Erin Weir

[Carbon Pricing, October 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with climate rebates, the Prime Minister has offered “mo'” money to Saskatchewan people, but our premier has responded with “Moe” problems.

A solution would be to extend the federal carbon price to the carbon content of imports from countries that do not price their emissions. Will the Prime Minister enact a carbon tariff to ensure a level playing field for Canadian workers and to collect more revenue, which could fund greater rebates?

[United Steelworkers, October 22nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, over the weekend, CBC reported that this will be Leo Gerard's last term as president of the united steelworkers.

As a member of the union and of the all-party steel caucus, I rise to congratulate Leo on his extensive service to steelworkers across North America, including those at EVRAZ and other workplaces in Regina. Leo distinguished himself as one of a very few Canadians to be elected as president of an international union. With his leadership, the united steelworkers have been steadfast in advocating for a Canadian exemption from U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs. All Canadians appreciate such cross-border solidarity as we push to maintain fair and balanced trade with our neighbours.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating Leo.

[Infrastructure, October 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary began his remarks by emphasizing the government's commitment to a rules-based trading system. I certainly appreciate some of the positive accomplishments in the USMCA. However, the fact remains that even with that deal negotiated, we still have American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports. Therefore, the rules-based trading system is not being respected and I guess the question is how we will respond to that. Will we just accept it or will we use federal procurement policy to ensure that in the face of these trade barriers we can at least use Canadian steel in our own infrastructure?

The parliamentary secretary talked a fair bit about the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal. The last time I asked about it, less than 20% of the steel for that project was being manufactured in Canada. Therefore, I think there are opportunities to use some of the steel that we cannot sell south of the border in federal infrastructure right here in Canada.

[Infrastructure, October 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in June, I asked whether the federal government would prioritize the use of Canadian-made steel in infrastructure projects, such as the Trans Mountain expansion, as well as the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal, particularly given the imposition of U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel exports. If we are unable to sell our steel south of the border, it is all the more reason to ensure that we are able to use it in federal infrastructure in our own country. This question is still very much relevant because, of course, we still have American tariffs on Canadian steel exports, even after this USMCA agreement to renew the former NAFTA.

In addition to reiterating that question, I want to raise some other issues regarding the potential benefits to Canadian workers of federal infrastructure spending.

The first thing I want to raise has to do with the Trans Mountain expansion. Kinder Morgan had contracted to do most of the construction with the Christian Labour Association of Canada, which is a very employer friendly organization. It was recently kicked out of the International Trade Union Confederation, and now that Trans Mountain is a public project, I wonder if consideration might be given to reissuing those contracts to more legitimate trade unions that would properly represent their employees and, indeed, bargain for better wages and working conditions.

The second issue I want to raise is that this government was elected on the promise of introducing a modernized fair wages policy, after the former Conservative government had eliminated the federal fair wages legislation. What this really means is that when the federal government builds infrastructure, the construction contracts should require some sort of minimum level of wages for different trades, wages that are better than the prevailing provincial minimum wage. One way the federal government could ensure quite concretely that its infrastructure investment benefits Canadian workers to a greater extent would be to keep its promise to reintroduce some sort of federal fair wages legislation. It is one of the first things I asked about at committee after I was elected, and we are still waiting for the government to make good on that promise.

The third topic I would like to raise would be the notion of community benefit agreements that the Government of Canada could attach to its infrastructure spending. The House passed Bill C-344, a private member's bill, to enable community benefit agreements. I believe that bill is before the Senate, and so it is not law yet. On the other hand, there really is nothing stopping the federal government from choosing to negotiate community benefit agreements when it lets these infrastructure contracts. I believe that would be another way it could ensure that its infrastructure investments are tied to local job and training opportunities, as well as other types of economic and social benefits for the regions where these infrastructure investments are occurring.

I would be very interested to hear from the government whether it will take up any of these suggestions to ensure that its infrastructure spending makes the maximum possible contribution to our Canadian economy.

[The Environment, October 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of days, Canadians have emitted a great deal of cannabis smoke. However, that is nothing compared to the emissions from energy-intensive cannabis production. U.S. cannabis production emits as much carbon as three million cars.

Has the government estimated the carbon footprint of Canadian cannabis production and what steps has the government taken to limit those emissions as it lights up this new industry?

[Points of Order, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for my lack of caution in this case. I did not realize that my delegate badge from this past weekend's Saskatchewan NDP convention might be considered as a prop. I would be willing to table the badge.

[Renew Saskatchewan, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the only thing in Saskatoon more exciting than the Blades' come-from-behind overtime victory against the Red Deer Rebels was the Saskatchewan NDP convention. As an automatic delegate, I was privileged to reconnect with many party stalwarts.

Provincial NDP leader Ryan Meili unveiled renew Saskatchewan, a plan to finance the upfront costs of energy installations and retrofits for homes, farms, businesses, municipalities and reserves, with the loans repaid from the energy savings over time. This initiative to create jobs and reduce emissions by tapping into Saskatchewan's tremendous potential for wind, solar and geothermal power should have us all running back to Saskatoon.

[Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Shepard for bringing up the challenge posed by intellectual property, where it is very difficult for tax authorities to determine where it is located and how much it is worth. Now, there is a potential solution to that, which is called “formulary apportionment”, essentially allocating a company's profits based on the actual location of its sales and payrolls. We are familiar with the system in Canada because the Canada Revenue Agency does not allow companies to move their profits around between provinces based on transfer pricing. It actually requires them to allocate their Canadian profits based on where they actually employ people and sell their goods and services.

Since we are talking about an attempt at international co-operation through Bill C-82, does the member for Calgary Shepard see prospects to apply formulary apportionment at the international level?

[Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very esoteric topic, and I think it makes sense to talk about tangible examples.

I spent this past weekend in Saskatoon at the Saskatchewan NDP convention. One of the largest companies in that city is Cameco, which mines uranium in the northern part of the province. For many years, it had a contract with its own subsidiary, in Zug, Switzerland, to sell uranium for the rock-bottom price of only $10 per pound. The uranium was not being consumed in Switzerland. The whole point of this arrangement was to transfer profits from Canada to Switzerland, avoiding hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate tax both federally and in the Province of Saskatchewan.

Could the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook explain to us how Bill C-82 would help to stop companies from engaging in that type of tax avoidance?

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, October 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been trumpeting the fact that the new USMCA does not contain investor-state dispute provisions. However, we have the government trying to ram through the trans-Pacific partnership, which includes investor-state dispute provisions. Those provisions of NAFTA empowered multinational corporations to directly challenge our democratic laws, regulations and policies before secretive commercial tribunals.

Could the member for Jonquière offer any insight as to why the government thinks it is such a good thing to remove those provisions from NAFTA, and that is a good thing, yet it seems to believe investor-state dispute provisions are somehow appropriate in the trans-Pacific partnership?