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 493
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-01 15:03
Mr. Speaker, today being World Milk Day, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Over the past year, the government has finally made some announcements for dairy farmers, but our dairy processors are still waiting. Negotiations on compensation under CUSMA have stalled. Meanwhile, our American counterparts are already disputing the tariff rate quotas.
What will the minister do to better protect the Canadian dairy sector and the products that cross our borders? When will we see real help for processors?
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2021-05-31 20:27 [p.7679]
Madam Chair, the comment had to do with having a minister, or a prime minister, make a statement that is then countered by another government disagreeing.
On February 27, 2020, the Conservative members from the trade committee wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister outlining all of the adverse impacts of CUSMA on softwood lumber, and how CUSMA does nothing to prevent the United States from applying anti-dumping and countervailing duties to Canadian softwood lumber.
Does the minister regret not negotiating softwood lumber into CUSMA?
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-05-31 21:19 [p.7687]
Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Thornhill, and my questions are for the Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion.
First, concerning the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, does the minister acknowledge that Canada gave up part of its sovereignty over dairy policy by eliminating class 7?
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-05-31 21:20 [p.7688]
Madam Chair, tomorrow is World Milk Day, and I think that Canadian producers have the right to know if the Liberal government agreed to cap our exports of non-fat dairy solids and if it sees this as a gain for Canadian producers.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-05-31 21:23 [p.7688]
Madam Chair, does the minister acknowledge her part in the failures regarding the cap on the sale of non-fat dairy solids and the loss of sovereignty over dairy policy in the latest agreement, which means that this agreement was poorly negotiated for Canadian dairy farmers?
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-05-31 21:25 [p.7689]
Madam Chair, no compensation figures for CUSMA have been announced, yet the minister claims to defend the dairy industry and know her portfolio.
Can the minister tell us when supply-managed producers will get details about the compensation for CUSMA?
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-05-31 21:26 [p.7689]
Madam Chair, the minister does not know the difference between the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the recent Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.
I am not talking about the $1.7 billion for the two other announcements.
When will compensation for the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement be announced?
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Martel Profile
2021-05-31 22:32 [p.7698]
Mr. Chair, the Biden administration has announced that it intends to challenge Canada's allocation of dairy tariff-rate quotas through the CUSMA dispute settlement mechanism.
The United States says that Canada's trade policies prevent U.S. dairy producers from taking full advantage of CUSMA. Canadian exporters, importers and farmers cannot afford any more of the Liberal failures in managing Canada-U.S. trade relations that they have witnessed over the past five years.
What does the government plan on doing to protect our dairy producers?
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Martel Profile
2021-05-31 22:33 [p.7698]
Mr. Chair, Canada is in this situation because the Liberal trade minister was unable to stand up for Canada's dairy producers at the bilateral meeting with her counterpart in early May.
Since this meeting, trade relations between Canada and the United States have only deteriorated, what with the announcement that the U.S. would be doubling softwood lumber tariffs and now this official dispute of Canada's dairy tariff-rate quotas.
When will the Liberal government provide a schedule for compensating dairy producers for concessions made under CUSMA?
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
View Greg McLean Profile
2021-05-10 15:36 [p.6966]
Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States, presented on Thursday, April 15, be concurred in.
I will be splitting my time today with the member for Chilliwack—Hope.
Today is May 10. In two days, on May 12, the Governor of the State of Michigan has stated that she will shut down Enbridge Line 5, which provides 540,000 barrels of oil per day to Canadian refineries in Sarnia in southern Ontario, and further feeds facilities in Quebec. It is estimated that 30,000 jobs depend on this important international infrastructure in southern Ontario alone. Today, we are debating concurrence of the report of the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States, which was presented to this House on April 15. That was 25 days ago and still there are no signs that the Prime Minister is engaged on this file.
How much of Canada's petroleum needs will be disrupted? In fact, 540,000 barrels per day equates to about 25% of Canada's daily consumption of oil. That shortage will fall on the backs of two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, as it will represent approximately half of the supply of this vital energy feedstock to its economic output as the products refine into inputs for petrochemicals, plastics and textiles, and much more that is at the heart of Canada's manufacturing sector, to heating homes, driving cars and getting goods like food and supplies to markets efficiently and quickly.
In short, cutting off this infrastructure will result in a disastrous outcome for Canada. Tens of thousands of jobs in the supply chain that feeds our economy and a manufacturing sector that has been built on and depends on this critical infrastructure, all waiting, with their fingers crossed, for the outcome. It is safe to say that the closure of this energy infrastructure represents a national energy security emergency. Two days away, yet Line 5 has been threatened with closure since November 13, 2020. Six months have passed. I spoke about this matter needing resolution quickly at that time, but the government frittered its time away.
Enbridge, one of Canada's great companies, has actively engaged with the governor's office, and moved the matter to the U.S. federal court where it seems to belong, yet the governor wants the matter heard in a state court. Nevertheless, the federal court did instruct the parties to enter into mediation discussions, which have been ongoing. It should be noted that the governor would not even return calls from Enbridge on the matter prior to the federal court judge's instructions. Although seemingly a productive exercise, the governor has insisted during mediation talks that she would be shutting down Line 5 on May 12, whatever the process, timing or outcome of mediation discussions. This is hardly a productive or a mediatory stance.
Why is the Governor of Michigan taking on this posture, as unreasonable as it seems to a friendly trading partner, international security partner, energy security partner and environmental progress partner for a line that is an energy lifeblood for her state and other neighbouring states, as well as Canada? Ostensibly, for the safety of water in the Great Lakes Basin, they will shut down a pipeline that has never leaked, in which the company operating it is actively going through state regulatory processes to make it even more secure with an underground concrete tunnel.
The outcome of this misguided approach will move that product to trucks, railcars and barges on the Great Lakes. All of those outcomes have larger environmental footprints and greater environmental risks, even to the Great Lakes, than the intrinsically safe pipeline option. By clear analysis, there are other reasons. The governor is a politician, so it must be politics. For whose benefit, we can speculate, but at whose cost it is clear: Those parties dependent upon this energy infrastructure for their livelihood, their jobs, their farms, the goods they produce, and the heat for homes and barns, so that our food supply is safe; and an international trade relationship between two of the world's most friendly trading nations. This is the fallout of what is really at stake.
The economies of our two countries, Canada and the U.S., have prospered over decades, better than economies elsewhere in the developed world because of our strong trade links and the rule of law that governs our institutions, including our trading relationships. The backbone of this mutually beneficial trade relationship is our infrastructure and the fundamentally most important part of that infrastructure is our energy infrastructure. Previous governments, of all stripes in Canada and the U.S., have recognized this importance.
In 1977, our two governments signed the Transit Pipelines Treaty to ensure that the energy transportation and trade between our two nations did not suffer because of political whims or short-term self-interest at the expense of our joint long-term prosperity and security and, yet, here we are. A state government is acting unilaterally, seemingly in direct contravention of our international treaty. It begs the question as to whether there is any meaning behind the words in that treaty or we have a trade partner that recognizes a Canadian government that either does not want to stand up for Canada's energy security or perhaps does not know how. Surely it cannot be because the Government of Canada does not recognize the importance of the infrastructure and the associated energy security.
It follows on our country's disastrous showing in renegotiating the new NAFTA, CUSMA, and a negotiating strategy where Canada did not show up with the real issues to be discussed for our benefit until too late. At one point, we were excluded from the trade discussions because the other parties did not take us seriously. No one was there to solve the emerging issues between our countries. In the end, we ended up with far less in the trade agreement than we had in the previous agreement, and our elected officials were relieved to sign it because it could have been so much worse. A victory is now defined by the current government as doing worse, but not losing completely. The bar is being lowered.
Since then, the U.S. has continued to ignore the trade treaty's terms on steel and aluminum and now is pursuing a buy America policy in which Canada is an outsider. So much for preferential access to our markets. So much for free trade. So much for trade treaties. So much for Canada's standing up for the terms it negotiates in these agreements. The current government will roll over on any trade issue. We need to get serious.
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
View Greg McLean Profile
2021-05-10 15:51 [p.6969]
Madam Speaker, that is a good question. The actual terms of the energy agreement in the former NAFTA was a proportional sharing agreement. It was not an absolute sharing agreement to the highest levels that we provide to the U.S.; it was a proportional sharing agreement so that if in some emergency or international incident we had to cut back one-quarter to the U.S. we would be incumbent to cut back one-quarter of our own supplies, as would the U.S. if we think about the way this product goes across the borders in both its raw and finished states. It is called a treaty for a reason, so that we can get some solidity on our energy security as an economy going forward.
View Bernard Généreux Profile
CPC (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I did not talk about the agricultural industry, for example, which is still extremely upset about the most recent agreement with the United States. That agreement contains provisions that are very biased, or at least very difficult for dairy producers to manage.
This is the type of issue that could be quickly examined so that we can lay the foundation for a future renegotiation with the United States on agricultural issues.
Results: 1 - 15 of 493 | Page: 1 of 33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data