Debates of Dec. 17th, 2024

International Trade

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as I read the report that we are studying before Parliament, a couple of things come to mind as they relate to Kings—Hants. One is that there is a significant forestry sector in our constituency. There is also the Michelin tire plant, and I think about the cross-border trade. I know there was a lot in the report about electric vehicles, but there is even the presence of Michelin tires, including the tires that are needed for electric vehicles.

The hon. member talked a lot about, and I thought he did a pretty good job outlining, some of the concerns around the Conservative agenda when they were in power, and I know we are in a bit of a tedious time right now as it relates to the relationship with the U.S. and the new incoming administration.

Would the member agree with me that part of the role of an opposition is to legitimately critique the government but not to gaslight and suggest things that are not true? Does he think that the way that the member for Carleton has been conducting his affairs is actually detrimental to Canada's position as it relates to Canada-U.S. relations?

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

Madam Speaker, I outlined the terrible Conservative record on forestry and softwood lumber; it was just a terrible sellout that costs so many jobs, and there were CBSA cuts as well. Obviously those have an impact right across the border.

My point to the member would be that Liberals should have fully restored the things the Conservative cut. They partially restored things, but they could have gone further. As far as the member for Carleton goes, he is not even capable of undergoing or willing to undergo a security screening, and he does not seem capable of offering or even willing to offer any policy on international trade.

It is quite compelling to me that Conservatives put forward the concurrence motion and then could not even fill their 10 minutes. They had nothing to say: nothing to say about international trade, about the Trump tariffs, about the hundreds of thousands of potentially lost jobs, about their CBSA cuts and about their softwood lumber sellout.

Why do Conservatives have nothing to say on something that is so important to Canadians?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby spoke about health care, and he talked about how NDP provinces seem to be prospering. I would like to know what his perspective is on the NDP governments that, when they were in power in Saskatchewan, shut down 52 hospitals and care centres. What are his thoughts on that?

I would also like to ask my colleague what his thoughts are on the fact that there is only one taxpayer and that the carbon tax is being downloaded onto provinces, which is affecting school boards, hospitals and municipalities.

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

Madam Speaker, first off, in terms of health care and specifically health care outcomes, I have just outlined that the provinces with the worst health care outcomes, the longest waiting lists and the most difficulty in getting into emergency wards are Conservative provinces, including his own. Those provinces are Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Conservatives can take a lesson from this.

The member does not have to ask me; he can ask the people of Regina and Saskatoon. When they had a choice between electing a Conservative government or the Saskatchewan New Democrats, every single seat in Regina went NDP. Every seat in Saskatoon except one went NDP. Therefore he should be talking to the people of Saskatchewan, because they rejected the Conservative government in Saskatchewan. That is why in Saskatoon and Regina, of the dozens of seats, there is only one Conservative, who won by a handful of votes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague, but I do have to correct the record. He said that the member who lives in a 19-room mansion, Stornoway, has never put forward any legislative agenda. I have been here for 20 years and he has put forward one; it was against vaccines. I note that because we know how many of his backbenchers believe that vaccines are some kind of George Soros conspiracy.

However, it is not a joke, because Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s key lawyer has now just pushed to get rid of the polio vaccine, and there is a guy who has no life experience and who lives in a 19-room mansion who is pushing against basic health care protections, in order to feed his QAnon base and his QAnon backbenchers.

I would like to ask the member what he thinks about the threat being posed by attacking something as basic as the polio vaccine.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, which is why I praised his work for clean energy a few minutes ago.

The Conservatives seem to have three-word slogans, and one of them apparently is “Bring back polio.” It is just unbelievable to me that Conservatives would campaign across the country with the idea of making Canada great for polio again. Polio is a serious disease that leads to lifelong disabilities, yet Conservatives are campaigning against vaccines. I do not know why Conservatives would campaign on bringing back polio, diphtheria, measles and all the diseases that have thankfully been put aside because of vaccines and by investments in health care infrastructure.

[Louis-Philippe Sauvé, Bloc, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the patterns and wood finishes in the House of Commons remind me a lot of crutches. At St. Joseph's Oratory, there is a long row of crutches for the miraculously cured. In Parliament, there is a crutch that is always there to save the government. That crutch is the New Democratic Party.

While the Liberal Party is in full-on crisis, I would like the member for New Westminster—Burnaby to tell me if his party is going to support the government in the next confidence vote. My colleague claims to be calling for the Prime Minister's head, but is he going to vote for or against a non-confidence motion in the government? This vote will have an impact on international trade.

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

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague's riding well. When I went door knocking in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, people kept thanking me. They thanked the NDP for securing dental care. In that riding, nearly 4,000 people are receiving dental care now thanks to the NDP.

A person like Craig Sauvé, the municipal councillor there, champions the values of wanting to provide more services to Quebeckers. The largest coalition in the history of Quebec also asked for pharmacare. This coalition asked that the NDP's pharmacare bill be adopted.

Will my colleague stand up for his constituents, who want the dental care and pharmacare that the NDP has provided?

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

Madam Speaker, like the member for Timmins—James Bay, I also have a lot of respect for the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, so I would like to offer a correction to him as well. Conservatives did actually talk a little this morning about this issue, but they focused the majority of their comments on celebrating their electoral win last night. It reminded me exactly who was elected last night; it was somebody who in the chamber said the following during a debate on conversion therapy, when asking the member for Don Valley West, an openly gay man, a question about conversion therapy:

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 the quality of candidate the Conservatives put forward in last night's election. My question to the member is very simple. If he were to say something like that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a member abusing the House by taking photographs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to delete the photographs he took.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Whether he is outside the House or not, if he is taking pictures of the House, he needs to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. He needs to delete them. I am asking him to please delete them.

We are out of time for the question of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. It had been over a minute, so I will allow the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, those kinds of homophobic comments are absolutely unacceptable in the House, and I would certainly hope that if the member is coming back to this House, we would not see a repetition of those despicable, hateful, homophobic comments. I would hope Conservative members would stand in the House and apologize. There is no place for homophobia in the House of Commons of Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate today, as chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I have to say we have a wonderful group of people on all sides on the committee who really work very well together. It is a privilege to have an opportunity to speak today, this being our last session before the House will rise, and to have a chance to wish everybody a very merry Christmas and a successful 2025.

We find ourselves at a moment in time when the relationship between Canada and the United States is more vital than ever. I want to take this opportunity to speak on a subject that has for decades, not just now, defined the success of our country in many ways: our enduring, deeply rooted relationship with our southern neighbour.

Canada and the United States share a relationship that is clearly the envy of the whole world. We are the closest of allies, connected by a border that spans over 8,000 kilometres, linking us not only geographically but in terms of shared values, history and, of course, our shared culture. From trade to security, from environmental stewardship to technological innovation, our nations are inextricably linked in ways that shape not only our own prosperity but that of the world at large. The dynamic between our two countries is one of collaboration in many ways, mutual respect and a commitment to addressing the complex challenges of our time.

Before I forget to mention it, I am sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands. It is always interesting when he chooses to entertain all of us with his last 10 minutes.

In this ever-changing world, it is vital that we, as elected representatives of the Canadian people, uphold the integrity of this partnership. It is vitally important to all of us in the House and, frankly, to all Canadians, that we continue to work on that very issue.

The United States, as we know, is a country with an ever-shifting political landscape. Leadership changes, priorities evolve and, at times, the approach to our relationship with the U.S., as now, may seem a bit uncertain. In the face of these changes, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting and nurturing the Canada-U.S. relationship. It is not just an option for Canada; it is imperative.

Let us be clear: This relationship is foundational to the well-being of every single Canadian. It is critical to our economy and to our security. We are hearing the issues raised around the border, so security is of major importance for all of us. This relationship is critical also to the social fabric that binds us together. Our relationship with the U.S. is the bedrock upon which our shared prosperity is built and the Liberal government has always recognized that, as do the previous governments in the U.S.

Let me take a moment to reflect on one of the most significant recent achievements of our government in terms of Canada-U.S. relations: the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. The agreement was originally signed in 1994 and had served its purpose well, facilitating the growth of trade and investment between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. However, the world has changed since 1994 and our economy has evolved. The global trade environment is now vastly different from what it was in 1994, and it has become clear that the old NAFTA, as we now refer to it, was no longer sufficient to meet the needs of our growing industries, workers and communities.

When the previous U.S. administration threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, we understood it was a critical moment. Canada could not allow the agreement to unravel without a fight, and fight we did. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and the tireless efforts of our team of negotiators, including the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister by name. She knows she is not to do that.

The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I will make sure I do not have that in my notes in the future.

I was also going to mention the former finance minister and the wonderful job she did on the negotiations at that time. I am sure she will be involved in the future as we renegotiate these agreements.

We knew our ability to secure a new agreement, one that would not only preserve but enhance our trading relationships, was paramount to Canada's future. The negotiations were intense and there were moments when it seemed our position would be tested to the limit. However, as always, we stood firm in defence of Canadian workers as a united Canada.

The voices of farmers and businesses were also heard and respected as that negotiation went on. We ensured that the environment and labour standards were prioritized, and we secured a modernized trade agreement, the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, referred to as CUSMA, that is more than just a trade deal; it is a testament to our commitment to fair, rules-based trade. It is critically important for our future, the future of the U.S. and all of the people who work in both countries.

The CUSMA is a historic agreement that will benefit Canadians for generations to come, as we have seen. It preserves preferential access to the U.S. market while modernizing and expanding provisions on areas like digital trade, intellectual property and dispute resolution. It strengthens protections for our cultural industries, ensures better access to U.S. agricultural markets and provides new opportunity for Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. It is a deal that clearly works for Canada and has worked for Canada for many years.

Some of my colleagues in the opposition may argue that the CUSMA is the result of mere luck or that it could have been negotiated differently, but they did not appear at the time. Let us be clear. This agreement is the result of tireless, strategic negotiations led by the Liberal government. We could have chosen to back down, or to accept a bad deal or no deal at all, but that is not the Canadian way and was not in the best interests of Canadian businesses. It was never an option for consideration. We knew what was at stake and we understood that Canada's future was clearly on the line. Our negotiating team, led by our former finance minister, stood firm and delivered.

This is what the Liberal government does. We stand up for Canada and Canadian interests, even when the road ahead is uncertain and challenging. The Liberal Party has a proven track record when it comes to ensuring Canada's interests are protected on the world stage, particularly in relation to the United States. We understand the complexities of this relationship and we know how to navigate the delicate balance of standing firm on our principles while maintaining a productive, co-operative dialogue with our American counterparts.

We also know trade is not the only aspect of our relationship with the U.S. that demands our attention. The security of our citizens, our shared environmental challenges and the technological landscape are just a few of the other areas where co-operation with the U.S. is essential. In each of these areas, we have consistently demonstrated the ability to act in the best interests of all Canadians.

On security, Canada and the United States share one of the closest and most comprehensive defence relationships in the world. Our partnership through NORAD ensures our skies are protected and we work side by side to combat threats like terrorism and organized crime. Our intelligence-sharing agreements ensure we are prepared for any security challenge and we have consistently stood together in support of peace and stability around the globe.

On the environment, we share an obligation to protect our natural shared resources. We have committed to working closely with the U.S. on initiatives to combat climate change, reduce carbon emissions and ensure that both our countries transition to a greener, more sustainable future.

I am thankful for the opportunity to comment on behalf of our trade and all of our colleagues.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about trade and yet the Conservatives are acting like sock puppets for the narcissist in Mar-a-Lago. They will repeat any falsehood he says because they think it will score them points.

We need a vision of a nation at this time that stands taller than this high school cafeteria, juvenile behaviour because the threat of 25% tariffs is very serious. Our leader has offered the very challenged front bench the idea of a war room, of bringing together business and labour leaders, leaders from across the country, so we have a unified position. Otherwise, we are standing here looking like fools while the guy down in Mar-a-Lago is pushing us around.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that my hon. colleague has contributed tremendously to the House. He has made the debates in this House very interesting and quite comical at times.

Certainly, we have put together the Canada-U.S. team of negotiators who are working already, 18 hours a day, on a variety of areas of strength and opportunities that we have to negotiate further with. We have a lot of positive things to offer and we know how to retaliate when necessary.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I enjoyed serving with her on the trade committee.

We talk about what Canada needs when it comes to trade. We talk about leverage or strength. We talk often on this side about the weakness that comes from the current government and Prime Minister in taking on a very strong American counterpart. When we look at that, there are three things we need to see right away. Number one is to axe the carbon tax, which is putting an undue burden on a lot of our businesses, making them uncompetitive. Number two is to scrap the cap on emissions in oil and gas, which is our number one export and, of course, drives growth into Canada. Number three is to make sure we are Canada first when we look at defending our borders and when it comes to meeting our 2% NATO commitment, which builds up our military for us.

Does the member agree that we need to look at Canada first for all Canadians, for always?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who is the vice-chair of the international trade committee. He is doing a fine job and we work well together.

At the end of the day, it is about Canada first all the time, for all of us. All of us in the House have the same destination, to make sure we are doing things.

When it comes to the whole issue of climate change, the Liberal Party of Canada has a plan. I would ask anybody to look at the news, even last night, in spite of all the other things that were on the news. We talked about the amount of destruction happening around the world because of climate change. I believe we have a path forward that will work to try to change the conditions the world is facing.