The subamendment is in order.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
House of Commons Hansard #391 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.
House of Commons Hansard #391 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The subamendment is in order.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Madam Speaker, in the intervention from the Liberal member, he talked about trade and he talked a lot about jobs. I wanted to ask him specifically about all of the forestry workers who have lost jobs in Canada, especially in British Columbia, where I am from. The government failed to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement as part of CUSMA. It also failed to negotiate a separate softwood lumber agreement over the last nine years of the government under three U.S. administrations.
I would like to ask the member why the government does not consider a softwood lumber agreement important with the United States, especially considering the thousands of jobs that have been lost in Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party sat around a cabinet table with Stephen Harper when he capitulated. He suggested we do the same on the trade agreement with the United States in regard to the whole softwood industry. As a result of his capitulation back then, we literally lost a significant portion of a potential industry that could have grown. The Conservatives like to say they got a deal. Anyone can score a deal. What is at stake is getting a deal that is in the best interest of Canadians that will create the maximum number of opportunities for Canadians.
What we have learned through time and experience is that the Conservatives are eager to capitulate when negotiations get tough. Let us contrast that to us. We will continue to advocate as we have. As I indicated, no other government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government has.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech by my Liberal colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and I was a bit shocked. In listening to him talk about virtually everything and nothing, I really got the impression that he is living in a parallel universe. Between the chaotic circus we saw yesterday in Parliament and the calls for the Prime Minister's resignation by nearly every party leader across the way, I get the impression that this government has lost all credibility. The parliamentary secretary was speaking about all sorts of other things.
This is the eve of the Christmas holidays. Does the parliamentary secretary not think that his leader and his government might actually need a permanent vacation? What credibility do the Liberals have left? What are they going to tell their constituents when they see them during the holiday season?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, members opposite will excuse me for not necessarily wanting to focus on what the desires of the opposition members might be, but rather wanting to focus my attention on what Canadians want to see. I can tell members opposite that what Canadians want to see is a government that continues to move forward on a number of different issues.
I am surprised the member did not ask about supply management. I always thought that the Bloc would want to highlight that issue. Given that the member did not highlight that, allow me to highlight it. When it comes to the issue of supply management, it has been Liberals who have brought forward and introduced supply management here in Canada, and it is going to be a Liberal government that continues to protect supply management. When we talk about negotiations with Trump, let us not kid ourselves: The Conservatives under the current Conservative leader would throw supply management out the door. Canadians need to be concerned. If we want to protect issues like supply management when it comes to trade agreements, we have to be very careful to ensure that the Conservatives never have the opportunity to deal that away, because it is such an important issue.
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not ask my colleague to consider some of the comments that have been made today by members of the Conservative Party, congratulating the newly elected, soon-to-be MP for Cloverdale—Langley City. We know that this newly elected member is another blatantly homophobic member of Parliament soon to be here among us. I am curious to know how much money has been spent through fundraising, on misinformation that was put into this campaign to make sure that we have another far-right, homophobic Conservative in this House.
We know that when Harper was in his position, there were so many positions lost. There were 1,100 to 1,200 positions lost from CBSA frontline officers. We lost 100,000 jobs in mills across Canada. Why did the Liberals not put us in a better position today so that when Trump comes in, we are not in the same position?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's first comment about the by-election yesterday. It is a reflection on the leadership of the Conservative Party because the Conservatives would be aware of the personality, which they feel very comfortable with.
The member for Cloverdale—Langley City has said this inside the chamber:
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.
The member is referring to the LGB community, and I think—
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Conservatives are heckling that the quote was a reference to Liberals, and now they are laughing, when that is what their brand new colleague said in this House about three years ago.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I am sorry, but that is a point of debate and not a point of order.
I do want to remind members to please listen to the questions and the answers without disruption. Everybody deserves that respect here in the House. Everybody knows the rules.
I will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to wrap it up so that we can go to a different question.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands and others now have raised the issue with the Conservative Party. Hopefully, during question period or during one of the questions the Conservatives ask, they can actually say that they still stand by statements of this nature, or say something to at least try to give some sort of clarity in terms of what the Conservative Party really believes about its candidate.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, I was listening intently to the member's speech and his comments. It is interesting that we are having a debate on international trade today. I really appreciated his comments on supply management because Canadians should be aware that the Conservative Party's position is not one of supporting supply management in Canada.
When we renegotiated the NAFTA, which is known as CUSMA, we had a team Canada approach. All political parties, all Canadians, coast to coast to coast, were there together. What we saw under Ukraine when we were fighting for international law was that all members of Parliament, Canadians, were together, but the Conservatives changed their ways and they chose Russia and Putin over Ukraine.
Similarly, when we saw a Canadian killed on Canadian soil and there was intelligence that it was by a foreign entity, the first day everyone stood together, but the next day, the leader of the Conservative Party was calling out Canada rather than calling out India. What I find is interesting is right now we know we might be up for another battle with our cousins to the south.
What kind of confidence should Canadians have in the Conservative Party? Do they pick Canadians first or do they pick Conservatives first?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I really do believe that the more Canadians get to know the degree to which the leader of the Conservative Party is in fact to the far right, they will get a better appreciation as to why Conservatives should not form government. We are talking about trade today. On the issue of trade, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada's commitment to supply management is weak at best.
When we hear the leader of the Conservative Party's willingness to capitulate, I would not be surprised at all if we lost supply management if there were ever to be a Conservative government going up against discussions on trade with the United States. I genuinely believe that would be at risk. Individuals get quality products, all sorts of benefits under supply management. We need to be aware of the consequences of voting for a far-right Conservative.
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Madam Speaker, when we look at what has happened in the last nine years with the relationship with the Americans, the failed trade deal and the weak Prime Minister we have, Canada has gone from being the number one trading party of the Americans to now the third. Mexico is number one.
Let us look at some of the reasons. They include taxes and regulations. Canada has increased the carbon tax over five times; it is going to increase the carbon tax again by 19% on April 1. The Americans do not have a carbon tax. If we look at regulations, we have capital gains increases, taxes in Canada that are almost double the Americans. In Texas, there are no federal taxes. The state tax is only 25%. We have taxes, regulations and now loss of wealth. The member mentioned Manitoba is really important to him. It has 10% of its economy linked to U.S. trade. If there is a 25% tariff, that is going to hurt the economy.
Is the member prepared to lose 10% of the economy in Manitoba?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the short answer is no, I do not want to lose that. This is the reason why Canadians need to be aware that the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular this leader of the Conservative Party, will capitulate. He will sell out Canada in order to get any form of an agreement with Donald Trump. This is the reality of it. I believe the more Canadians become acquainted with the leader of the Conservative Party, the more they will adopt the conclusion I have come to, which is that the Conservative Party is the greatest threat to trade here in Canada in protecting certain industries, including supply management.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today in the parliament of America's 51st state, albeit in the absence of its governor.
All kidding aside, I think we are dealing here with a very important, troubling situation. Let us be clear: We must not bury our heads in the sand, but neither should we engage in fearmongering. We are still talking about the threat of tariffs, but our discussions centre around issues that are still hypothetical. Very hypothetical, in fact. The basis for all this is a message posted on Truth Social, but one must read it to the end. People saw it as an announcement that these tariffs would be imposed on January 20, when Mr. Trump assumes the U.S. presidency, but the message goes on to say that tariffs will be imposed unless profound changes are made at the Mexican and Canadian borders.
I think we must also consider Mr. Trump's history, especially in the business world, and the vision he has always had, both as a candidate and as President during his first administration. Although it is safe to say that Mr. Trump has changed the face of politics and has in some way innovated it, his vision of international relations remains a traditional one. It is a 1990s vision of a purportedly happy “pre-globalization” era. People began to think there would be a new world order, international citizenship, global rules that would bring an end to all rivalries and to national interests, even to nations themselves. That certainly is no longer the case. Mr. Trump has always had a far more traditional, confrontational vision, one that sees negotiations between sovereign states as being based on their relationships and balance of power.
Although this announcement is not really an announcement, it can be viewed as concerning. It is fair to assume that the incoming U.S. administration and the President-elect are flexing their muscles and planning to negotiate to obtain something. This is clearly reflected in his position, which we can disagree on. Mr. Trump's position on a host of global conflicts, including the war in Ukraine, shows that according to his vision, each side must make concessions. There is every reason to assume that this is what is happening now.
The fact remains that for the Bloc Québécois, and the independence movement in particular, trade and economic relations with the United States is of fundamental importance. That is based on a historical calculation. That was the bet made by the independence movement and its great economists, Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry, before they each became premier, in 1994 and 2001, respectively. Well before then, the question of free trade arose during the time of Brian Mulroney against a backdrop of U.S. protectionism. The United States Congress is after all very protectionist. President Reagan wanted to take advantage of a window to sign a free-trade agreement with Canada, and it was thanks to Quebec's and the independence movement's support that it came to pass.
Today we see that we may have gone too far in some respects, and that we were probably too dependent on free trade. Also, starting in the 1990s, we crossed the fine line between facilitating commercial trade and signing extremely restrictive agreements seeking a total commodification of life and elevating multinationals to the status of sovereign powers. We crossed that line, we went too far. This was our thinking at the time. We had just lost a referendum in 1980 because of economic fears, irrational fears in many ways, and the separatist movement decided that it would never again depend on the federal government's whims. We decided to never again be victims of federal blackmail and threats by prioritizing north-south trade rather than east-west trade. As we can see, that worked.
Today, the United States is Quebec's main trade partner. Some 12,000 Quebec companies do business with Uncle Sam. Among the many that stand out are Couche-Tard, Cascades, Hydro-Québec, CGI, Agropur, Saputo, Fruits d'Or and Miralis.
Almost 50% of Quebec's GDP is directly related to our exports. We are an export economy. Of these exports, 70% go to the United States, with approximately 10% going to New York in particular. It is also worth mentioning that many of our artists are much loved in the U.S. One of them is Robert Lepage. In short, it is undeniable that the United States is of capital importance for Quebec's economy.
What then do we do?
As I mentioned in my introduction, we must first realize that American power has changed. In the 1990s, the United States promoted globalization. When I say globalization, I do not just mean global trade. At the time, globalization was favoured as an approach that would create global institutions, almost a global society, as President Clinton's secretary of state openly said at the time.
That is no longer the case. After years and even decades of western naivete in the face of Chinese power, we began to notice that globalization was benefiting China rather than the United States, as had initially been the case. The wake-up call was brutal. In addition, the institutions created by the United States after World War II, like the World Bank and, in 1995, the World Trade Organization, began losing much of their power. We can see that today with the emergence of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Regional blocs have begun to form, which means the end of American hegemony. We could even say that Washington is no longer interested in American hegemony. Today, Washington no longer wants to be a superpower or the global police. Washington has given up on that. I think that is the first thing we need to realize.
The United States never really bought into this happy globalization myth, either. At the time it was directly in line with their interests. Even Ronald Reagan, as pro-free trade as he was, introduced punitive tariffs on Japanese cars in the 1980s and played a leading role in repatriating the automobile industry to North America. It worked. When the balance of power is reconstituted and there is recentralization toward regional blocks and away from a unipolar world dominated by a single country, we need to acknowledge that.
We alone cannot change the world. We can exert a positive influence, and we can certainly make the best of the circumstances. This begins with a clear-eyed assessment of where things stand. No one country can rebuild a North American supply chain. The U.S. cannot do it alone. Mexico cannot do it alone. Canada cannot and Quebec cannot do it alone. All of us together, however, can.
Needless to say, there are many areas where the Americans will need us. For example, there is this one file in particular. It must be said that most of the trade irritants we might have with the United States could no doubt be resolved or lessened if everyone had a better understanding of their mutual interest. There is the matter of transportation electrification, for example. The U.S. passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which introduced tax credits. Contrary to Ottawa's claims, it is not true that all of the tax credits in the act apply to all North American production. They are truly misinformed if that is what they are asserting. I remember when President Biden made that claim right here. I saw members on the other side of the House rise in applause. It betrays a total lack of understanding, and certainly a failure to have even read it, because the 45X credit, for example, applies only to batteries assembled not in North America but in the United States. This poses a huge threat to our industries.
While nearly all of the battery factories will be built in China, a country that is mounting a powerful offensive to get its hands on critical minerals in nearly every corner of the world, it is only by acting together that North America can rise to the challenge. Also, while the United States is in the midst of a housing crisis, we have wood here. It seems to me that we have a good argument for ending the lumber crisis and the punitive tariffs on lumber. After 40 years, this has become background noise rather than breaking news. Further, I am not afraid to say that supply management is not only a model that is in our interests to defend. It is a model that the United States could take a page out of, as it guarantees food autonomy, land use and the development of our communities and our rural towns and villages.
There are some issues in which Canada has flagrantly failed, under governments of all stripes, which always favour the interests of other provinces over Quebec's. We saw that with the supply management issue in Canada's agreement with Europe. At the time, the Harper government decided to favour western beef. It was not interested in Quebec dairy production. By the way, western beef did not even make it to Europe, because the Europeans have a bunch of non-tariff measures in place. The same thing happened with the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The federal government had a choice. It could defend Ontario steel, Quebec aluminum or both. Obviously, it chose to defend Ontario steel with its formula requiring the use of 70% North American steel, but 70% North American aluminum parts. That meant that Chinese and Indian dumping in Mexico could continue. These countries could export liquid, cast or smelted aluminum, and Mexico could then use it to make parts. That way, the parts were technically made in North America. That is called dumping.
At the time, we pointed out that there was dumping going on and that aluminum had not been given the same status as steel. At first, the federal government said we were wrong. To borrow a phrase from my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, the government was “burying its head in the ostrich”. The government denied that it was applying a double standard. It did acknowledged it later, because of the agreement with the Bloc Québécois promising that, if dumping were observed, the agreement would be reopened and they would get equivalent status. It is the same thing with the United States and Mexico. They all ended up acknowledging the dumping.
Setting aside all of these issues on which the federal government always leans away from Quebec, just like the Supreme Court, which Maurice Duplessis once compared to the Tower of Pisa, there are a bunch of issues on which where Washington is completely justified in demanding better from Ottawa. I have often talked with members of Congress. They are convinced that Chinese solar panels that are stopped at the U.S. border are simply sent to Canada instead, which has no problem letting them in. We saw the same thing happen with the screening of goods produced by forced labour coming from a single region, Xinjiang, the Uyghur region of China. The United States has seized billions of dollars in goods. At last count, Canada had not seized any at all. Apparently, we are now up to six shipments. That is far from where we should be.
The United States may have good reason to view Canada not as the 51st state, but more like China's backyard, with no control of its border. This relates not only to the issues that have have rightly been raised about drug smugglers, street gangs and crime at the border, but also to the trade component when it comes to goods made with forced labour entering Canada.
In the March 2023 budget, the government specifically wrote that legislation would be introduced to “eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains” and to gain better control over the border by the end of 2023. We are at the end of 2024, and the budget tabled in March of this year made the same promise. It said that this would happen by the end of the year. All signs point to Parliament rising for Christmas today, yet there is still no whiff of any such bill.
It is no wonder that the Americans look at Canada in this light, since it proudly claims to be a postnational state. It also shows that the feds understand nothing about strategy and geopolitics. One needs to understand the domestic realm in order to understand the international realm, but Ottawa does not know the first thing about it.
The same is true when it comes to controlling and monitoring investments. The U.S. has extremely robust tools and laws to control and monitor investments. In contrast, Ottawa takes a laissez-faire approach. The choice is therefore as follows. We realize that a new president is about to take office, and Canada might have a new prime minister. We will have to wait and see. However, we understand and want to emphasize that we need an election, because Ottawa has no legitimacy as far as Washington is concerned right now. Things are about to get rough in the next little while, and we have an extremely fragile government.
As a Quebec separatist, I think Quebec understands what economic nationalism is all about. Since the 1960s, it has been developing its own strategic levers, strategic legislation and organizations like Hydro-Québec, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and Investissement Québec. An independent Quebec will be an infinitely better bet on the world stage and in the realm of international geopolitics than a postnational Canada could ever be.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I listened quite attentively, particularly to the geopolitical lens my colleague put on the issue. I do not disagree with him on a lot of what he said, in particular about a North America plan or what Canada's role is in that as it relates to the United States and Mexico.
In the last round of negotiations with the Americans in what produced CUSMA, I am not sure if the member was in the House at the time, but the Conservatives were quite adamant at the time that we make a deal at all costs. The deal needed to come, and it needed to come immediately. We were staring down the barrel of tariffs. We had retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. It was very clear that all the Conservatives cared about was a deal, regardless, it seemed, of what was in it.
Does the member think that, if the Conservatives have the opportunity to negotiate that deal, they are going to be as successful as the government was last time?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I do not think so, but I would say that there is definitely a difference. I would say that I agree with both sides. I think it is better to have a deal than no deal, but it is often better to have no deal than a bad deal. That is clear. We agree with that.
I also think there may be a way out of this. Stakeholders in the U.S. do not seem to be unanimous on the softwood lumber issue. I am thinking in particular of the National Association of Home Builders, which says that tariffs drive up construction costs and do not work, that some Americans do not have a home and that something needs to be done.
That being said, I think we may need to diversify and transform the sector. We need to develop our domestic market and gradually reduce our dependence on the United States, but we also need to diversify our markets. Other potential markets exist, such as Europe, for example, or Asia minus China. The Indo-Pacific strategy may offer a way out, but of course, we also have to settle this issue with the U.S.
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, obviously my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam is very close to the American border and also has a very busy and important port.
I know that the government is going to make some announcements today about investments in the port, but I wonder if the member could share his experience around the loss of funding in policing around ports and the border over 10 years of the last two governments.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, when we speak of borders, that includes the ports. I am not that familiar with my colleague's riding, but auto theft has long been a major issue at the port of Montreal.
Clearly, the lack of surveillance is a problem. We have the same problem at the border, which is probably related to the problem at the ports.
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Madam Speaker, when we look at trade and the Americans, of course there are big deals. Seventy per cent of Canada's economy is tied to trade with the U.S. It is a big deal for Canadians. Of course, we want to look at other markets but we cannot ignore the Americans. We look at how to handle the Americans, and we talk about how we have become the third-largest trading partner to the Americans. Mexico is number one and China is number two.
The new American president is coming in, talking tough to Canada and acting like he does, but we do not have the Prime Minister standing up for Canada. It is actually the premiers. The premiers of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have stood up either to talk tough to the Americans or to ensure we are taking care of the borders, which is in question.
Since we have premiers standing up where the weak Prime Minister is not, how much do we need a strong Prime Minister to stand up for Canada?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, the fact that the provincial premiers are doing all the work may be a sign. First, it is certainly not making me reconsider my political viewpoint. Second, I think that the fact that the agreement inappropriately called “Confederation” states that international relations are the purview of the federal government says something. That being said, the only time Quebec and Ontario were able to have representatives involved in trade negotiations was in the discussions with the European Union. It was not perfect. As the Quebec representative, Pierre Marc Johnson, liked to say, it mostly happened in the hallways, where the official delegation was sweet-talked far more than in the negotiation room. Moreover, their participation happened not because the federal government wanted them there, but because the European Union demanded it.
There should probably be far more opportunity and transparency when it comes to giving the provinces a role in international relations and the federal government's management of foreign affairs. That should be the strict minimum until Quebec is able to speak to the world with its own voice.
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the participation of federated states in trade agreement negotiations, including Quebec's participation.
What would Quebec independence mean for our people in terms of having greater autonomy to negotiate trade agreements? How would that benefit Quebeckers?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I think it goes without saying that we are always better off going into negotiations ourselves, 100% focused on our own interests. We should not have to fight tooth and nail to promote and protect little bits of our interests here and there. I gave a few examples. It is a good thing we were there to fight for aluminum, although a concrete change in the status of aluminum in the agreement would no doubt be the real victory. The same can be said of supply management. We are currently fighting to get the unelected Senate to take up this issue.
These issues would not come up if Quebec were independent. Of course, as in any negotiation, sometimes we might make concessions, experience setbacks or send bad negotiators. Independence also means making our own mistakes. However, the blame would be ours and ours alone. We would not be an ultra-minority, always fighting for a little corner of the blanket to keep us warm, which is what we are constantly doing in the Canadian system.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the exchange that the member and I had a few moments ago, because in response to that, he talked about diversifying our portfolio, for lack of a better expression, of trading partners. I could not agree more.
The Conservatives, and we heard it from the member for Bay of Quinte, seem to be hung up on the fact that the United States has so much trade with Mexico and China. I think it is important for us to be diversified, which is why the government has signed more trade deals. It is why we have a trade deal with the European Union and why we have a trade deal with Ukraine, which the member for Bay of Quinte actually voted against.
I am wondering if the member can talk more about the importance of diversification, because we do not want to put ourselves, to the best of our ability, in a situation where we are so dependent on one country. We need that diversification, which is why, if we are going to be a trading nation, it is in our best interests to have as many trading agreements with as many partners as possible, in my opinion.