Hansard
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 38
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-03-12 14:52 [p.2020]
Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2018, a spokesman for the finance minister commented on the government's retaliatory measures against steel and aluminum tariffs, saying that they are, “committed to making sure that every dollar raised [on]...tariffs is given back in the form of support for affected sectors,” but the PBO estimates that the government will actually spend $105 million less than it collected.
Could the Minister of Finance answer this: Where did the money go?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-03-10 10:37 [p.1847]
Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-03-10 10:37 [p.1848]
Madam Speaker, it will be that member's maiden speech so I think we are going to hear a really good speech from him today. I cannot think of a better topic for him to speak to, because trade is an important issue to the people in his riding. I look forward to hearing his comments. I am sure they will be wise and worth listening to, unlike some of the other comments we have heard here today. No offence intended.
We are getting through Bill C-4. There is no question about that. We kept our word. We said we would not hold this up. We said that we would do everything we could to properly see this go through the committee stage, which we did. We heard some 200 submissions from people who wanted to appear before the committee.
Even though the Liberals shortened the time, with agreement from the NDP, and made it tough to hear from all of those witnesses, we managed to get through the bulk of them by having extended sittings. I want to thank all members of the committee for sharing their time in the evenings and the staff who were involved so that we could listen to these people. They had serious concerns, and I want to talk about some of those today and get them on the record.
I will start off with dairy. During the TPP negotiations, we were going to give roughly 3.5% market access for dairy to the U.S. and all of the other countries involved in the TPP. When the Liberals pulled us out of the TPP and held us back for a year and a half, and Obama lost the ability to move it forward in the U.S., TPP was going to be the replacement. By the Liberals not moving forward here in Canada, and not creating a window for Obama to move forward in the U.S., we lost that window of opportunity for a period of time, thus a new election in the U.S.
We did the TPP. We still gave up 3.5%, and now we had to negotiate a new NAFTA deal with the U.S. What did we do? We gave up another 3.5%. Dairy producers have been hit twice, which they feel is unfair, and I can understand where they are coming from.
What makes it even more disturbing is what else the Liberals gave up. They gave up their ability to market things like powdered milk around the world, things that we have a surplus of here in Canada. When they were being consulted through the negotiations, they told us in committee that they were under the impression that it would be limited to North America. The text of the agreement indicates that it is global.
Why would the Liberals let another country determine the amount of exports a sector is able to do? That is what the Liberals agreed to in this agreement. The dairy sector has some serious concerns and complaints about that, and this is something the minister will have to address.
Aluminum and the 70% rule are another issue with respect to this agreement. There is still a lot of concern in the aluminum sector in Quebec about why that was different from the steel industry. Why was the aluminum industry not given the same considerations as steel? If we wanted to have North American content, it should have been that way.
What is concerning here is that there could possibly be a back door through Mexico for a pile of cheap aluminum to be dumped into the North American market based on how that country goes through the process of identification. I understand our officials have said they are going to monitor it, along with the U.S., to make sure that does not happen, but the same thing could have simply been done for aluminum as was done for steel. We would have been fine.
Another opportunity that the Liberals missed out on, and which the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord brought up in one of our meetings with Steve Verheul, our trade negotiator, is the fact that green aluminum is produced in Quebec and in other parts of Canada. It is all based on hydro power. The facility in British Columbia is based on hydro. The facilities in Chicoutimi are based on hydro. Canada probably produces the most environmentally friendly aluminum in the world.
Why would that not be put into the agreement? Why would we not say that if we want to have green vehicles, environmentally friendly vehicles, let us use environmentally friendly products like Canadian aluminum?
There were opportunities to say that was the way the implementation should be, so that we were not renegotiating the deal. Instead, all three countries said they wanted to do more for the environment and this was one way, so let us put it in our implementation act that we do just that. There was an opportunity there again, an opportunity we would not have known about unless we did some due diligence in committee.
Government procurement is very disturbing. The Liberals did not even touch on it in this new agreement. They said they would leave it up to the WTO. Then we found out the U.S. was talking about pulling out of the WTO government procurement program. We have no protection with respect to government procurement. We have no provisions to fight off buy America. We have nothing in place.
I would strongly encourage the government to go back to the table on this part, especially if we see the U.S. pull out of the WTO agreement. It should get a deal on procurement and deal with buy America, because the Liberals did not do that in this agreement.
Then there is the auto sector. We feel that Canada's auto sector is going to be hit by a decline of almost $1.5 billion when we look at the impact of the changes in the auto rules.
I understand that the U.S. was very tough on these negotiations. There are some wins in it for our guys here in Canada, there are some wins in the U.S. and some concessions made out of Mexico on that. When it comes down to the auto part of the deal, that was actually done in Mexico between the U.S. and Mexico and we took what was left. We did not have a lot of input into the auto part of this deal.
I have some concerns about longevity when it comes to the competitiveness of our auto sector. With these new rules, we are going to have more expensive cars and they are going to be more expensive in the global marketplace. We did nothing to improve the competitiveness of the auto sector within the three countries, which is a really huge missed opportunity.
We also need to talk a little bit about de minimis rates. I know the U.S. wanted us to go up to a higher number. We kept it at a lower number, which is good, but then they put in a strange amendment. They left Canada Post out as being one of the carriers. Looking at it, all of the commercial carriers can handle any packages across the border and get the new de minimis rate, except for Canada Post.
I live in rural Canada. Canada Post delivers my parcels. Why would we have a deal leaving out Canada Post? It is a Crown corporation, and parcel delivery is probably the most lucrative part of Canada Post. Again, this is an area that I think the government needs to look at and fix, because it does not make a lot of sense.
We tried all along to see this piece of legislation go forward. We knew the importance of the deal. We did not like it. We knew it stunk, but I want to get it on the record that we were being progressive and trying to be proactive in moving this forward. This goes back to before the election.
Before the election, we made a motion at the standing committee, once the original deal was signed, to do a pre-study. There were concerns at the time that we would not have the U.S. moving at the same speed as us and we would be ahead of them. Mexico was actually moving very fast. We said that we should have all the pre-studies done and then we would just have to deal with it in the House. The Liberals declined. In December 2019, we offered to come back early and deal with this. The Liberals declined.
It was not until the end of January that the Liberals actually brought it into the House and we managed to work with the other opposition parties and everybody here. Instead of taking the normal 16 days, we did it in six days. At committee, all we wanted was to do thorough research, so we were willing to get it done in the last week of sitting. That last Thursday we put forward an unanimous consent motion, which the Liberals declined, to start this process basically two weeks ago. The member across the way said no. I want to make sure that everybody understands in the House that we have never been the ones holding this up, but we did say that we wanted to have a good thorough look at it.
One of the things that happened at committee, which I think committee members and all members of the House should be very concerned about, is that 20 minutes before our last meeting the Liberals dropped off their economic analysis. They gave us not even an evening, not even an hour to go through it, only 20 minutes. We quickly went through it and started looking at the announcements and the benchmarks, which were compared to nothing. Instead of taking this agreement and comparing it with what we have today, which is what was done on TPP and other trade agreements, it was compared to nothing.
It was a horrible assessment. It was just unusable to help us talk to people who were going to be negatively impacted to find a way forward. It was just incredible.
When C.D. Howe did its assessment, it found this deal is going to cost our economy $14 billion a year. For the Liberals to say this is a win-win-win, no it is not. It is plug our noses and be thankful we got something, because something is better than nothing.
As I sum this up, there is more that I could probably talk about with regard to the committee, but I want to thank all the companies that came forward and all the individuals who gave evidence.
I want to challenge the government because you got a lot of really good information. Do something with that information, mitigate the losses and make sure they are not left out, because it is your responsibility to come up with a game plan. We would be glad to help.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-03-10 10:48 [p.1849]
Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate the chair of the committee. She did an excellent job, and all the committee members did a very respectful job in moving this forward and getting it out of committee as quickly as possible to get it here today. I look forward to the House doing the exact same thing. There is no reason to delay this in the House. It can get into the Senate and move forward so that Canadian companies can have bankability and stability.
I think bankability and stability are the big things we gained out of this agreement. Companies are sitting there saying that they cannot live without any agreement and that they need something. They need to know what the rules are. Even if they are not great rules, at least they know what the rules are so they can play by them.
That is one thing this agreement does: It sets the rules out. As well, maybe it sets the stage for some improvements down the road. We have some work to do to make this a better deal and make sure Canadian companies are more competitive, but we can deal with that going forward.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-03-10 10:50 [p.1850]
Madam Speaker, we have actually heard some conflicting testimony on this issue. We have heard some people saying that they want to see it moved up faster and we heard some people saying this is going to have a negative impact on how they go about doing their business. I think we have to do a proper balance. I do not think we have a lot of choice in this scenario in reality.
That said, when we look at the cultural exemptions, digital privacy and things like the safe harbour, as our colleague from the NDP talked about before, we see that the inability to hold companies like Facebook and Google and Instagram accountable for their content is a problem. We need to figure out how to solve that problem, because they have to be accountable for what they post or what is posted on their sites. For those companies to have no accountability is not acceptable to Canadians.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-03-10 10:51 [p.1850]
Madam Speaker, I did go to Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and I talked to both the primary and secondary producers of aluminum. They gave us some great suggestions on how to move forward to mitigate some of the concerns they had with this agreement.
The member there has some great ideas, which we have shared with the government, and I think there are some good ideas moving forward.
That is the thing, though. That is the difference between Conservative and Bloc members. We are looking for solutions to make Canada a greater country, and that includes Quebec. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was doing just that, and he did an honourable job.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-28 11:48 [p.1746]
Madam Speaker, farmers in Saskatchewan and across Canada just cannot catch a break this year. Whether it is the weather, illegal rail blockades or a carbon tax, this past year has been a costly one for farmers, and now they do not have the cash flow to put in this year's crop. However, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food can actually do something. The question is, will she?
Will the minister commit to pushing back the repayment date for the advance payments program to help our farmers get back on their feet?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-27 15:13 [p.1694]
Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to the House. I did act irrationally, but I have to justify it in such a fashion that there are farmers right now looking at the weather, looking at the road bans, looking at their financial situations and they need action. The government does not seem to act unless it is a crisis—
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-26 15:50 [p.1617]
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (home security measures).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured today to rise to introduce the bill.
Before I do, I would like to thank the many residents in my constituency who have reached out to me and provided input on this very important matter. I would also like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for his guidance and leadership and for seconding the bill. I would also like to thank the Conservative caucus for its support in moving this file forward.
Like many constituents in rural Canada, my constituents in Prince Albert are being ravaged by increasing crime rates. During the last Parliament, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recognized that crime in rural areas was a growing concern and that rural crime rates in both eastern and western Canada were increasing.
The bill I am introducing today would create a non-refundable tax credit for home security measures. It would also assist rural residents in purchasing the home security they need to protect themselves, their families and their property. While it is not a complete solution, it is a step in the right direction, a step that individual legislators can take together to begin addressing this problem.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-21 11:45 [p.1384]
Mr. Speaker, last night I received an email from Kevin, a farmer from the Shellbrook area in my riding. Kevin has half a million dollars' worth of undeliverable contracts that he cannot deliver on.
A month from now, road bans are going to hit. Grain elevators are saying they need at least two weeks to clear the backlog.
When can I tell Kevin the barricades will be taken down, and in the meantime, where can Kevin send his bills?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-21 13:17 [p.1394]
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting day to be discussing Bill C-3 when we see what is going on in Canada and what we could be talking about.
There are so many things that are happening that this House should be discussing and debating today other than Bill C-3. I have nothing against Bill C-3. However, if we look at what is going on in Canada and happening across our great country, we see our country being ripped apart and torn to shreds.
I will give members a couple of examples of some of the things we could be talking about that have a day-to-day impact on Canadians.
We could have spent some time this week talking about the coronavirus. We have Canadians who are still trying to get out of China. We have situations around the world where passengers cannot leave cruise ships. We could have been debating that and what we should be doing about it. We could have been making sure that we have the proper safety protocols in place and that we are immensely prepared for this type of virus. However, we did not.
We have started NAFTA hearings at committee. This would have been a great week to show all the problems with NAFTA. This party is here to support and pass it, because we are being told to and we would never play silly bugger with it. We have expressed that right from day one, but there are things in NAFTA that need to be talked about.
This week at committee we heard from witnesses who will be negatively impacted by this agreement. They are not saying we should not sign it or that we should not move it forward. They understand how important it is to the Canadian economy and that it has to happen. However, they are asking the Liberal government for a plan to help them mitigate the downside of the agreement.
Aluminum producers in Chicoutimi are asking for some support in taking their product to the next level to add value to their aluminum products. That would be a plan, but there is no plan from the government. We could have had great debates on that and what we could do to help the different sectors.
The dairy sector is being kneecapped in this agreement. Not only is it facing importations of 3.5%, it is also facing restrictions. It is being told what it can sell, when it can sell it and who it can sell it to. That has never happened in a trade agreement. That would have been a good debate here to look at ways to mitigate that type of scenario.
We could have been talking about the China-Senegal situation, which is the PM's cost for a UN Security Council seat. He has his Mastercard out, paying $50 million here and $50 million there. We should have had a debate this week in the House on just how expensive this seat is going to be and if he will actually have success in getting it. However, we did not talk about it.
The Lima Group was here in Ottawa talking about Venezuela. I do not think anybody realized that. That is ironic, because that is where our country is heading to right now. If we do not have trains running, there will be no toilet paper in the stores in a couple of weeks. That is the reality.
The Liberals can deny it all they want, but their inaction on this file has been so terrible it is unreal. Canadians are going to pay.
The other thing we should have been talking about in light of all these things is the impact it is having on the economy, jobs and growth. There is going to be a huge cost. Nobody is even talking about that cost.
Hon. Ed Fast: It's billions.
Mr. Randy Hoback: Billions is right.
The Liberals can say they are doing what they can and are seized with it at the moment, but the reality is they have done nothing. They have let it go on and now we have the result. Somebody is probably going to get hurt. It is really disappointing.
Canadians can expect more than a debate on a piece of administrative legislation when thousands are facing job losses because of radical activists who are exploiting divisions within the Wet'suwet'en community and holding the Canadian economy hostage.
Therefore, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-21 13:58 [p.1396]
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the Liberal member is confused. That is quite common in this House.
The point I was trying to make is there are so many good things we could have been debating this week and the Liberals chose not to because they are so weak in dealing with an issue that is facing the country with the blockades. That is the point I was making.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-21 13:59 [p.1396]
Mr. Speaker, I always look forward to members on this side providing advice and suggestions. Those are things that should be considered. I think we should consider what the member is proposing.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-21 14:00 [p.1396]
Mr. Speaker, I can hear the frustration in the member's voice and see it on his face. Maybe the member has an idea of how Canadians feel today. Maybe he has a sense of how the farmers are feeling today, when they are looking at their bins that are full of grain, and they look at their bills and are asking what they are to do. They know that a month from now they will not be able to haul their grain because of road bans. They know it would take at least two and a half to three weeks for the grain to actually get moving again, if we were to stop blockades today.
If the member feels frustration, it is one-tenth of what those farmers are feeling right now.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2020-02-21 14:01 [p.1396]
Mr. Speaker, there are so many examples.
There are examples of forestry workers who are going to be laid off because the sawmills have no more room to store that lumber.
Last week I was at Rio Tinto in Chicoutimi with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. They were talking about how they are trying to bring in trucks to keep that mill going. An aluminum mill does not just get turned on and off. It is not just a switch in the wall. It is a big deal.
The Liberals do not understand how big of a deal this is to Canadians. By doing what we are doing today, if that makes Liberals frustrated, maybe they will get a sense of how big of a deal it is. Do Liberals not understand that we are fighting for Canadians here this afternoon? That is what we are doing. If they do not understand that, then they really do not understand what their constituents' needs and wants are.
Results: 1 - 15 of 38 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data