Kevin Lamoureux

[December 1st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give a hard number, but I believe these are the types of discussions and dialogue that occur on an ongoing basis. Today, I would suggest that there is a larger interest in the subject matter because of actions that have taken place in the U.S., and there has been more engagement as a direct result.

Let us not try to politicize the issue. This is an issue that was there in the past. It is not just one government that has had to deal with this. What is important is that whoever is in government at the time takes whatever measures are necessary to ensure that we are protecting the industry. As I said, I truly believe that the Government of Canada will resolve this positively. Unfortunately, it will take time.

[December 1st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to share some thoughts on a very important issue. It does not matter what side of the House one sits on, we all recognize that Canada leads the world in many different industries. One of those industries is our softwood lumber industry. We have, I believe, an incredible history of providing not only the United States but also other countries a first-class product. That is recognized.

I give a great deal of thought, and express appreciation and thanks, to those who have been there over the years to protect and foster growth within that industry. It employs thousands of people. It contributes billions of dollars to our GDP. It is a major force in our economy. Whether it is its direct jobs or indirect jobs, it should matter to all of us. We as a government, and the Prime Minister himself, have expressed concern, whether it is to the President of the United States or to others. This is an industry that Canada, and in particular our government, will be there to protect.

I believe an appropriate way to start my comments would be to read what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance stated the other day on this very important industry. The minister said:

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber industry is a source of jobs and pride for Canadians across our country. We are extremely disappointed by the unfair and unwarranted decision of the United States to increase the duties it imposes on softwood lumber. This issue was raised, of course, by the Prime Minister at his meeting with President Biden. I have raised it with Secretary Yellen, as have all of our colleagues, and we have pointed out that these duties are adding to the inflation tax American consumers are paying.

This is not a new issue. We can talk about what we would argue on this side of the House are unfair practices taking place in the United States at times, and they are targeted at one of Canada's most valuable industries. This is not the first time. We have seen it on several occasions in the past. As a government, it is important that we speak as one voice, that we do not capitulate and that we recognize our voice is stronger if we unite in saying what is happening is not right.

In terms of free trade and the U.S., the relationship that Canada has with the U.S., the emphasis that we put on being a good neighbour and the economic ties between provinces and states, one needs to look at groups like our interparliamentary associations. We understand the dynamic. They have industry leaders within the United States, a significant, relatively wealthy group of people who are very effective at lobbying.

Because that is the case, we once again have duties and the U.S. has taken action that not only hurts us here in Canada but hurts Americans too. The U.S., from what I understand, does not have the ability to meet the demands of its market when it comes to softwood production. Canada, over the decades, has supplemented that supply.

As I indicated earlier, we have a first-grade product that is in high demand in the United States. However, the wealthy American mill owners and other stakeholders have been effectively lobbying to get these penalties put into place.

As a government, we have approached the very top political level: the President. We will turn to the free trade agreement that we ratified not that long ago, which includes Mexico. We will take it to the World Trade Organization as a government. I know the minister is on top of this file and recognizes the importance of it. We will do whatever we can to protect that industry, which is well represented in a number of regions including British Columbia, which has been hit very hard recently with rains. The province of Quebec and my home province of Manitoba have important lumber industries also.

Regarding jobs, indigenous communities often take the lead in providing the workforce. This industry supports so many communities in rural Canada. In many ways it is incredible.

The government, the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister responsible are very much aware of the issue. To individuals who are following the issue, in particular those who are working in the industry and the owners who are trying to ensure that we can maintain our market share, the Government of Canada has their backs. We will continue to work with different stakeholders and appeal to members on all sides of the House to add value to the debate we are having tonight. It should not necessarily be a finger-pointing exercise. It should be recognizing that this has gone on now for many years. It predates this government.

That is why we have trade agreements. That is why we have the World Trade Organization. That is why we build the relationships that we have. There is no doubt in my mind that Canada will ultimately prevail, as we have prevailed in the past, because we are on the right side of this issue. We might not necessarily be able to prevent it from happening, although I sure wish that we could, but we can ensure at the end of the day that the industry not only survives but thrives into the future.

We have seen growth in export markets, whether to China, Europe or others, because it is important. The minister will tell us that we look at ways in which we can expand our export markets. That is why we have progressive, aggressive trade going on with agreements. We have signed more trade agreements than any other government. We have, that is a fact. It speaks volumes in terms of how this government recognizes the value of our exports because we see that in the actions we take every day.

In particular, workers can rest assured that we will be there to support them in the coming days, weeks or however long it takes to resolve this, and we will prevail on this issue.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, many believe that in order to achieve the type of pharmacare that Canadians want, we have to have the provinces on board with it. I am sure the member can appreciate why that is the case, given the jurisdiction and the importance of the issue.

In the September 2020 throne speech, there was a commitment by the federal government to partner with willing provinces. The will is there to move forward. We saw the will to move forward with child care and the take-up. As a result, Canadians are benefiting. The national government provides the leadership and hopefully provinces will come onside to recognize that and work together.

Could the member provide his thoughts on whether he believes it is important that we work with provincial jurisdictions to make some of these possibilities turn into realities?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I will be selective in my question. It is related to the motion we passed, because there was a good feeling inside the House of Commons when we recognized the importance of mental health and in particular suicide.

The idea of having one line for Canada is something that is very well received in virtually all jurisdictions, but there is a considerable amount of background work that needs to take place, including working with some stakeholders, in particular the provinces, and other organizations that have these lines. I suspect that if we were to be a bit more patient, hopefully we would see that materialize.

My question for the member is with respect to the commitment from the federal government to move more on providing resources and supports in mental health and what he might have to say about that and the need to build that consensus.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I will confess that the Government of Canada had to borrow money for a very good reason. With the worldwide pandemic, in order to support Canadians and businesses alike, there was a need to be there in a very real way.

Had we not borrowed the money that the member opposite tries to portray as a bad thing, we would have seen far more bankruptcies. We would have seen many other societal issues, whether family breakups or suicides. The government made the decision to have the backs of Canadians.

Is the member saying that we should not have provided those programs that were so critical to helping Canadians through the very difficult time of the pandemic?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, congratulations on your appointment as the assistant deputy speaker. I know that many of my colleagues enjoy seeing you in the chair.

Time and time again I hear members of the Bloc talk about health care and the issue of jurisdiction. When we look at the throne speech and some of the actions of this government today and yesterday, we see there is a solid commitment to things such as long-term care, the cost of pharmaceuticals and mental health. They are important national issues, and there is a commitment from the federal government to work with other jurisdictions to ensure these very important issues are being dealt with.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is important for the national government to act on these important issues for her constituents and mine.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 30th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, the member concluded with remarks about a very important issue that I concur with: the issue of trade.

Trade and the economic activity it creates are overwhelmingly positive for us as a nation. We have recognized this since 2015. If members check the records, they will find that no government has signed more trade deals than this government. I take a great deal of pride in that fact because we have been out in the world, making sure that Canadian-made products have access to markets. That helps support Canada's middle class. It helps support a stronger, healthier economy.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the bigger picture of trade and how he could incorporate that in the years ahead.

[Privilege, November 30th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised on November 23, 2021 respecting an order of the House made on March 25, 2021 in the previous Parliament.

The matter the member is raising emanates from the 43rd Parliament, which was dissolved on August 15, 2021. That terminates all business of the House of that Parliament. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, in relation to the effects of dissolution:

With dissolution, all business of the House is terminated.

It goes on:

All items on the Order Paper including government and private Members' bills die. The government's obligation to provide answers to written questions, to respond to petitions or to produce papers requested by the House also ends with dissolution.

The members opposite have relied on a 500-year-old precedent cited in the 20th edition of Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament that refers to a contempt carrying over from one Parliament to another. It is worth noting that this reference no longer appears in any version of Erskine May's treatise because, I submit, the context of the 16th and 17th centuries no longer applies.

This citation refers to a time that predates representative and responsible government and was used for the purposes of imprisoning a privy councillor for crimes committed during a parliament. The sanctions provided in these times generally exceeded the duration of a parliament, which were far shorter in length than our current parliaments, and the new parliaments had to reinstate these sanctions to ensure that the individual in question could be recommitted to the Tower of London for the duration of their initial imprisonment. This context no longer applies, and it would be a travesty to impose such a precedent on a situation that bears no resemblance to the current situation.

I submit that any business that died in one Parliament which members would wish to resurrect in a subsequent Parliament would require the adoption of a substantive motion for which notice would be required, and the facts before the previous Parliament would have to be resubstantiated. We no longer live in a world where a sovereign would order the execution of a member of Parliament or of a privy councillor, who is not a parliamentarian, without due process offered by a court of law. As tempting as it might be to hunt for precedents to suit an argument, the context of the precedent is at least as important as, if not more important than the precedent itself.

Having said that, I will respond to the substance of the member's arguments. I would like to begin by making it clear that ministers are accountable to the House of Commons for duties carried out within their departments and for the actions of their political staff in their political offices.

Page 30 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following regarding the fact that ministers are responsible to Parliament:

In terms of ministerial responsibility, Ministers have both individual and collective responsibilities to Parliament.

It goes on:

The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts.

This is not a new concept. To reinforce this assertion, allow me to quote the former prime minister, who, in the 2006 publication entitled “Accountable government: a guide for ministers”, stated, “Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their responsibilities whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise,” and “Ministers are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their office.”

Former Conservative House leader, Jay Hill, strongly made the case on behalf of the former Conservative government on May 25, 2010. Mr. Hill stated:

In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers who are, in turn, answerable to Parliament. Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs and activities of the government. They are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities by the public servants and by members of their office staffs.

It is the responsibility of individual public servants and office staff members to provide advice and information to ministers, to carry out faithfully the directions given by ministers, and in so doing, to serve the people of Canada.

He went on:

Ours is a system of responsible government because...ministers are responsible to the House for everything that is done under their authority. We ministers are answerable to Parliament and to its committees. It is ministers who decide policy and ministers who must defend it before the House and ultimately before the people of Canada.

I could not agree more with the remarks of the former Conservative House leader. Ministerial staff have no authority to make decisions on behalf of ministers. As I have said, they report to and are accountable to ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their actions. Ministerial staff did not put their names on the ballots. They were not elected. They do not have the same rights and privileges as MPs.

The opposition will likely point to the ministerial staffers called before committee in 2010. There is a big difference here. There was clear evidence of staffers breaking the law. The Privacy Commissioner subsequently issued two reports that found that Conservative ministerial staffers had interfered with the release of records under the Access to Information Act.

It is critical to point out that there was much debate about the decision by the government to send ministers to committee, rather than staff. Ultimately, this position was accepted by the Liberals, who formed the official opposition at the time. We accepted that, and it was the right thing to do. There was a clear acceptance of the principle of ministerial responsibility.

Again, on this very important point, Mr. Hill stated:

This is no substitute for ministerial responsibility. When ministers choose to appear before committees to account for their administration, they are the best source of accountability and they must be heard. Public servants and ministerial staff support the responsibility of their ministers. They do not supplant it. They cannot supplant it.

By using its majority on committees, the opposition attempted to deflect accountability from the minister to the ministerial staff. That was and continues to be unacceptable.

I will end my remarks with some words from the former Conservative government House leader, whom I have quoted extensively today. He stated the following about staff.

They bring to us many talents and I expect many of them, when they accepted their jobs, never imagined that one of the skills required was to stand up to the interrogation of a bitterly partisan parliamentary committee.

Our government will continue to defend the constitutional principle that ministers are accountable to Parliament. There is no appropriate substitute for ministers to be accountable to Parliament for the activities of their department or for the activities of their political staff.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 30th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, if we take a look at the throne speech, we will find a very ambitious plan. Part of that plan is the materialization of bills that are so important to all Canadians. I am talking about one that we were debating yesterday, Bill C-2. Canadians understand the sacrifices that have been made over the last 18 months and the importance of government stepping up to the plate to be there for small businesses and individual Canadians, to support health care workers and Canadians in general.

This is something I believe Canadians want us to do. Does my colleague across the way see herself recognizing the need to see Bill C-2 advance? The principles of Bill C-2 would continue to provide the support Canadians want, and it is just a part of what we saw in the throne speech.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 30th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the leader of the official opposition and now those of the member opposite. The concern I have is that I expect the Conservatives will vote against the throne speech, which would not surprise me, and I do not think it would surprise anyone in Canada.

When it comes right down to it, there is a a very tangible plan for all of us. One of those plans is Bill C-2, which is a continuation of supports for Canadians to get through the pandemic, both for the individual and small businesses, in particular.

Anticipating that the member will be voting against the throne speech, could he give an indication of what he will be doing with the tangible plan that is being dealt with in Bill C-2 ?