Karine Trudel

[Labour, October 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party presented themselves as strong supporters of our workers, but in the first year of their term of office, they voted against increasing the minimum wage to $15 and rejected the NDP's anti-scab bill.

By voting against my bill, the Prime Minister refused to guarantee and respect workers' right to collective bargaining. This simple amendment to the Canada Labour Code would have made a big difference for workers.

What happened to the fair and balanced approach promised to Canadian workers?

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a comment.

I do not believe that paying the Americans $1 billion, at the expense of the Canadian industry, is indicative of a good Canada-U.S. relationship. We are not necessarily getting a better agreement if we have to pay money to the Americans. It is really the Canadian industry that had to pay for that. All the players, the workers, and the forestry industry agree that we are better off going before independent tribunals than ending up with a bad agreement. We know that they won and were recognized on three occasions. Accordingly, it is better to go before the courts than to have a bad agreement that will be detrimental to our industry and will cause job losses that will be disastrous to our economy.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would simply like to remind him that when the Conservative government was in power, it cost the forestry industry $1 billion.

We want a deal to be signed, but at what price? I hope it will not be on the backs of our workers or at the industry's expense.

In his speech, my colleague mentioned that they have formed a task force to meet with workers and representatives from the forest industry. Since the beginning of June, this industry has known that the government would not be able to negotiate a deal. What is the industry asking for now? It wants the government to work on a plan B, which could be a loan guarantee program, for example.

What are my colleague's thoughts on a loan guarantee program? Are they going to listen to the forest industry, given that this is what the industry now wants?

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We are running out of time here today. What worries me most are jobs. Time is also running out on the negotiations. The more time passes, the more our jobs are at risk. We are afraid that come January, February, or March, the Americans are going to impose another surtax on our industry.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether the government has planned any sort of mechanism to support the forestry industry so that it can overcome those challenges and prevent job losses.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I was very pleased to hear him talk about regional differences. As members know, Quebec has worked extremely hard to build a forestry regime and it is important that the government recognize that.

Over the course of the day, we have seen that the government recognizes Quebec's uniqueness, which is very important. Over 5,000 jobs are at stake in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and nothing has come of the negotiations.

What worries me is the balance of power. The Americans have made their decision, no matter what happens. The Prime Minister said that a framework was established when he met with President Barack Obama last spring. He even gave a speech here in the House.

I am wondering what the government plans to do to exercise our leadership and help us be strong. If we end up in a trade war and before the courts, is the government prepared to implement a plan B? Such a plan could consist of loan guarantees, for example. This would not be a subsidy for the forestry industry, but it would strengthen our position and show that we want to preserve our forestry industry. As my colleague mentioned in his speech, this is important because the industry is an economic contributor.

What does my colleague think that the government should do to strengthen our position, show our leadership, and send a clear message during negotiations with the Americans?

[Softwood Lumber, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have not yet managed to sign a new softwood lumber agreement, and now the deadline has passed. This summer, the government hinted that an agreement was in sight, but the fact is that our forestry industry will be suffering because of more U.S. tariffs.

The minister refused to give any guarantees to workers who want to know what the government is going to do to protect their jobs.

Can the minister tell us today if her government has a plan B to support the industry before a trade war erupts?

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. We both represent a riding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, which is a forestry region. We have the same problems since our ridings are right next door to each other.

It is true that a good negotiated agreement would be a good thing, but I would like my colleague to elaborate on what such an agreement might consist of. There has been a lot of talk about helping our forestry industry and sending a strong message of support to our workers given what is currently happening, even in my colleague's riding. For example, one business is no longer going forward with its plan to expand. Workers are very concerned.

What does my colleague think about a support program and a loan guarantee program, for example?

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very informative speech.

I think everyone in the House would agree that we need a good deal. To send a clear message, I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. If the government were already showing strong leadership by having a plan B, such as a loan guarantee program, for example, what impact would that have on the negotiations, and how might that affect the outcome if the matter ends up in court?

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I learned a lot about the forestry industry in her riding.

As I have said in the House many times, the forestry industry provides over 5,000 jobs in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I am also concerned about the industry's problems. Some of our businesses have already indicated that they are no longer going to move forward with projects because they are worried that the softwood lumber agreement will not be renewed.

It has been said that the Conservatives reached an agreement before the matter went to court. However, one million dollars was lost as a result of that Conservative deal.

Does my colleague agree that the government should immediately start coming up with a plan B, for example a loan guarantee program, to support our forestry workers and industry just in case a bad agreement leads straight into another trade war that must be resolved before the courts?

[Standing Orders and Procedure, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The topic of Friday sittings is compelling but also worrisome. As my colleague mentioned in his speech, if we do not sit on Fridays, would Thursday not become the new Friday? It is a question worth asking. Would ministers start leaving Ottawa Wednesday afternoon?

I am a mother myself, and we hear a lot about work-life balance. This is also about all of our employees, the Hill staff, the people who feed us. I often talk about the people who work in the cafeteria. We rely on them, but they too have families.

Accordingly, if we were to adjust the hours from Monday to Thursday and sit until midnight those days, are we really talking about work-life balance for the staff who work in the House and on the Hill? I also have to wonder about our effectiveness as MPs if we have to work, make speeches, and examine bills until midnight.