Randy Hoback

[Contribution of Ranchers and Farmers, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for bringing this great motion forward. We never give enough recognition to farmers for what they do.

When I think back to my days in agriculture, I remember when we would work the field three or four times, and it would be dry and dusty, and the wind would blow the dust over the doorsteps and it would be all over the place. Now I look at the fuel consumption of tractors and the number of passes over the fields and I see how much that has changed.

Could the member give an example of what his area looked like in the 1960s and 1970s compared to what it looks like today?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, maybe the member did not understand. I apologize. I want to clarify what I said before. The reality is because we have peace in the wine sector right now, with the excise tax not being collected, everything is okay. However, now that we have put the escalator onto the wines coming into Canada, that peace has been disrupted. Now we will be be facing trade actions, and the vineyards that had this advantage will now lose it, and that is unfortunate.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I am sorry I am running out of time. I had more softwood lumber questions. However, I definitely want to talk about excise tax on beer, wine, and alcohol.

In the budget, we have an excise tax that has been increased, but we also have an escalator that kicks in every year, which increases the excise tax. How that relates to trade is in wine. For domestically produced wine, that excise tax is not collected. When we put the escalator in there, countries out of Europe are saying that if we are putting an escalator in there, we are going to create a scenario where Canadian wine now has an advantage over wines coming from other countries, Europe, U.S., whatever.

We had peace on that file before, but now that we have put the escalator in there, they are talking about coming after us and looking for some sort of compensation or some changes in that.

Has the finance department talked to you about this escalator, and have you done an evaluation on what the implications could be for trade?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, in Atlantic Canada, Irving has a 3% tariff and it did a volunteer submission. I talked to some of the producers there. They said that they were under the impression they could not do a voluntary submission, and then they were told afterwards.

Did Irving receive receive financial assistance from the government to do a voluntary submission? To the credit of Irving, by it doing the voluntary submission and getting that low rate, is there any way we can take that submission and apply it to the other companies in the Atlantic region?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, a report in the media from the former U.S. treasurer, Michael Froman, talked about how a deal was on the table and you walked away from it. Could you maybe highlight if that actually was true and what did we walk away from?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, what conversations has Canada had with the United States in regard to softwood lumber since November 2015?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I was in New Brunswick when the announcement came out on countervail duties. I actually was meeting with forestry producers there. They have a few questions they had asked me to maybe pass along to the minister.

One of their first questions is this. How many offers did the United States make to Canada to secure a new softwood lumber agreement after November 2015.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

If you can actually ask her that for me, that would be great.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I have one more quick question on NAFTA because I have more questions on other issues. It is on timelines.

When we look at the elections coming up in Mexico and in the U.S. in 2018 and the talk around trying to have something completed this fall, could you give us an idea of the timelines involved in the negotiations? We have not even seen the 90-day letter come into the House in the U.S. at this point in time. Does the minister have any insight on that?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I will go on about a couple of topics here. I mainly have questions, but I will say a few things at the start. I would like to acknowledge the hard work that our ambassador in the U.S. has been doing this last little while. I have been working in the U.S. with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. We have to acknowledge the hard work that Mr. MacNaughton and his staff have been doing down there. I want to make sure to highlight that.

I want to make the government aware of all of the work that the opposition party has been doing. On this file, we have actually not been an opposition party but working hand-in-hand. We recognize the importance of the $2 billion-a-day in trade, the nine million jobs, and what that means to Canadians. Not only have we been travelling to different parts of the U.S. with the trade committee, we have also been travelling to the governor's meetings together, and other types of events, where we can highlight Canada's interests in the U.S., and how that interacts with NAFTA.

When we talk about NAFTA, there is one thing to be aware of. We have been holding round tables right across Canada, in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Atlantic Canada, and Ontario, and will be doing more in Manitoba and Alberta, to get our companies to recognize that they need to engage with their customers and suppliers in the U.S., and with respect to how important it is to keep that border thin, and to not let any harm happen to that relationship. They get it. They have actually been talking about it. When I do my presentation, the first thing I point out is that this is a very non-partisan issue. They appreciate that. I look forward to working with the government as we move forward on this file.

There are a few questions that I will ask with respect to NAFTA that maybe the minister can clarify, because I know these questions are coming up.

When we are looking at NAFTA, instead of looking at it in a context of a bloc of North America, we should be looking at what we can do to make it more competitive in the world, more efficient, and more productive, and not in the context of, “What can I get from Mexico? What can I get from the U.S.”, and vice versa. That concerns a lot of the business community, as that context is not appropriate.

I guess there is a lot of instability in the business community right now, because they are not sure what is happening with NAFTA, and the border adjustment tax would be another issue. If only we could just clarify some things. The first is with respect to the chain of command when it comes to negotiating NAFTA, because Mexico is involved. I know the parliamentary secretary works on Canada-U.S. relations, but I am not sure how the minister and the Minister of International Trade will be working together with respect to NAFTA.

Could she quickly answer that?