Karine Trudel

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is a very active member of the House. I often work closely with him. His office is next to mine. His questions are very relevant.

I have more of a comment I want to make after hearing his presentation. I have been following question period for many years. I was always fascinated by the exchanges that took place. Now that I am taking part in question period myself, I am often disappointed by the answers we get. However, I am even more disappointed when I return to my riding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area and my constituents tell me that a certain question was excellent and very pertinent, but that they heard no clear answer and they too are disappointed. My constituents find the government's way of answering to be shocking. They are shocked to hear those kinds of answers, because they see all the hard work we are doing on various issues as MPs, including softwood lumber and diafiltered milk, for example.

I think we need new measures. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what else we should do to have a more constructive and higher calibre question period.

[Status of Women, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is 2016. Yesterday, the government told Canadian women that they would have to wait a bit longer for equality.

Pay equity is a fundamental right. Canadian women have already waited far too long for their rights to be respected. The pay equity task force released its report on this 12 years ago. Enough is enough.

Why is the Liberal government holding up justice for women? Will the government take immediate action and introduce a proactive bill on pay equity by the end of 2016?

[Softwood Lumber, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there are only seven days left before the deadline and there is still no softwood lumber agreement in sight. Yesterday, the Minister of International Trade was unable to tell us whether the government was working on a plan B to support the forestry industry.

Forestry workers, whose jobs are in jeopardy, are wondering whether the government will support them.

In the event of a dispute will the government support the industry, for example, by establishing an emergency loan guarantee program? Yes or no?

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, instead of telling the forestry industry about her plan B for softwood lumber, the minister blamed the previous government for her inability to reach a new agreement with the United States.

With just eight days until the deadline, the industry wants to see the government's backup plan. According to recent rumours, the United States wants to reduce Canada's share of the softwood lumber market from 34% to 20%.

If an agreement is not reached, will the government support the industry, for example, by establishing an emergency loan guarantee program?