly became a climate change policy leader for Canada with the development of SMRs. Since that time, ARC and Moltex have proceeded with purpose to develop their technologies with the goal of eventually establishing a manufacturing export hub for their technologies in our province by leveraging the port of Saint John.

SMRs can employ thousands of people across New Brunswick. Also, if members want to talk about reducing a carbon footprint, SMRs could be used across the country in every province. The new NAFTA would ensure that our province is able to fully leverage this incredible opportunity to grow our economy and tackle climate change by ensuring that we continue with tariff-free access to the American and Mexican markets. As well, it would ensure that our SMR technology companies do not have to compete against companies in other North American jurisdictions that do not have to comply with rigorous environmental standards for air and marine pollution through its enforceable environmental chapter.

This agreement also includes an unprecedented enforcement provision when it comes to labour standards to address, in a timely manner, labour violations relative to collective bargaining and freedom of association. The agreement also includes innovation mechanisms for rapid response between Canada and Mexico and between the United States and Mexico.

To close, as I mentioned previously, I was in international trade for 15 years and I know what it means to have an agreement that reduces tariffs and barriers and promotes free trade. It is crucial to the success of business. It is crucial to the growth of business. It is crucial to the development of business.

I am proud to stand behind this bill. I am proud to support it. I know first-hand that Canadians appreciate what we have done. I can certainly speak for the world leaders, constituents, unions and businesses in my riding who stand with me in support of this new bill.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, the member talked quite a bit in his speech about the port of Saint John. He mentioned the refinery as well, which is one of the largest refineries in Canada.

However, there was a tremendous lost opportunity for the port in his city. We talk about trade and exports, and I know that the member had been an advocate for the export of oil and gas products through the port. There was a tremendous number of jobs at stake with the prospect of a pipeline going through his port. I wonder if the member could comment on that and on the importance of being able to export Canadian energy through the port of Saint John.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Madam Speaker, my friend opposite is obviously referring to energy east and the history behind energy east. I do not think it is any secret that I stood in this House and in my constituency and supported energy east. That being said, the only way that project was ever going to happen was to have consultation and buy-in across the country.

The Leader of the Opposition at that time, on his own website, said that he was listening to Quebeckers and that he was going to stand in support of Quebec's jurisdiction and rights. I asked him how he squared what he said there with what he said in other parts of the country. Of course I did not get an answer.

I fully respect the fact that our port needs to export, and I stand behind that.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, the question that was asked by the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge was germane to the discussion because we are talking about many things within this piece of legislation including Canada's prosperity, and energy east would have led to Canada's prosperity.

Would the hon. member across the way not admit that it was his government that moved the goalposts with respect to the environmental assessment process that caused energy east to be cancelled?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Madam Speaker, I lived it. My constituents of Saint John—Rothesay absolutely agree with what I was saying because they sent me back here to represent them. That project was going nowhere under the previous government of members opposite. Everyone knew it, they knew it; the project was stalled. The Conservatives had gutted the environmental process. There was no credibility left with anything.

We tried our best to reboot. It was not in the cards. My riding has moved on. My riding is looking forward, industry in my riding is looking forward, and we are ready to turn the page.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, in my riding, one of the biggest challenges in this trade agreement, and actually cumulatively through the multiple trade agreements that have happened, is really impacting my dairy farmers. I have several dairy farms in my riding and the farmers are very concerned about when it will be and what the compensation is actually going to look like and of course, most important, that we see stronger protection of supply management, which provides us with safe milk and dairy products. I wonder if the member could speak a bit about how he sees this being lost and what that does to rural and remote communities.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Madam Speaker, my riding of Saint John—Rothesay is 30 minutes from the town of Sussex, which has a diverse, growing, innovative and vibrant dairy industry. That industry was consulted. That industry was in the loop. We have worked with that industry to make sure that it will be protected with any changes in the agreement. That industry is satisfied with where we are. In fact, I am meeting with members from that industry this week in my office here in Ottawa, and we will continue to consult. We will continue to work with that industry and grow that industry vital to New Brunswick.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to take part in my first debate here on the floor of the House of Commons. Before I proceed, I want to take a moment to thank a number of individuals, as well as my constituents, for putting their faith in me. I want to thank the people of Fort Erie, Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake for the trust they have placed in me.

My loving wife Carol and son Daniel, as well as my entire family, have been my strongest supporters and I would not be standing here at this moment without their love and support. I thank them all dearly from the bottom of my heart. My only regret is not having my dad or father-in-law here to see it, but I know they are watching from above, with my son David, his cousin Leo, my cousins Michael and Maria, and my late aunts and uncles. They have all helped shape who I am today.

I thank those who have volunteered their time in my nomination and during my campaign for placing in me their confidence and unwavering support. I thank the hon. Rob Nicholson, my political mentor, for his sound advice, guidance and wisdom. As many members of the House will know, Rob proudly and loyally served his constituents and our country for an incredible 24 years.

There is no greater reward in this profession than being able to help those who need it most. I thank Rob for everything he has done and will continue to do in his well-earned retirement.

When I announced my intentions to run for public office, I stated that I was doing so because I believed in building a better future for our country and for those who are fortunate enough to call Niagara their home. Now that we are here in this place as elected parliamentarians, I am looking forward to working with members of all parties to advance our country's best interests.

It is a great privilege to speak in the House today to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. It is worth noting the Conservative Party of Canada is the party of free trade. I am proud of that. It is a Conservative legacy. The original North American Free Trade Agreement originated from our party's hard work on the free trade file many years ago.

Canada's Conservatives support free trade with our North American trading partners. However, what we do not support is rushing blindly into an agreement to implement a deal, the details of which have not yet been shared.

Over a month ago, our party requested that the Liberals provide us with details of the economic impact studies of this signed agreement. To date, we are still waiting, as are many of the Canadian industries that rely on this deal.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to analyze all legislation that is brought before the House, including this bill. Canadians expect their representatives in this chamber to do this, as they should. Our party is committed to conducting this due diligence on their behalf. Therefore, we once again ask for the background documents and the economic impact studies so we can make an informed decision on this incredibly important free trade agreement.

In the federal riding of Niagara Falls, my constituents want to see us work together to create more opportunities for trade, job creation and investment. Delivering a workable free trade deal that could lead to this opportunity, and provide certainty for our manufacturers in the Golden Horseshoe and beyond, is my goal and, I hope, the goal of all members here.

The highest-valued provincial exporter to the United States is Ontario. However, we must not cheer too quickly, because the value of these exports in 2018 declined over 2017.

The uncertainty caused by the renegotiation of NAFTA and the lack of any detailed information or economic impact studies provided by the current government is worrisome. According to Statistics Canada, there were fewer Ontarians employed in manufacturing in December 2019 compared with December 2018, despite employment growing overall in the province by 3.3%.

Manufacturing had been the historical economic backbone of my riding of Niagara Falls. However, partially because of the economic uncertainty over the past number of years, manufacturing jobs have packed up and left.

We need to create certainty in our business environment. We can do it by working together to study this trade agreement, identify its benefits and its deficiencies and put in place plans to overcome the deficiencies that will negatively impact Canadian industries.

In my riding, there are residents at work in the auto sector in nearby St. Catharines. We used to have three automotive manufacturing plants by General Motors, employing thousands of employees in that city. Today, only one engine plant remains.

We do not want to see this industry get any smaller in our part of the country. These are important jobs that support hard-working families. Any negative impacts on the auto sector from the new NAFTA would cause hardship for these workers, their families and the overall local economy. Without our being supplied economic impact studies, it is very difficult to know what economic impacts there could be and how these may impact our local economies and Canadian industries.

Just going by what we know, the Liberals negotiated changes to the rules of origin for our auto manufacturing industry. Now 70% of the steel used in new vehicles must be melted and poured in North America. That is good protection for our domestic steel industry, and I do not think anyone would argue it is not a positive change.

Unfortunately, the Liberals seem to have dropped the ball during the trade negotiations by accepting concessions on aluminum production. There are no North American content rules governing the melting and pouring of aluminum used in the manufacturing of autos and parts. Does that mean Chinese aluminum could make its way into Mexican-made engines or car components? The engine plant in St. Catharines will have to compete against that.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the member. Unfortunately the time allotted for debate has expired, but he will have three minutes to finish up his speech the next time this matter is before the House.

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

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure being here tonight, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the speech from the member for Niagara Falls at a later point.

We are here tonight talking about the very important and pressing issue of coronavirus, and in particular about how we ensure effective international coordination. During question period, Conservatives have been talking about coronavirus, highlighting the need for a stronger government response and asking the important questions about how our response compares to the responses of various allies.

I am following up on a particular issue that we raised a number of times last week, which was about how we ensure effective international coordination. Our view on this side of the House is that when we are responding to a global health crisis like this, we need to have all hands on deck. We need to have all countries, peoples and governments working together and talking together, but we have a problem in that context, because Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization is opposed by the People's Republic of China, and the desire of the mainland Chinese government to prevent the participation of Taiwan in those conversations makes international coordination very difficult.

Despite tensions between governments, there is a great deal of people-to-people back-and-forth that happens between Taiwan and the mainland, and there is a need for coordination because of the risk of transmission of this virus.

In general, there is a great deal of expertise in Taiwan. There is a lot of opportunity for the international community to benefit from knowledge that is developed there and to ensure effective coordination and co-operation. It really should be a no-brainer for Canada, a free democracy, to speak out and highlight the importance of this coordination and to side with Taiwan in its desire to be included in these conversations.

On Monday of last week, I raised the question. I asked a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he did not even mention Taiwan in the response. My question asked if he would support Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization and these conversations around these issues. There was no mention of Taiwan in the response.

On Tuesday, the following day, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister two questions specifically about whether Canada would take a strong, clear and principled position, but also a position on behalf of Canadians' concern for their own health and safety to support the participation of Taiwan in these vital conversations and support the membership of Taiwan in the World Health Organization. Twice the Prime Minister was asked. He did not respond to the question and he did not mention Taiwan in the response. He simply accused Conservatives of playing politics when in fact we are highlighting a fundamental health and safety issue.

Finally, my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton was able to succeed where we had not. On Wednesday he finally received an answer from the Prime Minister to a very explicit question when the Prime Minister said that the government will support Taiwan's participation.

We are glad that after three days of successive questions when the first two days did not get a response, we finally were able to get the government to take this position. However, the reluctance of the government to support the participation of Taiwan does not give us a lot of confidence that the Liberals are actually raising these issues.

Therefore, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary this: Has the Government of Canada, not just here in the House but in conversations with our partners on the world stage, actually been raising and highlighting the importance of this coordinated response?

Let us not play politics. Canadians' health and safety and the health and safety of people around the world are at stake, and Taiwan needs to be at the table in those conversations. Is Canada vocally participating in pushing for the full participation of Taiwan in those conversations?

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Don Valley West Ontario

Liberal

Rob Oliphant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, I will first congratulate the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his elevation to the front bench. It is wonderful to see him there. That position, however, may more appropriately belong to the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who, as acknowledged, was successful.

I will begin by emphasizing that there is no reluctance on the government's part whatsoever to recognize Taiwan as an important friend and partner with whom we share extensive and highly complementary interests in areas ranging from science and technology to youth exchanges and public health. In accordance with Canada's one China policy, we maintain unofficial but valuable economic, cultural and people-to-people ties with Taiwan. Our extensive ties with Taiwan have continued to flourish in recent years based on a shared commitment to the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

As Canada's 13th largest merchandise trading partner and our fifth largest trading partner in Asia, Taiwan plays a critical role in ICT supply chains and the global economy more broadly. Taiwan's expertise in the manufacturing of key technologies such as semiconductors, for instance, serves as a direct complement to Canadian strengths in technological research and development.

In 2018 alone, merchandise trade between Canada and Taiwan increased 10.2% and reached $7.9 billion. Both governments have implemented policies to diversify trade and investment to include new partners. We have real opportunities to deepen our commercial relationship. With changes to global supply chains in Asia and North America, there are plenty of opportunities to collaborate on new technologies and trends in the growing digital economy. Both opportunities and potential challenges can provide greater openings for Canada and Taiwan to work together.

In 2019, we sought to further deepen our trade and investment co-operation with Taiwan by hosting the annual Canada-Taiwan economic consultations here in Ottawa. All of these efforts leverage our ongoing initiatives, such as the Canadian technology accelerator program in Taipei, to help Canadian companies deepen their access to Taiwan's market and secure more partnership opportunities.

On the multilateral front, Canada continues to engage Taiwan in international organizations where Taiwan is a full participant, such as APEC and the WTO. In addition to these forums, Canada has consistently supported Taiwan's meaningful and important participation in international organizations where there is a practical imperative and where Taiwan's absence would be detrimental to global interests and Canada's interests. We have identified the World Health Assembly, which governs the WHO, as one area where global interests would be served by Taiwan's meaningful participation as a non-state observer.

I want to reassure the member that there is no reluctance whatsoever to help engage with Taiwan at important multilateral opportunities.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's good wishes on my elevation and it continues as we speak.

He spoke about there being no such reluctance. I have to say the reluctance to acknowledge the important role of Taiwan and support its participation is on the record. It is on the record in terms of the government's failure to answer the direct questions that were asked. Therefore, I will ask him again. Is he committed and is the government committed to not just speaking about these issues here in the House but to clearly raising these on the world stage with our various counterparts?

He spoke about collaboration with Taiwan. Coming from Alberta, I see many opportunities for collaboration, particularly in the area of energy. Hopefully, if we can finally get some pipelines built, we will be able to help Taiwan address energy security challenges while helping us expand our supply.

Again, the reluctance was there on Monday and Tuesday of last week, but because we have a strong, effective opposition, soon to be in government, we are actually able to make some progress here.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Madam Speaker, we may accept the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on this side, but it would be a tough campaign, I am sure, before that would be agreed to on our side.

I will repeat that there is no reluctance whatsoever. We have identified the World Health Assembly as one area where global interests, health interests and human interests would be well served by Taiwan's meaningful participation as a non-state observer, end of story. Right now, we are combatting a critical health situation. Diseases do not recognize borders. With this most recent outbreak, we encourage all international organizations, especially the WHO, to undertake action and ensure greater inclusion in its response to this pressing matter of global importance, and Taiwan should be part of that.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight.

We had yet another confirmed case of the coronavirus over the weekend. This brings the total in Canada to four confirmed cases. While the overall risk to Canadians remains low, we are still depending on the government to assure Canadians that the spread is properly contained.

We received an informative update from the government this morning about its plan to evacuate Canadians from Hubei province in China. However, some details are still unclear, including how many Canadians will be evacuated and whether permanent residents travelling without children will be allowed to return to Canada.

The details from the government have been slow to come and have even cast doubts on the government's planning. A representative from the government appeared on CTV's Power Play on Thursday. When asked what Canadians could expect from the government given the news that the World Health Organization had to declare a global health emergency, she responded, “They don't know yet. We're working on it”.

Canadians are looking to the government for answers. While we appreciate the updates from government officials, there are still many questions. Last week we reconvened the health committee early to get answers directly from the appropriate officials. We will continue meetings this week as we continue to seek answers on this virus.

At home, many Canadians are wondering how to protect themselves and others. My constituency office has received many calls from people wondering what they should be doing to ensure they do not become sick with the coronavirus. What is the plan, knowing that more cases are likely to be confirmed, and how can Canadians be assured that the spread is being properly contained? This is in large part what they are asking.

We just found out today at a health committee meeting earlier this evening that the government still does not even know where the plane from the first case is. This is concerning not only to me but to the many Canadians wondering how the government is handling the situation, who it is talking to and what the plan is going forward. It took about three weeks to get the quarantine plan from the government.

Could the member on the other side please assure Canadians what the plan is?

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Dartmouth—Cole Harbour Nova Scotia

Liberal

Darren Fisher LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I want to thank my friend for the opportunity to speak about the Government of Canada's plan to respond to the novel coronavirus in Canada. As members know, there have been numerous confirmed cases in China and travel-related cases have been reported in other jurisdictions, including in Canada, as was said by my friend.

Last week, the director-general of the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus to be a public health emergency of international concern. Canada is actively monitoring the outbreak, and has implemented public health measures very much in line with the World Health Organization's guidance and advice. There are currently four confirmed cases in Canada that are linked to travel in Wuhan, China, and none of the individuals remains in hospital.

Despite these confirmed cases, the risk to Canadians remains low. Protecting the health and safety of Canadians is our top priority. We will continue to provide Canadians with regular updates. Canada's response to the outbreak to date has been a whole-of-government approach, including working very closely with provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Our health system has been mobilized to support a response to the cases of illness in Canada, and national guidance has been shared.

There has been tremendous progress over the past 16 years to strengthen Canada's public health system and how we prepare for infectious disease outbreaks. We have learned, not only from SARS but also from the H1N1 pandemic and more recently the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and we will learn as well from this outbreak.

Since SARS, we have created the Public Health Agency of Canada to provide clear federal leadership during a response such as this. We have established the position of chief public health officer as an authoritative voice to all Canadians during public health events. We have enhanced federal-provincial-territorial collaboration through a formal network of public health experts, the public health network council. We have strengthened coordination within the federal government, including through the creation of the government operations centre.

Significant effort has been expended in the past decade to refine planning, and establish clear protocols and processes, and our preparedness has enabled us to respond quickly and efficiently. Our health system is working exactly as it should. We have been able to detect cases in Canada, treat them appropriately and quickly share information across jurisdictions to limit the spread of this virus.

Some of the key measures Canada has implemented include enhanced screening at 10 airports that accept international flights. This is our first line of defence. As individuals return to Canada from China, information on screens tells individuals to self-identify to a border services agent if they are experiencing novel coronavirus symptoms.

In addition, a health screening question has been added to the electronic kiosks at these airports, asking travellers if they have been to Hubei province. Travellers are also provided information about what they should do if they subsequently experience any symptoms, with procedures established to refer travellers to local public health as required.

We have also updated our travel health notice to level three, to avoid all non-essential travel to China. We have implemented a risk communication approach. Our chief public health officer is providing exceptional leadership, and has been holding regular media availability and taking interviews to counter misinformation and discrimination.