Kevin Lamoureux

[International Trade, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, today Canada's canola industry contributes almost $27 billion a year to the Canadian economy, a contribution that has actually tripled over the past 10 years. That is why the canola trade issue with China is a top and very important priority for the Government of Canada.

Canadians take pride in this industry. Canola is a product of Canadian innovation, including by our scientists at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The government continues to work closely with industry to reopen access to the market. In April, we formed an industry government working group, co-chaired by the Canola Council of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with representation from the prairie provinces.

The working group continues to meet regularly, with discussions focused on developing strategies to resolve the market access issue with China, supporting the sector and exploring alternative markets. Some of the insights and advice that we receive deal with issues such as monitoring the impact of the market access issue, engaging with China, diversifying markets and supporting the sector during this difficult time.

We are working closely with the Canadian canola industry every step of the way. The member made reference to the throne speech and issues in the Prairies. I know and can appreciate just how important it is, whether it is canola or wheat, that the Government of Canada be engaged with the different stakeholders, in particular, our provinces and the producers and others, to ensure that our product is being treated fairly and being allowed to get to market.

Whether I was on the government benches, within the government caucus sitting down with colleagues or in opposition, I can assure the member that I have been consistent, whether it was canola or wheat. For example, for years, in particular in 2014, possibly going into 2015, we had so much wheat, piles of wheat in the Prairies that went through the winter and that we could not get to market, and we had empty vessels sitting on the coast in British Columbia. The government of the day was having a difficult time getting that wheat out to market. I am very much aware of how important it is that we work with the stakeholders.

Canola is a sense of pride in the Prairies. Many prairie farmers and people in the science community have been affiliated with its whole development because there has been a great deal of work in the science community dealing with the issue of canola.

We have a first-class world product and Canada leads the way. There is a great deal of confidence and so much potential. It is one of the reasons why we have a Minister of International Trade and a Minister of Foreign Affairs who constantly look for other potential markets because we know that we have a good quality product that is being grown in the Prairies.

[Forestry Industry, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what is happening.

The softwood lumber action plan comprised funding specifically targeted at helping affected workers. This included, for example, $9.5 million for a work-sharing program for employees affected by the temporary reduction in business activities, and $80 million for labour market development agreements to help workers upgrade their skills and transition to new opportunities.

Furthermore this government allocated, through budget 2019, over $250 million in additional funds to the action plan programs to help producers tap into new markets and diversify production.

As I indicated, the Prime Minister and the minister are very much aware of the issue, and the Liberals are taking proactive measures to minimize the negative impact and make sure our workers and communities are being well served.

[Forestry Industry, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, hundreds of millions of dollars is what we are talking about. The issue has been at the forefront and a priority for this government from day one.

We are proud of our world-leading forestry sector, which supports over 218,000 good-paying, middle-class jobs for workers and communities across the country. The softwood lumber industry is a key component of our highly integrated forestry sector and the fundamental economic anchor for many communities across Canada.

We are keenly aware that the forest sector has recently been facing significant economic headwinds, which have had serious impacts on workers and communities that rely on this sector. The forest sector is facing a series of challenges including a reduction in the supply of harvestable timber and weaker demand in overseas markets, which is resulting in lower international lumber prices as well.

Another challenge is the duties unjustifiably and unfairly imposed by the United States on Canadian exports of softwood lumber. The Government of Canada is standing by our industry, our communities and our workers, contesting U.S. measures on softwood lumber through five legal challenges under chapter 19 of NAFTA and the WTO dispute settlement system.

Canada considers that the U.S. duties are inconsistent with both U.S. law and the international trade obligations of the United States. In past rounds of the softwood lumber dispute, Canada has always been successful in its challenges of the U.S. duties, as the U.S. claims have always been found to be without basis. We strongly believe that this will once again be the case.

In fact, our legal strategy has already met with success, and panels established both under chapter 19 of NAFTA and the WTO have already found fault with, respectively, the U.S. decision regarding alleged injury to U.S. industry caused by imports from Canada, and also the way the United States calculated its anti-dumping duties. We will continue to pursue these cases intently, along with all of the others.

In the meantime, this government understands the harmful impact that the U.S. duties have on Canadians who rely on this important segment of the forestry industry. We have always shown that we have Canadians' backs. This is why, in June 2017, this government announced a softwood lumber action plan, which includes $867 million in measures to support affected workers and communities.

The federal government will continue to work closely with provinces, territories and industry stakeholders to protect Canadian jobs and ensure a united pan-Canadian approach to the softwood lumber dispute.

This is an issue that has been ongoing for far too long. The Government of Canada has been taking action where it has seen a number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, get engaged in a very real and tangible way.

The member makes reference to the plight of one worker. There are many workers who are experiencing difficult times as a direct result of what we believe are unfair actions. That is the reason we are not only going to stand tall and stand for our workers, but are also going to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to an industry that is in need. Never have we wavered on the issue of supporting such a vital industry, because it is about people and communities.

If there is anything this government has demonstrated quite well over the last four years, it is that it genuinely cares and it is going to be there for the workers in Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

[Ethics, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on one of the comments of the member opposite. He talked about a French villa being hidden, and he referenced the Ethics Commissioner. Shortly after the election of the minister in question, virtually weeks after, there was a publication in The Globe and Mail, or maybe the National Post, that talked about the home located in France. To say that the minister was intentionally trying to hide something when it was widely broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people well in advance, shortly after the election, was maybe a bit of a political agenda and wanting to take shots that were very personal in nature. We have seen that the Conservative Party likes to get into the gutter and take personal shots at members.

[Ethics, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will make two quick comments that I think are important and then provide a personal opinion.

The responsibility of any prime minister is to stand up for jobs across the country while upholding the rule of law. We have been open and upfront with Canadians about all of this. This issue was discussed repeatedly in the last Parliament. Members raised it often in question period, and the justice committee held public hearings and heard testimony from many witnesses. To provide Canadians with the transparency and fairness they deserve, we provided an exceptional waiver to the former attorney general in a way that preserves, rather than undermines, solicitor-client privilege, the right to a fair hearing in cases that are currently active, the integrity of the position of director of public prosecutions, and the rule of law in our country more generally. The Prime Minister has accepted the Ethics Commissioner's report and has taken full responsibility.

Over many years, I have watched different leaders' approaches to the issues of the day, and one thing I would remind the member opposite of is that, when the Prime Minister became leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, one of the first things he did was talk about the importance of transparency and accountability on the issue of proactive disclosure related to members of Parliament and the ways they spend public tax dollars. It took a while, but eventually the Conservatives came on board in recognizing the merit of what the then leader of the Liberal Party was talking about. It took a little longer for the New Democrats to come onside. The point is that, from day one, we have had a leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, who truly and genuinely believes in transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

These are important issues to the leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, and this government. If we were to take a look at the bigger picture of what has taken place over the last number of years, we have been very respectful of our independent officers, whether it is Elections Canada officers or the Ethics Commissioner. When recommendations are brought forward, we respect them and we listen. In cases that have been cited, there have been actions by the Prime Minister to ensure things are put in place to prevent incidents from occurring that might be misperceived. The Conservative Party has consistently, over the last years in opposition, taken the approach of character assassination, which is yet another example where Conservatives are more concerned about the character of an individual as opposed to the substance. If they looked at the substance, they would find that the matter has been dealt with fully and extensively.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, that would be determined by the standing committee. We could probably have an endless list of very important critical issues across the country. We could talk about the economy in Alberta and what is happening in the Prairies. We could talk about a health care crisis. We could talk about the environment. We could talk about reconciliation. All of that would be wonderful, I guess, but if we are saying yes to this for a special committee, should we not be saying yes to all of those items? Are they not also important?

This is an issue that is ongoing. We should allow the standing committee to deal with it.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, one of the member's colleagues talked about the government agenda. The government agenda on this is one of wanting to achieve a consensus, a common ground and to work through this very important issue to all Canadians.

I highlighted in my response that often there is an opposition agenda. The comments that the member put on the record just now seem to not necessarily have the same common ground coming from all political entities. We should be talking about how we can expedite getting the two Michaels back to Canada. We should be talking about how we can ensure we are minimizing the damage to our producers. We should be talking about how we can ensure issues surrounding human rights are being looked at. That is where we should be looking for common ground, as opposed to pointing the finger and assassinating the character of any particular individual in the House of Commons.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, equally, one could say that if the House leadership teams of all political parties came together and got the foreign affairs standing committee going and indicated when we would have those meetings so that the committee can set its agenda, it could be just as effective as what is being proposed here and we could give a vote of confidence for our standing committees.

The point is that, at the end of the day, after listening to a lot of debate, I believe there is a lot of common ground. Members from all sides of the House recognize how important it is to have that healthy discussion at the committee level. That is a very strong positive. There are some differing opinions possibly in certain areas, but I am appealing to members at the very least to provide the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs the opportunity. If it wants to do it, great. If it does not, then let us come back.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I clearly indicated that often it depends on the makeup of the committee itself. I have found some committees to be exceptionally productive. Even in majority situations they can be exceptionally productive. To say there is a government agenda when talking about committees is a fair comment, but equally there is an opposition agenda too. The opposition agenda is not maybe as wonderful or in Canadians' best interest at all times.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a minority situation. We are talking about a mandate from Canadians saying that they want to see more co-operation. We do not need to have a special committee every time an important issue comes to the floor of the House of Commons. What could happen is I could be asking a member across the way why he or she is not calling for a special committee on some issue or another issue. It would be endless in terms of what we could be doing.

We need to have confidence. We are in a great position to have confidence because of many different factors, especially—

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of dialogue on this issue today. I want to try break the issue down into two or three parts, but I will begin by talking about the process. The process is important, because we want to make sure as much as possible that we are getting off on the right foot.

There has always been a great deal of support for our standing committees, and that has been clearly demonstrated over the last four years. Even in the days when I was in opposition, I have always highlighted the importance of the role our standing committees play in the parliamentary precinct and the fine work they do for Canadians in all regions of our country. I think we often underestimate how important that role can be.

I will highlight some of the questions I have put forward to a number of members opposite.

First, I have been trying as much as I could to challenge them to tell me why they believe a standing committee would not be able to do what this special committee they are proposing would be able to do.

The House will do whatever it wants to do with regard to the motion. We will have to wait for the vote itself, but I am fairly uncomfortable with it, and I will say why.

We are at the beginning of a session, relatively speaking, and when we came out of the last election, there was a fairly clear message that had been sent to all of us. The message was that Canadians want this Parliament to work. They want to see a higher sense of responsibility, co-operation and so forth.

If given a little time, I believe I could identify quite easily a dozen or so issues that I could bring to the fore for the next 12 consecutive days in which we sit. I could say that the issues were so very important that they were vital to Canadian interests, and by God, we should establish a special committee of the House of Commons so that members could give it thorough debate and discussion and call witnesses and so forth. I am actually convinced of it, and that is just on my own. If I were allowed the opportunity and time to sit down with many of the colleagues on both sides of this House, I could more than quadruple that list. I could come up with virtually an endless list of issues for which we could have special committees of this House and ask the special committee, in the name of doing good for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, to debate those issues in the form of a special committee.

However, I would suggest that we do not need to do that, because we have very able-minded parliamentarians on all sides of this House who would be afforded the opportunity to sit down in standing committees, and there are a good number of standing committees. I believe there are 24 standing committees. Maybe someone at the Clerk's office can let me know if I am wrong.

Each one of those committees will have a chair and several vice-chairs. Each one of those committees will have opposition majorities when it comes to setting the agenda. Therefore, if members really believe in co-operation, and I hear a lot of individuals say that co-operation is good and they want to work towards it, does that mean that when it comes to committees, we should then strive to achieve a consensus in a minority situation, as opposed to a simple majority vote? Are members prepared to say that in certain situations, we should be looking for consensus on certain topics as we go into the committee stage?

I suspect that often we will find that this decision will be determined at the standing committee in question. The personalities and the makeup of that committee will ultimately determine how that committee is going to perform into the future, over the next six months, 18 months, three years or whatever the mandate is going to be. I would say to new members and to members who have not participated on standing committees in the past that these standing committees really vary with respect to the types of things they are able to accomplish. I would argue that we have had first-class reports from the standing committees. They have done an outstanding job.

Their scope is very wide. If a committee wants to study x, y and z, even if it is not specifically directed to do so, there might be an indirect link to it, and that committee would have the authority to do so if that is the will of the committee.

One of the first things a committee will do after it elects a chair and the vice-chairs is establish a steering committee or subcommittee. That committee will determine the important issues that it needs to face over the next x number of weeks, months or even possibly years. Some of the debates that are taking place here, in particular the one question I had posed, show that this is not a new issue, nor will it go away. Even opposition members have recognized that they have not clearly demonstrated the urgency. If they believed there was an urgency, I suspect they would be suggesting that there be an emergency debate on the issue. It does not mean it is not important; it is critically important, especially when I think of the Michaels who are being incarcerated.

Yes, China has crossed the line on several occasions. As a government, as a legislative body, the House of Commons does have a critical role to play, but the issue is whether we believe that standing committees of Parliament have that role to play, or are we going to leave it up to the House to be able to trump our standing committees on all occasions by saying that we do not have confidence in that standing committee because we do not believe it will prioritize this issue, so we are going to say what is going to be studied? Further to that, are we now going to tell them who they will call as witnesses? This motion clearly states that the opposition wants to see specific individuals come before that committee.

I would suggest that as parliamentarians and legislators, we have a wonderful opportunity to do something positive with respect to our standing committees. In a minority situation, it really opens the door for building a consensus and for bringing parliamentarians together.

I always find it interesting that while it can get fairly heated inside the House of Commons and the partisanship hats often will come on, if we go to some of those standing committees and watch some of the dialogue that takes place, we find that in many of those standing committees it is not the party hat the members are wearing but the parliamentarian hat.

I like to believe that we all represent our constituents first and we want to do what is in the best interests of Canada at all times, but often there is a different hat that is being worn. If we really want to deal with this issue, which is so critically important, I would suggest that the best venue to provide that opportunity is in fact the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It does not have to be limited to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It could be the international trade committee. I will talk a bit about this myself, but we often hear that there are other standing committees that could be dealing with this.

We have an opportunity here in the House to give a vote of confidence to what Canadians want to take place. I believe they want a higher sense of co-operation. They want more responsibility being taken in terms of actions on the floor of the House of Commons.

The Conservatives and opposition members and some others in the House are saying it has to be in the form of a special committee, and quite frankly, they may be in a majority today. I am appealing to members to recognize that we can accomplish something bigger with this debate today by recognizing just how important those standing committees are.

Let us constitute the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. Let us get that committee and subcommittee or steering committee to meet and make the determination. Does it want to study this issue? I suspect it would. It sets its own hours. If it wants to meet for six hours a day for the next 12 months, five days a week, it can do that. It has a great deal of authority, especially in a minority situation.

It is not fair or appropriate to say what has happened in the past four, six or 10 years. We have had eight years now of majority governments, and now we have a minority government. Those individuals who like to say they are parliamentarians who believe in the fine and good work that Parliament does might want to reflect on what I believe is the backbone of the parliamentary institution, that being our standing committees.

In many ways, when we talk about reaching into our communities from coast to coast to coast, when we talk about bringing the type of expertise that is necessary for us as parliamentarians collectively in the House to make good, solid decisions, a lot of that background work could be done through our standing committees.

When I listen to the debate, I realize it is going to be tough for this motion to fail, and if it passes, it passes. I will accept that. After all, it is a minority situation and I will accept it, but yes, I will be somewhat disappointed, because I believe that we have passed on giving a vote of confidence in a very real and tangible way to our standing committees. I suggest that would be a lost opportunity.

Having said that, I want to talk about China.

China is a dictatorship. We all know that. We all have very serious concerns, and we are not the only parliamentarians to have very serious concerns. This could be dated back all the way to the time when we were a confederation, when we came together as a country over 150 years ago. China is a dictatorship, and all the negative issues related to a dictatorship often will surface at different points in time in history.

It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who made significant steps toward softening the relationship between Canada as a democratic country and China as a dictatorship, but he was not alone at the time. The United States of America was doing the same thing, and so did prime ministers who followed, such as Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau.

I remember when Jean Chrétien, I think it was in 1993-94, had the big team Canada mission to China. Liberals, Conservatives and possibly even New Democrats went to China to talk about establishing a healthier and stronger relationship hopefully to deal with some of the issues that go beyond just the economy. Stephen Harper continued it. China does not give a gift of pandas because it does not like someone; the pandas are a gift because it believes there is a relationship. That is what China did with Stephen Harper.

Does it mean that during the times that Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper were prime minister there were not problems? Trust me, there were problems. There were still problems related to human rights and the rule of law. Issues of that nature still existed even during the 1990s and the 10 years of Stephen Harper's government. In the relationship between Canada and China there will always be tension because China is a dictatorship and we are a democracy. We believe in the rule of law. We believe in human rights.

From a Liberal Party perspective, we are the ones who brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We understand how important the rule of law and freedom of speech are, all of the principles of democracy. Do we have concerns? Absolutely, we have concerns. Are we happy with many of the things taking place? Absolutely we are not.

I come from the Prairies and there is a large pork industry in the province of Manitoba. There are more pigs than people in the province of Manitoba and it relies heavily on exports to Asia. The pork industry is very important to Manitoba. Canola and other agricultural commodities are very important to Manitoba. However, as has been pointed out, Manitoba is not going to sell out for the dollar. We must understand and appreciate the importance of having a balance.

Human rights issues are always hot topics in the Liberal caucus and I suspect with all political parties in this chamber. I like to think there is a balance for some members, but the balance has gone a little too far one way or the other and they want to see it rectified. That balance kind of fluctuates depending on which member one talks to, even listening to some of the comments we heard today in the chamber. At the end of the day, where there is consensus is that Canada needs to take action.

Let there be no doubt that Canada has taken action. There is a consequence for what China has been doing. Other countries such as Australia, France, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, those in NATO and more have all recognized the injustice that has taken place between Canada and China and are onside with Canada on the issue. If allowed to continue, this will continue to harm China and its place in the world. Canada and this government, with the support of members, can ensure we have the right balance in protecting and ensuring that human rights always remain a priority for the House of Commons in Ottawa.

To conclude my remarks, I would hope that members across the way would agree with the importance of the issue and that we have within our institution a great opportunity to give a vote of confidence to our standing committees and hopefully a standing committee will take on this role, because it will not be a one-time thing. This will be ongoing in the years ahead.