John Nater

[Business of the House, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to ask the government House leader what business he intends to bring before the House for the remainder of this week and for the week following next week's constituency break.

[Peter Hogg, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, for nearly 50 years, Dr. Peter Hogg was a leading scholar of Canadian constitutional law. Professor and later dean at Osgoode Hall Law School, Professor Hogg was known in this precinct for his wise advice to members on both sides of the House and his clear testimony at committees.

His major treatise, Constitutional Law of Canada, remains the definitive source on the topic, owing to clear and careful reading of judicial case law and its searing insight into jurisprudence. His many accolades include the Hnatyshyn Award, named for the distinguished former governor general and minister of justice who once sat in the House.

Dr. Hogg recognized throughout his long career that the responsibility for advancing and protecting the rule of law, one of the great inheritances we share as Canadians, lies here in the House.

As his adopted country, Canada benefited from Dr. Peter Hogg's lifetime of scholarship and service.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, is referred to committee, could the government commit to supporting a proposal at committee to have other committees, in addition to the trade committee, study the provisions of Bill C-4 and the impacts within their respective mandates in the same manner that budget bills have been considered at committee in recent years?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 5th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, when the hon. parliamentary secretary asks that all questions be allowed to stand, typically the question will be put to the House for us to provide that unanimous consent. I believe that did not occur.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the House leader's question gives me the opportunity to talk about the Conservative Party record on trade and in particular the work of the member for Abbotsford and the former agriculture minister, Gerry Ritz, who were instrumental in negotiating the trans-Pacific partnership.

I have spoken with stakeholder groups, especially in the agricultural industry, who received phone calls at all hours from these two gentlemen when negotiations were being undertaken, updating them on negotiations, letting them know where Canada was going as a country and making sure that they were on board and onside with the important discussions that were taking place. They stood up for our country. They stood up for the agricultural industry, and I am proud of people like the member for Abbotsford and Gerry Ritz.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, that is the concern being expressed by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. He is such a strong advocate for the aluminum industry, particularly in his riding. No one on this side of the House wants to see the potential for that industry to become corrupted by the dumping of aluminum from China into Mexico.

The 70% rule looks good on its face, but it ignores the reality of what we are going to see on the ground. It ignores the reality of what we are seeing today, where the market cap is already above that 70%. It is already having a major role here, but we are seeing the impact of that down the road. How can we know this for a fact without the economic impact assessments that have been promised to the opposition parties since December 12? Here we are on day three of debate on Bill C-4 and the government still has not provided those statements.

In question period, we heard that the government was working on this. If Liberals have been working on it since December 12, are we simply supposed to take their word that, yes, it is as they have said? That is not good enough for the people in the aluminum industry. It is not good enough for the people in Perth—Wellington. It is not good enough for the Canadian people who are impacted by this trade agreement.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to continue debate on Bill C-4, which would implement the new NAFTA between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Since this is my first opportunity to address the House at some length in this Parliament, I would like to very briefly thank the good people of Perth—Wellington for giving me the honour of serving a second term as their representative here in Ottawa. While I have a great fondness for the 105,000 constituents in Perth—Wellington, I want to thank four constituents in particular: my wonderful wife Justine and our three kids Ainsley, Bennett and Caroline. They have been my biggest supporters, my greatest fans and my rock of support over these past four years and into the current Parliament as well.

The Conservative Party's record on trade is clear. In the previous Conservative government, our government negotiated trade deals with over 40 different countries. We recognize the importance of trade on a global scale, and at a personal level, in my great riding of Perth—Wellington, we recognize the importance of trade for our local agriculture industry and also for the manufacturing industry there, so the concerns of this new trade deal are there as well.

The Liberals appear to not be entirely aware that they are now operating in a minority Parliament, that the basis for their support is not limited only to their party and that they need and require the support of opposition parties to negotiate and to pass these types of trade deals. Therefore, relying on us as the official opposition to blindly rubber-stamp any piece of legislation, but in particular a piece of legislation like this, would be foolhardy. We will not idly vote simply to ratify a deal without certain provisions and certain information being provided to us as the official opposition.

That said, we do recognize the stability that is provided by a continental trade deal such as the new NAFTA. In Perth—Wellington, we are landlocked. We do not share a border with our friends south of the border, but the industries in Perth—Wellington are global in nature. They are reliant on trade deals to export their products all over the world.

After all, Perth County is number one for pork producers in Ontario. Wellington County is right behind it at number three. Perth County and Wellington County have over 100,000 cattle, placing them in the top five for cattle production. Perth—Wellington has, literally, some of the most fertile farmland in the world. Prices for farmland are as high as $25,000 an acre. If we believe the gossip at the coffee shop, the price is approaching $30,000 per acre because of the great nature of the farmland in Perth—Wellington.

Chicken production in Perth and Wellington counties accounts for nearly one-quarter of all chicken production in Ontario. Zones 6 and zone 7 for the egg farmers of Ontario have over 800,000 and over 1.7 million laying hens respectively. Of course, the dairy industry in Perth—Wellington is massive. There are more dairy farmers in Perth—Wellington than in any other electoral district in this country, so when we talk about trade deals and we talk about agriculture, Perth—Wellington is truly at the heart of these discussions on a global scale.

However, it is not just agriculture. It is auto parts manufacturing as well. We have many auto parts facilities in our riding in the city of Stratford, but auto parts facilities across the riding in Palmerston, Arthur, Listowel and St. Marys also provide inputs to the auto parts industry, so it is important that we provide the stability of this trade deal.

At the same time, this trade deal saw concessions. Typically in any negotiation, when we make concessions, we receive something in return. We saw concession after concession after concession, but all we got in return was maintaining the status quo. There was not any new market access. There were not any new opportunities for farmers and farm families and auto parts manufacturers in Perth—Wellington to expand on the global scale. What we saw were concessions, including 3.6% in the dairy industry and the elimination of milk classes 6 and 7. What we saw were potential limits on future exports in the dairy industry, all against the backdrop of $619 million worth of dairy imports already coming into Canada from the United States.

We saw an agreement that will see 10 million dozen more eggs coming into Canada. We saw 57 metric tons more of products from the chicken industry that will flow into Canada, which is nearly double that negotiated under the trans-Pacific partnership.

On the issue of sovereignty, we saw a trade agreement in which we need permission from another country, the United States, to explore trade deals with non-market countries. This is a concern for people across Canada and people in Perth—Wellington.

Despite all these concessions, despite all these opportunities where we gave, what did we see in return? We did not see a softwood lumber agreement, which has been called for since the beginning of the previous Parliament to help the forestry sector. We saw that the “buy American” provisions have remained. While Mexico was able to negotiate a specific chapter on “buy American”, Canada did not.

We also saw concerns raised around the aluminum industry. My colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, has been a strong voice on this, not only for his constituents but for the aluminum industry as a whole. He has proposed meaningful solutions to help address these concerns. He is truly a champion for the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, but also for the aluminum industry as a whole.

Trade is important, particularly with the Canada-United States relationship. Estimates from places like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have indicated that two-way trade is as high as $627.8 billion on an annual basis. That is approximately $320 billion of exports from Canada, and about $307 billion of imports back into Canada.

This is important for industry, but it goes back to our minority Parliament context and the information that is important and needed by all parties, but in particular the opposition parties to implement this trade agreement.

On December 12, members of the official opposition met with staff and members of Parliament for the government. They requested very specific information about the economic impact that this trade deal would have on specific sectors. Here we are on February 3, and that information is still outstanding.

In fact, on January 28, this question was asked in question period and the minister responsible said that the chief economist from Global Affairs Canada was working on the economic impact and was working on getting that information. However, here we are, still without that information, still being asked to ratify this trade deal despite not having all the information that is needed to ratify it.

We, as the official opposition, have a duty to analyze any piece of legislation that comes before the House, but in particular one that has such a lasting and broad impact on our economy, across every province and every territory, including my riding of Perth—Wellington. For us to do that meaningfully, we need the information that is required.

We need the government to provide us with the economic impact assessments that would tell us the impact this would have on the dairy industry, on supply-managed commodities, on the aluminum industry and on the auto parts industry, in our ridings and across the country.

I am proud to put our record of negotiation up against any. However, we cannot simply idly stand by and ratify an agreement until this information is available to parliamentarians. I look forward to continued debate on this matter. I look forward to the key sector and stakeholder groups appearing before committee and telling us how they see the economy and our country being impacted by this trade deal. We have not gotten the information, as of yet, from the government.

[Business of the House, January 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I am sure Canadians from coast to coast to coast are tuning in for the weekly business statement. It is my pleasure to ask the government House leader what business he intends to bring before the House for the remainder of this week and into next week.

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

With regard to government expenditures with the Internet media company BuzzFeed, since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenditure or ad campaign, (iv) title for each “quiz” or “story” purchased?

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

With regard to government usage of cargo planes, excluding for military purposes, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all instances where government aircraft was used for cargo flights including (i) date, (ii) origin and destination for each leg, (iii) type of aircraft, (iv) description of cargo, (v) related government event cargo was used for, if applicable; and (b) what are the details of all instances where the government chartered cargo aircraft including (i) date, (ii) origin and destination for each leg, (iii) type of aircraft, (iv) description of cargo, (v) related government event cargo was intended for, if applicable, (vi) vendor, (vii) amount paid to vendor?