44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 28, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 28, the Chair encouraged members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation with respect to Bill C‑237 to do so as soon as possible. I would like to make some arguments. I will be brief.
Bill C‑237 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide that a province may withdraw from a federal program in an area under the legislative authority of the province if, and only if, the province itself has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of the federal program. The province that withdraws is to be paid the same amount of money it would have received had it participated in the federal program.
By the same token, it amends the Canada Health Act, but only for Quebec. I will not reiterate the arguments that the bill's sponsor, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, so eloquently laid before us on March 1, but I fully agree with everything he said. Like him, I feel that Bill C‑237 does not require a royal recommendation because it does not change the amounts transferred to the provinces, how funds are divided among the provinces, the end use of the funds or the executive's power to determine whether a province has a comparable program that justifies withdrawing from the program.
I would like to add a few points for the Chair to consider.
Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, grants the power of initiative in tax matters to the Crown as follows:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General
It clearly states “any purpose”. The same term is used in Standing Order 79.
Over the years, the Chair has had occasion to clarify the scope of that term. According to page 838 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the Chair has ruled that in order for a private member's bill to proceed without a royal recommendation, its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications must not be significantly altered.
My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel introduced a series of bills comparable in scope to Bill C‑237 that did not have royal recommendation.
On March 22, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons presented two cases where the Chair had ruled that the bills required royal recommendation. These two bills have something in common. In both cases, the change in the conditions and qualifications opened the door to potentially increasing the amount of spending. In the case of Bill C‑490 introduced in 2007, it is clear. In addition to increasing the guaranteed income supplement, the bill set out that a person could retroactively receive the benefits for all the previous years they were entitled to receive them but did not apply for them.
The change in conditions and qualifications significantly increased the amount of spending. The Chair was absolutely right in that case to require royal recommendation.
The government also brought up the example of Bill C‑243, introduced in 2016, which was similar. It provided for a pregnant woman to obtain employment insurance maternity benefits before giving birth if her work posed a risk to her health or her pregnancy. It is true that the weekly benefit would not change. It is also true that the maximum number of weeks of benefits would not change either, but a third of new mothers do not draw the maximum number of weeks because they return to work before using them all.
We can assume that a significant number of women would draw maternity benefits for longer if they started to receive them a month, two months, or even three months sooner. Thus, the changes to the employment insurance eligibility conditions that were set out in Bill C‑243 had the potential effect of increasing the amount of spending.
Therefore, it was logical that a royal recommendation be required for that bill.
That is not the case with Bill C‑237. There is no possibility whatsoever that the bill will result in new spending or that its purpose will change. The government is suggesting a very broad interpretation of the royal recommendation. It is suggesting that when a bill with financial implications changes a condition or a qualification, it must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
If that were the case, a bill to change the colour of a form would also require a royal recommendation because it would change the condition for access to a program, even though it would not change the amount or the purpose, which are the terms used in the Constitution or the Standing Orders. That is definitely not the spirit of the Standing Orders, as in future it would not be possible to make any amendements whatsoever to any budget bill.
In closing, in the Chair's interpretation of what constitutes a significant change when a bill amends the conditions and qualifications associated with spending, I suggest that we look to the terms used in both the Constitution and the Standing Orders. Does it change the amount of the expenditure? Does it change the purpose of the expenditure? If it does not change one or the other, it should not require a royal recommendation. In that sense, I believe that we should be able to vote on Bill C‑237 at all stages, even if the Crown were to refuse to grant a royal recommendation.
981 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not convinced by the argument about the basic premise of this bill.
For example, in Quebec, we have a law that protects freedom of conscience for all professionals. Anyone who is a member of a professional association in Quebec has the opportunity to exercise their freedom of conscience and require it be respected.
I am a social worker and a member of the professional association of social workers. I have been a support person for people who chose to receive medical assistance in dying. I can assure the member that, in Quebec, any professional who does not feel comfortable supporting a person who made this choice can easily refuse to do so. The same thing applies to doctors.
Can my colleague explain to me what more this bill, which in my opinion infringes on Quebec's jurisdiction, does for people who want to die with dignity in Quebec?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today has to do with protecting the freedom of conscience of health care professionals and practitioners when it comes to medical assistance in dying.
I think we should base our debate on the approach that Quebec took on this matter back in 2010. Quebec studied this issue from 2010 to 2014. The debates were non-partisan. The process allowed for all points of view to be heard and compiled. The focus of the debate was human dignity.
When talking about end-of-life care, we must not forget that the way to protect human dignity lies in freedom of choice. No one can claim to be acting in a patient's best interests if that patient is not allowed to make their own decisions. What is interesting about the Conservatives' bill is that they want the state to be less involved in the economy but more involved in our lives, especially when it comes to death, which is one of the intimate decisions a human being will make.
It is not the state or Conservative members who are going to die in place of the individual, the person who is dying, the patient, so why are they trying to interfere in this decision?
This bill is pointless, and I say this because subsection 241.2(9) already stipulates that no one can be compelled or forced to provide medical assistance in dying against their will.
As I just mentioned, the Quebec legislation should guide us in our debate here today. Section 31 of the Quebec legislation stipulates that medical practitioners cannot be forced to participate directly or indirectly in MAID, and I quote:
A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses a request for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 [which sets out all the conditions that a doctor must meet before deciding whether to provide medical assistance in dying] must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29.
This means that a patient who is dying and highly vulnerable should not be burdened with having to take the steps I just mentioned. The bill the Conservatives are introducing today would do just that. It would force these individuals to take those steps at the most vulnerable time of their lives, when they are dying or about to die. However, medical practitioners can refuse to participate directly or indirectly in MAID.
As we heard during the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' study of Bill C-7, some practitioners, citing freedom of conscience, are currently refusing to abide by the Collège des médecins du Québec's code of ethics and forward the request. In other words, they are ignoring the request, which they are not allowed to do.
In Quebec, conscientious objection is defined as follows: “Health professionals must not ignore a request for medical aid in dying. However, a doctor may refuse to administer medical aid in dying because of his or her personal values. The doctor must notify, as soon as possible, the executive director of the institution”.
That is the issue. The Conservatives have introduced a bill to add a provision to the Criminal Code that would make what they call intimidation in health care facilities an offence.
This would be a situation where a health care professional dealing with a family supporting a dying patient—a father, a mother, a brother, a sister—offers end-of-life options without ever mentioning medical assistance in dying. That is the kind of scenario we are talking about.
Quebec was a leader in this area and contributed to advancing the legislation, but there is still a lot of resistance on the ground when a patient requests medical assistance in dying. That can manifest in various ways. The surprising thing is that this resistance stands in stark contrast to what I consider the essence of Quebec's legislation, which was to integrate end-of-life care into the palliative care continuum.
In the current debate, there is one side advocating for palliative care and another advocating for medical assistance in dying. Quebec's legislation did not fall into the trap of such unnecessary division. Palliative care should be accessible, and the continuum of palliative care can give rise to a request for medical assistance in dying. A request for MAID emerges when a patient is given the opportunity to make a free and informed choice.
A person's dignity must not be defined by how they die, and it cannot be compromised because death is considered to be distasteful. To respect a human being is to respect their dignity, and that means respecting their independence and capacity for self-determination until their last breath.
The law enshrines the principle of self-determination throughout our lives, especially when it comes to medical decisions. No one can interfere with my person without my free and informed consent. Why then, at the most intimate moment in my life, would the state interfere in my life and take away my right to self-determination? I can only make a free choice if the practitioner is able to offer me all the choices, including access to palliative care, palliative sedation, and medical assistance in dying. This is a decision that only a dying person can make.
These types of bills and debates take us away from far nobler objectives. There is nothing new here to crow about; it was already set out in the legislation.
I would like members to understand why the Bloc Québécois will oppose this bill. We oppose this bill because at present, in Quebec, some people requesting MAID in a hospital are not being admitted to a palliative care unit. It is shameful that people at the end of their lives must live their last moments in a place that is far from peaceful and far from what is recommended as appropriate for dying with dignity. Why oppose that?
We must focus our efforts on having a continuum of care, working to ensure that palliative care is as available and accessible as possible in all forms, whether at home, in hospices, or elsewhere. A request for assisted death must be viewed not as a failure, but as a success in accompanying an individual towards death.
1136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 12:09:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, historically, the powers that be have always used crises as an opportunity to build an increasingly unitary government and spread its tentacles. The so-called Canadian Confederation has always been predatory and oppressive.
This was true after the Patriotes rebellion of 1837 and 1838 was quashed by the Act of Union, which was sanctioned following the recommendation of the fundamentally racist Durham report. It was true after the world wars, when taxes that had officially been called temporary became permanent.
It was also true after the 1980 referendum on sovereignty-association, with the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution, which Quebec still has not signed. It was true after the 1995 referendum, when the government unilaterally cut provincial transfers. I remind members that Ottawa used its new surpluses to create a plethora of programs, while Quebec was forced to slash funding for public services.
It would have been really naive of us to believe that the government would not use the COVID‑19 crisis to spread its tentacles into new areas it had no reason to be in.
Budget 2021 gave us a taste of that by setting up a structure of federal intervention in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The Liberal-NDP alliance, the new ultracentralist coalition in power, will be more successful than ever at cloaking its subjugating and imperious ambitions in progressive language.
The 1% tax on underused housing owned by foreign developers proposed in Bill C-8 is a prime example of that.
I want to make one thing clear. This is a good idea in and of itself. I had the opportunity to talk about it a few weeks ago, and I said that it is a good idea on paper, in principle, because it seeks to prevent speculators from buying and selling based on the ups and downs of the market. There is no doubt that real estate speculation is a real problem right now, given that the housing situation is on the brink of disaster.
It should be noted, however, that Ottawa has been shirking its responsibility to provide appropriate funding for the construction of social and affordable housing since the 1990s and that those cuts deprived Quebec of 80,000 housing units. That little dig at the federal government aside, the tax on real estate speculation is a good measure, even if it is a very minor one.
However, just because an idea has the potential to address a legitimate problem does not mean that the federal government should violate Quebec's sovereignty and interfere in its jurisdictions. That is why we are calling this tax the “invasion tax”.
On February 17, 2022, constitutional expert Patrick Taillon explained to the Standing Committee on Finance that this idea comes with some serious negative consequences.
The ultimate goal of this so-called invasion tax is to set some parameters surrounding the right to housing, which is an explicit and exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and the government wants to do so without any prior consultation or agreement with the provinces.
I remind members that successive governments in Ottawa have boasted about engaging in co-operative federalism, which is a chimera. The concept of co-operative federalism has taken on several names over the years, but it is actually asymmetrical or open federalism. This would not be my choice, as I would opt for independence over unco-operative federalism. This is a particularly centralizing direction for federalism.
Mr. Taillon explained that if this legislation is meant to regulate the right to housing, then it is likely unconstitutional. The pith of the bill goes beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament; it is a provincial jurisdiction.
Ottawa used its usual creativity to try to find a way around the division of powers that it has an obligation to respect, so this is an attempt to disguise a regulatory measure that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction as a tax measure.
This is the very first time that Ottawa has dared to interfere in the area of property taxes by seeking to penalize non-resident, non-Canadian second home owners. If this bill is directly related to the housing act, then we must conclude that it is unconstitutional.
It goes without saying that no one here is challenging the government's right to impose new taxes. If the primary goal is not to generate revenue but instead to limit or discourage certain behaviours related to real estate speculation, then this is more of a regulatory measure than a new tax, and it must be associated with an area of jurisdiction, in this case housing, which has always been governed by the provinces.
Without an agreement with Quebec and the provinces or their collaboration, a federal property tax would compromise the fiscal balance, which I would politely describe as already being fragile. Why would we let Ottawa borrow a tax tool that is not its own from the various local authorities, namely the municipalities and school boards, that need this tool themselves?
That imbalance will only grow in the coming years, especially given rising health care costs that Ottawa is still refusing to finance appropriately. It is important to emphasize that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's Fiscal Sustainability Report, which was released in June 2021, confirmed that the federal government still has financial flexibility, in contrast to the provinces, which have none and are in fact facing long-term viability problems. This really is not the time to be interfering in their business.
History has made it very clear that, once Ottawa gets its hands on tax fields, it never lets go. Been there, done that. Take corporate income tax, for example, which was a supposedly temporary measure brought in after the First World War, or personal income tax, another supposedly temporary measure brought in after the Second World War.
This property tax sets a dangerous precedent because Ottawa will inevitably have to set up various delegation of authority tools and infrastructure to manage it. This tax does not work like other federal taxes, so it will require new systems. As Mr. Taillon explained, once the mechanism to administer property tax is in place, it will be hard for Ottawa to resist the urge to look for more good ideas to fill that space.
Given the new ultracentralist coalition in power, I think I am entitled to feel that this will inevitably hurt the provinces, municipalities and school boards.
My political party proposed a single amendment to address this issue. We tried to find a compromise by proposing that the property tax measures apply only if the province agrees. That would just make sense, but unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois's amendment was deemed out of order by the Liberal committee chair, without even being debated. That is too bad.
In conclusion, taxation powers are directly connected to political sovereignty. In usurping an exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec state, the federal regime is becoming more and more oppressive and Quebec is losing its agency and its power. Independence has its price, to be sure, but dependence is even more costly. This invasion tax is yet more evidence of that.
1199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 12:19:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, needless to say, the housing system is in crisis. My colleague and I agree that there is a problem and that the solution being proposed is not the right way to go.
However, I think our political parties disagree on whether a real estate speculation tax should be imposed. I personally am in favour of this principle, but I simply think it was introduced in the wrong legislature.
I think my colleague also agrees with me on centralization.
However, our party differs from the Conservatives on another point. The Bloc believes that funding for housing needs to be completely overhauled so that it is not just private developers who benefit, but also community organizations, non-profit organizations and housing co-operatives, because they are the ones that know the real needs.
I also want to point out that the funding still needs to be rolled out. Ideally, that money would be sent to Quebec, and Quebec would take care of it. However, the federal government's withdrawal has deprived Quebec of roughly 80,000 housing units since the 1990s. As long as we pay taxes to Ottawa, we have a right to expect a fair return on our investment.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 12:21:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I am perfectly aware. There is a lot to read and study in the Constitution, which Quebec never signed.
It is also clear that delivering health care is a provincial responsibility, that the legislation governing health transfers to which my colleague referred is not being respected and that adequate funding is not being provided.
I thank my colleague for asking me whether I am aware of all this. My answer is yes, of course.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 12:22:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I want to add to my New Democratic colleague's thoughts. Canadians, as a whole, recognize and want to see a national government that truly cares, provides for them and is there in a tangible way with regard to health care. That is one of the reasons we have been advocating for national health care standards.
Would the member not recognize that even people in Quebec, along with other Canadians in all regions of the country, want to see a national government play a role in long-term health care and mental health? Would he at least acknowledge that as a fact?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 12:23:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, Quebec has no lessons to learn about establishing a public and universal system. It has been a pioneer in the field. The system is poorly funded, actually underfunded. That is the problem.
That being said, if the rest of Canada is prepared to live with Canada-wide standards or programs and the provinces agree, then let it be on condition that there is always a right to opt out with full compensation, no matter the reason. Accordingly, a province that disagrees, like Quebec, should be able to opt out, take the money, and say that it will adjust its programs appropriately, the way it wants to do it.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 1:06:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the lack of foresight for VIA Rail and the mixed messages the government is sending right now. Amtrak in the United States got funding for the first time ever to actually increase trackage, including connecting into Canada. What are the member's thoughts on the higher-speed rail that could go through the Quebec City corridor, and why would this government have mixed messages right now when Amtrak is historically investing, including crossing the border at Windsor?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 2:02:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in addition to having 40 of the most beautiful villages in Quebec, Cap‑Santé, the major centre of Portneuf in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, is known for its artists, artisans, agriculture and heritage, as well as its amazing old-fashioned Christmas market.
I would like to share with the House one of this municipality's recent initiatives, which is worthy of note. I am referring to the creation of the Créations d'origine cap‑santéenne, or COCS, label. I invite my colleagues to visit the COCS Facebook page, which is a place where all the city's creators can come together. Joining forces to promote their local brands and showcase products and services is an excellent way for these creators to better define their identity, local characteristics and uniqueness. It further strengthens the already close ties of this extremely talented community.
I thank them for once again putting our beautiful region of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on the map.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 2:18:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Drummond chamber of commerce and industry, the CCID, is celebrating its 120th anniversary this year.
Drummond is one of the most prolific entrepreneurial centres in Quebec. Are members aware that the expression “one person's loss is another's gain” does not apply in Drummond?
That is because one person's gain is everyone's gain in Drummond. This even applies to success: When one person succeeds, everyone succeeds.
Whenever a new business is created or a new store opens its doors in Drummond, the entire community, led by the CCID, is swift to offer its full support, encouragement and backing to ensure it becomes another success story.
The CCID is proud of its history of supporting business people who go on to make an impact across Quebec and around the world. Now more than ever, the CCID is positioning itself as an essential tool for the economic development of our region, which is the most welcoming region for business people of all backgrounds.
I would like to congratulate the current president of the CCID, Marc Tremblay, and the board of directors, and I want to recognize the hard work of executive director Alexandra Houle and her entire team.
I hope the Drummond chamber of commerce and industry will be around for many years to come.
221 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 2:28:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it would be so simple to give Quebec the means to take care of its responsibilities in health care. All Quebec is asking for is for the federal government to pay its 35% share.
However, Ottawa keeps wanting to dictate how Quebeckers' money should be used. It wants to come across as a saviour, when every year it cuts its share of health funding. It is Ottawa's fault that the system is underfunded. It is like a firefighter who is also a pyromaniac: It sets a fire and then tells us how to put it out.
When will Ottawa recognize that the expertise is in Quebec City, not in this Parliament, especially not on the benches across the way nor the ones next to us?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 2:29:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is that, after question period, we go invest in shirt manufacturers. At the rate the Bloc Québécois members are tearing their shirts in outrage every day, there is money to be made.
The Bloc Québécois should recognize that it is perfectly possible for Ottawa and Quebec to work together, that it is possible to work together for all Quebeckers.
As the Minister of Health clearly stated, there are no conditions attached to the $2 billion. That is something the Bloc Québécois does not want to hear.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 4:01:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, personally speaking, I have never seen the federal government start to encroach on the jurisdiction of Quebec or the provinces and then express regret and step back.
I get the impression that by encroaching on the property tax domain, the government is putting one foot in Quebec's taxation jurisdiction, and the next step will be to dance on the grave of provincial fiscal jurisdictions.
I would like my colleague to tell me if the federal government should refrain from encroaching on this, the last untouched area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 4:48:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, usually the other parties accuse us of picking fights, but apparently it is not the Bloc this time.
Here is my question relating to my hon. colleague's speech. In the economic update, the government held the Canada health transfer to the legal minimum, which is 3%. I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that this is the absolute minimum and that the Canadian provinces and Quebec have been asking for significantly higher health transfers for a long time. An increase is overdue and would be perfectly reasonable following this kind of pandemic.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 5:49:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, in our view, Bill C-8 represents a significant encroachment on provincial tax jurisdictions. This new tax on underused housing infringes on the property taxation jurisdiction.
The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment at the Standing Committee on Finance. We asked that Quebec and the provinces be given the right to opt out, so that the provinces could tell the federal government not to encroach on their areas of jurisdiction.
The Liberal committee chair of the Standing Committee on Finance ruled the amendment inadmissible, which meant that it could not even be debated.
Does my colleague think it would have been a good idea to give the provinces the right to opt out on property taxation?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 6:34:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising this important issue in the House.
I just want to emphasize that the federal government is extremely disappointed that the U.S. Department of Commerce continues to apply duties to most exports of Canadian softwood lumber. Those duties are unfair and entirely unwarranted. They harm Canadian communities, of which the member represents in British Columbia, and the workers. They harm Canadian workers and Canadian communities right across the board, particularly the industries in Quebec and British Columbia, but also people who are purchasing homes right around this country.
We understand that the softwood lumber industry is a key component of our highly integrated forest sector, and it is an economic anchor for communities around Canada. We know that Canadian interests in the softwood lumber dispute are best dealt with through a team Canada approach. Let me highlight this. What we are doing is that we are not taking a partisan approach and we are not taking the approach that favours a particular region. We are adopting this as truly a team Canada initiative and have done so continuously through our years in government. We are in close contact with provinces, territories, industry and other partners on how best to respond to the most recent U.S. decisions regarding duties on softwood lumber products.
In January, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development convened a round table with representatives from across the country to exchange views on Canada's approach to the softwood lumber dispute. One thing that is clear is that we stand by our industry and by the workers, and they can rest assured that Canada is actively contesting these unfair measures.
What are we doing in the face of these unwarranted initiatives by the U.S. Department of Commerce? We have launched legal cases against the various U.S. decisions to date that have imposed duties on Canadian softwood lumber products. Under chapter 19 of NAFTA, Canada is challenging the 2017 U.S. subsidy and dumping determinations. These determinations are also the subject of WTO challenges. We are already seeing the results of those efforts at the WTO.
In August 2020, the panel that adjudicated Canada's challenge of the subsidy determination found the U.S. duties to be inconsistent with the United States international trade obligations. Further, we are contesting, under chapter 10 of CUSMA, the first and second administrative reviews. I will pause parenthetically here. That is the very same provision under CUSMA that the official opposition, when CUSMA was renegotiated, urged us to abandon in order to get a deal done. Were it not for our determination in ensuring that the dispute resolution mechanism was entrenched, we would not have a vehicle for which to advocate for my friend opposite's very constituents and the industry she is purporting to advocate for.
We are a reliable trading partner. In the past, all of these independent tribunals have consistently found that the United States allegations regarding softwood lumber are entirely without basis, meaning Canada has won at every turn. We will continue to litigate, because that is the route that is available to us. We believe that will ultimately be the case in this present dispute.
In parallel, what are we doing? I reject categorically the categorization that was presented by the member opposite that we are somehow abandoning this issue or not making it a priority. To the contrary, we continue to engage on this issue with the U.S. government at every level. The Prime Minister has raised it with President Biden. The Minister of International Trade has raised it with her U.S. counterparts, that is U.S. Trade Representative Tai and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo.
An agreement is in the best interests of both parties involved, and we will only accept a deal that is beneficial to Canadian industry, Canadian workers and Canadian communities.
659 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
