Cathy McLeod

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Milton on both his election and his maiden speech, which I thought was very well done.

The member talked about a lot of things that were important to him, such as the child benefit and co-op housing. However, what he did not talk about was the balanced equation of a government needing to have the revenue in order to do the things it wants to do for the citizens of the country. He left out one side of the equation.

Does the member believe that when we support the children of today, it is fair that the grandchildren of tomorrow will ultimately have to bear the burden of that debt or is it important to look at that balanced side of the equation and perhaps look at having something in the Speech from the Throne that actually supports revenue generation in the country?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to the government’s Softwood Lumber Action Plan, announced June 1, 2017: (a) how was the funding allocated, broken down by (i) department, (ii) organization, (iii) location, (iv) date of allocation, (v) amount of funding; and (b) how much of this funding been delivered to date?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to the government's negotiations with the United States on softwood lumber: (a) when did formal negotiations on a new softwood lumber agreement commence; (b) how many negotiating sessions have been held to date; (c) who participated in those negotiations in Canada, the United States or elsewhere; and (d) when was the latest negotiating session?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to the Office of the Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise: (a) when will a system for fielding complaints be operational; (b) what will be the process for assessing complaints when they arrive; (c) how many official complaints has the office received to date; and (d) if the answer to (c) is none, what steps has the ombudsperson and her staff undertaken since her appointment on April 8, 2019?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to page 30 of the Liberal election platform which promised to plant two billion trees over 10 years as part of a broader initiative to conserve and restore forests, grasslands, agricultural lands, wetlands and coastal areas: (a) what proportion of the estimated 30 Mt reduction in carbon emissions can be attributable to the tree planting component of the program; (b) what proportion of the estimated $3 billion cost of this program will go to the tree planting component of the program; (c) will the two billion trees be incremental to the reforestation activities that already take place in Canada; (d) what proportion of these trees are expected to be planted in urban and suburban areas; and (e) for those trees planted outside of urban and suburban areas, will the government convert any areas to a forested condition where the current or climax condition is unforested?

[Request for Emergency Debate, December 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I am rising to seek leave for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration.

As members know, British Columbia is facing a crisis in the softwood lumber industry. Communities across my province are reeling from the mill closures and layoffs that have occurred over the past several months. At least 20 mills have been shut down or have curtailed production. As a result, thousands of people across 27 communities in B.C. are out of work, and we understand that further layoffs are expected before the Christmas holidays.

As reported by the Financial Post, the Council of Forest Industries said that the industry has been a “cornerstone of the B.C. economy for more than 100 years and the well-being of 140 communities is closely linked to the health of the sector. It said forestry supports about 140,000 jobs and generates about $4 billion in revenues annually for the province.”

Despite the crisis, Canada still has no softwood lumber agreement with the United States, and Canadian companies are facing devastating tariffs. Further, softwood lumber is absent from a revised version of the USMCA signed on Tuesday and continues to be left in limbo.

Canada's Deputy Prime Minister told the House of Commons on December 6, 2019, that the federal government is taking the issue of increased tariffs to the World Trade Organization. However, yesterday we learned that the future of the WTO's appellate body is in serious jeopardy because the United States continues to block new appointees and that panel no longer has quorum.

I am sure members will agree that the softwood lumber crisis is a prominent issue facing the House this winter. It is the number one issue facing the impacted workers, their families and their communities, yet there has been no opportunity to debate actions undertaken by the Government of Canada. There is no clear plan of action presented to the House to support workers, communities and the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your attention to this matter, especially as we head into the Christmas break. I am hoping that you will consider this request.

[Forestry Industry, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest those words are cold comfort. The Prime Minister did not even put softwood lumber in the mandate letters of the ministers for the last four years. He promised a resolution.

The Prime Minister came to Kamloops where people had lost their jobs and he did not even acknowledge this crisis existed. With SNC-Lavalin, he went to the wall and said it was his job to protect jobs, and there has been nothing. The Liberals talked about the money that went to the softwood lumber industry for the transition agreement, but it is predominantly recycled money that has always been there.

We have communities in crisis. What we want to see is a plan for industry, a plan for communities and a plan for the individuals who have been impacted so terribly.

[Forestry Industry, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, in the first question period in the House, I spoke about the softwood lumber crisis in British Columbia and asked the government about its plans to deal with that issue. To be quite frank, the answer was not very satisfying with respect to that or even the acknowledgement of the extent of the crisis.

Hopefully, the government realizes the extent of the crisis, because it certainly has not taken any time to acknowledge it yet. For the people who might be listening, it is a very difficult time, especially in the interior of British Columbia with respect to the softwood lumber crisis.

This was not the first time I have brought it to the government's attention. In June, I talked about the Canfor sawmill in Vavenby, 170 jobs lost; Tolko Industries closure in Quesnel, 240 jobs lost; and the Norbord closure, 160 jobs lost. This has continued at a very rapid and concerning pace across British Columbia. About 20 mills have closed, and it seems to be growing every day. Thousands of workers are out of work in at least 27 communities. It is not just the workers in the mills, this impacts the contractors and many others.

The Canadian Press posted a headline on December 2, which said, “Hundreds of B.C. communities and thousands of workers struggle to survive in forestry industry carnage.” That is how people are describing this.

To give an example, a car dealer in one of the communities has repossessed 10 cars in the last while. The dealer said that one person begged him to accept a load of wood for his car payment so he could have his car at least until Christmas.

These are real people, real families and real struggles.

The workers sometimes have benefits that have been afforded to them through the EI or through severance. However, there are also all the logging truck drivers and contractors who do not have those benefits.

Another gentleman came in to see me. He has four young children. He has a logging truck. He has payments on his logging truck and as a private operator, he does not have the safety net that so many others do.

This is an important crisis in British Columbia and what has the government's response been to date?

Four years ago, when the bromance was very strong between the Prime Minister and President Obama, they committed to getting this job done. However, it was not in the mandate letters. The Prime Minister then said that his important responsibility with respect to SNC-Lavalin, which took him to the ethical wall, was protecting jobs.

There has been radio silence with respect to this issue. It has not been in the throne speech. There has not been a plan. We see the recent NAFTA. One of the biggest trade irritants between Canada and the U.S. has been softwood lumber, and that was not even discussed. When we reopened the discussions on NAFTA, that was a time to deal with the biggest trade irritant.

We are looking for a plan from the government.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate today, I think everyone agrees that the issue is an important one.

What I am hearing from the Liberals as their defence for not supporting this motion is that the foreign affairs committee could do it, but I would like to remind members of an example, a motion by the current Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations for a study into murdered and missing indigenous women. That was a parliamentary committee that went for a whole year because the matter was important. It could have been studied by the indigenous committee, but there was a motion by the Liberals in this House to study this issue. They had suggested witnesses and thought it was important, so this is not something new or unique. The Liberals' argument against this motion does not really hold water when it sounds like it is a study they would agree to.

I would ask my colleague to speculate on why the Liberals are objecting in this case, but so many other times have supported this type of committee in the House.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague talked a lot about resources and the importance of resources. One thing that has not been brought up yet is that in the House a couple of years ago, we expressed concerns for the government when it was moving forward with a very murky insurance company called the Anbang Insurance Group and the sale of our residential care facilities to China.

Members might be aware that it turns out that three on the island have now had to be taken back over by the officials on the island due to the care that was given.

They need to move slowly in terms of the decisions around foreign investment, and this is another good example. I would like comments from my colleague.