Steven Blaney

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, March 10th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Certainly, everyone agrees that we are supporting a bad deal that does not address matters like the softwood lumber dispute or government procurement, for instance.

I have a note dated December 19 about Prevost, a flagship company in my riding. Prevost won the largest contract in its history, a $260-million contract to build 307 buses for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York state.

That is great news. However, the downside is that the agreement that was signed does not contain any provisions on government procurement. That creates uncertainty. Yes, we are going to support the agreement, but we are a long way from an agreement that provides a net benefit to Canada.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, March 10th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise this afternoon and speak to the tripartite agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. I will be sharing my speaking time on this important issue with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

It is always a privilege to rise in the House in support of trade with our partners, as trade is one of the pillars of our economy. This afternoon, we are not talking about just any partner. We are talking about our American partner. As members know, our shared relationship and border go back a long way.

I will start by saying that I plan on supporting Bill C-4 because this agreement is in keeping with a long tradition that we established. In 1994, Brian Mulroney signed the first agreement, NAFTA, with the United States and Mexico.

This fundamental agreement helped Canada triple its exports to the U.S. and Mexico and also helped stimulate our economy. As a proud representative of a vibrant manufacturing region, I can see first-hand how this free trade agreement benefits our manufacturers in Bellechasse—Les Etchemins, such as Rotobec, and in Lévis.

I just want to remind my colleague that, like him, I plan to support this important bill to maintain our trade relationship with our most important partner. The United States takes in three-quarters of Canada's exports, a significant amount considering that Canadian exports totalled nearly $400 billion U.S. in 2016.

However, we are less pleased about the fact that the current government did a poor job of negotiating this agreement, as it does with most things. The Liberal government does not know how to negotiate agreements for Canada, and that has a negative impact on businesses such as those in the dairy industry in my riding. Nevertheless, we are better off with a bad agreement than with no agreement, which is why I have already voted in favour of this bill and why we hope it passes quickly.

For some time now, the Conservatives have been telling the government to hurry up and approve the deal. I worked in consulting engineering, where people say that a deal is not done until it is signed. It is not a good deal, but we need to get it approved ASAP.

That is why, in spring 2019, before the October federal election, we proposed a preliminary study of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement so that it could be passed as soon as the government introduced it in the House, but the Liberals refused.

The day after the election, we asked the Liberals to consider the possibility of sitting in December between Christmas and New Year's because we thought it was important to ratify this agreement. Once again, the Liberals ignored our request.

We had to wait until the end of January before they finally bothered to table the agreement here in the House so that we could begin the legislative process. Once again, we asked for things to be done more quickly because people wanted to have their say about the problems with this important agreement. The Liberals refused.

That brings us to where we are today. We are making progress, and I can say that we intend to support the ratification of this agreement every step of the way. The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most solid relationships that can exist between two countries. It plays an important role in our manufacturing jobs. A number of agreements and several billion dollars are at stake.

I want to take this opportunity to remind members that there is a border between Canada and the United States. Of course, it is important to ensure the free flow of goods between the two countries, but it is also important to ensure that our borders remain secure. I am referring to the beyond the border action plan announced in December 2011 by then U.S. president Barack Obama and then Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. We recognize the importance of maintaining a strong trade relationship while keeping our borders secure.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the Liberals did not negotiate a good deal in this case. As we have seen, many groups were left out in the cold. Overall, the agreement that was signed and that we are going to approve is not as good as the previous agreement that was negotiated by the Conservatives. That is unfortunate, but, as I said, we would rather have a bad deal than no deal at all.

Why are the Liberals such bad negotiators? When we look at their record on negotiating, we have to remember that the agreements collectively provide the big picture.

Take the dairy sector. This sector plays a very important role in the Chaudière-Appalaches region, especially in Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, where businesses are handed down from one generation to the next and are an economic mainstay in our region. These businesses have had to deal with not one, not two, but three agreements.

The first agreement, which was negotiated by our government, is the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. That agreement made some accommodations with regard to supply management to allow European products to enter our market. On October 18, 2013, an agreement in principle was signed with the European Union, and the agreement came into force in September 2017.

The trans-Pacific partnership is now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This happened during the transition from the Conservative government to the current government.

At the time, when we were in negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership, the U.S. was involved, but it withdrew from the agreement in January 2017. The other members of the initial agreement picked up where they left off and renamed the agreement. However, the concessions that were made in the Canada-Europe free trade agreement and then in the trans-Pacific partnership were renewed. This left the dairy sector vulnerable, because there was no agreement with the U.S. when it came time to renegotiate the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. In a way, we had already made two concessions. Even more damaging was the fact that the concessions were cumulative. The Liberals made more bad decisions on cheese imports.

Under the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, 16,000 tonnes of imported cheese from Europe was to enter our markets. The Liberals made the mistake of granting the power to import these cheeses not to those who were affected, namely manufacturers and processors, but to distributors, who received half of the import quota. This was even more detrimental than a simple reduction in volume because Quebec's entire cheese sector was undermined.

Mr. Letendre, the chairman of Les Producteurs de lait du Québec, stated that it made no sense to allocate 50% of the quota to distributors. He said that it is expensive to develop new products in order to compete and that this would hurt Quebec's industry.

I wanted to cite the example of the three agreements that were negotiated. Every time the Liberals were involved in the negotiations, it hurt the dairy industry and Canadian industries. Ultimately, our businesses are being penalized, and we have yet to see any compensation. That is unfortunate, because had Canada's interests been considered in the negotiations, we would not have had to make concessions.

I had many things to say, but I realize that my time is running out. I made my point at the outset. We intend to support the agreement despite its weaknesses because it is important to maintain the relationship with our most important partner, the United States.

[Canadian Heritage, February 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, we already knew that the Liberals have been ignoring our community radio stations and regional newspapers, but now we have learned that they are giving web giants five times more money than they are giving our Canadian media. What? The government is giving $52 million to foreign companies that do not pay taxes in Canada. Why not invest in the Ricardo site, which has 3.8 million online viewers, or in VÉRO magazine, which has a readership of 800,000? They pay taxes here in Canada.

[Health, February 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, this government's lack of leadership shows in its approach to everything from the rail blockades to the coronavirus. According to Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada's chief public health officer, the signs are worrisome. The World Health Organization is talking about a possible pandemic, but what is the government doing? Nobody knows. Radio silence. This situation is very worrisome. This is a serious, high-risk issue, but the Liberals are twiddling their thumbs.

What is the government's plan for helping Canadians protect themselves from the coronavirus?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, February 21st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alberta for the question. It allows me to remind hon. members that at the heart of this rail crisis is a first nation whose band council supported the project. The majority of hereditary chiefs are in favour of the project. Some of the protesters who are flouting the law tried to get democratically elected and were defeated. That does not work. Their approach does not take.

Eighty-five per cent of the members of the Wet'suwet'en community want the project. How can individuals use democratic means and then turn everything upside down when they do not get their way? That is unacceptable. That is no way to run the country.

It is important to remember that the National Energy Board determined this project to be good and that every indigenous community living along the route of this pipeline supports the project. We have the democratic tools, a Parliament for debate, and we were founded on a long British parliamentary tradition of democracy and the rule of law. When all of that is turned on its ear, it undermines the credibility of our institutions. That is why we are calling on the government to stick to its executive role and allow our police forces to do their job.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, February 21st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes. We need a third party to look into the complaints and address the disservice. The application of the law should apply equally to the RCMP and the CBSA.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, February 21st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great question. I will tell him exactly what I said in 2015, which is that I have full and total confidence in the RCMP.

However, I would never, ever do what the Minister of Public Safety and Prime Minister are doing now. They are hindering and restricting the RCMP's operational response capability by directing it to resolve the conflict a certain way. They are undeniably preventing the RCMP from using the tools at its disposal to resolve the conflict. The current Prime Minister is stripping the police of their deterrence capacity by taking away their coercive tool, namely their ability to intervene.

I urge the government to follow the example I set in 2015 and let the RCMP do its job. The government needs to stop tying the RCMP's hands and telling it not to act.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, February 21st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today, as we face this national crisis. This crisis is the result of the Canadian government's lax approach in two of its most important roles: ensuring the security and integrity of our borders and ensuring respect for law and order. Unfortunately, as we are seeing right now, the government has failed miserably on both accounts. That is why we are calling for immediate action.

One major role our police forces play is ensuring respect for law and order. The Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, meanwhile, must ensure respect for and the integrity of our borders. It is important to remember that the CBSA is an organization with nearly 14,000 border services officers and other staff working at over 1,200 ports of entry in 39 countries. Over the years, this agency has become an important part of our system for keeping Canadians safe. Obviously, given the volume of claims processed by the CBSA, there may be times when people who use its services or have dealings with the agency are less than satisfied with their interactions. That is why there was a complaints system in place, one that was to some degree overseen by the agency.

The purpose of this bill is to establish a new independent body, the public complaints and review commission, tasked with reviewing public complaints regarding the agency. This will also build on the efforts made since the agency was created in 2003 to make it a law enforcement agency and give dissatisfied people the option to file a complaint.

Were there complaints in the past? Indeed there were. In 2018, 100 complaints were deemed to be founded by the CBSA's complaints review department. This work will now be done by an independent entity. The number of complaints may seem high, but it is important to remember that 95 million travellers deal with the Canada Border Services Agency, and five million of those interactions involve commercial vehicles. The number of complainants is therefore quite small relative to the huge flow of people who deal with the CBSA. Nevertheless, these complaints must be properly addressed, and that is why we are in favour of creating this complaints commission.

That is where we are. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the remarkable work of our border services officers and decry the fact that the current government ended the televised series Border Security: Canada's Front Line, which allowed Canadians to learn more about the work of these officers. The series did not cost the government anything, and it helped showcase the remarkable work done by border services officers.

As my NDP colleague mentioned, we have to wonder why the government waited until the end of the last session of Parliament to propose creating the public complaints and review commission, even though it made that commitment in 2015. It is about time that the government moved forward, but we have to wonder why the Liberals were so complacent with respect to the implementation of this measure.

Moreover, the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, Jean-Pierre Fortin, has said that he was not consulted. The Liberals should have consulted him because he stated that he was in favour of this measure. The Liberals missed yet another opportunity to demonstrate that this is a worthwhile project that has the approval of the public and to showcase the excellent work of border services officers.

This raises an important point, and that is the government's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the border and the enforcement of law and order. As I mentioned, the government has failed miserably on both fronts.

Before this government and the misguided tweets of the Prime Minister, the integrity of our border was assured. The Prime Minister's tweet undermined our border system. I am obviously referring to the situation at Roxham Road, which is a threat to our territorial security, since people are illegally entering the country. We should remember that entering by Roxham Road is illegal. We are tolerating a shortcut that allows individuals to bypass our immigration system.

Unfortunately, in recent weeks, we have been focusing mainly on the blockades, which is quite understandable. However, we have seen an upsurge in illegal entries at Roxham Road. That is due to the government's lack of leadership with respect to its responsibility to ensure the integrity of our borders.

With regard to law and order, a lack of leadership creates situations like the one my colleague mentioned, where the government, to some extent, is interfering in the RCMP's operations by stipulating that it cannot intervene or use force to resolve the conflict. The problem is that this interference undermines the moral authority of our police, just as the Prime Minister's tweet undermined the Canada Border Services Agency's authority in ensuring respect for our borders. The Liberals restricted the police's and the border authorities' ability to intervene, with disastrous results.

Our businesses are currently in a critical situation. I was talking about that earlier with my colleague from Beauce. This morning, I met with a business owner from my riding whose American competitors are quite happy about the fact that his merchandise is stuck in our trains. What are his clients doing? They are turning to American suppliers. He told me that he is losing close to $65,000 in sales and, on top of that, he is going to have to pay an additional $7,500 to redirect his containers. That is a loss of $72,500 for just one business owner. This is one of dozens of examples in my riding and hundreds across the country. Our businesses and our workers are being affected by the government's lack of leadership and moral authority.

We can provide support, but we expect the government to refrain from interfering in the operations of the Canada Border Services Agency and police forces. What we are currently seeing is that by insisting on a peaceful resolution, the Liberals are violating the moral authority of police forces to a certain extent. Law enforcement then cannot establish a balance of power and are unable to intervene and enforce law and order.

The consequences here are many. First, this undermines the moral authority of our police forces and the Canada Border Services Agency. This crisis has caused gridlock across the country, and we are seeing financial losses, enormous costs and repercussions. As my colleague mentioned, the long-term damage here is that this situation is normalizing non-compliance, disrupting order and disregarding the integrity of our borders.

For this reason, we are calling on the government not only to advance this bill, but also to restore moral authority for our police forces and border services. It must not interfere with their operations by insisting on using political solutions to address law-and-order problems.

[Public Safety, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should apply the existing laws, because he is certainly not familiar with the law. The law is clear that the police can suspend a firearms licence, and they can also prevent someone with mental health issues or someone involved in criminal activities from acquiring firearms.

The law is clear, so nothing needs to be changed. Why go after law-abiding citizens instead of tackling street gangs, which are the real problem?

[Canadian Heritage, February 3rd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but that is not working.

The Liberals are trying to control the media and journalists. They tried to buy journalists off with a $600-million subsidy, but that was not enough. Yesterday the minister said that he would impose licences on news organizations. Big Brother has nothing on him.

When will the Minister of Canadian Heritage stop indulging in these undemocratic whims and start looking after the cultural sector?