House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 33% of the vote.
Business of Supply October 17th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to follow one of my friends from B.C. and another friend from Saskatchewan. We are talking about all of the country in our speeches today. I talk about Quebec, because I come from there. However, we need to have a deal. We had a good deal in the past, and we cannot accept less. We already had a deal, which we can continue to work on and build on to get results.
Business of Supply October 17th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, 25% of Quebec's standing timber is in my riding.
Every day, no matter where I go, I meet worried workers who have lost their jobs, or who see that their employer is not investing in new equipment. There were some with us yesterday on the plane bringing us back to Ottawa. There are equipment manufacturers who are making more efficient planers, for example. All these people are worried about their future.
I know one thing for certain: by revealing our negotiating strategies, it is very likely that the Americans will say that they will resolve it, and we will not be allowed to do so. When I was minister, I never revealed details of ongoing negotiations, and I would not do so today.
It is not for us to speak on behalf of the government about what should be in the agreement. The agreement should respect the individual needs of all regions and provinces, and find solutions.
I would prefer that we first have a negotiated agreement instead of looking for solutions, which will happen in due course. Meanwhile, there is still time to negotiate.
Business of Supply October 17th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there were 10 years of trade wars with the Americans dating back to 2006 when a former Liberal government was in office. There was an agreement from 2006 to 2013. Then, we agreed with the Americans to renew the agreement for two years, until 2015. In 2015, there was a one-year grace period until 2016.
It is clear that our government provided better stability for the forestry industry than the former Liberal government did. We believe that it is important to continue to move forward on this issue. We resolved this issue in four months. However, the Liberals have been in power for three times four months and they still have not resolved it. We believe that the most important objective is to reach an agreement today.
The Liberals never talk about the money that was recovered by Canada during the negotiations. I would therefore like to remind members that $6 billion was on the table and we recovered $5 billion of it. We helped the Canadian forestry industry. Now, the Liberals are in power and it is their responsibility to resolve the problem. They need to do so.
Business of Supply October 17th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I have a duty to speak to this matter today. Since arriving here in 2007, I have always felt that it has been my responsibility to stand up for the forestry economy of all regions of Canada, from northern British Columbia to the Atlantic regions, in order to protect communities, because the forestry industry is often their sole provider of jobs.
I have always been told that people are judged more by their actions than by their words. We can say many things, but we have to look at the facts and the results. A bill to abolish the title of minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was introduced recently. They abolished the position of the political lieutenant for the regions. I get it: they do not want complaints from the regions. No one is going to stand up for their region because they will be rapped on the knuckles.
The Economic Development Agency of Canada was often the only department to wave the Canadian flag in Quebec's regions. People never see other federal government departments or officials. Now the government is going to abolish the department of Economic Development. Perhaps if the sawmills we are talking about today were not located in Rivière-aux-Rats, Port-Cartier, Girardville, or Saint-Thomas-Didyme, which are in my riding, but rather in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, or Winnipeg, we would have heard quite a bit about them earlier.
Today, the situation affects 400,000 jobs across Canada in regions that have fewer voters. However, it is important that we maintain the economic health of all regions in Canada so there are jobs for the people.
Our party came to power in 2006, and I arrived in September 2007. The government really did not need me to deal with the softwood lumber issue because it had already done so. What was the situation when the government came to power in January after 10 years of inaction by the Liberal government? Between 27% and 37% of export duties and $6 billion were frozen in a trade war with the United States. We dealt with that in three or four months. In April, everything was settled. We brought in $5 billion out of the $6 billion.
Members are saying that Canada gave the United States a billion dollars, but what they fail to mention is that we brought in $5 billion. We brought in $5 billion of the $6 billion that was on the table and we gave that money back to the forestry industry. We signed a deal that brought 10 years of peace and stability.
Of course, the former minister had begun working on this issue. He had begun discussions but not negotiations. He too consulted with our Canadian partners. What was said earlier is not true. We began paving the way for future negotiations. We were moving firmly in that direction.
When we look at which party or which government resolved international trade issues in the past, it is not the current government. It is our former government and Brian Mulroney's government.
The Liberals have always been more reluctant to sign trade deals, so we need to be careful. We jumped in. We opened doors and we signed a 10-year agreement.
As my colleague said earlier, we are talking about softwood lumber, but those who know forestry know that trees must first be felled and limbed, loaded onto trucks, and transported to sawmills. Milling produces byproducts that go to secondary and tertiary manufacturing facilities, which make cushions, mattresses, and all kinds of other things. Wood chips go to pulp and paper mills. All of that will be jeopardized. Not just lumber mills, but the entire forestry industry supply chain will be jeopardized, from truckers to equipment manufacturers that sell machinery used to cut and process wood.
The government has been in power for a year but says it has not had enough time to get anything done. It blames everything on the big, bad former Conservative government that did not get the job done. The Liberals wanted power. They have it. Now they have to keep their promises. It is up to them to seal a deal for this whole economic sector.
We understand that the deal with the Americans has to benefit the country and all regions of the country. Of course we agree with that; that is what we did in 2006.
Whenever someone tells me we have to reach an agreement that is good for the whole country, I say we did.
What is currently at play? When we came to an agreement in 2006, the provinces could opt for percentages with no quota, or unrestrained exports, as British Columbia did. It was between 5%, 10%, and 15% according to the prevailing price per thousand board feet. That is how the measure was drafted. The price could vary, and accordingly, so did the export percentage.
It was 5%, 10%, or 15%. Now we are being told that if there is no agreement, and I hope there will be one, the cost of exporting will be 25%. That is hundreds of millions of dollars that will go toward export costs instead of to jobs or the people who are already working in this sector.
We read the press release that said that negotiations were ongoing and that the government hoped to conclude an agreement. I hope so too.
The Canadian province that exports the most lumber to the United States is British Columbia. Statistically speaking, the numbers are there. Quebec is the second-largest exporter. More importantly, especially seeing that 40 Liberal members come from the regions in Quebec, Quebec exports roughly 48% of its softwood lumber products. In other words, half of its two-by-fours go to the United States. Of this 48%, 98.5% of the lumber exported from Quebec goes to the United States. It is easy to see why this agreement is so important. That is why Quebec's entire forestry industry is quite anxious today. They know what is at stake.
Today, it takes a lot of courage and I hope that my colleagues across the way have that courage. I would like the government to deal with this issue and to conclude an agreement that is good for the entire country, one that respects regional differences. Quebec changed how it allots timber: 75% remains public and 25% is sold at auction, as is the case in a number of U.S. states.
We would like the particularities of every region of the country, including the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, and the western provinces, to be recognized and a good deal to be negotiated, rather than having to take our partners to court. Of course we are enjoying a warmer relationship with the U.S., as the Liberals claim. All these grand dinners and accolades are all well and good, but what about jobs, results, and salaries for those workers?
Why are we even talking about job creation? Some 400,000 jobs already depend on that deal. Before we create any more, let us protect the ones we have. This sector already provides a lot of good jobs. It is the government's duty to reach an agreement quickly to give these workers some job security.
Taxation October 6th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I said “you”, because I knew you were not voting. However, that does not change the facts.
It does not change the fact that, today, they cannot promise us that Canadians will not see an increase, and therein lies the problem. They also say the provinces will have to implement it. They are forcing the provinces to handle the unpleasant task of making people pay for the federal government's decision.
Can they promise there will be no increase for Canadians?
Taxation October 6th, 2016
You have refused a motion saying that there will not be a higher price for the population. You refused that.
Mr. Speaker, the new carbon tax, which is the Prime Minister's own word for it, will take more money out of Canadians' pockets. Canadians already pay their fair share of taxes and cannot afford to see the cost of living continue to rise.
I ask again, and it is an easy answer to give: Will he promise the Canadian population that the price of groceries, gas, and heating will not increase because of this new carbon tax?
Taxation October 6th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, please forgive me. I should have said that someone else would be answering.
The person who answers must confirm that there will not be any increase in prices for Canadians, not on their electricity bill and not on their grocery bill. The government must promise us that today.
Taxation October 6th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, please excuse me for being a bit emotional. That was a very touching moment.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed what everyone in the country already knew: there is a new tax. He made it quite clear yesterday that there is a new tax on carbon that will affect every Canadian family and will cost them more. The government cannot even promise Canadians that rates will not go up.
The Prime Minister is not here today. I do not know who will answer. However, since—
Taxation October 5th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, we support the Paris agreement. In fact, we agree that it is a tax, but we do not believe it should be imposed on Canadians.
The very idea of imposing a tax is very Liberal. The Liberals want more money so they can make the government even bigger, and then prove how good they are by giving Canadians their money back.
Why not just leave that money in their pockets in the first place?
Will the Prime Minister guarantee to the House today that the cost of living will not go up as a result of his new carbon tax?
Taxation October 5th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, yesterday on CBC, we heard about how the price of gas and heating oil will go up 11¢ a litre and 14¢ a litre, respectively. The government cannot make any promises about prices not going up.
A tax on carbon means more money taken out of the pockets of Canadians. The Prime Minister is trying to sugar-coat the reality by saying it is “carbon pricing”, but Canadians are not fooled. This is a new tax.
This is bad news for Canadians. They already pay their share of taxes. Will the Prime Minister guarantee Canadians today that the price of their groceries, gas, or heating will not go up because of this new tax?