House of Commons Hansard #376 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
I will take the floor for a minute to make sure everyone is keeping their comments to themselves.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the respect shown by my Conservative colleagues, for whom I have a great deal of affection.
I was somewhat blown away by the Conservative leader's intervention. This evening, we are tasked with coming up with solutions and trying to comfort and reassure business people and workers. The Conservative leader did not do that at all. Later I will turn my attention to the state of the government, but what we heard this evening are the same meaningless slogans. The new slogan of the day is “Canada first”. That is going to be the new mantra of the Conservative leader, who thinks that complex problems can be resolved with incantations. It is rather shocking.
That makes me think of a video I saw this summer. I was watching a video with my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who is mischievous and playful. There was a cowboy dressed all in white, and my colleague wondered if it was the cowboy from the Village People. Unfortunately, it was not him. It was the leader of the official opposition. He was not singing Y.M.C.A., though. He was describing his Canadian dream. In his Canadian dream, there are the Rockies, which are the mountains of Utah. We cannot make this stuff up. There is a sky, which is in Venezuela. Then there is a father driving a car in North Dakota. That is the official opposition leader's Canadian dream. We see a herd of cattle in California. To top it all off, we then see what are supposed to be Canadian fighter jets, but which are actually Russian jets.
It is just like the speech we heard from the leader of the official opposition just now. He was talking about real plans and real measures, but he did not come here to talk about American tariffs. Rather, he came to talk about his usual bugbears, namely the tax on carbon and fossil fuels, which is probably the most important thing to him after, say, sliced bread. On top of that, he also said that he would go back on liquefied natural gas development, end the government's woke agenda and return to a warrior culture. We are supposed to be talking about tariffs, and the leader of the official opposition is telling us that he is going to return to a warrior culture. I have never been more ashamed to be a Canadian parliamentarian than when I heard that and saw his MPs yelling, as though they were thrilled and excited and on the edge of their seats. My leader recently said the only sensible thing one could say in this Parliament: We need to leave and build our own country, right now. This is completely discouraging.
That being said, let us move on to something other than these empty slogans. Today, I heard the Prime Minister talk about team Canada. The Liberals are talking about team Canada, while the Conservatives' new pitch is “Canada first”. That does not speak to me because, if I look at history, Quebec has often been used as a bargaining chip in trade agreements. The Canadian economy is based on two pillars: the energy sector, with the fossil fuel industries, and the automotive sector. Every time there have been tough negotiations with the United States, Canada has prioritized these two sectors.
Today, I am going to ask my fellow members from Quebec, whether they are members of the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, to put everything in place and to make a reasonable effort to advance Quebec's interests. That is what I want for them. I am saying that because, when I look at the forestry industry, I have to say that it is always treated worse than any of Canada's other economic sectors. What is more, we are dealing with the threat of American tariffs, tariffs that the forestry industry is already grappling with, by the way. Even though Quebec has changed the way it calculates cubic metres of wood to bring it into line with the United States' demands, there are still tariffs. The forestry industry is experiencing a perfect storm.
Right now, $2 billion in tariffs is being held captive in U.S. accounts, where the forest industry cannot get at it. This is money we could be using to upgrade the forestry sector's facilities.
While I am on the topic of the forestry industry, I want to circle back to what the Leader of the Opposition said when he answered a question earlier. He said that, supposedly, we are not rising to support the forestry industry. Of course, he was referring to the conflict over the caribou order. I want to clarify a few things. The Minister of Environment paused his order at the request of the Bloc Québécois, which asked him to negotiate with the Government of Quebec, something he is apparently doing now. We said that it was possible to balance the need to protect caribou with the needs of the forestry industry.
I find it rather strange that the leader of the official opposition mentioned the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord when he was talking about the forestry industry. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord came with us to visit a sawmill in Lac-Saint-Jean this summer. He came out and said that the forestry sector needed more support and that everyone was hoping there would be no order.
When we spoke with people in the industry, they told us that the tariffs were one of their biggest problems. From what they told us, they would really like the federal government to implement a liquidity program to support the forestry industry. That way, sawmills that are struggling could ask the government to advance them the money that they have paid in tariffs. They could then reimburse it when they got it back. This would enable them to invest in their equipment. Unfortunately, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was not prepared to do that with us. He thought it was complicated and difficult. I find it rather odd that now I am being accused of having abandoned the forestry industry, when we are trying to come up with solutions.
As I was saying, the forest industry is at a crossroads, and not just because of tariffs. It has reached a crossroads because of a serious lack of financial support from the federal government, because the pulp and paper industry is in transition, because of the infamous caribou issue, and because of the forest fires.
What does the forestry industry need in order to overcome the tariff crisis? For one thing, there is the liquidity program I was talking about. The reason we need a liquidity program is that, if we want to fight tariffs, we need to make ourselves less dependent on the U.S. economy. We need to do more processing. Tariffs apply only on commodity products like two-by-fours, but there are no tariffs on processed goods. To expand our processing capabilities, we need financial support to help the forestry sector upgrade. Right now, that is impossible because tariffs are eating up too much of the forest sector's profits.
Ottawa provides basically no financial support for the forestry industry. The Bloc Québécois commissioned a study that shows that the government provides a scant $317 million a year to support the forestry industry across Canada. What is more, 75% of that $317 million for all of Canada is in the form of loans. This is not commensurate with what is given to the oil and gas sector.
For example, in Quebec, the federal government provides a mere $71 million in financial support. If we consider the fact that 75% of that amount is in the form of loans, that means that only $17 million is in the form of direct subsidies. The government is giving $17 million to one of Quebec's most important industries. It is easy to see that the federal government is providing minimal support. My region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean alone generates more in economic spinoffs for the federal government than the federal government provides in total support to Quebec.
We are going to have to support the forestry sector more if we want to fight effectively against the American tariffs that are coming. We need an investment strategy. Above all, we are going to need the federal government to understand that we can no longer be prisoners to commodity products, that we can no longer be prisoners to U.S. markets, and that we need to process products here.
When we, the members of the 2019 cohort, arrived here, we lived through the CUSMA negotiations on aluminum. I would remind members that the federal government had forgotten to protect aluminum and that aluminum was coming in through China. Once again, we were the ones who fought this battle, with the support of major unions and aluminum plants, to reach an agreement with the government that closed this loophole for aluminum entering through Mexico.
I still remember that, and I am talking about it because I see my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord sitting there. He started that battle with us, but unfortunately had to withdraw because his party did not agree with what we were asking for. His party did not agree that we should push for aluminum to be protected under CUSMA. I just want to say that the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition earlier, to the effect that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I are leaving our region out in the cold, left a very bitter taste in my mouth.
I was talking about the aluminum industry. The federal government is offering support, but only for primary aluminum. Again, if we do not want to be prisoners to U.S. tariffs, then we need to do more processing. I do not know if my colleagues remember, but during the first round of tariffs on aluminum in 2018, $120 million was paid in retaliatory tariffs that should have gone to the aluminum sector. That $120 million was never redistributed, according to a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
We made a proposal that would benefit the entire sector. Why not take that $120 million and put it in a fund for the aluminum processing sector? Why not make it a recurring fund that would allow us to process more of our grey metal here at home? Then we could reduce our dependency on the United States and create a lot more added value at home. That is the case for aluminum. There needs to be more processing. That is also the case for the forestry industry. We should be doing more processing.
Where we could take action, where everyone could take action if we want to protect ourselves from American tariffs, is on the much-talked-about supply management bill, Bill C‑282. It is currently in the Senate, so it simply needs to be sent back to the House. Perhaps my Conservative colleagues could put an end to their filibustering. We could have that debate and pass a bill that would protect our supply management system from American attacks, perhaps forever. I encourage my Conservative friends to end their filibustering.
Finally, as for the infamous issue that Mr. Trump raised about the border, we must admit that border management is a disaster. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government even lost track of certain travelers entering the country. It also lost track of irregular migrants. Who asked questions about this, day after day? It was the Bloc Québécois.
The Conservative Party is allowed 125 questions a week. I never heard them talk about border protection. I never heard them call for the closure of Roxham Road. I have never seen them do that. Today, they are acting holier-than-thou. The Conservative leader got up to make a speech about how we will have a warrior culture, not a woke culture. That is beyond belief.
If my Conservative colleagues had meaningful proposals to make, or even if the Liberal Party had meaningful proposals to make, what would we be talking about this evening? We would be talking about enhancing our bargaining relationship. If we want to enhance our bargaining relationship, we need to realize that 80% of everything we sell to the United States is primary materials.
These primary materials essentially serve the U.S. economy. What did the government do right when the tariffs were applied to aluminum? It applied retaliatory tariffs by selecting very specific products that put pressure on U.S. senators who could then have access to the government.
There has been no talk of that so far. I have not heard anyone say one word about that. The only thing we have heard is the vitriol of the Conservative leader, who is still trying to stoke public discontent and who is not capable of behaving like a head of government. I find that disappointing from the person who could be the next prime minister.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, one thing I noticed, and the member might also have noticed it, was the contrast between the speeches delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Conservative leader. The Deputy Prime Minister's speech was more of a discussion and an explanation of a team Canada approach for dealing with the trade negotiations.
It is in the best interest of all Canadians that our approach considers all the different sectors, including supply management. I agree with the member opposite; I would have loved to see the filibustering stop. In particular, one issue is that supply management in the Senate is being filibustered by Conservative senators.
The Conservative leader seemed to say in his speech, “Not to worry, it is all about me.” He says he will resolve it all, yet he was so quick to capitulate the last time around and did not place Canada first. Could the hon. member provide his thoughts on this contrast?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is probably a contrast in tone, but I started my speech by saying that, whether we are talking about “team Canada” or “Canada first”, the end result is always the same with either the Conservatives or the Liberals: Quebec takes a back seat. I have never seen a political party defend the forestry industry.
The Conservatives have bragged about the 2006 agreement, but they reduced our exports in 2006. Mr. Harper got into bed with Mr. Bush. They reduced our exports and made us lose $5 billion. They made the Quebec forestry industry lose $1 billion. I do not call that a great success. As for the Liberal government, it never wanted to fight for the softwood lumber industry. It is just that simple.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Jonquière said that the Conservatives never talked about closing borders after the problems we had with illegal immigrants.
My colleague was elected in 2019, if I am not mistaken. Since 2017, from day one, when the Prime Minister posted his infamous tweet inviting the whole world to come to Canada, I have been here and I have been asking questions. I even went to Roxham Road three times through the United States, and I took the leader of the Conservative Party at the time there, too. I have done interviews and spoken about it many times in the House. I would like my colleague to withdraw his remarks because my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill and I have held press conferences and issued press releases. We have been there ourselves, many times. What he said is false.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party gets 125 questions a week. As I said earlier, since January 1, the Conservatives have asked 15 questions on immigration. I encourage my colleague to check the record. None of their opposition days have dealt with this or the border issue, but they have dedicated 18 opposition days to the carbon tax. Every day, I hear the Conservatives say they want an election on the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec. The answer is quite simple. My colleague is a Conservative, like all the others, who will defend Canada before defending Quebec.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague, who represents a region with a strong forestry industry. I, too, represent a region in this Parliament where there is a forestry industry.
We have seen the Harper regime's approach. As the member rightly said, the Conservatives at the time gave $1 billion to the Americans. After winning in all the courts, we were nearly at the victory line, but the Conservatives gave it all away. Not only that, we also lost 100,000 jobs and 200 lumber mills across the country. It was a total disaster. The leader of the official opposition says it was a victory. It was not a victory at all.
I wanted to get my colleague's opinion on this. Does he agree that it was a real disaster that we lost 100,000 jobs, 200 softwood lumber mills and $1 billion?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. It was not a disaster, it was a catastrophe.
From 2005 to 2011, Quebec's forestry sector shrank by 30%, yet the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party did nothing. As I was saying earlier on, Canada relies on two economic pillars: oil and gas. As we saw, the leader of the official opposition used a quarter of his speaking time to crow about energy and new LNG projects. At a time when American surtaxes are all the talk, this seems rather surprising. If I heard him talk about softwood lumber, it was in answer to a question I had asked him.
My colleague is absolutely right. The forestry sector in Quebec has been completely demolished, and the federal government has washed its hands of it.
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Bloc Québécois is here to defend the interests of Quebec, not the interests of Alberta.
I would like my hon. colleague from Jonquière to tell us about the Bloc Québécois's trade negotiation priorities for the coming months. What are we going to hammer home and how are we going to defend Quebec's interests?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, and as we have been saying for a long time, if we want to protect ourselves from American tariffs, more processing at home is the answer.
Unfortunately, the forestry sector receives no federal government support. Sawmills that ask the federal government for financial support are referred to Global Affairs Canada, where they are automatically turned down. Rather surprisingly, sawmills are unable to apply for support from Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.
We want the federal government to better support the forestry industry and follow the example that Quebec set in its latest budget by implementing a liquidity program. I would like to hear from the Conservatives on that.
Concerning the $2 billion belonging to forestry companies that are sitting idle in the United States, how can we return it to the people who unfairly paid it? How can we do that? Instead of telling us that they are in a fighting mood and are going to produce more liquefied natural gas, I would like the Conservatives to talk to us about our industries at home. That would be interesting.
We also need more processing in the aluminum sector. We cannot just support primary aluminum. We also need to support processors. There are many initiatives that could be put in place to do that.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, the aluminum sector is very important to the Quebec economy. Many years ago, I visited what, at the time, was called the Alma smelter in the Lac Saint-Jean region of Quebec. I was there for a few days, working for a rating agency at the time.
Can the member tell us how important the aluminum sector is to the province of Quebec and to the rest of Canada, including British Columbia, where there are smelters in Trail and Kitimat, in terms of creating jobs? How important is that product for the U.S. economy?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Trump is an irrational political player, but personally, I do not believe that the Americans should be imposing tariffs on aluminum, because they do not produce primary aluminum. If I remember correctly, there is only one aluminum smelter operating in the United States. We are the biggest producers of primary aluminum in North America. It is Quebec, particularly my region and the north shore, that produces all of the aluminum. It would be rather odd to add tariffs for the Americans who process it.
However, we have seen in the past that Mr. Trump can sometimes act irrationally. If we want to guard against that, I still think that we should increase aluminum processing here at home. To make that happen, the federal government could invest reasonable amounts. We were simply asking the government to take $120 million from the 2018 counter-tariffs and put it into a permanent fund. That is not too much to ask of the federal government, but it never agreed to do so. At the same time, however, it is prepared to put $34 billion into a pipeline. That is almost $83 billion that the government is going to invest in the pipe dream of clean oil by 2035. What a double standard.
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, two things we have been talking about tonight, of course, are trade deals and a renegotiated CUSMA.
I was certainly concerned about the loss of 10% of the supply-managed sector, such as dairy farmers here in Canada, egg producers, chicken farmers and so on, that was negotiated by the Liberal government. If there is a future negotiation in terms of, clearly, what Trump has been talking about, which is to reopen CUSMA, I am concerned about what that might mean.
What are the hon. member's concerns about that for those supply-managed sectors?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, certainly the fear is that if CUSMA is renegotiated, new cracks will appear in supply management. Ideally, Bill C-282 will be passed quickly. Unfortunately, we are paralyzed here. The Liberal government seems to be a doormat, I have to say, for two senators who have decided to act like kings. It is rather disappointing. There is a bill on the table, our bill, and the Liberals and the NDP voted in favour of it. Even some Conservatives voted in favour of it. I do not see why we would not implement it and protect all of our farmers.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House and see many of my colleagues here this evening speaking to an important topic. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member, good friend and always smiling colleague, the member for Surrey—Newton.
As we speak tonight about the relationship between Canada and the United States, I speak with the perspective of having worked and lived in New York City for several years. It was many years ago, but I had the real privilege and honour of working in the United States of America and being there for a number of years, at a very interesting time politically with elections and also during the events of September 11 and then returning back to Canada. We have many family members and friends all over the United States with whom we keep in contact.
I would say about U.S. exceptionalism that the relationship that we have with the United States is a long-standing one. We are more than friends. We have this expression: We are fraternal, we are brothers, we are sisters. Many of us go back and forth. I was in the United States just several weeks ago taking my daughter to a soccer tournament in Akron, Ohio at the Pro Football Hall of Fame area. It was great to be there in Ohio and play against many teams from the northeast.
Let us be frank here. This debate is very important because it is about our economy, the U.S. economy and the North American economy. For the last 12 months, Canada has exported $173.4 billion of energy exports to the United States; $78.3 billion in auto and auto parts exports to the United States; $63.2 billion in consumer goods; $50 billion in metal and non-metallic mineral products; and $38.8 billion in forestry. The United States needs us and we need them due to the interdependency, the supply chains, the linkages, the people-to-people ties and the fact that $3.5 billion of trade goes across that border every day unhindered and unimpeded, creating wealth and creating jobs. There are millions of jobs in the United States of America that are tied to Canada, and vice versa. The U.S. is our largest export market and we are their largest export market. Larger than China and larger than Mexico, our trading relationship has grown and continues to grow and our people-to-people relationship continues to grow. We need to emphasize that point over and over again.
Our government has dealt with the 45th president, the first Trump presidency. We will again have a mature, responsible dialogue with this incoming administration on how we can secure our borders and our energy. Three million barrels of oil is shipped every day from Canada to the United States. There are no alternatives. Our auto companies are interdependent. Parts go back and forth every day across the border in Detroit and in Windsor. This relationship is a special one and we must always act with maturity, with calm and with poise, always defending Canadian workers and always defending Canadian businesses. That is our job.
I would like to just digress for one minute because there is something very important I need to point out from my riding. My riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge has over 368 restaurants, employing 5,000 employees and with almost $500 million of revenue. We have put forward a plan to give Canadians a break and to help out these restaurants over the two-month period over the Christmas holidays, into the new year and past Valentine's Day. Let us do the right thing. To all my hon. colleagues, let us get this passed for the restaurants like Via Mercanti and Castello, Gelato Gelato, That's Italian, Zafferano, Spizzico and all those beautiful restaurants like Desserts Plus and L'antipasto that I visit on occasion. Their customers can go there and get a break. I have always been taught, in my values, that every little bit helps and it is imperative that we do that.
I will go back to the very important trade relationship we have with the United States and any potential tariffs they may place on either Canadian or Mexican products. I am convinced that with the unique relationship we have, forged by geography, values, common interests, strong personal connections and powerful, multi-layered economic ties, their economy only succeeds when we work together. We know that. Any potential tariffs that the Trump administration potentially places on any country will only raise inflation in the United States, prevent interest rates from falling in the United States and hurt U.S. consumers. I understand that as an economist, and I believe we all understand that.
As Canadian parliamentarians, our first priority is our residents and businesses, and ensuring a bright future for all Canadians. I am here to ensure that the Canadian economy succeeds. I ran, in the first place, because the economic growth rates and direction we were seeing under the Harper government were abysmal. We delivered, and we will continue to deliver on the relationship with our U.S. friends and cousins. I have cousins in New Jersey. I will give them a quick shout-out. They have been there for decades. Just to give a small fact, my great-grandfather passed through Ellis Island in 1909. We have the ship manifest when he signed in at Ellis Island. He returned to southern Italy just a few years later, but those are the kinds of ties that Canadians have to the United States. Some of my employees have family in the United States, in Washington, D.C., if I remember correctly.
This economic partnership between our countries supports millions of jobs through direct foreign investment and cross-border trade. These are integrated economies. Canada imports more from the U.S. than any other country by a wide margin. In fact, Canada buys over two times more goods from the U.S. than China. The United States needs us and we need them to succeed economically, to ensure the security of North America and to work together on so many mutual interests.
Canadian consumers and Canadian businesses purchase more goods from the United States than China, Japan and Germany combined. Nearly half of the goods the U.S. buys from Canada are raw materials used by American manufacturers, contributing to jobs in the U.S. and North American competitiveness. Canadian companies buy from U.S. sources to make Canadian products. In short, the U.S. trade relationship is built on long-standing binational supply chains, where roughly 70% of Canadian exports to the United States are incorporated into U.S. supply chains.
There is no better example of this than the auto sector. It is a sector I covered in the private sector for many years and I chair the Liberal auto caucus here in Ottawa. Martinrea, Magna and Linamar on the auto parts supplier side, along with Toyota, Honda, Stellantis, Ford, General Motors and Volkswagen all depend on an integrated supply chain that links us with the United States. It is so important that continues.
In my last minute, I want to highlight a few things that I think are making a difference in the lives of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, which is the logistics hub for many U.S. companies. Home Depot, FedEx, UPS and Costco are all located in the city of Vaughan, in my riding. CPKC's intermodal facility is in my riding; it is the busiest intermodal facility in the country. The CN MacMillan Yard is located in Vaughan; it is the largest CN facility in the country. The area I represent is a hub. Tens of thousands of jobs in my riding and in my city are connected to trade and investment in the United States.
We must all be part of team Canada. We all must represent Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast. That is our number one job, and we will do that by working with all members of Parliament to ensure a bright future for all citizens and residents.
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, this debate we are having tonight, which was put forward by my colleague from Windsor West, is a really good reminder of how important it is that we are doing the work to support workers and Canadian products. In my home province alone, British Columbia has exported more than $5.7 billion in wood products to the U.S., more than $3.5 billion in agriculture products and over $8.2 billion in energy products, including $4.8 billion in natural gas just last year.
Why have we not seen the government take the industrial strategies my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach spoke so well about tonight in his speech to see value-added products, like the B.C. softwood products, for example, to see workers supported, to see Canadian products developed and to see our local Canadian economy supported? Why have we not seen the government do that to prepare us for a situation like we are in right now?
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the B.C. resource sector. Actually, I worked at a pulp mill growing up in northern British Columbia, in Prince Rupert, my hometown, where I was born and raised until I moved away. The LNG facility being constructed will export LNG to Asia. Also, the western Canadian sedimentary basin in northeast B.C. obviously exports a ton of natural gas to the United States. I would say that the proud resource sector of British Columbia has existed for decades. I remember the MacMillan Bloedel days, as my hon. colleagues would know, and it is something we should be proud of and support. Again, it goes back to my theme that the U.S. economy, the U.S. citizens, our friends and neighbours down in the south need us as much as we need them. We will have responsible leadership, like we did in the first Trump administration, to make sure we get a good deal with the United States that represents the interests of our workers and their workers.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the speech of the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I have had many opportunities to speak with the member, as have many of my colleagues, over the last number of years. He has had impassioned conversations with many of us about how his government has failed his constituents. As a matter of fact, on many occasions, the hon. member broached the subject of crossing the floor to the Conservative Party, believing that he would better serve his constituents by becoming a member of this caucus, which would defend his constituents. I wonder if he still believes, and if he will openly share his belief, that his constituents would be best represented by a Conservative member of Parliament.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, when I was 14 years old, I joined the Liberal Party of Canada, and I have been a member ever since. I will always be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I will ensure that to my residents. I ran as a Liberal, and I will run again as a Liberal. I will ensure that for a fact.
I am a very passionate person, and I speak my mind, and I am fine with that. To the hon. colleague, shame on him for asking that type of question. That, to me, is totally unnecessary.
I look forward to the next election, when I am talking about the Canada dental care plan, the Canada child benefit and what I have delivered for the city of Vaughan—
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
—and to all its residents.
To the member for Dufferin—Caledon, keep chirping.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity to review the CUSMA, which is the current trade agreement that was signed by the United States, Canada and Mexico on July 1, 2020. It says that CUSMA will expire in 2036 unless it is extended before that, and the parties agreed to review the treaty every six years. This means the first review of this treaty would come up in 2026, meaning that what the President-elect of the United States has really done is threaten to abrogate and to tear up a trade agreement that was signed in good faith by all three parties.
I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any thoughts on that and what it does for a country like the United States, which claims to believe in an international rules-based order, in the World Trade Organization and in orderly managed trade. What does it say to him when the President-elect of the United States says that he would rip up an agreement signed in good faith, in violation of the terms of that agreement?
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from British Columbia, with whom I work closely on the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, of which I am the chair, I will say that we need to always emphasize and re-emphasize rules-based trade. We always need to emphasize our multilateral institutions. Canada is a founding partner of many of those institutions, from NATO to the WTO.
We must work together. We must point out to the United States, always, to any administration, that we are more than their friends; we are neighbours, we are family. Its success is dependent on us, our success is dependent on it, and that is what is most important. I look forward to working with the incoming administration and all the officials, as a member of the Canada-U.S. parliamentary association and as one of the vice-chairs.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to thank the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for sharing his time. With his background in economics and finance, he always does amazing work when it comes to issues like the one before us.
I rise today to address a critical issue that may have a significant impact on our economy, our workers and our relationship with our largest trading partner. On the heels of President-elect Trump's announcement that the United States will potentially impose a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, it is essential that we as elected representatives respond with clarity and a commitment to protect the interests of Canadians.
Canada and the United States share one of the most successful and interdependent trading relationships in the world. Our economies are deeply connected, with billions of dollars in trade crossing our borders annually, supporting millions of jobs in both our countries.
We are not just trade partners; we are also neighbours and allies. From the steel used in American manufacturing to the agricultural products that sustain both of our populations, Canada has been a reliable supplier and a trusted partner. Any disruption to this relationship jeopardizes the prosperity of both nations.
The announcement of a 25% tariff has the potential to shift our entire economic landscape, which will have massive consequences for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. Our industries, particularly in manufacturing, agriculture and energy, will face higher costs, reduced competitiveness and the potential loss of vital export markets.
When we consider the automobile sector, in which the United States imports over 80% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada, a 25% tariff would increase costs for automakers and consumers alike, strain supply chains and put thousands of Canadian jobs at risk. Similarly, agriculture producers will struggle to compete in a U.S. market, potentially leading to reduced income and financial instability for farming communities throughout our country.
The effects will extend beyond individual sectors. Small businesses reliant on trade with the U.S. will face uncertainty and potential closure. Consumers will bear the burden of rising prices for goods. The economic ties that have long been the foundation of our relationship with the United States will be tested in exceptional ways.
Canada has navigated past challenges in its trading relationship with the United States. The negotiations of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement is a testament to our ability to stand firm and secure outcomes that protect Canadian interests. During those negotiations, we faced pressure from the U.S. administration, including threats of steep tariffs on key Canadian exports like steel and aluminum.
However, Canada did not falter. Under the leadership of a skilled and determined negotiating team, we advanced our priorities and also safeguarded our key industries. We achieved crucial wins, including maintaining dispute resolution mechanisms, preserving cultural exemptions and securing access to critical markets for our farmers and manufacturers.
The CUSMA negotiations demonstrated Canada's strength and resilience and our commitment to protecting the livelihood of our workers while ensuring fairness in trade. We proved that, even in the face of a challenging partner, we could achieve outcomes that benefit both nations. Those experiences will provide valuable lessons as we confront this latest challenge.
We must also address the principle at the heart of the issue: fair and mutual trade. Canada has always advocated for a trade system based on mutual benefit, fairness and the rule of law. One-sided tariffs undermine these principles, creating a landscape of uncertainty rather than co-operation.
President-elect Trump's decision appears to be driven by a protectionist agenda, yet it fails to consider the implications for economic stability across North America. Protectionism can often lead to retaliation and trade wars, which leaves all parties worse off. It is important that Canada stand firm in opposing this approach by remaining committed to constructive dialogue.
In the face of this challenge, we must prioritize the protection of Canadian industries and workers. This means providing targeted support to sectors most affected by the tariffs, whether through financial assistance, tax relief or measures to diversify export markets. Our goal should be to ensure that no Canadian loses their job because of another country's trade policies.
Canada must work with international partners to uphold the rules-based global trading system. The World Trade Organization provides mechanisms for addressing trade issues, and Canada must use every tool possible to challenge the legality of the tariffs.
We must also engage in strategic and measured diplomacy with the United States. It is crucial to convey the message that the tariffs harm both nations and undermine decades of economic partnership. Canada must be clear that while we are open to negotiations, we will not be bullied into agreements that compromise our economic sovereignty.
Finally, this is an opportunity to invest in our economic resilience. By enhancing trade relationships with other global partners and fostering innovation at home, Canada can reduce its reliance on the U.S. market and ensure long-term economic stability.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty to rise above partisanship and present a united front in the face of this challenge. We must take a team Canada approach. The stakes are too high for division. Our response must reflect the strength and determination of Canadians. This is not about tariffs; it is about defending our values, our economy and our future. It is about showing the world that Canada will not stand down when faced with difficulties.
I call on Parliament to stand with Canadian workers and businesses to defend our trade interests and to reaffirm our commitment to a fair and prosperous global economy. Let us take this challenge as an opportunity to strengthen our nation.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member talk about the challenge we have with the potential of 25% tariffs being imposed on Canada, because it is kind of like Groundhog Day. The member might not know this, but in 2018, the United States slapped section 232 tariffs on Canada: 25% for steel and 10% for aluminum.
Some people may be wondering why I would bring this up. What does it have to do with 25% tariffs today? The real problem then was the border. Just as President-elect Trump has said, the problem now is the border. In 2018, Chinese steel was coming into Canada, going down into the United States and taking out American steel. It became such a problem that the then president of the United States imposed a 25% tariff. We are now going to have it on everything because of the complete mismanagement of the border yet again.
Why should Canadians trust the Liberals to get anything right when they have gotten everything wrong in this relationship?