- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Liberal
- Fleetwood—Port Kells
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,090.09
- Government Page
- Dec/1/21 10:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I take issue with something that was said by the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier. He was critical of the notion that we contact people we know in the United States to talk to them about the importance of Canada's softwood lumber supply to that country.
Was that not precisely the strategy we used to get CUSMA across the finish line and to deal with the steel and aluminum tariffs? We mobilized the louder and more reasonable voices in the United States to support our position.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 9:45:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, that is a tricky question simply because a lot of other factors have come into play that have robbed us of our opportunity to do value-added in the forestry sector. The era of Reaganomics, Margaret Thatcher and some of the other neo-Liberal policies back in the seventies stripped a lot of manufacturing from Canada and sent it overseas. That is where the value-added activities are happening. British Columbia has continuously increased shipments of raw logs, because we cannot compete with the low-wage sectors in Asia for those value-added products, so it is difficult.
I think in the bigger picture we need to think about reshoring a lot of the things that we have lost over the last 50 years, and bringing those industries back. Right now Canada has a housing shortage. We have a lot of lumber. Let us get that together and make something happen here.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 9:44:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I know that in past softwood disputes the Government of Quebec attempted to make changes that would more closely harmonize with New Brunswick, especially, in order to escape some of the impacts of American retaliation. That has not worked. In British Columbia, we have taken the brunt simply because our forest tenure system and access to Crown land is significantly lower in cost than it is in the United States.
I want to add one thing. I was close to some of the people working on the softwood lumber agreement that was struck in 2006, including David Emerson. This is an anecdote from when they were talking to a forest operator in Georgia who was very critical of the Canadian system. He said that Canadians were spending all this money to become more efficient, and all he needed to do was take a couple of hundred thousand dollars to Washington in a suitcase and he could get what he wanted.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 9:42:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I have lived in many communities where forestry is a big industry, including in our riding where we have the Teal-Jones mill, which is a very large operation. Throughout Canada we have had these dislocations on the paper side and the lumber side, etc. There is no doubt that our industries are going through a transformation, and it is support through the transformation to new technologies, new innovations or perhaps simply new jobs in other sectors that would make a difference for these workers. That is what the federal government should and will be doing.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 9:37:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, although this is not the first time I have risen in the House since we returned, I should take a moment to thank everybody in Fleetwood—Port Kells for sending me back here for a third time. I do not know if they just wanted me out town or if they really like the work that we have been doing, but I presume it is the latter.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in defending our forest industry, and referring to the comment from my colleague for Don Valley West, this is what we are all here to do. We are all here to defend the sector, its workers and the suppliers, and a huge contributor to our economy across the country.
We are dealing with the latest set of unfair and unwarranted duties by the United States. I think we can assure Canadians that we do have means at our disposal to defend the workers and communities that depend on the work that they do, which includes, by the way, indigenous people who, in many places, rely on this vital part of our economy. Canada will use all the methods at our disposal to combat unfair trade actions by the United States as we have at every stage of this dispute over the years. This includes legal recourse available under our bilateral trade agreements in the World Trade Organization. Time and time again, we have won. Panels in these venues have consistently ruled against U.S. duties.
Our government will do whatever else we can to defend workers and communities, just as we did in 2017 when we came up with the $867 million softwood lumber action plan. That was a plan that focused on expanding markets and diversifying products, and on assisting workers, including those transitioning to other parts of the economy.
In the long run, we have an advantage. We have a vast, healthy and unusually resilient forest ecosystem, with parts of B.C. this year being an unfortunate exception. We have an ecosystem that absorbs carbon pollution. In fact, there is no path to net-zero emissions that does not involve our forests. Our government has underscored this reality with a plan to plant two billion additional trees over the next 10 years. This is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 12 megatonnes annually by 2050.
Canada is also taking global leadership in reversing tropical forest loss and land degradation. It makes sense that we are out in front in this area, because our strong system of forest laws, monitoring and enforcement ensures sustainable forest management practices across the country. Canada is home to 9% of the world's forest, but we have 36% of the world's sustainably managed forests.
Canada's forests are monitored closely. Each year, the Government of Canada publishes “The State of Canada's Forests” annual report. It tracks a number of indicators pertaining to sustainability. The government will continue to work with industry, provinces and territories to protect and sustainably manage our forests, because that is our long-term advantage, but as today's debate highlights, we need to invest in order to encourage this industry's transformation.
One example is the investments in the forest industry transformation program. It supported innovation for more than a decade and, to date, it has successfully funded 43 capital investment projects. These initiatives have secured approximately 6,600 forest-sector jobs and another 450 innovation-related jobs. The program supports forest-reliant communities and improves the environment and performance of the sector. These projects help diversify the forest product market through high-value bioproducts, such as bioenergy, biomaterials, biochemicals and next-generation building products.
Budget 2021 recognized the program's success by injecting up to $54.8 million over two years starting this fiscal year to increase its capacity. We also recognize, as I said, how important this sector is to many indigenous communities, which is why we are investing to create forest-sector jobs as well as increased knowledge and economic opportunities.
Normally when we are in a negotiation with somebody, we expect to deal with somebody who is rational. However, we have seen over the last number of years any number of irrational decisions made in the United States or by Americans. These are interesting and difficult times, but as my colleagues have suggested, we have the means at our disposal, the patience and the talent to get this over the line successfully.
751 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 4:12:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will note, with pleasure, that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert.
I want to spare a moment for all of us in British Columbia. There are more weather events on the way. Our thoughts are with our emergency services people and everybody else still trying to recover.
After almost 20 months, so many aspects of our lives have been upended by this once-in-a-century pandemic. As difficult as it has been, Canadians have found ways to adapt. This includes finding new ways of working and doing business that minimize the risk of transmitting the COVID-19 virus.
The House has not been an exception. In the last Parliament, we agreed to modify our proceedings in accordance with public health guidelines. This included a hybrid approach, with members participating in the House and committees proceedings both in-person and through video conference.
This was a reasonable approach, because it allowed all members to participate in all types of House business, while limiting close physical contact with too many people. We know that limiting close contact is a key measure to stop the spread of the virus. It was the right thing to do, not only because we wanted to keep parliamentarians safe but we also wanted to keep safe the staff who support us, our families and our constituents.
COVID-19 is unpredictable. I know a family of three, two people in their late 50s and a mom in her 80s, all with compromised health systems, and all who had COVID and did not know it. On the other hand, a robust chap in his late 50s, an outdoorsman and enthusiastic bhangra dancer, the husband of one of my staff, in fact, ended up in an induced coma for two months, a candidate for a lung transplant, still doing his best to walk for more than a few minutes without needing to rest.
We have seen examples of long-haulers, who suffer for extended periods. A recent Washington Post article noted, “The worst effects include debilitating weakness and fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, difficulty thinking, and hard-to-define challenges functioning in daily life. Family members, suddenly thrust into the role of caregivers for a seriously ill loved one, endure emotional and practical difficulties of their own.”
A year ago next month, we thought we would see the end of the pandemic in sight, thanks to Canada's world-leading vaccination program rollout. Unfortunately, at the outset of this 44th Parliament, the pandemic lingers, longer than we had hoped. We are getting close to finishing the fight against it, but we still must remain vigilant.
We know that government members, members from the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party are fully vaccinated. Personally, I do not see any problem disclosing my status as a breach of my right to privacy; rather, it is a signal to our families, staff and everybody here that I am not among those more likely to spread the virus. However, if I am unlucky enough to be laid low by COVID-19, I owe it to the people of Fleetwood—Port Kells, who I thank for honouring me with my third term, to keep doing what I was elected to do. What our government is proposing will allow that.
It is a mystery that the leader of the Conservative Party would want to deny that ability to anyone in this place, especially members of his own caucus. However, his opposition to a reasonable tried and tested alternative will do just that.
It is a further mystery why Ottawa's best-kept secret is whether a Conservative MP next to other members in the lobby or at committee is vaccinated or not. I would not be surprised if a Conservative raised a question of privilege on that matter, the right to a safe, secure workplace. We saw a member of the Bloc do so a couple of days ago, and it is a mystery to see the Bloc's position on this.
I would point out that vaccine mandates are not new. The United Kingdom had one in 1853 to address the smallpox epidemic. In 1905, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upheld the constitutionality of mandatory smallpox vaccination programs to preserve public health.
The Conservatives might think of themselves as the freedom party, but those freedoms exist in the context that also recognizes the duty we have to one another in the interests of the common good. As the party of the charter, we Liberals fully understand that in some ways personal choice should not trump our collective rights. It is a matter of reasonable vigilance.
That is what the motion before us today is all about, vigilance. The motion is about allowing all members of Parliament to fulfill all their duties safely. As noted, we have a tried and tested model of a hybrid Parliament that was used in the second session of the 43rd Parliament, and the motion before us would mostly reinstate the approach used then.
The motion mainly seeks to do five things. First, it would allow members to participate in proceedings of the House, either in person or by video conference, provided that members participating in person did so in accordance with the Board of Internal Economy's decision of Tuesday, October 19, 2021, regarding vaccinations against COVID-19, and that reasons for medical exemptions followed the guidance from the Ontario Ministry of Health entitled “Medical Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccination”. As well, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization informs us on this. The motion temporarily suspends or alters a few Standing Orders to facilitate this move.
Second, the motion would similarly allow members to participate in committee meetings remotely or in person provided that they met the vaccine requirements set out by the Board of Internal Economy.
Third, it would provide for documents to be laid before or presented in the House electronically. This includes the documents that the government is required by statute to table as well as petitions or other documents that any member may wish to provide.
Fourth, the motion sets out how and when recorded divisions are to be taken in the hybrid format. I will return to this in a moment.
Finally, for the current supply period, it provides for Supplementary Estimates to be referred to and considered by a committee of the whole. This is in keeping with past practices of the House to allow for scrutiny of the estimates early in a new Parliament before standing committees have been constituted.
The motion would keep these measures in effect from the day it is adopted until Thursday, June 23, 2022, before the House adjourns for the summer. This time frame would allow the House to safely conduct the business Canadians sent us here to accomplish for them. After June, we could have another look at how we conduct our proceedings, taking into consideration the best health advice at the time.
Focusing now on the motion's provisions relating to voting, I wanted to first acknowledge how this single act is one of the most important that parliamentarians carry out. During the early months of the second session of the last Parliament, members in the chamber voted by the traditional process of row-by-row. Members participating by video conference were called on one by one to cast their votes orally. While these voting arrangements were successful and used for over 50 votes, they were time-consuming. Some votes required as much as 50 minutes to complete. However, the House also agreed to develop and test a remote voting application, and one was introduced in March. With this application, a vote could be completed in 10 to 15 minutes. The remote voting application was used successfully for over 120 votes.
Today's motion would put this app back into use, allowing us to express our will safely, securely and conveniently. Although the remote voting app was successfully used in the last Parliament, the motion would take the prudent step of directing the House administration to carry out an onboarding process of all members for this app to be completed no later than Wednesday, December 8, 2021. Once the onboarding is complete, but no later than December 9, the app would be put into use.
Paragraph (q) of the motion ensures that there would be integrity in the use of the app. Among other things, it requires that votes have to be cast from within Canada using the member's House-managed device. Also, the visual identity of members must be validated for each vote. This could be verified by the whip of each party recognized in the House.
Any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the provided 10 minutes could connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention. The motion is therefore very careful to put in place contingencies should members encounter problems with the voting application, so as to not disenfranchise them. We want to avoid disenfranchising people.
Some have argued that the literal act of standing up to be counted during an in-person vote is too important to be set aside. I do not want to argue that tradition. I would simply say that the motion aims to put in place reasonable, temporary measures to allow each member the ability to safely vote.
For each vote, members' names will still be recorded in the House journals allowing all to see where they figuratively stood on the issue voted on.
The motion before us also seeks to arrange a deferred schedule for recorded divisions on most types of debatable motions, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday. Specifically, votes would take place after question period on a day depending on when the time recorded division was requested. This order would be in keeping with past practice of the House, would provide members with some predictability for when votes would occur and would allow us to better manage our time both in and outside of the House.
I know all members of the House agree that we want to put this pandemic behind us. Through the Speech from the Throne, we set out an agenda to do just that. We are securing the next generation of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for kids—
1760 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
