Debates of Feb. 4th, 2021

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

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful discussion of the motion before the House right now.

We will be very changed as we start coming out of this pandemic, and so I want to get the member's thoughts on the opportunities he might see coming out of this for both of our countries to better work together as a result of our being changed by the pandemic. I would love to hear his thoughts on that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, there will be lots of changes. That is one thing we were doing previously at the trade committee. We were talking to people all summer about the post-COVID period. What would that look like? What new alliances are being formed? What will other countries' reactions be as they try to get their economies back and going? Will we be setting non-trade tariff barriers, and those types of things?

This is where we need each other even more. It is important to draw on each other's wisdom and strengths. Accordingly, this becomes more and more important. It is up to us to identify the strengths that we bring to the table and the strengths they bring to the table, which is what the proposed committee could really help us do.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to let my colleague from Prince Albert know that the Bloc Québécois agrees with the motion and will be voting to support it. However, we also want the committee to study the impacts of the fight against climate change on the energy sector and to include environmental and ecological criteria in its analysis of the opportunities presented by this economic and trade relationship between Quebec, Canada and the United States.

I would like to hear his thoughts on what the Bloc Québécois is suggesting for this committee study.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not 100% sure how to comment on the Bloc's suggestion other than to say that I think of the great recommendations that came out post-CUSMA as that trade deal was announced. One of the things suggested by the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was the green, environmentally friendly aluminum made in Quebec, which has had such a better impact on the environment than any other aluminum in the world, and how that should be given preferential treatment.

It is ideas like that to come to the committee that can help with the environment because we have lots of technologies, whether carbon capture in Saskatchewan or the oil and gas sector in Alberta, compared with other countries around the world. We could share that information with the U.S. and show them how we are being responsible and taking the environment seriously. I know that some of our colleagues across Canada would understand that as well.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question stems in part from the poster behind my colleague and the obvious tribute to our former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker who was elected in the member's part of the country. While I would disagree with a number of positions that Mr. Diefenbaker took, many of us know that he was a prime minister who did prioritize Canadian jobs. That is something we have lost sight of. We know that the kind of approach we have seen to free trade in recent years has led to the loss of good, unionized, family and community-sustaining jobs in our communities.

Yes, today we are talking about a committee, but does the member not agree that we Canadians need an approach to trade that has as its priority the well-being of Canadian workers?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the previous trade agreements and how they have evolved, when they were originally done, that is exactly what they were doing. They were looking at the best macroeconomic situation for the country of Canada as a whole. That always involves some economic transfers. Where we have failed is that when we have seen those economic transfers happen, when we have seen people left out, we did not do anything to address that.

That was the big issue that emerged in the Midwest during the election of Donald Trump, because the rust belt states had been left out and there was nothing there to assist them. That is the difference between new trade deals, such as CUSMA, and older deals. We actually addressed it to the conservative side, saying let us address aluminum and softwood lumber, let us talk about the people left out. We identified them for the government and now the government should take steps to help those people out. It does not do that, however, which is the unfortunate part.

We must have a whole, encompassing aspect to trade. When we realize that certain sectors are being left out or disadvantaged, we have to figure out how to help those people. One thing we have learned over the last five years is that it is different from before.

[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 a pleasure to address the chamber today on what is no doubt a very important issue. I was trying to think of what the Conservatives might have for their first opposition day of the new year. This motion would not have been my first choice. It might have been my second choice, but not my first.

I still think the biggest concern Canadians have today is the coronavirus pandemic. They want to hear what the government and parliamentarians have to say about it. We have a very solid plan with commitments that will provide assurances and hope for Canadians.

There is nothing wrong with having a different type of debate. Today's debate is important, so it is with pleasure that I add a few thoughts on the important bilateral relationship we have with the United States.

Let there be no doubt that it is the most important trading relationship. It has been suggested in the past, as it has been today, that one of the most important roles that any prime minister has is to ensure that the relationship between the United States and Canada is healthy and moving forward. It is in our best interest that there is a good relationship.

I heard some of the numbers earlier. I believe there is over $2 billion a day in cross-border trade. That is very impressive. No other country comes even close to that.

If we look at the last five years, the Prime Minister has seen three presidents. One was former president Barack Obama, and it was quite a treat when he came to visit the House of Commons. He spoke on the floor of the chamber, as members will recall. There was also former president Donald Trump, and now President Biden.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs made reference to in his opening remarks, the first international foreign leader the current President of the United States talked to was our Prime Minister. The very first connection the Vice-President made internationally was in Canada. This underlines the importance of our relationship and that our current Prime Minister and administrations south of the border recognize just how special and unique this bilateral relationship is.

I listened to members talk about the issue of trade. Often when I talk about trade, I will talk about Manitoba's pork industry because I am very proud of it. It is very easy to explain so that people will understand the benefits. However, I want to focus on another industry in Manitoba: the bus industry. I wanted to cite New Flyer Industries, and if someone were to look it up, as I just did, they would see Wikipedia summarizes it quite nicely.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague was so excited to talk about this topic that he forgot to mention he wanted to share his time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. Maybe we should give him an opportunity to clarify this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought I had, but in case I did not, I would love to share my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

New Flyer Industries embodies why it is very important that people recognize the value of that relationship. New Flyer Industries, based in Winnipeg, is a manufacturer of transit buses and motor coaches. The company is the largest bus manufacturer in North America, with a 43% market share of all heavy-duty transit buses and a 45% market share of all motor coaches produced in 2018. The company employs 9,300 people across 50 facilities in the United States and Canada. We should remember that its home base is in Winnipeg. Canada manufactures world-class buses, second to no other.

I suspect if we looked at every province, whether it is Quebec, Ontario, B.C. or Nova Scotia, and up north in the territories, we would find there are direct links to trade with the United States. As I said, there is $2 billion a day in cross-border trade, and a lot of that trade is not just widgets that go up for sale. Our economies are melded together in many ways, because something that is manufactured in the United States might come to Canada, or vice versa, as a part that ultimately turns into a final product.

A good example of that is our automobile industry. Our automotive industry is interconnected with that of the United States. Steel and parts go back and forth and final products come off of different assembly lines. These are absolutes. We need this.

The Government of Canada recognized that right from the get-go. When the Prime Minister was elected in 2015, it was not much longer until President Obama spoke to us on the floor of House of Commons. With reference to the current President, we do not need to be lectured in any fashion. I believe and hope we are not being lectured, because all parliamentarians have an understanding of that important relationship.

The CUSMA deal is something all of us should take pride in. Canada has an incredible group of individuals who have negotiated very important international agreements. Think of how many countries we have signed trade agreements with in the last five years. We are talking about dozens of countries. Not one prime minister has signed off on more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister, and that includes agreements with the United States and Mexico, our most important trading allies.

We have recognized the importance of trade agreements from the beginning. We understand and appreciate the true value of them and recognize why it is so important that we continue to have professionals negotiating on our behalf and working with the different ministries. It is important that we recognize the efforts they put in for all Canadians, because we all benefit. One of the ways we build Canada's middle class is to get strong jobs, and those jobs, in good part, are being created by international trade agreements.

I was very proud of the fact that ministers, the government and other members contributed to ultimately getting the CUSMA deal. We have a parliamentary friendship group that is fairly proactive. I only wish we would be equally proactive with our Philippines friendship group in terms of the number of connections and the amount of travel that occurred between the U.S. and Canada with the Canada-U.S. friendship group. There is such a strong relationship between our two nations, and I believe it is the personal contacts that often assist in negotiations.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that for just over 30 American states, Canada is their number-one trading partner. They are very much in need of Canadian consumers. Equally, we need American consumers to consume our products. It is a mutual benefit.

We can show this to the world. We should be very proud of our democracy, proud of the fact that we are in America and proud of the wonderful things that our democracy and sense of capitalism can accomplish.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for showing some passion.

I had the opportunity to tour New Flyer Industries in Winnipeg. It is a great organization. However, it has always had little problems dealing with the U.S., including with buy America and American content rules. This committee could deal with those problems and progressively or aggressively seek solutions.

Listening to the member's speech, it sounds like the Liberals are going to support this motion. What other things does the member think this committee could do that would be positive for Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member went out to visit New Flyer. When the Prime Minister was leader of the third party, he came to Winnipeg and asked about things he could do. I said we could go to New Flyer. He had an opportunity to see it, so our Prime Minister has a good sense of the importance of the industry, in particular in my home city of Winnipeg.

Having said that, hopefully we can depoliticize the committee so that it is not partisan. It should not be used as a partisan tool to take nothing but shots at the government. The friendship group demonstrated very clearly how it can reach out and contribute very positively.

Obviously there is going to be a certain element of politics in regard to this particular committee, but it would be nice if there were not. I know the member who posed the question understands the importance of working party with party to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, this time last week, almost to the minute, the parliamentary secretary was talking about Bill C-18. He said that the Bloc Québécois members are always antagonistic, that we complain about not having this or that in trade agreements, and that we should understand that in order to reach an agreement, compromises have to be made.

Still, when I look at Canada's relationship with the United States, I have to ask, who is always making these compromises? In the supply management file, it is Quebec. It is Quebec that had to fight tooth and nail against the lack of protection for aluminum in CUSMA. Regarding the forestry industry, the chief negotiator who appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources told us that that industry was not a priority. As for aerospace, we never hear anything about it.

When the parliamentary secretary tells us that we need to get on team Canada, my response is that Quebec is often the one to make compromises for team Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken on numerous occasions about the aerospace industry and the supply management industry, as have many of my colleagues. We understand the importance of supply management and have consistently made sure that we protect it. In fact, it was a Liberal administration that first brought in supply management. We are there to protect our industries.

The difference between us and the Bloc is that we recognize that, when sitting down at a trade agreement table, we have to negotiate. We cannot just say no and that everything has to be one way. That is not realistic.

I want and will always fight for supply management. I will always fight for Canada's aerospace industry, whether in Quebec or Manitoba. These industries are important to our country and we will fight for them.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague.

When we talk about trade agreements, we are obviously talking about trade or industry partners, but also sometimes competitors, as he pointed out. I want to focus on the aerospace sector, which has been seriously neglected by the Liberal government.

The United States has a national aerospace strategy. Canada does not. The United States uses the defence sector to support good American aerospace jobs. Canada does not do that. The United States signs agreements guaranteeing that a certain percentage of parts will be made in the United States by American workers. Canada does not do that.

When will the Liberal government support the tens of thousands of good aerospace jobs in Canada, and especially in Quebec, with a real strategy for this sector?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is factually incorrect. To try to imply to Canadians that this government is not or has not been supportive of the aerospace industry is just wrong. We have pumped in tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars of direct support into the aerospace industry. Whether in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec or Ontario, this government has been there for our aerospace industry. We recognize the value—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will now resume debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this opposition motion from the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. I thank her for bringing this forward.

Trading and our relationship with the United States is for me, and for my riding and my constituents, very important. Canada is a trading nation. We have benefited greatly from both our north-south linkages and from those with other continents through CETA and the CPTPP.

In particular, however, our relationship with the United States has been so important to me. I have had the privilege of working the global financial markets for several years, both here in Canada and in New York City. I have many relatives, as do so many Canadians, that live and have been living in the United States for many years.

In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, here in the city of Vaughan, there are literally thousands of trade-dependent jobs. The distribution facility for Home Depot is located in my riding. The distribution facilities for all of eastern Canada for Home Depot and Costco are in my riding. The UPS distribution facility and the FedEx distribution logistics hub are here in the city of Vaughan. The busiest intermodal facility for Canadian Pacific, which is called their Chicago-Toronto line, their intermodal facility, is in the heart of my riding, and the CN's MacMillan Yard, the largest CN yard in the country, is located here in the city of Vaughan.

We are not only a trade-dependant country. My riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge is a trade-dependent entity in terms of economics and in terms of creating good middle-class jobs.

This motion addresses a number of important issues, and I am pleased to speak to it today. In the time allotted to me, 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.

With respect to Line 5, our government has been extremely clear. This project has our unequivocal support, and we are using every tool at our disposal to see it move forward. Line 5 is vital to the energy security of Canada and North America. Our government takes this issue very seriously, and any suggestion to the contrary from the opposition is not only misleading but also irresponsible, a political game that this side of the House has no interest in playing.

The importance of Line 5 unquestionably goes beyond partisan politics. It supports thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec, as well as in western Canada. It is essential for keeping the lights and heat on for millions of Canadians, and it provides a critically important fuel source for farmers and industry. Line 5 provides jet fuel for Pearson Airport, Canada's busiest airport.

Running from Wisconsin through Michigan 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 it enters 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. It has operated safely for over 65 years.

Enbridge is now proposing to dig a tunnel to replace the two oil pipelines that run along the lake bed under the Straits of Mackinac.

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

Michigan's Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy approved the project a few days ago on January 29, after an extensive nine-month review involving the State Historic Preservation Office and a report by an independent civil engineering firm specializing in complex tunnelling projects, which 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.

The director of EGLE's water resources division, Ms. Teresa Seidel, said, “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 this impact be? According to EGLE, this project would result in minimal impact to wetlands. In fact, it 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 the state environmental laws.

Let me emphasize that Michigan's environmental agency has ruled that the project is completely safe. This is not Enbridge's opinion, nor is it Canada's opinion. It is the finding of the agency responsible for enforcing Michigan's environmental legislation. This is the point that our government raised with U.S. officials. However, their response is that they want to stop the project.

What we have heard this week from the Leader of the Opposition and others on the other side of this House is that we are not doing anything. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government of Canada has supported Enbridge in this dispute for three years, at both diplomatic and political levels, and we will continue to do so.

Ambassador Hillman is making the case. 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 former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm as soon as she is confirmed as the 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.

Let me now turn to the broader context of the energy relationship between Canada and the United States, a relationship worth more than $100 billion in cross-border trade. In total, more than 70 pipelines and over 30 transmission lines already cross the Canada-U.S. border, creating the most integrated energy system in the world. As a result, Canadian oil accounts for more than half of all the crude oil that the United States imports each year. Alberta alone sends more than three million barrels a day south of the border, to the U.S. Midwest and Rocky Mountains region. Canadian crude represents roughly 70% of the feedstock used in local refineries. In Michigan, half of all homes are heated with propane from Canada.

It is the same with other energy sources of Canada. 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 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. I will be clear that any shutdown of Line 5 would have significant economic impacts, not just in Ontario and Quebec, but in Michigan and neighbouring states. In Houston four years ago—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that you are fighting for Line 5 and will definitely not shut it down, because the economy depends on it. I am just concerned about the fact that you were not fighting as hard for Keystone XL or any of the other pipelines

My question to you is this: Why do we have to keep bringing up these committees to start dealing with international partners? That is my concern. How do you view that, as parliamentarians, we have to keep coming back to say that the Liberal Party is not supporting the Canadian people?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would like to remind the hon. member that he speaks through the Speaker, and I have no opinions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my capacity as vice-chair of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, and in my capacity as a member of Parliament, I know our government and all parliamentarians, day in and day out, want a stronger and more robust relationship with the United States. We want jobs to be created, and our government has been at the forefront in strengthening and improving our trading relationships, not only with our southern neighbour, but also with all countries in the world.

We know that trade-dependent jobs tend to pay more than the average and tend to provide greater benefits, and I will always be at the forefront fighting for that. Yes, I was personally disappointed when Keystone XL's permit was revoked, but we have many pipelines crossing our borders. We are supportive of Line 3 and Line 5. We approved the Novagas transmission line in the province of Alberta.

Our government supports Canadian workers and will always help the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, throughout the pandemic, the NDP has been fighting for protections for workers, and we feel that the Liberals have been incredibly opaque on this.

For example, in April former finance minister Morneau stated in a press conference that no workers would be asked to return to unsafe work environments. Finance Minister Freeland then stated the same in May. I, myself, wrote to Minister Qualtrough requesting written confirmation on worker protections, and the new President of the United States has implemented these protections—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I remind the hon. member to not use the names of current members of the House.