Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 2809
View Randy Hoback Profile
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-19 17:19 [p.29417]
Madam Speaker, I need to straighten out the record. The parliamentary secretary said that his government saved the TPP. The reality is that it was signed, and if we had passed it, we would not have had to renegotiate NAFTA. What happened? The government stalled. The Liberals dragged their feet. They kept hesitating. They kept making it impossible for the U.S. to move forward. If the Liberal government had embraced it and ratified it, we would not be talking about NAFTA today. That is the reality.
The Liberals have upset many of our trade partners around the world: China, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines. Which country has the Prime Minister travelled to where he has not upset someone?
The reality is that this agreement is not perfect, but it would provide stability, and business communities want stability.
Our structural steel is going to face tariffs in August. Our softwood lumber has tariffs right now. What are the Liberals going to do to solve those problems once they ratify this deal?
View Darshan Singh Kang Profile
Ind. (AB)
View Erin Weir Profile
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-18 18:23 [p.29336]
Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and, like the rest of the independent caucus, will be voting yes.
View Kelly McCauley Profile
View Kelly McCauley Profile
2019-06-18 21:25 [p.29359]
Madam Speaker, my colleague made a comment about how the tariffs have been hitting our steel industry hard.
I was looking at the PBO report, and two things stuck out. Last year, the Liberals collected $1.1 billion more in tariffs than they actually delivered to our suffering steel companies. In the fall economic statement, the Liberals further forecast that the Liberal government would bank an additional $3.54 billion in tariffs instead of actually using that money to help our suffering steel industry.
I wonder if my friend could comment on the duplicity of the Liberal government, saying that it stands behind our steelworkers when it is actually just taking the money and putting it right in the bank.
View Kelly McCauley Profile
View Kelly McCauley Profile
2019-06-18 23:02 [p.29372]
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you could have possibly heard the member for Barrie—Innisfil over that. If the good people of Winnipeg North ever come to their senses and elect a Conservative MP and the Liberals are looking for another MP to stand and rage incoherently on demand, I think we have our winner.
The member talked a lot about job growth. I want to point out that according to the Library of Parliament, the participation of women in the workforce as a percentage has actually dropped under the current government. He talked about unemployment dropping in Canada, and it is great that it has, but I want to point out again some information, again from the Library of Parliament.
There is a great bumper sticker that says, “Trigger a Liberal: use facts and logic”, so here is a trigger warning right now. Since the Liberals were elected, in Germany unemployment has dropped 27%. In England, with all the problems with Brexit, unemployment has dropped 24%. In Japan, with its massively aging workforce, unemployment has dropped 19%. In the United States, unemployment has dropped 28%, and under the Liberal government, unemployment has dropped 16%. The high tide is lifting all boats, but the Liberals are sitting on the dock while their boat is drifting away.
Why has the government so underperformed compared to the rest of the booming world in the creation of jobs and dropping unemployment?
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
2019-06-18 23:53 [p.29379]
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak at this late hour. With the few minutes I have at my disposal, I want to share a story about the most comprehensive and important trade deal that Canada has negotiated in modern times. Let us talk about the evolution of a trade deal that transformed how our economy and those of the United States and Mexico have become intertwined to the benefit of Mexicans, Americans and all Canadians. Let us talk about a failed Conservative administration that poisoned the well with the Obama administration and had no chance whatsoever to negotiate a new deal with an administration that had no time for the then Canadian government because Prime Minister Harper went on national TV to tell President Obama how to do his job. It is an odd strategy when one is trying to build bridges, not fences or walls.
When it was clear that our government would be working with President Trump and his administration on negotiating a new NAFTA, our government got to work. We assembled a true Team Canada, not one geared to narrow partisan interests, as the other side had done, but one that was putting the interests of Canadians first. We reached out to former interim leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. We reached out to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, even to then premier Brad Wall and then premier Rachel Notley, individuals at the polar ends of the political spectrum in Canada working on behalf of Canadians in the face of a deal that was essential to our survival.
Our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the MP for University—Rosedale, took charge and got busy to develop an approach that would reach out to decision-makers across the U.S., to leaders in the Mexican government and industry associations across both countries.
When I was knocking on doors during the negotiations, Canadians were understandably concerned. They had had 10 years of failure from the Conservatives, and $2 billion of cross-border trade daily was at stake. They told me, and I agree, that it was no laughing matter. In fact, access to and integration with the U.S. and Mexican markets are the fabric of small and big businesses here in Canada.
At the height of concerns for people in my riding of Edmonton Centre, at the height of that anxiety over a trade deal that for many seemed to be an existential issue for our country, that is when the Conservatives showed their true nature. At the point when the Trump administration was trying to wear us down, that was the moment when the Conservatives could not handle the heat.
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
2019-06-18 23:56 [p.29379]
Mr. Speaker, I understand that my remarks may be getting under the skin of the Conservative opposition. That is the nature of this place. That is the moment when the Conservatives threw up their hands and said to capitulate, cave in, give in on culture, give in on supply management. Forget labour, throw out the dispute resolution mechanism, forget women and indigenous and LGBTQ2 people. They really do not count in trade. Just take any deal, even a bad deal. It is shocking and shameful. I am glad that they were not in the kitchen cooking the deal, because it would have been a colossal flop.
Instead of taking the advice of the Conservatives to capitulate, our Minister of Foreign Affairs held fast. Our government stayed strong. We let the Americans and the Mexicans iron out their differences and then we came back to the table. The new NAFTA was always going to be about three economies. We committed to that, as did our Mexican partners, and ultimately so did the United States.
Now we are debating the passing of a deal that is central to our economy and to our modern self-identity. I understand the sour grapes from the Conservatives over trade deals like the Canada-European trade agreement because they simply could not close the deal. They did not have the mettle of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who knew that the German Social Democratic Party would not be able to deal with a new modern trade deal with Canada. What did she do? She did not take advice from the Conservatives. She did not sit here and sulk. She did not yell at them from across the Atlantic. What did she do? The Minister of Foreign Affairs went to the convention of the German Social Democratic Party, spoke at it and convinced the Social Democrats. Germany signed on to a historic deal.
That is exactly the same kind of mettle that the leader of our NAFTA negotiations put toward this historic deal. That is leadership. That turned the tide. That is exactly what makes them so mad on the other side. The opposition cannot handle innovative trade deal-making because they think that they know how to run an economy when, in fact, what they know how to do is add $150 billion to our debt and have nothing to show for it.
What did we get? Since day one of the NAFTA negotiations, our objective was to get a good deal for Canada and for all Canadians. We wanted to safeguard more than $2 billion a day in cross-border trade, 70% of Canadian exports.
What is in the new NAFTA? Let us talk about energy, because that is important to my province and to the whole country. The new NAFTA deals with energy issues through the modernized agreement.
On this day when we approved TMX and when we are no longer going to rely on one U.S. market for 99% of our exports, when we are going to see shovels in the ground, and when we are going to see $15 billion of trade repatriated to this country because we will be able to have world prices, this is when we want to make sure that there is no more proportionality clause so that we do not have to sell the Americans more oil than we want to.
On autos, we have heard exactly from my colleague from Mississauga that the CUSMA deal and Canadians working in the auto sector are better off than ever before. That is the new NAFTA. That is what we promised. That is what we got.
View Randy Hoback Profile
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-13 12:21 [p.29046]
Madam Speaker, the Liberals make things so tough for themselves, it is unreal. The hon. government House leader said it was tabled in the House in December. She could have actually brought the legislation forward in plenty enough time for us to have a good debate here in the House and plenty enough time for the committee to do a thorough review of the bill.
I have two questions for the government House leader. One, will she assure us that if it goes to committee, the committee can hear from as many witnesses and take as much time that it needs to actually go through this legislation? Two, will she also assure us that if any changes in this legislation should happen in the U.S. this summer, the committee will have a chance to look at them before it finally votes on it and bring it back to the House?
View Glen Motz Profile
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege, as always, to rise in the House and speak to legislation. As we near the end of this parliamentary session, one that precedes an election, we really should be wrapping up work rather than starting new work, as we all know.
Bill C-98 proposes to repurpose and rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the “Public Complaints and Review Commission” and expand its mandate to review both the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.
In 2017, I began working as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In studies on the border agency and when the agency came up in discussions on another bill, Bill C-21, the issue of oversight and complaints was discussed. Professor Wesley Wark, from the University of Ottawa, who was previously a special adviser to the president of the Canadian border security agency said:
[T] he committee should encourage the government to finalize its plans for an independent complaints mechanism for CBSA. There have been discussions under way about this for some considerable time now.
We were told that the minister already had a plan back then, was already dealing with it and that we did not need to. During his appearance at the Senate committee regarding the border security's oversight, the minister said:
The CBSA, however, does not have independent review of officer conduct, and that is a gap that definitely needs to be addressed....
Mr. Chair, while I agree absolutely with the spirit behind Bill S-205, I cannot support its detail at this time for—
View Glen Motz Profile
Madam Speaker, I will continue with the public safety minister's comment at committee:
[T]he government is launching, almost immediately, a public consultation process on our national security framework that will touch directly on the subject matter of this bill, and I need that consultation before I can commit to specific legislation.
Well, that was almost three years ago. To say that the bill is late would obviously be an understatement. It has taken the minister over three years to bring forward this legislation. That is quite a long time for a minister who said he was already working on something in 2016.
In keeping with his recent history on consultations, there appears to have been little or no external consultation in preparation for the bill. Hopefully, at committee, the government will be able to produce at least one group or organization outside of the government that will endorse the legislation. However, I am not holding my breath.
The government even hired a former clerk of the Privy Council to conduct an independent report. Mel Cappe conducted a review and provided his recommendations in June 2017. It was only because of an access to information request by CBC News that Parliament even knows of this report.
A CBC News article noted:
The June 2017 report by former Privy Council Office chief Mel Cappe, now a professor at the University of Toronto, was obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act....
[A] spokesman for [the] Public Safety Minister...would not comment directly on Cappe’s recommendations, but said the government is working on legislation to create an “appropriate mechanism” to review CBSA officer conduct and handle complaints.
The proposed body would roll in existing powers of the civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP.
The government and the minister had the recommendations two years ago, yet they are bringing this forward at the last minute. It appears to be an afterthought. Again, in February of this year, the minister said that they continue to work as fast as they can to bring forward legislation on oversight for the CBSA.
Perhaps the Liberal government was just distracted by its many self-inflicted wounds. It created many challenges for Canadians, and now it is tabling legislation in the 11th hour that deals with real issues and asking parliamentarians to make up for the government's distraction and lack of focus on things that matter to Canada, Canadians and our democracy. These are things like public safety, national security, rural crime, trade, energy policies and lower taxes.
There is an impact to mismanagement and bad decision-making. The Liberals' incompetence has had a trickle-down effect that is felt at every border crossing and also across many parts of the country.
We know that RCMP officers had to be deployed and dedicated to dealing with illegal border crossings. When the Liberals set up a facility to act as a border crossing in Lacolle, Quebec, RCMP officers were there covering people entering into Canada. Those RCMP officers were not commissioned that day. They were pulled from details across the country. They were pulled from monitoring returned ISIS fighters and from monitoring and tackling organized crime. They were taken and redeployed, most likely, from rural detachments across the country. We know that in my province of Alberta, the RCMP is short-staffed by nearly 300 officers. It is not a surprise, then, that there was a rise in rural crime while this was going on. Rural crime is now rising faster than urban crime.
However, it is not just the RCMP that has been impacted by the mismanagement at the border. It is also border officers, who will have the added oversight created through Bill C-98.
CBSA officers told me and many other MPs about more shifts and about workers being transferred to Manitoba and Quebec. The media reported that students were taking the place of full-time, trained border officers at Pearson airport. This is the largest airport in Canada, and the impacts of having untrained and inexperienced officers monitoring potentially the top spot for smuggling and transfer of illegal goods are staggering.
We have a serious issue in Canada at our borders, one that is getting worse. We know from testimony given during the committee's study of Bill C-71 that the vast majority of illegal firearms come from the U.S. They are smuggled in. At the guns and gangs summit, the RCMP showed all of Canada pictures of firearms being smuggled in as part of other packages. The minister's own department is saying there is a problem with smuggled goods, contraband tobacco and drugs coming across our borders.
Rather than actually protect Canadians, we are looking into oversight. Do not get me wrong. Oversight is good, but it is not the most pressing issue of the day.
The media is now reporting that because of the Liberals' decision to lift visas, there are many harmful and potentially dangerous criminals now operating in our country. This comes on the heels of reports that there are record-high numbers of ordered deportations of people who are a security threat. There were 25 in 2017. There are also record-low removals. Deportations were about or above 12,000 to 15,000 per year from 2010 to 2015, but that is not what we are seeing now. The Liberals, even with tens of thousands of people entering Canada illegally, are averaging half of that.
We know that the CBSA is not ignoring these issues and security threats. It just lacks the resources, which are now dedicated to maintaining an illegal border crossing and monitoring tens of thousands more people.
This failure is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of many Canadians.
A Calgary Herald headline from last August read, “Confidence in [The Prime Minister's] handling of immigration is gone”. The Toronto Sun, on May 29 of this year, wrote, “AG report shows federal asylum processing system a mess”. Another reads, “Auditor General Calls out Liberal Failures”. The news headlines go on and on.
This is not something the minister did when he implemented reforms in Bill C-59, the national security reforms. Under that bill, there would be three oversight agencies for our national security and intelligence teams: the new commissioner of intelligence, with expanded oversight of CSIS and CSE; the new national security and intelligence review agency, and with Bill C-22, the new parliamentary committee. This is in addition to the Prime Minister's national security adviser and the deputy ministers of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Oversight can be a good thing. Often, because of human nature, knowing it is there acts as a deterrent. From my career, knowing that police are nearby or ready to respond can deter criminals, and knowing that someone will review claims of misconduct will add credibility to an already reputable agency, the CBSA.
It is probably too bad that this was not done earlier, because it could have gone through the House and the Senate quite easily. It could have been a law for a year or two already, perhaps even more. Sadly, the late tabling of the bill seems to make it a near certainty that if it reaches the Senate, it might be caught in the backlog of legislation there.
The House and the committee can and should give the bill a great deal of scrutiny. While the idea seems sound, and the model is better than in other legislation, I am wary of anything the government does on borders. It has not managed our borders well and has not been up front with the House or Canadians about that. In 2017, the Liberals told us that there was nothing to worry about, with tens of thousands of people crossing our borders illegally. They said they did not need any new resources, security was going well and everything was fine.
Well, the reality was that security was being cut to deal with the volume, provinces and cities were drowning in costs and overflowing shelters, border and RCMP agencies were stretched and refugee screenings were backing up. According to the ministers, everything was fine. Then, in the budget, came new funding, and in the next budget, and in the one after that. Billions in spending is now on the books, including for the RCMP, the CBSA and the Immigration and Refugee Board.
What should we scrutinize? For one, I think we should make sure to hear from those people impacted by this decision, such as front-line RCMP and CBSA officers who will be subject to these evaluations.
A CBC article had this to say:
The union representing border officers has heard little about the proposal and was not consulted on the bill. Jean-Pierre Fortin, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), said the president of the CBSA also was left in the dark and could not inform the union of any details of the legislation.
How reliable is legislation when the agency it would actually impact and involve was left out of the loop?
It seems odd that the Liberals would appoint one union, Unifor, to administer a $600-million media bailout fund just after they announce a campaign against Conservatives, and, yet, the border services officers union is not even consulted about legislation that impacts it. I would hope that consultations are not dependent on political donations and participation.
That is why Parliament should be careful about who sits on this new agency. We do not need more activists; we need experienced professionals. We need subject matter experts. We need people with management expertise. We need to make sure that the people who work on these review organizations are appropriately skilled and resourced to do their work. We need to make sure that frivolous cases do not tie up resources, and that officers do not have frivolous and vexatious claims hanging over the heads.
We need to make sure that Canadians do not need to hire lawyers to get access to the complaints commission and its process.
We need to make sure that the minister and his staff, and other staffing leaders across the public safety spectrum cannot get their hands inside the processes and decisions of these bodies. We need the agency to have transparent, clear processes and systems that are fair to applicants and defendants alike. We need to make sure that these processes do not eat away resources from two agencies that are already strapped for bodies.
I hope there is time to do this right. I hope there is the appropriate time to hear from all the relevant witnesses, that legal advice is obtained, and that we have the appropriate time to draft changes, changes that, based on the minister's track record, are almost certainly going to be needed.
As the House begins its work on this legislation, I trust the minister and his staff would not be directing the chair of the public safety committee to meet their scripted timeline, which seems a little difficult to be done now with only a week remaining. Knowing that the chair is a scrupulous and honoured individual, he certainly would not suggest that legislation needs to be finished before we can hear the appropriate testimony.
There is a lot of trust and faith needed for the House to work well on legislation like this and many other pieces, trust that is built through honest answers to legitimate questions, trust that is reinforced by following integrity and the need to get it right, rather than the need to just be right.
I hope, perhaps just once in this legislative session, we could see the government try to broker such trust on Bill C-98, but I will not hold my breath.
View Randy Hoback Profile
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-11 13:12 [p.28906]
Mr. Speaker, the member and I sit on the trade committee and I thank her for the work she has done there. She has been very honourable on that committee. It is a committee that functions very well in this Parliament. On this file in particular, we see the value and importance of two billion dollars' worth of trade a day. We have been working together as best we can, and I think Canadians will be proud of us.
However, there are some concerns. One of the concerns with respect to this agreement is the upheaval and the process in the U.S. of getting it ratified. Does the member have any insight from the Liberal government on what the process will be here in Canada as we ratify this agreement in step with the U.S.? We also cannot forget about the situation that is going on in Mexico.
View Erin Weir Profile
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-11 13:13 [p.28906]
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that one of the best features of the new NAFTA is the removal of the investor-state dispute resolution provisions which had enabled foreign corporations to directly challenge our democratic laws, regulations and policies before secretive international tribunals rather than in the normal court system. Therefore, I am wondering whether the government will seek to remove investor-state provisions from Canada's other free trade agreements.
View Randy Hoback Profile
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-11 13:17 [p.28906]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
This deal has definitely been a rocky road for Canada. It has created a lot of tension, although “stress” may be a better word, for a lot of Canadians and Canadian businesses. In light of working with a president who was threatening to rip up NAFTA and with all sorts of other issues going on in the U.S. and the U.S. election, it definitely caught Canadians' attention these last four years. It is very important that we now talk about the rest of the story, how we have ended up where we are today and why we ended up being a target instead of having a deal that would make North America more competitive in the world marketplace.
Two and a half years ago, the Prime Minister volunteered to renegotiate NAFTA, and that is fine. What was not clear was what his goal was. In his mind, I do not think he had a clear goal. I do not think he had a clear idea of what he wanted the outcome to look like, and that caused a lot of stress and failures as the negotiations progressed.
We could look at the new NAFTA as a chance to make North America more competitive, to create an environment throughout North America and take advantage of all the strengths that Mexico, the U.S. and Canada have to offer, putting them together and competing strongly in the world marketplace. We had that opportunity and we lost it. That is frustrating for Canadian businesses and it is frustrating for businesses right across North America because it was there and we did not achieve it.
Mexico calls it NAFTA 0.8. We call it NAFTA 0.5. The reality is this is not a good agreement. It is okay; it stinks, but the business community says it would rather take a bad agreement in this case than have no agreement, to have it ripped up and have nothing. After all, the U.S. is 70% of our business and we do some $2 billion in trade every day with the U.S. The reality is that we ended up with an agreement that the U.S. and Mexico negotiated and Canada signed onto afterward. How did that happen?
I will talk about the inside baseball going on in D.C. while this was going on. When I went to D.C. the first time after the Trump election, I and the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose, visited Congress and very quickly we realized a couple of things. The first was that Canada was not the target in these deals. Members of the House of Representatives and Senate said they had problems with Mexico. We told them that if they were renegotiating NAFTA, they were also renegotiating with Canada. They said, “We have no issues with Canada. That is crazy.” They did not even understand the relationship between Canada and the U.S. They did not understand how important that relationship is and how much business is done.
The former Conservative leader and I said we needed to help them on this deal because if they did not get this right, it would cost us a lot of jobs and our economy would suffer substantially. We worked closely with the Liberal Party. There is no question about it. We did not deny it. I did round tables right across Canada and spoke to Canadian businesses about what they wanted out of the agreement. The committee sat in the summer to give the minister a chance to talk about what she thought the agreement could look like when it was completed, and she did not. She sent some virtue-signalling ideas of what she would like to include in the agreement, ideas the Liberals knew the U.S. president would never accept, ideas that really did not do anything for competitiveness in Canada, but that was their starting point. We knew right then that we were in trouble.
I will admit that members of the House from all parties worked very well together on this agreement. Whether it was the trade committee or the Canada-U.S. group, they worked well together. Where did it fall down? Where it fell down is very serious and shows how problematic things can get. It fell down in the PMO and the minister's office. Members did a great job educating members in the U.S. at the state level and the federal level on the importance of our relationship. When we go to the U.S., they quote our numbers back to us on how important that relationship is. How did it end up that Canada became the target instead of Mexico?
During Trump's speeches in the U.S. during the election campaign, what did he talk about? He talked about building a wall. He said NAFTA was horrible and Mexico took all of the jobs. He said that trade with China is horrible and China took all the jobs. He said that the U.S. lost all their jobs. The only thing he mentioned about Canada was a bit about dairy. He wanted access to dairy into Canada. He did not like the fact that our dairy producers are profitable and the U.S. dairy producers were in a system that did not allow them to become profitable. In reality, they did not want to ship milk to Canada; they wanted the price that Canadians had for their milk in Ohio.
What changed? I can remember sitting down with Secretary Ross, who said, “Canada and the U.S., everything is good here. In fact, there should be some changes here, maybe in the buy America provisions to include Canada like the 51st state.” I remember him saying, “We should also do a trade deal together with Japan.”
We were invited to the table to go to Japan, if we wanted to choose that. We chose the TPP route, which I think is a better route. However, it shows how good the relationship was at that point and where it has ended up today. It comes back to how the PMO and the minister handled the relationship with the President of the United States.
We said very publicly that the Prime Minister did not need to be his best friend, but he should not poke him. I said, “Do not poke him.” Making a speech in New York, in his backyard, criticizing the president is not a wise thing. It might get the Prime Minister on Saturday Night Live and all the left-wing media in the U.S. would love him for it, and the Prime Minister would enjoy himself because he is popular with the left-wing media in the U.S., but at what expense? Canadian jobs.
After the Montreal summit, what did the comments the Prime Minister made about the president do? It led to the aluminum and steel tariffs. On those types of things, he could not help himself. He wanted to be a popular prime minister in the U.S. I needed a functional prime minister here in Canada, not a populist in the U.S.
With the minister, it was the same thing. Some of her articles in the U.S. were insulting to the president. Why would she do that in the middle of negotiations with our biggest trading partner?
Mr. Speaker, how would you feel if I insulted you right now? Would you cut me off and tell me to sit down, or would you let me keep going?
That is what they were doing down there. That is what the Prime Minister and the minister were doing in the U.S. That is what was creating the problems we have here today. That is how we ended up with NAFTA 0.5.
We would go down and actually build a strong relationship between the White House and Parliament, and they would destroy it over and over again. I am sure our ambassador down there must have been pulling out his hair, because some of the directions he was given to lobby on behalf of Canada were definitely anti-Trump or anti-Republican sentiments. Why would they do that in the middle of negotiations of our biggest trade deal? Why? It is just amazing.
We saw that over and over again. That part of the story needs to be told here in Canada so that Canadians understand when we start losing jobs, so that Canadians understand why we gave up market access, and so that Canadians understand why we cannot expand another auto plant in Canada. It is not because we were the target at the start. It is because of the actions of these offices that created that problematic situation.
We are going to support this deal. As I said, in this case a bad deal is better than no deal. Too many jobs are at stake.
It is going to be interesting to watch this. As we watch the outcome and what is going on with Mexico and the U.S., and the battles they are having amongst themselves, it will be interesting to see if our Prime Minister can actually stay out of it. It will be interesting to see how the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, moves forward with legislation, and how we are going to handle that. Even though we think we have an agreement, and we have signed an agreement, until the Democrats put it through the House ways and means committee, we really do not have a 100% final agreement. I think it is important that we do that in sync with them. That is the route the committee is looking at.
It did not have to be this way, if we had approached this in the right way with the president. When he said he had labour issues in Mexico, we could have said that we have labour issues in Mexico. When the president said he had steel being dumped from China, we could have said we have steel being dumped from China. Canada had a lot of the same issues the president was talking about during his campaign. We are not building a wall. We are not doing those crazy things. We do not need to. Mexico has been a good trading partner and a good friend. However, the reality is there were opportunities to build upon the same concerns the U.S. had, and to actually produce an agreement that would have made us even more competitive internationally.
Another failure in this agreement has to be on softwood lumber. Canadians have to see that. The reality is there are lots of things in this agreement that we need to fix.
On October 21, Canadians are going to change their government, and we are going to have the responsibility, again, of fixing all the discrepancies that the Liberals have left on the table. We will fix them. We will go back to the U.S. We will do it in a positive and approachable manner, and we will deal with them issue by issue. A government led by the Leader of the Opposition will fix these things. Canadians can take comfort in knowing that.
In the meantime, this agreement will pass and hopefully will be ratified because, as I said, the instability created by not having an agreement is far worse than what we have right now.
View Randy Hoback Profile
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-11 13:28 [p.28908]
Mr. Speaker, Canada got what it took. The deal was arranged in Mexico between the U.S. and Mexico and we signed on after it was done. We did not add anything to it at that point in time. We vacated the responsibility of our negotiators to Mexico to do the final deal. That is where the breakdown in the minister's role in this deal was.
The reality is that when the negotiators walked away and the U.S. and Mexico kept negotiating, without our even being in the room, this is what the Liberals got. If there had been leadership, they would never have allowed that happen. If there had been leadership, they would have recognized the issues right away and dealt with them. If there had been leadership, they would have focused the conversation, like every member of the House did, on competitiveness, on ensuring we would have a very vibrant North American economy and would deal with the issues that the U.S. had, Mexico had and we had and then get those issues dealt with in a positive manner so we could be even more competitive in the world.
The Liberals did not do that. They did absolutely nothing. They just went along for the ride because they did not know what they wanted. That is the reality of what we have here today.
View Randy Hoback Profile
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-11 13:30 [p.28909]
Mr. Speaker, before the trade agreement talks even started, one of the big issues in the U.S. was all the people who would be left behind. What about the people who are negatively impacted by a trade deal? What are we going to do to ensure they are made whole and are able to function in a very progressive manner in the new environment created by the trade deal? Dairy is another example of that. What are the Liberals going to do for the dairy sector to ensure people are properly compensated for the loss they have had in both TPP and in these NAFTA talks?
There is nothing in the budget to help any of the sectors that are negatively impacted by this agreement. There is no game plan for them. The Liberals have not listened. They have not learned from people's complaints in the past. They have done nothing. Yes, people are going to feel the pain, unfortunately, and the Canadian economy will grow, but some people will be left out because the Liberals have not planned for that.
Results: 1 - 15 of 2809 | Page: 1 of 188

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data