SoVote

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Apr/8/24 6:03:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it appears as if I am the last Conservative speaker on this particular privilege debate. I think it is fitting that I be given the last opportunity. The wind has sort of been taken out of my sails in light of the unanimous consent motion that has been passed by the House. I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to justify why the House should have passed the original motion of privilege as presented by my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, but rather I would impress upon the House the importance of the supremacy of Parliament, which I think is at the heart of this debate. I am probably going to allow my colleagues the opportunity to ask further questions of me and make commentary beyond the five-minute allowance. At the heart of this particular motion is the directing partner of GC Strategies and, notwithstanding a number of interventions from Liberal members at various committees that I have attended studying this particular issue, the arrive scam issue that has dominated the news for close to 18 months. Whenever I rephrase the name GC Strategies, I am often met with opposition from the Liberal benches on a point of privilege suggesting that I am misleading the committee in some way and that “GC” does not necessarily stand for “Government of Canada”. I would use that phrase, “Government of Canada Strategies” deliberately, but not because I cleverly thought of that. I know that some political pundits use that particular phrase often in their media interviews. I have heard some political pundits using the phrase, “get cash”. It would appear as if that is essentially what GC Strategies does. On the issue of “Government of Canada”, these are the words used by Kristian Firth at committee. He was asked what “GC” stood for. He very proudly identified GC Strategies as “Government of Canada Strategies”. When we look at the bigger picture of what GC Strategies has been able to do, Government of Canada Strategies, over the course of some several years, coincidentally, since the Prime Minister took government, has made close to $60 million, 60 million taxpayer dollars for being nothing more than a conduit between government ministries and IT professionals. Why is this important? At the time the Prime Minister formed government in 2015, he promised transparency, he promised accountability, he promised responsible government and he promised, more importantly, to reduce the number of external consultants. Did he live up to that promise? Did he live up to the litany of promises we have heard from the Prime Minister since 2015? Absolutely not. What he has done is that he has exceeded the amount, year after year, spent on external consultants. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister and his government have increased the size of our professional federal public service by 40%. We have heard at various committees from union heads representing that professional public service that they were never consulted. They were never asked whether or not we had federal public servants who could have performed the role that GC did, which was simply picking up the phone, sending an email, sending a text and connecting government with the professionals. However, no, the corrupt, inept Liberal-NDP government did not want to rely upon their professional public service. They had to hire “Government of Canada Strategies”, which, very proudly, has taken anywhere from 15% to 30% of that $60 million in government contracts. We can appreciate, which clearly the government does not, why there was such an interest in getting to the heart of this matter. There is not one but several committees studying how this was allowed to happen. At the heart of this, there is a smug, arrogant individual by the name of Kristian Firth who thinks that he is in control, that he is paramount and that he can dictate the terms under which he will respond to questions by using the spectre of an RCMP investigation. The only thing that Canadians have been able to learn about this is a confirmation from an RCMP spokesperson that they have expanded the study. Following the release of the Auditor General's report, they have expanded the study to now look at the arrive scam scandal. That does not necessarily translate into the RCMP actively investigating the number of criminal charges recently identified by my colleague: the frauds, the forgeries, the government fraud, the obstruction, the deletion of emails. We do not know what they are investigating or if they are investigating that, but it allowed Kristian Firth an opportunity to deflect and impede Parliament's privileges in seeking the truth as to what really transpired. If he did not use that as an excuse, he used the excuse of solicitor-client privilege. I am not going to spend any time reciting the authorities to refute that particular claim by a witness. Solicitor-client privilege does not apply at committee. People are still compelled to answer questions, but the questions put to Mr. Firth, in the Conservatives' respectful opinion, would be very damning to the government, particularly in light of the glowing references on the website of “Government of Canada Strategies” and all the glowing accolades from senior government officials. Most recently, last week, there was a really damning admission by two professionals at KPMG, an international tax advisory consultant company with over 10,000 employees in Canada alone. They told the committee that in terms of the work that they performed on the arrive scam, which was just over $400,000, instead of working with the federal public service, which the government is so proud of and talks about its pride in how professional the public service is, which I agree with, it bypassed that and directed that KPMG should at all times work with GC Strategies, not the government itself, not the ministry itself and not the professionals but GC Strategies. In my opinion, it really gives new meaning to the whole concept of really being aligned closely, professionally and in a friendly way with the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and his minister. I could speak for hours on the issue, but, for all of those reasons, Conservatives have impressed upon the entire House the importance of compelling Kristian Firth to come to the House to answer the questions that not only parliamentarians are demanding answers to but that Canadians deserve to know the truth about.

1106 words

Mr. John Brassard

Apr/8/24 6:13:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would love to hear the member for Brantford—Brant speak for another 20 minutes, so I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow him to do that.

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/8/24 6:13:36 p.m.
Watch

I already hear a no, so there is no unanimous consent. I do want to remind members that, if they are looking for unanimous consent, they should be collaborating with other parties to make sure they have it before they come to the floor. On another point of order, the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

56 words

Collaborating

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Apr/8/24 6:13:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to inform the House that the finance committee will be debating a motion to have Canada's premiers testify on the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax increase. Eight provincial premiers are now opposed to the Prime Minister's carbon tax. I hope all parties will vote yes to allow premiers to testify on the Prime Minister's carbon tax scam.

67 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/8/24 6:14:13 p.m.
Watch

Can the hon. member make a connection to the Standing Orders on that?

13 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Apr/8/24 6:14:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is 53(3).

6 words

53

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/8/24 6:14:27 p.m.
Watch

If members want to rise on a point of order or want to speak to one of the Standing Orders, they should be referencing that standing order. Also, members can raise during debate the information they want to bring forward and make it related to that point of debate. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

61 words

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

Apr/8/24 6:15:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we just had a unanimous consent motion that in essence shows very clearly how the government demonstrates accountability and transparency, even on this particular file of wanting Mr. Firth to come before the bar. This is nothing new. We have been consistent with regard to accountability and transparency, no matter how the member opposite, in particular, tries to mislead Canadians with certain types of assertions. Would the member not agree that it would be most beneficial for Canadians if we approached this issue in terms of how we can better prevent these types of things from taking place in the future as opposed to playing the blatant partisan politics that we see coming from the Conservative Party? I think Canadians deserve an honest answer to that.

132 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Apr/8/24 6:16:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I think Canadians really deserve, particularly from my colleague, is a little bit of remorse: “Yes, we are sorry as a government that we have allowed this to happen, that we have allowed a two-person company working out of a basement doing no IT work to collect upwards of $60 million in contracts.” That is not a partisan point; that is a fact. It is a fact that the Liberals should be embarrassed about, and it is a fact, quite frankly, that they should be apologizing to Canadians for. They need to show that they are doing better. To answer the member's initial question about—

113 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/8/24 6:17:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have to add his comment somewhere else. However, I do want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary, who tended to be heckling during that time, to wait until questions and comments if he has anything to add. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

51 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Apr/8/24 6:17:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have been working on ArriveCan for several months. I am looking at this not from a partisan angle, but for the long term. For the long term, we seem to have a process that does not work. If we do not fix it, it will not work any better, no matter which party forms government. Does my colleague believe that the purpose of everything we are doing right now is to improve the process and also to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely and responsibly?

89 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Apr/8/24 6:18:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more, and I thank the member from the Bloc for her question.

18 words

Bloc
Agree

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/8/24 6:18:15 p.m.
Watch

Seeing no other speakers, pursuant to an order made earlier today, the motion on the question of privilege standing in the name of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and the amendment standing in the name of the member for Kingston and the Islands are deemed withdrawn. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

62 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/8/24 6:19:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 6:30 so we can begin the take-note debate.

32 words

Call

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/8/24 6:19:06 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March 21, 2024, the House will now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider Government Business No. 38. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

57 words

The Deputy Chair

Apr/8/24 6:21:03 p.m.
Watch

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members how the proceedings will unfold. Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March 21, members may divide their time with another member. The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. We will now begin tonight's take-note debate accordingly.

102 words

Hon. Gudie Hutchings

Apr/8/24 6:21:03 p.m.
Watch

moved: That this committee take note of softwood lumber.

9 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Apr/8/24 6:21:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important take-note debate and to speak about the significant actions the government has been taking to support Canada's interests in the ongoing softwood lumber dispute with the United States. First of all, I can assure members that we are in constant dialogue with the U.S. government at all levels to convey the importance of reaching a satisfactory resolution to this long-running dispute. We have made it abundantly clear that Canada believes a negotiated settlement with the U.S. is in the best interests of both our countries. However, we will only accept an agreement that is in the best interests of our softwood lumber industry, our workers and our communities. Such an agreement has to make sense for both sides. Reaching an agreement that protects Canadian jobs is a priority, because the forestry industry plays a vital role in the Canadian economy. Domestically, it helps create jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians and generates significant revenues for rural and indigenous communities across the country. What is more, it provides essential commodities that are used in a multitude of industries, from construction to paper to lumber products. In Quebec specifically, the forestry industry is a major economic pillar that supports tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in various regions such as Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the north shore and the Gaspé. It also contributes to the vitality of regional communities by providing economic opportunities and promoting regional development. In short, the forestry industry is much more than an economic sector. It is a key aspect of the identity and prosperity of Canada and Quebec. Historically, the United States has always relied on imports of Canadian lumber to fill the gap between its domestic production capacity and domestic demand for lumber. Canada has always been a stable and reliable supplier of high-quality products for American consumers. For example, imports from Canada have historically met about one-third of U.S. demand for softwood lumber. In 2022, 90% of Canada's softwood lumber exports went to the United States, at a value of $12 billion. Now more than ever, Canadian softwood lumber products are essential for addressing insufficient production and the affordable housing shortage in the United States. It is clearly counterproductive to impose unwarranted duties on such a large portion of U.S. consumption when the U.S. is trying to combat rising inflation and housing costs, which is also an issue in the United States. The U.S. National Association of Home Builders has indicated that duties on Canadian softwood lumber exacerbate already high lumber prices and directly increase costs to consumers. American legislators on both sides of the political spectrum have even written to their government to say that a softwood lumber agreement is key to predictability in the housing market. Maintaining unfair duties on Canadian softwood lumber directly contradicts the United States' goal of making housing more affordable. What is more, these unfair duties benefit third parties to the detriment of our supply chains and our very resilient and integrated economies. Since imposing these duties for the first time in the current round of this dispute, rather than protecting jobs and companies at home, the United States has seen a surge in overseas imports from suppliers in Asia and Europe to fill the gap between supply and demand in the U.S. It is therefore easy to see that a negotiated settlement, which would bring stability and predictability to the softwood lumber industry, is the best outcome for everyone involved. That is what the current government has consistently advocated for, and that is what we will continue to do. Therefore, it is truly unfortunate that certain businesses in the U.S. lumber industry encourage some American decision-makers to impose duties on Canada's lumber exports and to refrain from meaningfully engaging in negotiations, preferring the continued disruption to lumber supply caused by these duties, to the detriment of U.S. consumers. The domestic U.S. lumber industry, as a pretext, contends that Canada is responsible for injury to its producers. Time and time again, neutral and impartial international tribunals have found that Canadian softwood lumber producers respect our international obligations. Nevertheless, our government continues to encourage the United States to return to the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable agreement. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development have repeatedly stated that Canada is ready to hold constructive discussions on realistic solutions that would be acceptable to both parties. Minister Ng regularly discusses the softwood lumber dispute with her U.S. counterpart, Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Just recently, the minister stressed the importance of expeditious and impartial dispute settlement procedures under CUSMA as a means of resolving the situation. Unfortunately, we have yet to see any willingness on the part of the U.S. to commit to a lasting resolution of this long-running dispute. Furthermore, the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised this issue with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, while senior Canadian officials, including our ambassador to the United States, Kirsten Hillman, remain in constant contact with their U.S. counterparts. As we repeatedly continue to urge the United States to negotiate mutually acceptable terms, we are not just standing idly by. Canada is defending our industry, our communities and our workers and is actively using every other means available to resolve their disputes, including the remedies provided under international trade agreements, while supporting Canada's softwood lumber producers and the communities that depend on this sector. Our efforts have yielded results in the past and we are getting there again. Throughout the entire process, we have worked and will continue to work closely with provinces, territories, indigenous partners and industry stakeholders to ensure a united pan-Canadian approach to the dispute. As recently announced by the Prime Minister, the government has renewed its commitment to a team Canada approach and is engaging with the United States to ensure the continued prosperity and well-being of Canadians. Our strategy for ending the dispute centres on legal victories, strong partnerships and relationship building. With our allies in Canada and abroad, we are confident that we can reach a solution with the United States that benefits producers, workers and communities on both sides of the border.

1075 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Apr/8/24 6:30:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it was wonderful to hear PMO speech number two. It is interesting that we are debating softwood lumber, which is something that has been going on for eight years. It has cost tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, and the United States is holding 10 billion dollars' worth of duties, which is crippling our softwood lumber industry. The Minister of International Trade does not participate in the debate; that shows how important the issue actually is for the corrupt Liberal government. The trade committee produced a report that said that the only way the softwood lumber dispute would be resolved is through direct head of government negotiations. Therefore, after eight years, the failure for there to be a resolution is because of the failure of the Prime Minister on this file, just like on every other file. Does the member agree with the trade committee that the reason the dispute is not resolved is the failure of head-to-head government negotiation, and that this lies at the feet of the Prime Minister?

175 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Apr/8/24 6:31:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, this has been an ongoing problem since the 1980s. I believe we are on the fifth round of negotiations around softwood lumber. It is an important issue in the province of Quebec, and it is certainly one I am following closely. Indeed, we have seen the Prime Minister and our ministers engage very closely with their counterparts on this issue.

62 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 295