Debates of Feb. 4th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic Relationship

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to speak to the opposition day motion put forward today. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, for his excellent presentation and for sharing his time with me today.

When we look at the nations Canada trades with, we see there is nothing more important than our relationship with the United States. As with all relationships, though, we cannot take this one for granted. As a farm leader, an MLA and now a member of Parliament, I have had a front row seat to some of the ups and downs of the politics of that trade relationship.

Throughout the years, I have attended many Midwestern legislative conferences in the U.S., as well as some in Manitoba when I was there, which provide an opportunity for elected Canadian representatives across the Prairies to meet with their American counterparts from the Great Plains and Midwest industrial states.

At those conferences, there was an opportunity to meet countless people, and I quickly learned that they are facing many of the same challenges we are. I mentioned the Midwestern legislative forums. I attended them in Michigan; Kansas; Des Moines, Iowa; and one in the Pacific Northwest, out in Whitefish, Montana, as well.

At these conferences, we learned a lot about the interchange of the relationship that we have with our American counterparts. As I said earlier, many of the issues are very common, particularly on the trade side. When the U.S. put its first farm bill in place in 1986, I was in Kansas.

Whether it is logistical or regulatory barriers, or just plain old politics, we get a better understanding of what is at the root of some of the trade disputes that still linger to this day. We do not have to look far for those examples, such as with softwood lumber or the country-of-origin labelling that we had for beef.

Trade disruptions over the years have negatively impacted numerous Canadian exports. More recently, NAFTA was renegotiated, and we witnessed the former U.S. administration impose a 25% tariff on imports of Canadian steel, and a 10% tariff on imports of Canadian aluminum.

Regardless of who occupies the White House or controls Congress, we must always be cognizant that with the stroke of a pen many of our industries and people's jobs could be severely impacted. I applaud our Leader of the Opposition for taking the proactive step of putting forward this motion to create this new special committee.

When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 2013, the now Leader of the Opposition was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade. At that time, the Canada-Europe trade agreement was still being negotiated. The member for Durham visited my constituency to meet with agricultural and business leaders about this new opportunity, and what an opportunity it was.

Trade is at the heart of our region's economy. Western Manitoba's exports are based primarily on agriculture, livestock and natural resources, alongside manufacturers, such as Behlen Industries, which are major employers in our region. To put a number on it, the latest data from the Government of Manitoba on agricultural exports stated that the American domestic market is worth over $2.6 billion per year for the province of Manitoba.

Let us never forget, there are almost as many people living in the National Capital Region as in the entire province of Manitoba. By far, Americans are Manitoba's largest foreign customer, with the second-largest being Japan. Trade with Japan amounts to roughly $896 million a year.

Manitoba's canola exports alone to the United States are worth over half a billion dollars, followed by processed potatoes, oilseed cakes, hogs and cattle. The economic prosperity of almost every community in my region is directly tied to the success of exporting many of these agricultural products.

Due to the importance of this trade relationship, coupled with the new U.S. administration, it is imperative we have an ability to work on this issue, in conjunction with whatever our committees decide to study.

As with many issues, there is a lot of crossover between the various parliamentary committees and stakeholders. The agriculture, industry, natural resources and transport sectors want to be heard and will want to know the government's strategy moving forward.

Just this week in Congress, Tom Vilsack, who was nominated by President Biden to be his agricultural secretary, received a unanimous vote from the Senate agriculture committee and is expected to be confirmed by the overall Senate in the days ahead. Secretary Vilsack even joked that it felt like Groundhog Day during his Senate confirmation hearing, as he was President Obama's agriculture secretary during his entire eight years in office.

The United States and Canada enjoy the world's largest bilateral agricultural trade relationship, with almost 120 million dollars' worth of food and farm products crossing the border every day. In the last couple of years, the United States Department of Agriculture has created an undersecretary of trade position within the Department of Agriculture itself to work solely on trade policies directly related to agriculture. I say this just to emphasize the importance of that trade arrangement.

As is to be expected, the U.S. is on the offence. It is looking to expand its market opportunities not only here in Canada but also around the world. Americans might be our friends and allies, but I have always stated they are also our competition.

In the spirit of collaboration, I truly hope we can pass this motion and immediately get this new committee up and running, because I think the Liberal government could benefit from the insights and experience of many of our Conservative caucus members. While I am not lamenting this, there is not a Liberal MP from Winnipeg to the greater Vancouver area, and between those two points there are thousands of farmers and agri-food industries. As a member who represents a lot of farmers, I have grave concerns about the government's track record on agriculture.

As an example, we saw how long it took the government to respond to the Chinese government blocking Canadian canola shipments. In fact, we had to call emergency committee meetings to even discuss the issue. I remember the procedural manoeuvres the government took to ensure we could not even request an emergency debate in the House. My point is not to rehash these issues, but to learn from them. We must be proactive on potential trade disruptions. I believe this new special committee will provide an appropriate avenue to do so.

We know there are going to be issues in the coming months relating to pipelines, as has been mentioned by many of my colleagues today, and the buy America procurement rules. Our Canadian economy cannot afford any more trade disruptions. We need to get all our sectors back up and running, and we cannot afford to be caught asleep at the wheel. Our constituents are counting on us to get this right.

As a believer in free trade and free markets, I want to create the right conditions for entrepreneurs, business people and farmers to flourish. It is part of the reason I brought forward Bill C-208 yesterday in the House. I thank my colleagues for their support on that. Canada must be a place where no ambition is too big and no federal government will stand in the way of people working hard to get ahead.

A dynamic economy where businesses are forming and hiring is what is needed. A free market economy is a social institution that harnesses human creativity and ingenuity for the benefit of everyone. There is not enough money in all the government coffers in Ottawa to replicate what entrepreneurs and risk-takers do every single day. Let us work together to make sure our farmers, businesses and manufacturers have a stable and predictable American market they can sell into.

[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, it is always nice to hear from my colleague from Manitoba. We have served together both in the Manitoba legislature and now in the House of Commons representing some wonderful people.

The member made reference to taking a proactive approach when it comes to trade. One of the things we need to recognize is that over the years we have had excellent people negotiating on behalf of governments. They worked to make sure we could get the trade agreements necessary to advance Canada in a very proactive way.

One of the examples I would cite is Maple Leaf in the member's own riding. I am not sure of the number of hogs it produces. Perhaps the member would know, but I believe it is 10,000 hogs a day. Could the member provide a tangible example of why trade is so important?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North for the recognition of our time together in the Manitoba legislature. That is where we allowed him the debating opportunity to make the wonderful speeches he does in the House today.

It is true that we export a lot of products and not only to the United States. A large part of our hog processing goes to China and Japan, but mainly into Japan. It is tremendously important for the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are created not just in Manitoba but across the whole country. Being the nation we are, we depend on exports.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I listen to the debates between the Liberals and the Conservatives, I often think that they are debates about the how, and while they may be intense, they are rarely about the why or the substance. One could almost say the two parties are one and the same, and call them the Liberal-Conservative party. The two words could be put together, although I would not call it the liberating party, because that is not the case.

Nevertheless, I would like to raise the issue of economic nationalism, which is part of Quebec's DNA. Quebec finds much comfort in the notion of economic nationalism and the idea of having its own institutions that are able to intervene.

How do you perceive this? Is it a purchasing policy or a public contracting policy that gives priority to local companies?

That said, it was a great speech and I thank you.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have a situation today where our enterprises in the free trade and open markets do an excellent job of finding those markets. That is not the issue. We have a tendering process through government for construction jobs that are on an international basis, with priorities to Canadians, and companies can apply for those as well.

With respect to the trade agreement that was put in place in 1988, my colleague from Calgary Centre pointed out how that significantly changed and improved the standard of living in Canada. If we could get to that position in the world, we would be able to improve the bottom line of every Canadian and improve their lives as well.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to serve with my hon. colleague on the health committee, and I appreciate his wise words in that committee.

We have heard the same evidence that shows that Canada was caught without a domestic ability to produce essential medical equipment and supplies like PPE. We were reliant on countries like China and the United States.

Given his interest in buy America, does he agree that Canada, and other countries, should have the ability to at least produce essential supplies and services in our country to ensure our own population is not left hanging in a time of emergency? How would he square these two concepts?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the health committee for his concern for Canadians. I have the same concern he has. Anytime we can develop something for use in our own country, in this case, vaccines, we should have the opportunity to do so. Right now we have no idea what the contracts were from the present government. Therefore, we are in a state of limbo with respect to moving forward in that area.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury.

I want to take the opportunity to once again thank the incredible staff and people who have made Parliament work in the last 10 months. A year ago, if I were told we would be in this situation where there would only be a small handful of us in the House and the vast majority would be participating virtually, I would never have believed it. The way the staff have incorporated and made this seamlessly work so everyone can participate while staying safe is truly remarkable. I want to thank them for the incredible work they have done to make this a reality.

I am glad this opposition day motion was brought forward today. We are discussing a very important topic. I always get annoyed by those opposition day motions that tend to attack a person or the individual character attacks that we have seen in the past. However, this is one has really brought forward an important issue to discuss, and it is that relationship between Canada and the United States and our trade with it.

I personally do not have any issue with this committee being formed. At the end of the day, this committee and the work that it would do by interviewing various witnesses and bringing very different people forward to examine that relationship will probably paint a very good picture of what has transpired over the last couple of years with respect to that relationship.

We have to remember where we were after Donald Trump was elected. He had an interventionist approach on how the United States would work and its relationship with other countries, in particular Canada. Everyone was quite worried about what that meant. Back then I picked 20 businesses in my riding to speak to about their relationship with the U.S. I knew they had close economic ties with the U.S. I wanted to understand what their anxieties and fears were about what a new deal with the United States could look like.

When we were going through the negotiations, as the teams were discussing back and forth, tariffs were put in place by the U.S. and as a reactive measure, retaliatory tariffs were brought in by Canada. We saw that Canada actually had a very good leverage point when it came to dealing with the United States and talking trade with it. We might be one-tenth the size of its population, but we are a major economic resource for the Americans. We are their number one trading partner, bigger than China, Japan and the U.K. combined. The United States depends on Canada a lot for exports.

We saw how those retaliatory tariffs put pressure on Donald Trump through Congress and through the individual congressional districts affected by them. They pressured him to work out the USMCA. When the USMCA came forward, we saw a deal that, in my opinion, corrected a lot of inaccuracies or differences that may have occurred over the last 20 or 30 years since the trade agreement came into place. It allowed opportunities to bring new issues to light, focusing on the environment more and looking at things through various different lenses that perhaps we did not do 30 years ago. The deal between the two countries gave us opportunities.

Every day $2 billion goes back and forth between Canada and the United States because of that trading relationship. It is no small amount of money. Indeed, I would argue that we are in a very good negotiating point with the United States because of that. Of course, we do not want to fall into the trap of being incredibly reliant on one country, and for quite a while we were. We want to ensure we look at our trading relationships throughout the world so we can become diversified with respect to where our trade occurs.

With respect to the committee discussed in the opposition motion, if the motion passes and a committee is formed, there is great opportunity to start to re-examine that relationship from a parliamentary level and dig into the details of how negotiations can be done better, how we can look at other things such as our impact on climate and how we can ensure that the best interests of Canadians are taken into account.

I agree strongly that good trade deals give us better quality of life. I do not disagree with my Conservative colleague who talked about the increased quality of life that has come from trade relationships. I studied economics. I am a strong supporter of trade. I apologize if Liberals from 40 years ago were less so, but I certainly see the benefit in it. A trade relationship when done properly can be a win for both sides. A Conservative colleague said earlier that there was no good deal unless it was good for both sides, or something to that effect. I agree completely. With trade and the concept and practical implications of trade, quality of life can increase on both sides of the trading relationship. That is the whole point. That is why we strive to look for new opportunities for trade throughout the world.

However, it is important to remember that when we are talking about trade, we are talking about a negotiation and about concessions, but concessions that are at the expense of even greater gains. This is where I find the arguments from the Bloc and the NDP to be very difficult to accept. Quite often we hear about wanting to have it both ways, not wanting to give up anything and still getting the gains from trade. They have to understand and accept the fact that there will be concessions, but at the expense of having an even greater gain realized from those concessions. A trade relationship is all about that.

I am really looking forward to this committee, if the motion is adopted. It is an opportunity to look inward at how we do trade, look at that relationship with the U.S., fight for other issues that are connected to trade, such as security, climate change and how our environment is impacted, and look for commonalities. If any two countries in the world can make a trade relationship even better, they are Canada and the United States for all the reasons that have been given today.

I am happy that we have had this wholesome discussion today on such an important topic. The relationship we have with the United States and our trading ability with it has improved the quality of life in Canada over the last several decades. Indeed, if it is done properly and done right, it can continue to see us prospering well into the future.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have some questions regarding my colleague's comments, one of which was the previous U.S. president creating fears and anxieties in his riding, which were leading to trade disputes.

I wonder if the member can extrapolate that feeling and think about what happened with Keystone XL when, in the first day of the new President's tenancy in the office, he cancelled an agreement that would have brought $30 billion to government coffers over the lifetime of this pipeline. In addition, it would have solved $16 billion annually of wealth transfer from Canada to the United States because of the differential we receive on our product due to the fact that we do not have enough infrastructure.

I have heard the member's comments before, and they seem to be antagonistic to the oil and gas industry. I would like him to please square that with me.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, when the aluminum and steel tariffs came in from the U.S., I started talking to 20 different businesses that do trade with the U.S. With the anxieties and fears they had about what was going to happen, all of them understood and realized that what the government was doing was absolutely necessary and in the best interests of Canada as a whole. Whether I talked to Invista, the former DuPont plant or a small operation like Tri-Art Manufacturing, a small family business in Kingston, everybody understood why the government was doing what it had to do. They understood the need for taking the actions we did to protect the interests of Canadians.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am a little concerned. The Conservatives' motion on our relationship with the United States provides for discussions on natural resources, but focuses only on pipelines. However, I see it rather as an opportunity to talk about the energy potential of Quebec, which produces hydroelectricity and wind energy.

I know that the Liberals are not keen on creating special committees because they do not really like it when we examine how they are doing things. Does my colleague also believe that this would be a great opportunity to study ways to engage with the United States on clean energy?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, unless I took the motion wrong, I do not think this is a committee to look at the way the Liberals are doing things. I think this is a committee to look at how Canada can better its trade relationship with the U.S. I took the motion in good faith, and I apologize if I should not have.

To address the issue the member raised, I would love to look at how we can better wind production and hydro production. This is the future. This is the way we are going. We will need to put more electricity into vehicles. We will need to electrify the road networks throughout Canada. Any way we can do that, and look at how to do it through this committee, would be to the benefit of not only us today, but future generations.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about our close economic ties with the U.S. and the opportunity to dig into the impact on climate. The Biden administration issued executive orders on climate policies, and one in particular was to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. When I asked the Prime Minister why Canada will not immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies, he said that Canada was eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, that the U.S. was following Canada's lead and that we are on schedule to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

All three of these statements, to put it generously, are not backed up by facts. We are still giving away billions to big oil and gas companies. These subsidies have increased over the past year, so we are not leading. We are not even learning from our American neighbours.

President Biden is eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Why will the Liberal government not do the same?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member indicated in a previous speech that she just found out she is expecting. I hope I do not have that wrong, because I would be really embarrassed, but I want to congratulate her on that. I think it is absolutely incredible.

I personally support eliminating subsidies on fossil fuels.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, this motion addresses a number of important issues, and I am very pleased to speak to it today. In the time that I have, I would like to focus on two aspects of the motion: the importance of Line 5, and energy trade between Canada and the United States.

Our government has been extremely clear about Line 5. It has our unequivocal support and we are using every tool at our disposal to advance the file. Line 5 is vital to Canada's and North America's energy security. Our government takes this issue very seriously and for the opposition to suggest otherwise is not only misleading but irresponsible. The opposition is playing a political game that members on this side of the House have no interest in playing. Line 5 is vitally important and is bigger than partisan politics. Line 5 supports thousands of jobs in Ontario, Quebec and western Canada. It is essential in providing lighting and heating to thousands of Canadians. It represents an important source of fuel for farmers and the industry and it provides jet fuel for the Pearson airport, Canada's busiest airport.

Running from Wisconsin through Michigan and across the Straits of Mackinac to the lower peninsula, Line 5 supplies Michigan and Ohio refineries with oil and natural gas liquids from Alberta and Saskatchewan before entering Ontario at Sarnia. From there it is refined into gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, aviation fuel and propane, supplying southern Ontario and Quebec. What is more, Line 5 provides a safer way to transport oil than rail or road and has operated safely for over 65 years.

Now Enbridge wants to dig a tunnel to replace the two pipelines running along the lakebed under the Straits of Mackinac.

Enbridge is committed to making a safe line even safer through its tunnel project. It has committed to encasing the line in reinforced concrete to reduce the risk of an anchor strike and enhance its safety, and Michigan, just a couple of days ago, provided permits for this project.

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy approved these proposals a few days ago on January 29.

It did so after a nine-month-long comprehensive review that included input from the State Historic Preservation Office and a report from an independent civil engineering firm specializing in complex tunnelling projects.

The review concluded that the project would have minimal impact on water quality in the Great Lakes and would not affect protected public uses of Michigan's water resources.

Let me quote what the director of EGLE's water resources division, Ms. Teresa Seidel, had to say. “During our review of this proposed project, our top priority has been protecting the Straits of Mackinac and the surrounding wetlands, aquatic life, and other natural and cultural resources from adverse environmental impacts.”

What would the impact be? According to EGLE, the project would result in minimal impact to wetlands and, in fact, would only affect an area roughly one-tenth the size of a football field. As a result, EGLE concluded that the proposed tunnel beneath the lake-bed could be built in compliance with state environmental laws.

I would like to add that the State of Michigan's environmental agency has stated this project is completely safe. That is not according to Enbridge or to Canada. That is the finding of the organization responsible for enforcing Michigan's environmental laws. That is the argument our government has raised with American officials. That is our answer to those who want to stop the project.

What we have heard this week from the Leader of the Opposition and others on the other side of the House is that we are not doing anything. However, that could not be further from the truth.

The Government of Canada has supported Enbridge in this dispute for three years, at both the diplomatic and political levels, and will continue to do so. Ambassador Hillman is making the case and Consul General Comartin in Detroit is making the case. The Prime Minister raised the issue of North American energy security with Vice-President Harris, and the Minister of Natural Resources will press this case with the former Michigan governor, Jennifer Granholm, as soon as she is confirmed as the new U.S. energy secretary.

I will say it again. This line is vital to Canada and to the United States. We will always defend it and protect Canada's energy and industrial infrastructure.

I would like to address the broader context of the energy relationship between Canada and the United States.

Our relationship is worth over $500 billion in cross-border trade. In all, a little more than 70 pipelines and more than 30 transmission lines already cross the Canada-U.S. border, creating the most integrated energy system in the world.

As a result, Canada supplies more than half of all the crude oil that the U.S. imports annually. Alberta alone sends more than three million barrels a day south of the border. Canadian crude represents roughly 70% of the feed stock to refineries in the U.S. Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions. In Michigan, half of all homes are heated with Canadian propane.

It is the same with other sources of energy. Canadian electricity powers close to seven million American homes, and Canadian uranium generates 6% of America's electricity, enough to power one in every 17 American homes. All of this energy integration benefits both countries by strengthening our energy security, lowering energy and capital costs and enhancing reliability of supply. It also creates good, middle-class jobs on both sides of the border, including at the thousands of American companies that supply technology, machinery and other services to Canada's energy industry.

Any shutdown of Line 5 would have significant economic impacts, not just on Ontario and Quebec, but in Michigan and neighbouring states. Four years ago in Houston, the Prime Minister said, “Nothing is more essential to the U.S. economy than access to a secure, reliable source of energy, and Canada is that source.” It was true then and remains true today.

Why disrupt our relationship by stopping a project that the United States' own environmental body says is safe? It is a project that can continue to supply good jobs and essential resources to both countries, a project that will ensure that low-cost, safe and reliable energy keeps flowing to Michigan, its neighbouring states, Ontario and Quebec.

Our government understands how important Line 5 is to Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Canada. That is why we strongly support this project. We will continue to defend this cause at all levels and at every opportunity as part of a broader and more mutually beneficial energy relationship between Canada and the United States.

We look forward to working with all members of the House to ensure that this critical pipeline continues to operate safely for the benefit of Canadians and our neighbours to the south.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the parliamentary secretary back to the member for Don Valley West. In his intervention, he stated that he supports Canadians using Canadian oil and supports the export of Canadian oil. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I would hope he supports those comments and takes them, along with the member for Don Valley West, to the Prime Minister and gets behind our Canadian energy sector.

To the point of this debate today, the formation of a committee, does the member support this motion moving forward so the committee can be formed to discuss the issues around trade between the two countries and Canadian resources?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, the answer very clearly is yes, I support this committee. It is important that we have a discussion on the importance of the relationship and on energy security between Canada and the United States.

I will correct the member, though. Certainly, the member for Don Valley West mentioned that he is supportive of using Canadian oil and gas. I was parliamentary secretary in the last Parliament when we approved and fought for TMX to make sure that our oil got to markets and we had the best deal for our Canadian resources. I am still of the same mindset and will continue defending that, as well as Line 3. Everyone just heard me talk about Line 5, NOVA Gas and LNG. Those projects are all important not only for western Canada, but for all of Canada in our energy security.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we have heard today, both the Liberals and the Conservatives are intent on spending their time arguing over who has built more pipelines. However, the New Democrats are focused on saving people.

I would like to bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that at least 75% of all deaths related to COVID are attached to long-term care facilities. The new President of the United States has implemented protection for workers who quit unsafe workplaces during the pandemic so they can still claim their benefits. Why will the Liberal government not make the right to refuse unsafe work a live right, with real quit protections during the pandemic?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, long-term care and the supports he is advocating for are in the provincial jurisdiction in Canada. If he wants to bring that forward, that is fine, but the New Democrats like to get involved in provincial issues quite often, I find.

That being said, the safety and security of front-line workers is certainly top of mind. That is why we introduced the Canada sickness benefit to make sure that if people on the front lines need to take time off because they are sick or a loved one they live with is sick, they have access to a benefit. We would like all of the provinces to continue the supports we are providing, as this is very important to us, but we also need to get the provinces involved.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the ongoing issues we have had with the United States is the softwood lumber dispute. We have seen mills close across British Columbia as we export raw logs to American states. They are happy to take our raw logs, including those from the last of the old-growth forests that are being cut down, as the B.C. government continues to talk about protection but allows for the continued logging of these ancient forests.

I would like to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks we should be doing about the softwood lumber dispute and what the government's plan is to finally get this dispute settled.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am the MP for Sudbury, which is a mining town, but I am from a small town called Kapuskasing, where my father and grandfather worked in the pulp and paper business back in the 20s and 60s.

The U.S. trade relationship on softwood lumber is key for us. That is why we will certainly be taking it up with this new administration. The former administration did not even want to entertain any discussions, but we will certainly press the issue further and more strongly with this new administration.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Health; the hon. member for Oshawa, International Trade.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the good member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

While Canada has a long history with the United States of America, I also have a long relationship with the United States of America. I grew up in Alberta, and have been very fortunate to vacation in the U.S. many times like so many other Canadians, although not recently, of course.

More importantly, I was fortunate to live for five years in the United States. The first two were when I did my masters of business administration at Rutgers University while living in Manhattan, in New York City. Those were certainly incredible years. That was when my love for the United Nations developed, which eventually led to my diplomatic career.

The other three years I spent serving as Canadian consul to Dallas, Texas. I came to love Texas and the people of Texas. They have many similarities with Alberta, including good barbecue and rodeo. I certainly loved those things and had my son Edward there. I am the mother of an American. I am very proud of that.

I also did important work there. Keystone XL was the main issue and file that I worked on during my time there. This was in a different context, when Barack Obama was president of the United States. It was during the Harper years, yet with the Obama administration, so it was very challenging to get that policy and that project through.

As I attended different hearings throughout my jurisdiction in the southwestern United States, it became very clear that Canada and the U.S. had different positions relative to the Keystone XL file. However, I recognized at the time that the project was in the best interests of Canada, so I continued to fight for it until my time as consul to Dallas concluded in 2013.

Prior to that, I was chargé d'affaires for Canada to El Salvador. At that time, the CA4 free-trade agreement was going on, and there were very competitive words and positions on things such as pork and sugar. I remember being involved in those negotiations, especially throughout the time that my ambassador had to be out of the country.

Diplomacy and negotiation with other nations is not foreign to me. As I look upon my experience and the potential between two nations, I have some basic rules I would like to share. The first is that we need to respect ourselves. This means always thinking ahead to what can be expected or anticipated. Most importantly, we need to consider what we want and need, and what we want to come out of something with. We need to evaluate our priorities and take an inventory of what we have. The second rule is that we must respect our partner. We must think of what they want, look for mutual areas of co-operation and create options. This is very important for diplomacy. The third rule is that we must respect the process. We must recognize that everyone will always put their own interests first, but they are for the hope of mutual collaboration for beneficial outcomes.

I want to talk about what I saw with the Harper administration relative to the Trudeau government, and the fundamental problems that have manifested between Canada and the U.S.

Looking back to the Harper administration, I spent one year as a political adviser to the member for Thornhill, who at the time was minister of state for the Americas. We worked alongside titans of politics including John Baird, Jason Kenney and the former prime minister himself, Stephen Harper.

They were different from the current administration in that they were undying in their values. They had a set of core values based on democracy, justice and prosperity for Canada. Those were unwavering. They did not consider third-party opinions, like those of the World Economic Forum or what people thought at Davos, and they did not bow down to bullies. They always stood for our principles.

I compare that with what I see here today with the Trudeau government and the history that we have seen in the past five years. Its foreign policy is—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I did not call it out the first time, but the member has done it twice now. She has referred to the Prime Minister by his surname.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she is not to use the first or last name of parliamentarians in the House. I would just remind her not to do that again.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore can continue her speech.