SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 181 - Apr/20/23

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/20/23 5:28:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-288

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

28 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Apr/20/23 5:28:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-222

Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate arises from a question I asked a few weeks ago before President Biden's visit. I mentioned that just days after the Prime Minister met with President Biden in 2021, the U.S. announced it was doubling the duties on softwood lumber and that workers in communities that rely on the Canadian forest industry were hoping for better this time. My first question is whether the Prime Minister brought up softwood lumber with the President, and I ask that because I have heard conflicting news on this front. It seems that if the word softwood was mentioned in those meetings, it was just a passing thought and certainly not a priority at all. It should be one of the government's highest priorities when it comes to international trade. I was in Prince George last week at the annual conference of the Council of Forest Industries, and the mood was rather sombre. The forest industry in British Columbia and across the country is facing very difficult times. Wildfires, beetle epidemics and years of old-growth harvest have reduced the amount of economically available timber. Low lumber prices have closed mills across Canada, including the Vaagen mill in the town of Midway in my riding. On top of that, we have illegal tariffs that have taken billions of dollars from the Canadian forest industry. It does not look like it will get better anytime soon. While in Prince George, I talked to the Canadian negotiators from Global Affairs. I talked to industry representatives. They pointed out that the unfair anti-dumping fines levied by the Americans have the insidious property of becoming larger when lumber prices are low and smaller when prices are high. Canadian lumber exporters were surviving during the times of high prices last year and the year before, but now that prices are low, they are facing the double hit of prices that often do not even support the cost of production as well as high export tariffs being levied in the near future. I will add that there is a way to ameliorate this situation while the illegal tariffs are in place. It is to provide supports to grow the mass timber sector so we can develop domestic markets as well as export wood products to the United States without having to pay softwood lumber tariffs. That is just what my private member's bill, Bill S-222, would do. It would encourage the federal government to use mass timber and other building materials with low environmental impact while building federal infrastructure. Two operations in my riding, Structurlam in the South Okanagan and Kalesnikoff in West Kootenay, are leaders in the mass timber sector in North America, and we should support them and other value-added plants across the country so that when we are harvesting trees from a shrinking available cut, we are getting more money and more jobs from each and every tree. Yes, there are ways we can support the Canadian forest industry, but the biggest win would be the elimination of the unfair and illegal tariffs the Americans have put on our exports to the U.S.A. We must keep up the pressure on the American government to get rid of these measures. We must continually make the case to the American people that these unfair tariffs benefit only a few wealthy American timber barons and hit the American public with significantly higher building costs. Is the Canadian government putting sustained pressure on the Americans to fix this?

591 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 5:32:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the very end of the member's question, he asked if the government was putting sustained pressure on the issue. We could go back to 2015, when the government was first elected, we had tariffs being put on. At the time, discussions were taking place, with the current government, in terms of how vitally important the softwood industry is to the Canadian economy and how these tariffs were causing a wide spectrum of problems. Virtually from day one, we have been dealing with this issue, whether it is today's Deputy Prime Minister, who had taken that issue head-on, to the current ministries. The Prime Minister has talked about the issue over the years. We continue to recognize it. This is not a new problem. It has been taking place under different administrations. Unfortunately, I would suggest, in my humble opinion, it is the American barons, the gigantic, wealthy individuals in the United States, who are really the cause of the problem. Unfortunately, there have been small businesses and companies, and ultimately the workers, here in Canada that have paid the price. That is the reason why, as a government, it is important we are there to continue to advocate for and support the industry. The member made reference to different ways we could support the industry, whether it is looking at buildings, and it is truly amazing to see the number of tall buildings, skyscrapers, being built with timber, or looking for those alternative ways we could build into the future. That is one of the ways we could do it. However, there is no doubt that the best interests of all concerned is in fact in dealing with the tariffs, because they are unfair. We have demonstrated that through trade agreements and trade referees. At the end of the day, we know we are on the right side of the issue, that these tariffs are not appropriate. Ultimately, time has shown that we do prevail. Unfortunately, it has been at a substantial cost. We have to look at ways in which we could minimize those costs to the industry here in Canada. I would suggest, as the member referenced himself, that the American consumers are paying a much higher price because of these tariffs, because of the unfair advantage that the few in the United States are asking for and ultimately being successful at getting those tariffs put in place. I see my time has expired, but there will be another minute to continue to expand on this.

424 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Apr/20/23 5:36:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will say this. The Canadian forest industry is in difficult times. It is a period of change. Companies and workers are adapting to a rapidly changing forestry landscape. These changes need the support of governments at all levels. I have travelled to Washington, DC before to advocate for the Canadian forest industry and to get rid of these tariffs. I will be going back there again next month with the international trade committee. I do not know what is on the official agenda of that upcoming trip, but I know that I will be bringing up the softwood lumber issue whenever I can. I hope that the government, including the Prime Minister and other appropriate ministers, would be doing this as well, in all their interactions with their American counterparts. Forest workers across Canada are expecting continuing action, and are growing impatient for positive news. When will the billions in excess duties collected finally be returned to the Canadian forest industry? When will free trade in lumber finally return to North America?

175 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/20/23 5:37:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is not soon enough. We recognize these tariffs and the hundreds of millions of dollars, going into billions of dollars, being accumulated is costing us at the other end. Ideally, it would be wonderful to see this issue resolved permanently and not every few years, with a win here or there, and then seeing tariffs coming back a few years later. We need a long-term solution to this issue, and that is one of the reasons it is so important that, as a government, we continue to put emphasis on trade, because we are a trading nation, and we do need to take whatever mechanism and action necessary, including seeing the member visit the United States to lobby on behalf of his constituents. We all need to play an important role in protecting this vital industry and the workers.

145 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Apr/20/23 5:38:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening because the Liberal Party made an election promise to Torontonians in 2021 to help our city with its COVID-19 shortfall. However, after relying on the voters of Toronto to cling to power, the Liberals have thrown our city under the bus. Where are those Toronto Liberal MPs? They must have been kidnapped. The silence from them is deafening. Not one has stood up in the House for the very people who put them in office. While they remain silent, 270,000 people, which is the equivalent of five and a half SkyDomes, or Rogers Centres, visited a food bank last month. That figure represents the most ever recorded in the history of the Daily Bread Food Bank. Before my hon. colleague reaches for their “lower poverty rate” talking points, I would like to point out that local food banks expect visits to increase by 60% from 2022 to 2023. This is a clear indication of the state of Toronto. The city is in a climate of high food prices, inflation, crushing interest rates and rising energy costs. It is a municipality that cannot pay or provide for desperate services, including services such as public transportation, social services, police, fire, ambulance, mental health care, day care and a list of other needs that a large metropolitan area requires, and especially one trying to improve itself. Let there be no mistake: Toronto and the GTA cannot be the engine of the Canadian economy when there is no oil for that engine. Toronto cannot foster and herald in an economic recovery if it is bankrupt. A vibrant economic renewal out of the ashes of COVID cannot come about just by wishful thinking. It requires the delivery of promised help. While Toronto's Liberal MPs remain in continuous hibernation, their constituents are dealing with transit service cuts that will have them waiting longer at the bus stop and the subway station. Also, as recent incidents have sadly indicated, these transit riders are placing their lives at risk. It is no surprise that violent crime is rising. That is a direct outcome of the decline in social services when meeting significant needs. The result is desperation, poverty and homelessness. Scarborough Liberals were quick to wake up when distribution would cost one of them their jobs, but they were fast to scramble back to missing in action when TTC service cuts reduced, or suspended altogether, service for line 2, which ran into Scarborough, for their constituents. When I first asked the question, the parliamentary secretary responding referenced their municipal councillor experience, but I was very surprised that there was no understanding of the difference between capital expenditures and operating expenses. Capital expenditures, which the member spoke about in response to my initial QP question, are for the acquisition of capital assets, such as the bus that the Liberal government has thrown Toronto under. Operating expenses, as the name suggests, are the monies required to operate that bus. Yes, they are two very distinct things indeed. However, there may be some similarity to the Liberals' election promises in their failure to honour them. Will the government honour its promise to Toronto and help our city address its budget shortfall, yes or no?

545 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 5:42:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member, in many ways, is completely out of touch with the reality of what has been happening. I would challenge the member, because he does get a one-minute response, to tell me a government in the last 40 to 50 generational years that has invested more in public transit in the city of Toronto than ours has. We are not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars; we are talking about billions of dollars. Those Toronto MPs he is talking about are a very vocal group. Those Toronto MPs he is talking about are bringing to the House of Commons concerns that have been raised at the doors in the communities of Toronto and in the greater Toronto community as a whole. What we have been hearing about are issues like transit. That is why there is an investment of billions of dollars. The member cannot cite another federal government that has invested more money in public transit than ours has because we have such a strong, active group of members of Parliament from Toronto and outside of Toronto. We have recognized, from the Prime Minister down to individual members of Parliament, the valuable role that public transit plays in all of our communities. Toronto has been a major beneficiary, especially when compared to any other government. The member talked about programs and issues regarding inflation. Once again, it is Toronto MPs in the Liberal caucus stepping up to say they want to get relief. It is why we have the grocery rebate. Imagine that 11 million Canadians are going to benefit by that. Imagine the expansion of the dental program. Believe it or not, that is also going to help, not to mention the $198-billion commitment toward health care. Does the member not believe that people, not only those in Toronto but all Canadians, will benefit by having a commitment of that nature, which is going to support them in so many ways? Four minutes does not allow me to expand on the ways this government is there for the people of Toronto and, in fact, all Canadians. No government in the history of Canada has invested more money, more real dollars, in Canada's infrastructure than ours has. Often there is money on the table that is not being used because other jurisdictions are not prepared to bring it in and help develop it. To accuse the federal government of not being there is beyond the realm of reality, because it is the absolute opposite. This is a government that understands not only the needs of the people of Toronto and the surrounding area, but the needs of Canadians. That is why we have seen budgetary and legislative actions that have had such a positive impact in general as we continue to work with Canadians. Yes, there is a high expectation that Torontonians will continue to lead the country in many different ways. It is one of the reasons we have that advocacy within our caucus. I believe it is contributing to and making a difference in the lives of all Canadians. Whether we are using taxation policy to ensure that tradespeople are in a better position to afford the tools they require or are ensuring that we see the expansion of subway systems in Toronto, this government has been there and will continue to be there for all Canadians.

567 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong

Apr/20/23 5:46:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the billions in investments that my colleague is speaking about, there is a difference. Those are investments in capital assets. What is the point of new stations if we do not have money to keep the lights on? To reiterate, capital assets are about investing in the Liberal bus that the City of Toronto has been thrown under, and operating expenses are about not having the money for the Liberals to turn on the bus, ride over us and then reverse and run over our city again. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to please recognize the serious extent of the situation, or ask his Toronto Liberal colleagues to please identify which homeless shelters should be closed, which other bus routes should be cut and which police cars, fire trucks and ambulances need to be mothballed.

141 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/20/23 5:47:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during the break week I had the opportunity to meet with a Winnipeg transit union representative and I can tell the House that the federal government's role, in terms of investing in capital infrastructure, is second to no other government. If we look at the previous Harper government or previous federal governments and talk about the ongoing operating costs of transit, we will find it is the municipalities that pay, and often the provinces will chip in. The federal government provides other forms of revenue to the cities to support transit workers and transit routes indirectly. I would ask the member to understand that, yes, there is a difference between capital and operating costs. We have a federal government that is investing in the capital infrastructure and transit groups very much appreciate that. Municipalities and provinces need to pony up more to support the ongoing operational costs and where we can contribute, I think we have demonstrated a willingness to do so.

165 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/20/23 5:48:33 p.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.)

39 words