Bill C-13 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related amendments to another Act

This enactment enables Canada to implement the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, which was done at Geneva by members of the World Trade Organization, including Canada, on November 27, 2014, as an amendment to Annex 1A of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
It amends the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement on Trade Facilitation.
It also makes related amendments to another Act.

Food and Drugs Act

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, as part of our commitment, it is extremely important to pass this legislation in order to facilitate all the good that will come out of this agreement.

In my speech I talked about helping developing countries and helping speed up trade processes. That is why the bill is so important. It would allow for quicker and more efficient trade, and that will trickle down to our partners.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important legislation. Before I do that, I will quickly join with the NDP member in welcoming this year's new pages and wishing them all the best. We thank them for their service to us in this chamber.

Bill C-13 is important, and it is a bright spot in a rather gloomy broader situation in terms of both the government's approach to trade and some of the challenges we see in the global discussion around trade. We support Bill C-13. We see it as very much that bright spot, but I will discuss some of my concerns about the broader environment as well.

In spite of its desire to, it seems, reverse almost every good decision that the previous Conservative government made, this is one case in which the new government has fortunately chosen to carry forward something that was initially begun under our government, and in this case, we appreciate that is in fact moving forward.

The government has brought forward legislation which I think all parties will support, at least at this stage, on the trade facilitation agreement to implement that. This agreement deals with non-tariff barriers. Just by way of brief explanation perhaps for those who are watching, we could talk about formal trade barriers, prohibitions on trade, or tariff requirements that in order to trade in a country, we pay a certain tax. However, then there is also non-tariff barriers, cases where there is maybe a misalignment in regulations, certain policies which, perhaps not intending to stymie trade or at least not facially about trade, have the effect of making trade very difficult.

This trade facilitation agreement is about confronting those non-tariff barriers to trade, those rules and regulations where, because of disharmony in regulations perhaps between different countries, trade is not able to effectively happen.

This trade facilitation agreement was concluded in December 2013 at the WTO ministerial conference. It is the first multilateral trade agreement concluded since the creation of the WTO. Therefore, it is an important step insofar as many of the trade agreements that we have talked about recently, the bilateral trade agreements between two countries or perhaps the trade agreements between regional blocs. However, this is conceived on a much broader, truly multilateral basis and it is about a much greater share of the world stepping forward together. It is very positive that we are able to move forward on that multilateral basis in this respect. It provides for modernization and simplification of various customs and border procedures.

We know this trade deal will have a significant positive impact for the Canadian economy and for the global economy. The WTO estimates that the full implementation of this trade deal would boost merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion, which is very significant opportunities for all WTO members, specifically providing substantial benefits for developing as well as developed countries, including benefits for least-developed countries. Even if not every country in the WTO fully implements this agreement, we still will see many of those same positive effects.

We see particular benefits coming from Bill C-13 to small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that small businesses are the principal job creators in our economy. Especially for small businesses, these non-tariff barriers, the requirement to actually come to terms with and understand what may be discordant and complex regulations in different jurisdictions can be a real barrier to trade. In some cases it may be a much more significant barrier to trade than the more formal and identified trade barriers.

We are in a situation right now, and it is important as I get into talking about the context to recognize this, where there are many specific threats to small business coming from policies of the government. We saw a decision of the government in the budget, for example, not to follow through on an election promise to lower the small business tax break. An effective tax increase was imposed on small businesses which had been planning for that reduction.

At the same time, to many people's surprise, the government decided to eliminate the small business hiring credit. We have a government that talks about jobs, yet the most explicitly pro-jobs policy, a hiring credit for small business, was then eliminated as part of the budget. We also have the introduction of payroll taxes coming up with regard to the Liberals' proposed expansion of the CPP.

Therefore, if we look at these things together, it is specifically attacking jobs for small business, with the elimination of the hiring credit, the new proposed payroll tax, and the effective increase on small business taxes.

As I said, it is good to say that we have one bright spot in this rather dismal legislative agenda as far as it affects small business, which is the trade agreement that we have through trade facilitation. It is going to hopefully have a very positive impact for small businesses being able to access international markets.

We have talked more broadly as part of this debate already about the issue of a trade agenda. What was our government's trade agenda, and what is the current government trying to do on trade?

My friend for Winnipeg North talked about the government having an aggressive trade agenda. He cited as the example of this the fact that the Liberals had continued forward with the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal, which was in fact something that we all know was very much started under the previous government. Therefore, an aggressive trade agenda is continuing forward with one thing that the previous government was doing.

I want to acquaint my friends across the way with what an aggressive trade agenda actually looks like. These were the trade deals that were not just negotiated but brought into force under the previous Conservative government.

The Canada-Korea free trade deal, the most recent one, was brought into force on January 1, 2015. There were also the Canada-Honduras trade deal, the Canada-Panama trade deal, the Canada-Jordan trade deal, the Canada-Columbia trade deal, Canada-Peru trade deal, and the deal with the Canada-European Free Trade Association, not to be confused with the Canada-EU trade deal, but we signed a trade deal and brought it into force with the Canada-European Free Trade Association. These were all brought into force under the previous Conservative government. We also, of course, negotiated the Canada-EU trade deal, and the Liberals are doing their best to screw that up. Hopefully it will succeed nonetheless. Of course, there are the negotiations of the Canada trans-Pacific partnership and trade deal.

We had various negotiations launched with a wide range of different countries: Costa Rica, Singapore, Morocco, Japan, India, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and with the Caribbean community. Many important trade deals were brought into force, negotiated, or for which current negotiations are going on.

Previously, before Stephen Harper took office, there was a limited set of trade deals. We had Canada-Chile, Canada-Israel, and Canada-U.S. Of course, we know that the Canada-Israel trade deal was updated under our government, and the Canada-U.S. was very successfully negotiated by the previous Conservative government under Brian Mulroney.

That is what an aggressive trade agenda actually looks like. It is telling that the Liberals talk about trade, they say they are supportive of trade, but we are not at all seeing strong efforts to expand Canada's international markets.

If we are able to bring into force trade deals with the EU and with the trans-Pacific partnership, we will have preferential trade access to countries representing over 60% of the world's GDP. That would be very significant for Canadian businesses of all sizes. Yet, we are not seeing action, we are not seeing leadership from the government. The Liberals would rather coast. They would rather wait and see, which is disappointing, because we know the benefits of trade and see the benefits of an aggressive trade agenda.

Again, Bill C-13 is a bright spot, but we are not seeing leadership when it comes to the trade file from the current government.

We are in a context where leadership on the trade file is very badly needed. We are seeing different kinds of threats to global trade. I would put those threats in three different categories. We are hearing the classic anti-trade arguments from two different kinds of sources. We are also hearing from what I would call the punters, the people who do not want to take a position on trade one way or the other and are therefore, rather than showing leadership, just continually punting it down the road.

Looking at the conversation happening in the midst of the American election, we are hearing a lot of conventional anti-trade arguments from both sides of the spectrum. What is striking, and I got these numbers from a Globe and Mail story, is that the discourse we are hearing in American politics does not reflect American public opinion when it comes to trade. Americans and Canadians understand the benefits of trade. They understand the benefits of our trading relationship and of broader trading relationships. Here are some numbers on that. According to Gallup, just 33% of Americans view trade as a threat. That is down from a peak of 52% during the financial crisis of 2008. Thirty-three per cent is a historic low when it comes to opposition to trade within that country.

The Pew Research Center tracks opinions on trade and just under 40% of Americans have said that trade agreements are a bad thing. Therefore, it obviously leaves a strong majority of people on the other side of things. We have an opportunity to pursue trade and to talk about it if we have politicians throughout the world who are willing to show leadership in their defence of the idea of an open economy. That we can prosper together, not in opposition to each other, is important and an idea that needs to be defended by leaders across the globe.

We hear the opponents of trade talk about trade being about winners and losers. People might have heard a claim that we do not win anymore when it comes to trade, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trade is all about. On Saturday, I took my daughter, Gianna, to a model train show and spent $10 to get in. If I had this winner or loser view of economic interaction, I might ask who is winning, me or the model train show? That is obviously a ridiculous question. We are both winning. We are engaging in mutually beneficial economic exchange.

When I go to the grocery store, who is winning, me or the grocery store? Actually we are both winning. Trade is all about that. It is through free commercial exchange, businesses and individuals or different countries benefit together. Therefore, it is a mistake to think that trade is somehow about who is going to win and who is going to lose. It is about developing agreements that allow for collective prosperity.

On the other side of the anti-trade argument, we might hear those who talk about environmental and labour standards, and this is very important, but sometimes I feel that those who invoke these arguments are not actually looking at the trade deals in question. Modern trade deals, and especially the trans-Pacific partnership, are designed to protect the environment, labour rights, various kinds of human rights, and they are precisely about democratic countries, in the case of TPP, Canada, the U.S., Japan, Australia, New Zealand and other partners. Obviously, there are human rights concerns with certain countries that are part of TPP, but the structure of that deal creates an opportunity to set rules in trade that respect the environment, labour rights, and other human rights considerations.

We need to be discerning about how we approach these issues, but TPP was a deal championed by President Obama and by people across a range of different perspectives, whether they identified as progressives or perhaps with other kinds of labels. It is interesting to hear at the same time some in our politics invoking these other kinds of objections to TPP, whether it is environmental and labour standards or the discussion of winners and losers, without understanding what trade is all about and without actually appreciating what is in the deal and the real benefits it provides economically as well as when it comes to these various other considerations.

Those are the classic anti-trade arguments. It is critical for politicians of courage, for politicians who understand the value of the open economy, who understand that we can prosper together, not in opposition to each other, to stand up and defend the idea of the open economy.

We hear some of these classic anti-trade arguments from the NDP. From the government, it is just this constant desire to punt the trade discussion. It is not leading on trade. It is not trying to move forward on new trade initiatives. It is half-heartedly continuing some of the things that the previous government did while wanting to punt the conversation on other issues, especially on the trans-Pacific partnership.

Frankly, we all know what is going on here. The government does not really want to take a strong position on TPP until it sees the way the winds are blowing in other countries. That has never been good enough for Canada in the past, just waiting to see what other countries are doing and then following the way the wind is blowing.

If we are going to be a legislature of conviction, if we believe in the importance of international openness and of the open economy, then Canada could take a stand and lead on it. It could say, in response to some of the rhetoric that we are hearing south of the border and elsewhere, that trade is important. It is not about winning or losing. It is about all of us profiting together. It is about all of us working together to improve our economic situation, as well as human rights.

The government's way of punting is to continually refer to consultation. Of course any kind of authentic consultation has an end point. One consults, gets the information, gathers and synthesizes the information, and then provides feedback and makes a decision. Ultimately, we are elected here to consult, to receive feedback, and then to make decisions.

The government is not actually doing that. It is using the veneer of consultation to avoid making a decision, to punt in the hope that somebody else will make a decision before it has to. The government is missing an opportunity to lead, and it will not even tell us what the plan is in terms of when it will make a decision. We have not heard any answers on that. It has been a year since the election and since TPP was initially negotiated. The government needs to be leading on the issue of the open economy, but frankly I do not have much of an expectation that is going to happen.

I want to say as well that there is a strategic consideration at play in these international trade deals. The government seems to be getting this strategic balance wrong. It is very important when it comes to trade, when it comes to international activity in general, that we be working in concert with like-minded allies. It is not that we do not talk to countries that perhaps have a different set of values than we do, that do not respect human rights. It is not that we do not talk to those countries, but that we work in particular with our allies to try to set rules, to try to set mechanisms in place that protect international human rights, that protect and advance our values.

That is what TPP, in large part, was all about. It was about those strategic considerations. It was about like-minded democratic countries, primarily, along with some others, working to set the rules of trade, so that intellectual property would be respected, so that human rights would be respected, and so that the environment would be respected.

We have a government that is continually punting on TPP, yet is now talking about the possibility of a bilateral trade deal with China. It is hard to know how sincere it even is about that. What sense does it make to say no, or to at least avoid making a decision, when we have the opportunity to be working with our allies, and yet at the same time to be talking about prioritizing trade with a country that does not respect human rights, that does not share our values, and with whom there are significant concerns when it comes to things like respect for basic intellectual property?

There is a missed opportunity here to lead on trade in a way that reflects our values, that reflects our interests, and that also advances our economic situation. It is unfortunate that the government is not taking more of a cue from the previous government, in terms of what was a genuinely aggressive trade agenda.

I am encouraged by Bill C-13. I look forward to supporting it. As I have said, I do see this as a bright spot, but there are some significant overall challenges that we need to be confronting. We need to have a more aggressive trade agenda. We need to have a government that is willing to speak in favour of the open economy. I hope we will see some changes on that in the near future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member focused on some words that I used in terms of this being a government that has been aggressive on the trade file. That is, in fact, the case.

One could question some of the statements the member made in terms of accuracy. I was here during the debates on the Korea trade agreement, for example, and saw how the Harper government dragged its feet throughout that debate and sat waiting for edification, whereas other countries were already taking some action. Canada lost opportunities as a result of just how slow it was.

If we look at the bottom line of the trade balance, the member should be aware that when Harper took the reins of power and became the prime minister of Canada, we had a multi-billion dollar trade surplus. We are still paying the price of bad decision policies by the Conservative government. We have a multi-billion dollar deficit and that is one reason we have a minister out there negotiating and talking with the United States, trying to rectify the deal that was put together with the EU, and doing so much more on the trade file because we value our exports. This is because of the sloppy work of the former government.

Given that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-13, does he not see the merit of using Bill C-13 as a good example of how we support our world organization of trade?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I will have time to correct all of the things the member said.

Apparently, the previous government was dragging its feet when it brought into force trade deals with Korea, Honduras, Panama, Jordan, Colombia, Peru, and the European free trade deal, when it negotiated agreements with the EU and the trans-Pacific partnership, and when it launched many other different negotiations. If that was dragging its feet, I do not know what one would say about the previous Liberal government and the fact that there were only three trade deals in force before the Conservatives came into power, at least one of which was signed by a previous Conservative government. Those are the facts that are on the Global Affairs Canada website.

Specifically on the issue of trade exports, the basic economics of it are that trade deficits are exports over imports. We went through a global financial crisis when the Conservatives were in power, in which Canada was significantly less affected relative to many other countries. Obviously, during that period, Canadian consumption was not as negatively affected as consumption was in other countries. The implication of that is that Canadians were doing much better economically relative to other countries.

What we did not have and what Conservatives addressed by the end of their mandate was the fiscal deficit. A fiscal deficit, unlike a trade deficit, is something that has to be paid off. I think the member is trying to conflate the words in a way that is perhaps confusing. Understanding the difference between a trade deficit and a fiscal deficit, we have to be most concerned about a fiscal deficit, and the government is pushing ahead with a policy that creates a massive, totally unnecessary fiscal deficit, which is going to have very significant negative long-term economic implications.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is amusing to see the Conservatives and the Liberals bickering about which party is the bigger champion of free trade.

Let us not forget that in both cases, it is all the same. When the Liberals are in power, they negotiate free trade agreements, and the same is true of the Conservatives. If you ask me, their bickering is pretty pointless.

Both parties have something else in common, which distinguishes them from the NDP: they do not seem to care much about the quality and content of those agreements. In the debate between those two parties, there is a lot more discussion about the number of trade agreements concluded and much less about the impact those agreements are having.

It is important to remember that we need to study the effects of free trade agreements. The repercussions must lead to a much more specific vision. For instance, there has been some talk of the human rights aspect and the vision for the economy. For an agreement like the TPP, neither of the parties conducted any studies to examine how it would affect our economy.

I wonder whether my colleague could share his thoughts on the importance of seeing free trade agreements as a contract that we, as parliamentarians, must examine carefully in order to analyze all the clauses and provisions. Of course that includes all the fine print, which is often overlooked.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the difference between the three main parties in the House is fairly clear. We have the NDP, which almost always opposes trade deals. We have our party, which generally supports international trade and the open economy, and we have a party in government that sort of blows in the wind on these issues. It certainly does not lead on them but sometimes continues with policies we brought forward.

The underlying philosophical statement that the member made is that we need to look at the content of the trade deals and we need to think about their impact on human rights and the environment and a range of issues. I completely agree with that. If we look at the trans-Pacific partnership in particular and many of the trade deals that we have signed, we do see these being borne out against the metric that the member put forward.

The office of the chief economist from Global Affairs Canada, whose website I have here, says very clearly that GDP gains expected from the TPP are $4.3 billion, so we know that on an economic level.

On a human rights level, this is a trade deal championed by President Obama, rarely accused by our friends in the NDP of being an arch-conservative. He champions this very much as a progressive trade deal with protections for the environment and human rights, and really is about setting the rules of trade in a way that reflects the values of the democratic countries. It reflects the concerns of countries like the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. This is the specific strategic benefit of moving forward with the trans-Pacific partnership. Yes, there are economic benefits, but it is also about finally being able to establish terms of trade that reflect our values when it comes to these other considerations.

I accept the test that the hon. member put forward. The many trade deals that we brought forward in government as well as the trans-Pacific partnership certainly live up to that standard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there were a couple of points in the member's conclusions where he made reference to understanding fiscal versus trade deficits. I would like to ask the member, very specifically, how it is that he can explain this to Canadians. When the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, took the office of prime minister, he had a multi-billion dollar surplus in both categories: a multi-billion dollar surplus in trade, and a multi-billion dollar surplus in finances. He turned out to be one of the worst prime ministers in accumulating over $160 billion in additional debt. That same government created a multi-billion dollar manufacturing and exporting crisis by evaporating our surplus and turning it into a deficit. We are still paying the price on both of those points.

[An hon. member]

Did you look at your budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

How does the member reconcile that the Harper government knew what it was doing? To me, it lost touch with what Canadians really wanted.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that he will have his opportunity to answer, as opposed to yelling across the way. He can answer the question now.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is not correct that I was heckling during that response. I did not heckle, and I want that to be noted for the record.

With respect to what the hon. member said, I could answer his consideration in three words: global financial crisis. That is something the member clearly has forgotten about. It is gratifying to hear that he did not support the previous government. I would have expected as much.

However, here is the reality. Canada went through the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression. We made timely, targeted, and temporary investments in fiscal stimulus. His party wanted more spending at every stage. The Liberals said more spending and they wanted permanent new spending. We said we needed to be targeted and temporary and focused in the way we stimulated the economy. Everybody agrees except the party opposite. Even the New Democrats supported a motion to this effect. Everyone agrees that Canada was brought back into balance before the election. We had a balanced budget. We came out of the recession earlier than other countries. We did better than other countries.

The member may think what he likes, but he talks about these issues as if there is some equivalency between running a deficit in the 2008-09 period and then the Liberals' decision to run a massive budget deficit in this fiscal period. We are not in a global financial crisis. We are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. The time is up.

I want to apologize to the member if I mistakenly pointed him out, but there was some heckling on this side. Members have opportunities to stand to ask questions. As opposed to heckling or yelling when someone else is speaking, I would ask members to please rise to ask their questions.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth).

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Madam Speaker, this morning, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brampton East.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the subject of Bill C-13, which would make a few legislative changes needed to bring us into full compliance with the World Trade Organization agreement on trade facilitation.

The 2015 Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's priorities are clear. This government is focused on creating opportunities by pursuing policies that create growth and ensuring that growth produces tangible results for all.

The agreement on trade facilitation, concluded at the WTO ministerial conference in December 2013, is the first multilateral agreement concluded since the creation of the World Trade Organization. It reinforces the important role of the WTO as a negotiating forum for global trade rules. The agreement provides for the modernization and simplification of customs and border procedures by all WTO members.

By playing a key role in the negotiation of the TFA and its ratification, Canada would demonstrate its support for the agreement and the WTO. The TFA supports the government's efforts to promote trade and development and provides another vehicle to increase prosperity in developing countries.

All WTO members agreed to the conclusion of negotiations on the agreement on trade facilitation at the December 2013 WTO ministerial conference and all WTO members will become parties once they ratify the agreement.

Multilateral trade negotiations can sometimes be difficult to relate to the day-to-day workings of business. However, the TFA is not a theoretical agreement; it is about making trade work better for everyone. It is important that Canada move to quickly ratify the TFA.

For traders, the TFA will ensure faster, simpler, and more predictable cross-border trade, translating into lower costs. The TFA's provisions will apply to trade in all goods between WTO members.

As my hon. colleagues on both sides of the aisle have mentioned several times, the WTO estimates that full implementation of the agreement on trade facilitation by WTO members could boost global merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion, including the up to $730 billion in export opportunities it will accrue to developing countries, and decrease trade costs for WTO members by an average of 14%, including an average of nearly 17% for least-developed countries.

The implementation of the TFA will cut red tape, enhance the predictability of trade, and reduce the costs and delays of trading at international borders for Canadian exports. In fact, the WTO estimates that the TFA will reduce trade costs by over 14% on average globally, including 17% for the least-developed countries.

As we know, lowering trade costs can increase trade, contribute to a higher national income and, indeed, reduce poverty. It can drive the growing participation of developing nations and small- and medium-sized enterprises in the world economy. In fact, countries that do more to lower trade costs, for instance, by improving logistics, tend to grow more rapidly.

Here I would reflect on an experience I had. I spent many years working in East Africa. I was able to see how the East African Community, through trade negotiations and the opening up of trade, was able to grow its regional economy significantly. While I was there, I was able to see significant growth of over 10% in Uganda alone, which allowed that government to implement, for the first time, free primary education for its youth. All of this is to say that the opening up of trade can have a very significant impact, not only on small- and medium-sized enterprises and Canadian business but also on developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa.

Canada has provided over $65 million in funding for trade facilitation assistance to developing countries since 2008. Canada has also partnered with TradeMark East Africa, contributing $12 million to its integrated border management project, and has provided $2 million in funding for the World Bank Group's trade facilitation support program launched in 2014 to facilitate the implementation of the TFA.

It is also worth noting that Canada is also a founding donor to the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation, a public-private platform that would support the TFA implementation efforts of developing countries by leveraging private sector expertise, leadership, and resources to achieve commercially meaningful reforms all around the world. Canada is contributing $10 million to the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation over seven years, from 2015 to 2022.

These lower trade costs, along with enhanced timelines and predictability in the delivery of intermediate goods. It will also drive growing participation by small and medium-sized enterprises in world trade, particularly as the high cost of international trade currently disproportionately affect SMEs, as well as developing nations. SMEs would be better positioned to export their goods once the TFA is ratified.

Helping SMEs reduce trading costs, as many in the House would agree, would also benefit women in developing countries. The World Bank estimates that 8 million to 10 million SMEs in the developing world have at least one female owner. Studies in recent years have shown just what kind of impact investments in women can have all around the world, particularly in developing nations. Economic growth has skyrocketed when there is significant investment in empowering women to get involved in enterprise and become business owners. There is a reduction in child mortality rates and an increase in education rates. Innovation is strengthened. This ratification would have significant impacts not just for Canada but also for developing nations.

While the TFA's provisions complement those found in the trade facilitation chapters of Canada's free trade agreements, this agreement addresses a broader range of trade facilitation measures, since the TFA is a specialized agreement that reflects the more diverse priorities of all WTO members. The trade facilitation provisions in Canada's free trade agreements have to date focused on Canada's priorities, including transparency, release of goods, risk management, and the advance issuance of decisions on tariff classifications.

These interests are well reflected in the TFA, and because they would apply to all ratifying WTO members, they would serve to advance Canada's interests with countries with whom it does not have an FTA.

The agreement on fair trade facilitation will enter into force when two-thirds of the members have completed their domestic ratification procedures and submitted their instruments of acceptance to the WTO. As of today, 92 of the required members have ratified the agreement on trade facilitation. While there is no specific deadline for WTO members to ratify the agreement, G20 leaders are committed to ratifying the agreement by the end of 2016 and called on all WTO members at the G20 leaders' summit in Hangzhou, China in September 2016 to do the same

Our government is committed to ratifying the agreement as soon as possible, and we encourage all members on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am optimistic to see the Liberals moving ahead with ratification of this agreement, but the parliamentary secretary talked about cross-border trade and decreasing costs, so I was wondering if he could explain a contradiction.

I come from Ontario. We are a manufacturing community. What the Ontario Liberals have done is implement policies that have given Ontario the highest electricity costs for industry in North America. They are bringing in a carbon tax as of January 1, which means that the cost of energy will go up. These policies are now being parodied and mimicked by the federal Liberal government.

Therefore, I wonder if he could explain the difference. On one side, they are saying they are trying to get rid of costs to be more competitive but they are actually putting in policies that are making us less competitive. We have seen this in Ontario with the decrease in manufacturing. How will he explain the differences and the contradictions there?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the member's first comment, if he has any provincial concerns I would urge him to contact the representatives that proudly represent him in the province of Ontario.

I will comment, however, on the idea that we are putting barriers in place to economic growth. We have taken a decision to invest in economic growth and were the only party to do so in the previous election. We are going to invest in middle-class families, which we all know are the drivers of the economy, by increasing the Canada child benefit significantly to the tune of $2,300 on average per family. We are also cutting taxes for middle-class families and middle-class income earners who earn between $44,000 and $89,000 a year, putting roughly $500 to $600 back in the pockets of hard working Canadians. We are increasing our support for the most vulnerable seniors to the tune of roughly $950 a year.

I do not know what my hon. colleague across the aisle is talking about when he refers to barriers. If anything, we were the only party in the last election to say that we would be drivers of economic growth. That is exactly what we are delivering on.