Debates of Dec. 17th, 2024

International Trade

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I drew a straight line from the substance of the debate, which dealt with international trade, and the election results. I am quite interested to hear more about the connection between international trade and the election results last night.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As members know, we give a lot of latitude on what we can bring forward. We know we have specific amounts of time, and I will ask the hon. member to get to the point at hand.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the NDP, for their continued cowardly support of the woke Prime Minister, got 12% of the vote. The costly coalition is delivering devastating electoral results for the government.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to international trade, technically, no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government. That speaks volumes about the degree to which the government understands and appreciates that Canada is a trading nation and that part of being a trading nation is supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

I am a bit surprised that, in the most recent vote on a trade agreement with Ukraine, the Conservatives voted against a Canada-Ukraine trade agreement; this includes the member who just spoke. I suspect I am going to get more time as we go on this morning, and I look forward to telling the Conservatives why they are an absolute and total failure when it comes to the trade file over the last year.

Can the member explain why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. They tried to put a carbon tax in a trade agreement for the first time ever. It was desperate and pathetic; we voted against a bad trade agreement. To get back to the point at hand, on softwood lumber, nine billion dollars' worth of duties have now been collected by the United States and tens of thousands of workers are out of work. Moreover, the person who chairs the Canada cabinet committee for Canada-United States relations just resigned, saying that the government is engaging in election gimmicks.

At a time when we are facing 25% tariffs from the incoming president of the United States and a nine-year dispute on softwood lumber going nowhere, their incompetence is unrivalled in terms of this file. The only question I really have is this: Why is the NDP still supporting the terrible government, especially after getting crushed in B.C. with 12% in this by-election?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to speak to the international trade motion, but after listening carefully to my Conservative colleague's speech, I will ask him a question about the Cloverdale—Langley City byelection instead. The Conservative candidate who was elected is a former member of this Parliament known for her highly controversial opinions. For one thing, she is pro-life.

I would like to know what my Conservative colleague thinks about her arrival in caucus. Will it strengthen that particular position within his party?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what controversial views he is talking about. What I do know is this: She got 66% of the vote, crushing the Liberals by 50%. Every member in the Liberal caucus now knows their seat is in danger. They have lost elections in Toronto and Montreal, and they have now been destroyed in British Columbia. The other thing that is concerning for the NDP is that it got 12% in British Columbia. The chickens are coming home to roost for an NDP leader who pathetically and continuously supports the corrupt, woke Liberal government. They are getting served what they deserve in British Columbia, and they will when there is a carbon tax election as well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason Conservatives could not even muster a full speech on international trade is that their record has been so lamentable. We look at the CBSA cuts they put into place during the corrupt Harper regime, actually eliminating almost 1,200 frontline positions. This has led, of course, to the kinds of problems we are seeing now at the border. They voted against the Ukraine trade deal as well.

When the Conservatives were in place under Harper, the Harper regime had a terrible record of selling out this country. This is why the Conservatives presented a concurrence motion and then could not even muster a 10-minute speech to actually talk about international trade. It is because their record has been so poor.

I would like to come back to my colleague and simply ask him this: Why did they kill 1,200 positions in CBSA, leading to the crisis we see today?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the NDP member brought up selling out. What we are seeing in this country right now is the NDP leader selling out Canadians for his pension. The NDP is getting its just desserts on that. With 12%, they almost did not get their rebate in the by-election that just happened in British Columbia. The NDP leader is continually bowing down to the Liberal Prime Minister, repeatedly propping him up in the face of all his corruption and everything he has done to destroy this country. Every once in a while, NDP members puff up and say they are against this or against that. However, when push comes to shove, they sell out every single time to prop up the corrupt, incompetent, out-of-control, radical Liberal government. He should be ashamed of himself.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Adam Smith is the father of modern economics, and he understood a timeless truth: Trade is wealth. When we talk about trade and trading nations, we can say that trading nations do best when they sell the things they produce the best and trade for the rest.

Canada is a trading nation, or it should be. We sit, as Canadians, with the most natural resources per capita of all nations on the planet. Canadians should be rich from that. We are third among countries with the most oil in the world and sixth in terms of natural gas. We have all the things the world needs for batteries and critical minerals. We are number one with potash. We have some of the best mines but, right now, Canadians are broke because the trade deals that the government has put together have been terrible for workers, for paycheques and for Canadians.

We now face a bigger problem with the Americans. Americans smell weakness in the Prime Minister and the government. After nine years of fleecing the government, we have a GDP per capita in Canada that is $32,000 less per worker, per Canadian, than our American counterparts have. We have seen half a trillion dollars of investment go south. We have lost 90,000 softwood lumber jobs as we have been mired in bad trade deals.

When we have a weak Prime Minister and a weak government, it means that we need a strong opposition to formulate a trade partnership with our trade committee. That way, we can study the upcoming CUSMA trade deal to make sure that we are tackling the weakness of the Prime Minister versus the strong president-elect coming into the U.S. We can then ensure that we have strength from the Parliament, because we certainly do not have it from the government.

We are asking for this trade committee to reconvene so that we can bring forth many witnesses to study the effects that a Donald Trump government would have on Canada, Canadians and workers.

I am going to read an amendment to our motion today.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the second report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Thursday, October 27, 2022, be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Committee for further consideration, including in relation to the protection of Canadian jobs, especially unionized jobs, in the electric vehicle, softwood lumber and other sectors, given the announced policy of the incoming United States administration of President-elect Donald Trump to impose 25 percent tariffs on all Canadian exports to the United States, provided that, for the purposes of this study:

(a) the holders of the following offices recognized in law, howsoever styled, shall each be ordered to appear, individually, as witnesses, for at least two hours each, at the prescribed dates and times, for which the Committee shall be instructed to meet at those times:

(i) the Minister of Labour on Monday, January 6, 2025, at 2 p.m.,

(ii) the Minister of Industry on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, at 11 a.m.,

(iii) the Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, at 2 p.m.,

(iv) the Minister for International Trade on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, at 11 a.m.,

(v) the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, at 2 p.m.,

(vi) the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Thursday, January 9, 2025, at 11 a.m.,

(vii) the President of the Canada Border Services Agency on Thursday, January 9, 2025, at 2 p.m.,

(viii) the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, January 13, 2025, at 11 a.m.,

(ix) the Ambassador of Canada to the United States of America on Monday, January 13, 2025, at 2 p.m.,

(x) the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on Tuesday, January 14, 2025, at 11 a.m.,

(xi) the National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, January 14, 2025, at 2 p.m.,

(xii) the Minister of Finance on Wednesday, January 15, 2025, at 11 a.m.,

(xiii) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on Wednesday, January 15, 2025, at 2 p.m., and

(xiv) the Prime Minister on Thursday, January 16, 2025, at 11 a.m.;

(b) the Committee shall hold such other additional meetings, as may be necessary, during the weeks of January 6 and 13, 2025, to hear from stakeholders, experts, union leaders, premiers or other representatives of provincial and territorial governments, and other witnesses who are proposed by the members of the Committee; and

(c) if a new or increased tariff is imposed by the United States government during the week of January 20, 2025, (i) the Committee shall meet within 24 hours of any such announcement, and (ii) the Committee may order the re-attendance of any minister named in paragraph (a), as the Committee sees fit.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. deputy House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, much has been said this morning about the election in Cloverdale—Langley City yesterday, especially by the member for Dufferin—Caledon. I would like to remind Canadians exactly who the Conservatives ran in the election and who won last night. This individual was a member of Parliament before. Once, on a Friday morning, while I was sitting in this chair in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the individual said the following during a debate on conversion therapy, quoting Matthew:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

That is how she referred to our LGBT community. Yes, congratulations to my Conservative colleagues. They have elected somebody for their party who is true to form of what they represent.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I got thrashed like the Liberals did last night, I would be willing to turn the page and talk about something else too. Let us talk about trade for a minute.

Our Canadian dollar just dipped below 70¢ this morning for the first time. For Canadians who are already facing the highest grocery bills they have ever had after nine years of the Liberal government, that means grocery bills are going up again. A single mother in Kingston has to go to the grocery store to try to buy milk, food and bread for her children and, by the way, is getting no tax back during a so-called GST holiday this season. They now have to face higher grocery bills at the grocery store. Shame on the government. Shame on the member for thrashing another member of Parliament. He should look at himself.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole, I find the amendment interesting. I am always in favour of more accountability in Parliament. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the work done in committee.

I would like to mention something that we experienced at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. There was a situation similar to the one today. A Conservative motion called on the Minister of Official Languages to appear before the committee. This created a lot of controversy because the minister resigned in the meantime. The Liberals fought to ensure that the new Minister of Official Languages would be the one to appear, not the member for Edmonton Centre. They had to come back to the House to drag this out, and I have a feeling we are going to go through that again today.

Before moving his motion to call forward the Prime Minister, has my Conservative colleague considered the fact that he may no longer be Prime Minister when he is invited?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can only dream.

Canadians are unanimous in agreeing that the Prime Minister needs to resign and that we need a new government. However, we are faced with the reality that the Prime Minister is not going anywhere, buoyed up by the New Democrats, who seem to think all is well.

One of the biggest issues we have coming up is our trading agreements, particularly with the Americans. When we look at precedents for the House of Commons in any capacity, it is on our trading relationship with the Americans. It is so bad that the premiers are stepping up. Our Prime Minister is so weak that it is the premiers who are standing up for Canada right now. The Premier of Quebec stood up and said he will make sure he puts resources into the border because the President-elect is threatening tariffs if we do not take care of our border.

We should want to take care of our borders, not just for that relationship, but because Canadians should want to see a secure border. Let us make sure we stand up behind those premiers, stand up where this Prime Minister is not and stand up for Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the official opposition is supposed to be a government that is prepared to put in place policies, and tragically, the Conservatives have been absolutely lamentable when it comes to border security. They are the ones that devastated our CBSA staff, with 1,200 officers eliminated under the Harper regime.

Tragically, the Liberals have not restored all those positions, only some of them, and that is the crux of the problem. Conservative inaction and Conservative cuts have made our border less secure. Will any single Conservative stand up and apologize for what they did in devastating border security?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, if anyone needs to apologize, it is the NDP for asking the Conservatives, who nine years ago made changes when there was not a problem with the border. They had nine years to fix it and now are complaining about the border not being fixed.

We are going to put the resources into the border. We are going to stop the problems that are occurring at the border. We are going to make sure the fentanyl traffickers the NDP-Liberal government allowed are put behind bars. We are going to take care of the border because the government will not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about a very important issue. I have been advocating for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it in a very big way, virtually since 2016, when we came into government and presented our first budget. I do not say that lightly. A big part of the whole trade file is to start off by saying that Canada is a trading nation. We depend on exports and world trade more than virtually any other country, and it has really helped elevate Canada to the nation it is today. We have incredible workforces in a multitude of industries, which we are supporting through commodities, products and services throughout the world. I have always been a strong advocate for the importance of international trade, which is so important to all of us.

I find it interesting that the Conservative Party wanted to talk about trade today, when we contrast the Conservative Party, especially over the last couple of years, and the policy positions it has taken, to what we have done as a government. In the form of a question, I made it known to the Conservatives that I would like to expand upon some of the things we have witnessed over the last nine years. For example, people should be aware that no other government in the history of Canada has signed off on as many trade agreements with other countries as this government has, which has had a profound, positive impact for all Canadians in all regions because it creates jobs and opportunities in real and tangible ways. It also invites others to look at Canada as a place to invest.

Back in 2023, Canada was number one in the G7, on a per capita basis, for foreign investment coming into a country; worldwide, on the same metric, Canada was number three. When we get private sectors, non-profits and other levels of governments, a whole combination of things around the world, looking at Canada and saying they want to invest in Canada, a number of factors are at play. One is that, as a government, over the last nine years, we have been so successful in negotiating and getting signed trade agreements, and that has had a very positive impact in all communities in Canada.

When we hear about the U.S.A. and the tariffs proposed by President-elect Trump, it gives us a bit of a flashback to Trump's first administration, when then President Trump took a very hard line and the Conservatives virtually buckled almost instantly. They were critical of the government, saying things like, “Do what is necessary. Capitulate and get an agreement signed.” It was not that long ago that President Trump, for the first time, challenged Canada and our trade policies. We did not listen to the Conservatives; instead, we put Canadians first and foremost and we continued with the negotiations.

One of the things that I have said in the past and that I continue to believe today, which was reinforced during a recent trade mission that I personally attended, is that Canada, as a nation, has the best trade negotiators in the world. They are second to no others, and there is real, tangible experience within that collective group.

As a government, we have made it very clear that we are going to put the interests of Canadians and workers first whenever it comes to trade negotiations, which is unlike the Conservative Party, and unlike the leader of the Conservative Party, who made the decision back then to capitulate.

One of the differences between the leader of the Conservative Party and the government is how they deal with trade. The leader of the Conservative Party goes around promoting, in every forum he virtually goes to, that Canada is broken. He plays into a lot of the issues the president-elect brings up, such as the issue of border controls. There is so much hypocrisy in the misinformation being provided by the leader of the Conservative Party.

We talk about trade between Canada and the United States, and the leader of the Conservative Party goes around saying things like we cannot do anything with our borders and that our border system is broken. Number one, that is not true. It is just not true. Number two, one would think he was negotiating on behalf of Donald Trump and the United States. Shame on him for that sort of attitude. If members want a third thing, when he was in government, when he sat around the cabinet table, his decision back then was to cut services to the border controls, whether it was sniffer dogs or just the overall number of border officers. He made significant cuts. There were well over a thousand jobs cut from border controls. Members can imagine that.

We now have a leader of the Conservative Party, a mouthpiece on negotiations for Donald Trump, going around saying that there are no border controls and that things are broken in Canada, yet he is the one, when he sat around a cabinet table, who made serious cuts that caused a great deal of damage. We, as government, restored those cuts, and we did not capitulate, like the Conservatives advocated for us to do on the first round of Donald Trump. Those are the facts.

Then we have the leader of the Conservative Party, on the slogan tours he takes across the country, trying to give the false impression that Canada is broken.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is shameful.

As the Government of Canada, we should be taking a team Canada approach. There are some things that are more important to Canadians, such as our lifestyle and the need to be in sync when it comes to negotiating with the United States on the trade file. As opposed to being an ally to President-elect Trump, the leader of the Conservative Party should be looking at being an ally with Canadians in dealing with the need to have a negotiated agreement with the United States that is fair and good for Canadians and that puts Canadians first.

The leader of the Conservative Party has not demonstrated that in real terms. He might have fancy slogans, and he might be able to pump them out like there is no tomorrow, but when it comes to serving Canadians in a real and challenging way, I would suggest that the leader of the Conservative Party is found wanting. That is the reality of it. Trade is so important because it means jobs and opportunities, whether that is in the service industry, the constructing of widgets or food security.

I had the opportunity earlier this month to be part of a trade mission to the Philippines. It was a wonderful opportunity, and I was grateful to have been with the Minister of International Trade, who did an outstanding job. Through diplomacy, we were able to bring in what is, arguably, according to President Marcos, one of the largest trade missions that he has seen in many years in the Philippines. What happened—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important debate on international trade, but Conservatives are not showing up, even though they provoked this, so I call quorum.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he can call quorum, but he should not be saying who is or is not in the chamber.

We do not have quorum at this time, so the bells will ring.

And the bells having rung:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We now have quorum.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader can resume his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives do not necessarily want to hear what I have to say because of their abysmal performance on Ukraine and other trade agreements, but maybe that is a good place to pick up after I finish commenting.

Because of the interruption, let me start again in regard to what I thought was a very important initiative for me. I have been encouraging and advocating for better trade relations between Canada and the Philippines for many years. That is the reason I was so pleased to be a part of a trade mission to the Philippines, where the Minister of International Trade was an absolutely wonderful host to such a degree that even President Marcos commented on the size of the trade mission because it is the largest that he had seen in many years.

We had 800 participants, hundreds from Canada and hundreds from the Philippines. It was businesses and others coming together in what I have described is almost like speed dating between businesses as they were making connections, all for one purpose, which was to increase the opportunities of both nations to expand upon trade, and there are a couple of things that I would really want to highlight.

Through the trade mission, and because of its success, the minister and the government ultimately announced that we are now entering into exploratory discussions for a trade agreement between Canada and the Philippines. That is good news, both for Canada and the Philippines. There are so many opportunities that are there. Earlier this year, back in February, I was in the Philippines with the Minister of Agriculture, and we actually opened up an agri-trade office to recognize how Canada could play a strong role in the Philippines through its Manila office, and that office dealt with 30-plus Asia-Pacific countries, all based on agricultural types of trade opportunities.

There is no doubt that the relationship between Canada and Philippines continues to grow and has never been better than what we have today with the government, and we are going to continue to push. I understand that those exploratory discussions could begin as early as this January. I can assure the House that I will continue to push and advocate for that trade agreement, much like I advocated for the the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

Let us have a flashback to the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I recall the heated discussions that were taking place on the floor of the House of Commons when we had the president of Ukraine, at a time of war, come to Canada to sign a trade agreement with Canada. It showed us the sense of urgency and why it is Ukraine wanted to be able to have this agreement signed off. It was such an important thing, and at the end of the day, when I stop to think about it, every member of the House, except for the Conservatives, actually voted in favour of it.

I think the community outside of the Ottawa bubble was shocked to see the very first trade agreement that the Conservatives ever voted against was the actual Canada-Ukraine trade agreement update. It was incredible to see Conservative after Conservative stand in his or her place to say no to Ukraine, while at the same time we saw members of the NDP, the Green party, the Bloc and, of course, Liberals, recognize the value of having that trade agreement with Ukraine. I cannot believe that the Conservatives voted against it.

Why is trade important? Let me give a tangible example. One of the industries that I often talk about is Manitoba's pork industry. It is such a wonderful industry. It has created literally thousands of jobs in the province of Manitoba. It has focused a great deal of concentration in the city of Winnipeg, with thousands of jobs, including in Brandon and Neepawa, and that is not to mention many rural communities, where we see the hogs.

I can tell members that the pork industry wants to see trade expand very much. It is an exporting industry in Manitoba. There are many concerns in regards to it, but the bottom line is that securing markets is absolutely critical to the pork industry. I will always stand up to defend and advocate for this.

All one needs to do is take a look at the industry. I think that eight million hogs or pigs will be born in Manitoba. We have a population of just under 1.4 million people, yet we have eight million pigs. Members, I am sure, can do the math and figure out that pork is being exported. Companies like HyLife have created hundreds of jobs in the community of Neepawa and are very much dependent on exports. When we had the trade mission in the Philippines, there were representatives from HyLife and Maple Leaf. Maple Leaf has a beautiful plant in Brandon, with well over 1,000 jobs there. Maple Leaf has a beautiful plant in Winnipeg with well over 1,000 jobs there. These are direct jobs, but there are also indirect jobs. These are all very important jobs.

Take a look at Winnipeg. We can talk about the New Flyer industry, the world-class buses with export markets to the United States and distribution throughout Canada. We produce some of the best, if not the best, public transportation on buses. We see that. On the streets of Ottawa we can see the New Flyer industry. That industry is dependent. It needs and wants to see these types of trade agreements because they make a difference.

What I would suggest to members is that with a Liberal administration, they do not have to worry about a government that will capitulate like the leader of the Conservative Party or the Conservative Party in general would do when it comes to negotiations with the United States, Europe or any other part of the world. We understand the true value of trade. We will continue to fight for that because that means jobs. That means a stronger, healthier middle class. That is something we want to see. We will continue, no matter how the Conservatives want to change the focus. That will be our focus: Canadians first in a very real and tangible way. We can see the tangible results of the types of things that we have done as government, especially, on the trade file.

Hopefully, I will get some more time later to talk on it. Having said that, I do have a subamendment. I move, seconded by the member from Waterloo:

That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “24 hours” with the words “48 hours”.