Kim Rudd

[The Environment, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that it is important and essential to rebuild Canadians' trust in our environmental assessment processes in order for Canada to attract the investments we need to sustainably develop our energy resources. This means we need to engage with Canadians, conduct meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples, and base our decisions on science, facts, and evidence.

Our government recognizes the importance of creating jobs and economic growth. We have been very clear that the focus is on moving the environment and the economy forward hand in hand. We know that sustainable and responsible development is achievable, and that in the 21st century, it is the only way to get our resources to market.

[The Environment, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited's Aspen solvent-assisted steam-assisted gravity drainage project.

Our government is ensuring environmental risks linked to development are addressed before projects proceed. After an analysis of the facts and science, the advice provided by expert federal departments, as well as consideration of existing regulatory mechanisms in place to deal with the potential environmental effects of the project, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change decided not to designate the project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

This act applies to projects described in the regulations designating physical activities. In situ projects, such as the Imperial Oil project, are not designated under those regulations.

In considering her decision, the minister noted the sufficiency of other regulatory measures in place, notably that the project is subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime in Alberta. This project has undergone a provincial environmental assessment under Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, which assessed the proposed solvent-assisted steam-assisted gravity technology.

Federal departments such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, and Environment and Climate Change provided input on potential environmental issues related to their expertise and responsibilities. Should the project proceed, it would also be required to satisfy any relevant federal regulatory requirements under the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Species at Risk Act.

Our government is committed to renewing its relationship with indigenous peoples based on trust, respect, and co-operation. This is why our government launched a review of environmental assessment processes in Canada to ensure that the process includes meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples and that government decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence.

Our government will continue to work with indigenous peoples as we consider options for legislative, regulatory, and policy changes. Consulting with indigenous peoples and benefiting from their traditional knowledge is of the utmost importance to this process. Together, we will continue to demonstrate every step of the way that building a strong economy goes hand in hand with protecting the environment.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The urgency is there. That is why we, in record time, provided a comprehensive and very large package to the forestry sector, because we heard those messages on the calls with the provinces from the sector.

The programs are ready now. There has been communication by the provinces to the sector about how to access those programs. There is also $10 million for indigenous communities to help them diversify in terms of their work in the forestry sector. The member is absolutely right that indigenous communities in particular are affected by this, because they are often remote communities and very involved.

We will continue to work on this. On being nimble, my point was that should things change, we will continue to have those conversations so we are able to adjust to those changes. In the meantime, the package is available. I look forward to working with the sector and the provinces to make sure it gets out to those who need it.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, one of the ways we are continuing to stay engaged on this file is with the federal-provincial task force the minister set up when this issue came to the fore. That task force is continuing, and there will be further discussions with the provinces. We are also nimble in terms of changes that could happen within the sector, and we will be ready to adjust should that occur.

In terms of diversification of the sector, the member mentioned the chips having to be brought back to Canada. One of the things we are seeing a real appetite for is diversification within the softwood lumber sector and some other things, such as biomass for fuel from the residue from the softwood lumber. I agree with the member opposite that this is a very difficult time for those families and communities, and we will be there, and we are there now, ready to help in whatever way we can.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Orléans.

I would like to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for bringing Canada's softwood lumber industry back to the floor of this House as part of his motion.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the industry to our country, the Canadian economy, or the many communities that depend on it. There are close to 600 softwood lumber mills in Canada. Many of them are in remote or indigenous communities. A lot of them are family-owned, and some of them are particularly small and vulnerable operations. However, together these mills are a major employer, providing jobs for some 38,000 Canadians, along with another 32,000 jobs for those working in forestry and logging operations who are at the core of the timber supply.

The result is that last year Canada's softwood lumber industry generated almost $10 billion in exports, more than three-quarters of which were sold south of the border. Therefore, the member opposite is right to be concerned in the wake of the U.S. Department of Commerce's decision to impose countervailing duties in the 20% range on Canadian softwood lumber. We share his concern. This unfair and punitive trade action by our American neighbours could prove devastating and cause lasting damage to Canada's softwood lumber producers, their workers, and local communities. That is why our government plans to continue fighting vigorously for Canada's softwood lumber industry and those whose livelihoods depend on it, including through litigation.

We also expect to prevail because, as members know, every previous ruling by an international tribunal over the last 30 years has come down in Canada's favour. In every case, the U.S. claims of unfair trade practices were found to be flawed, overstated, and overcharged, and ordered changed.

Unfortunately, the motion before us, however well-intentioned, is fatally flawed for two reasons with respect to the softwood lumber file.

First, it accuses our government of failing to negotiate a new deal on softwood lumber with the United States. If the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is suggesting that we should have accepted any terms with the United States for the sake of a negotiated settlement, then he is simply wrong. Maybe the member opposite supports trade peace at any costs. We do not. Maybe the member opposite is willing to sell out Canada's softwood lumber industry for 30 pieces of silver. We will not. We do not want just any deal for Canada's softwood lumber industry; we want the right deal. We want a durable and equitable solution that is fair to softwood producers, downstream industries, and consumers on both sides of the border—nothing more, nothing less. We will continue to work toward that end.

The ministers of foreign affairs and international trade continue to speak regularly with their American counterparts in search of a new agreement on softwood lumber. In fact, Canada has put forward a number of reasonable proposals to the current U.S. administration that are responsive to the views expressed by the American softwood lumber industry. These proposals would also ensure security of supply at fair prices to American consumers and those U.S. companies that rely on Canadian imports. However, if the member opposite thinks we should just accept whatever the United States is offering, he should think again, because it will not happen on our watch—no way, nohow.

The other fatal flaw in the motion before us is its implicit opposition to our softwood lumber action plan. Such a suggestion is nothing short of shocking, because it illustrates how out of step the member opposite is with the needs of the industry and its workers. While the member opposite is railing against support for softwood lumber producers, Canada's mill operators and their employees have been praising our government for taking swift action and a measured approach to helping the industry.

I would like to outline some of the highlights in our $867-million action plan to strengthen Canada's softwood lumber industry.

As an example, under our plan the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada will make a combined $605 million available in financial products and services, on commercial terms, to help viable companies make capital investments and diversify into new markets. There is also more than $160 million to help the Canadian forest industry expand both its product lines and market opportunities. As well, we will continue to work with the provinces to ensure affected workers have the support and adjustment services they need and deserve.

This includes almost $90 million in new funding to expand work-sharing opportunities to assist companies to retain employees and help affected workers upgrade their skills and transition to new jobs in the field.

Finally, there is $10 million for the indigenous forestry initiative to help indigenous communities pursue new economic opportunities in the forest sector. I look at all these measures and I cannot help but wonder what the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is opposed to. Which ones would he drop, and why is he against supporting our softwood lumber producers' efforts to maintain good sustainable jobs in our forest sector?

His opinion is certainly in the minority. It flies in the face of what we are hearing from the industry and what media are reporting. Look at some of the headlines. “Forest industry embraces Canada's nearly $870M in softwood aid”, or this from New Brunswick's softwood lumber association, “We appreciate the federal government's focus on this”, or from British Columbia's Lumber Trade Council, that everything we can do to expand markets for our products around the globe helps decrease our reliance on the U.S. market. We agree.

That is why the Minister of International Trade was in China in April to promote the use of Canadian wood in home construction, while his parliamentary secretary travelled to Vietnam, Singapore, and Brunei Darussalam to pursue new export opportunities for Canada's forest sector. That is why the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development went to the United Kingdom and mainland Europe at the same time to tout Canadian wood and wood products and why the Minister of Foreign Affairs followed up those efforts with her own trip to Europe last month.

That is why the Minister of Natural Resources just returned from China yesterday, after spending a week promoting Canada's natural resources in the world's second-largest economy and why his trip included renewing a memorandum of understanding to use Canadian wood in sustainable eco-cities.

There is no way I can support a motion that opposes all those things. I cannot and I will not, because our government will never sign a bad deal for Canada's softwood lumber industry or turn our backs on it when it needs us the most. It just will not happen. We believe in Canada's softwood lumber industry too much to do that to it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about jobs. Just today, another 77,000 jobs were announced, and that tells me that what we are doing is working. The economy has grown by over a quarter of a million jobs in the last eight months. I wonder if the member opposite could expand on what we are doing that is helping to promote that job growth.

[Small Business, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our support for the energy sector reflects a balanced approach that ensures the environment is protected and that good, well-paying jobs are created for Canadians.

After 10 years of inaction by the former Conservative government, we approved pipelines, while a the same time protecting our oceans, putting a price on carbon pollution, and working with indigenous peoples. Our approach will create tens of thousands of good jobs across the country and position Canada well to enjoy the economic benefit from an expanded energy sector.

[Business Development, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge three funding initiatives in my riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South that exemplify the rural renaissance in eastern Ontario.

Twenty-three start-up companies are now benefiting from a total investment of almost $700,000. These start-ups represent the best in Canada's innovation agenda. These funds are targeting the acceleration of promising technology start-ups. Additionally, $1 million is being allocated to create the Northumberland venture fund, with support from the eastern Ontario development program. Finally, the Venture 13 project will allow a dedicated hub for start-ups with an initial investment of $400,000 through the federal collaborative economic development program.

This is a shining example of true collaboration. I want to thank Wendy Curtis and her team at the Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation for having the vision, and our federal government and the communities that supported it. We are helping create a brighter future for eastern Ontario.

[Canada Elections Act, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say two things. One, we are in Ottawa, not Toronto, just to clear up the geography. Two, the sanctimony coming from the other side is a bit rich.

I just want to remind the member opposite we are hearing of this panacea, this wonderful experience of perfectness that came from the former government in terms of fundraising. There is a gentleman who lives in my riding, and the member might remember his name, Dean Del Mastro. He served time in prison for illegal fundraising as a parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister Stephen Harper.

I would also like to mention that the hon. member across the way has in fact made the argument for the bill. Does the member know who donated to the former prime minister Stephen Harper's nomination campaign in 2004? My guess is no, but under the bill we all would.

[Softwood Lumber, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's forest industry sustains hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs across our country. Our government will continue to fight vigorously to defend the interests of Canadian workers and companies in the face of actions taken by the U.S. that are completely without merit. We are taking decisive and immediate action to help Canadians who are affected by these unfair and punitive damages. We are making investments to diversify forest products and markets for our producers, supporting workers, and providing financial products and services on commercial terms.

We stand firmly behind the Canadian forest industry and are supporting its long-term health and prosperity.