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

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be speaking today on Bill C-13. Indeed, it has been very difficult not hearing from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for three months. I have been missing both the members for Winnipeg North and Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan; imagine how difficult it has been for me for several months.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak about a bill that in layman's terms would be motherhood and apple pie. There has been a lot of discussion about broader trade deals like the TPP, and this bill would allow us to comply with whatever World Trade Organization agreement on trade facilitation, TFA, provisions we are not currently compliant with respecting non-compliant goods and goods in transit.

I have not heard yet today any arguments against the specific provisions being discussed in Bill C-13. We should all accept that this is a bill that should go through, regardless of one's position in the end on trade deals. Regardless of our position on trade deals, we should make sure that Health Canada has the means by which to ensure that all non-compliant goods fall within the exemption that exists in the TFA, and that we allow ourselves to exempt goods in transit from the technical requirements that we need to exempt them from for the TFA. Regardless of whether we think the TPP is good, not good, or whether we do not know yet, it sounds to me that the Bill C-13 is something that should pass. Hopefully, we will get all parties in the House to agree to pass Bill C-13.

I am also pleased to talk a bit about trade and the TFA, partly because I cannot spend 10 minutes on Bill C-13 itself. It sounds like most of us could not do that, so we are jumping to other trade issues that are related to Bill C-13 but are not exactly Bill C-13. I am someone who deeply believes in free trade and is very disturbed about some of the language coming from south of the border. There is protectionist rhetoric being used in the American election that I think is triggering all kinds of fears about trade. I am happy to stand and essentially defend trade.

I believe that trade can be a transformative force. A balanced and open rules-based system creates new economic opportunities and drives productivity. More open trade can create jobs, help spread innovative technologies, and help economies integrate into the global workplace. Closer to home, trade benefits Canadian producers, manufacturers, exporters, investors, and consumers. It also contributes to sustainable development and poverty reduction abroad.

Multilateral trade negotiations can, of course, sometimes be difficult to relate to the day-to-day work of doing business. That is not so for trade facilitation, though, under the TFA. The TFA is not a theoretical agreement; it is about making trade work better for everyone. It is important that Canada become the 93rd or 94th nation as soon as we can, to aim for the 108 nations so that the TFA can be ratified. For traders, the TFA would help ensure faster, simpler, and more predictable cross-border trade, which would translate into lower trade costs.

The WTO estimates that full implementation of the TFA could boost global merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion, including up to $730 billion in export opportunities for developing countries. Even in the event that some WTO members do not move forward to fully implement the TFA, the real-world impact will be significant.

The WTO also estimates that the TFA would reduce trade costs, averaging over 14% globally, including reductions of over 17% for the least-developed countries. Lowering trade costs can increase trade, contribute to a higher national income, and 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.

These lower trade costs, along with enhanced timeliness and predictability in the delivery of intermediate goods, would drive growing participation by SMEs in world trade, as the high costs of international trade disproportionately affect SMEs as well as developing nations. Having worked for an SME for part of my career, I can attest to that. Helping SMEs reduce their trading costs would also benefit women in developing countries. The World Bank estimates that 8 to 10 million SMEs in the developing world have at least one female owner.

Implementation of the TFA is expected to deliver a significant stimulus to the world economy. These same factors would also make it easier for developing countries to participate in global value chains. The WTO estimates that this boost in global trade resulting from the entry into force of the TFA could create around 20 million jobs worldwide by 2030, with the majority located in developing countries.

Let me note, that is only five million jobs worldwide less than Donald Trump has promised that he will create in the American election. However, I will not speak to the reliability of either the WTO's statistics or Mr. Trump's.

The TFA may also help to reduce corruption. Let me explain.

Opportunities to engage in fraudulent practices at international borders increase with wait times. By simplifying trade procedures and reducing the time taken for goods to clear customs, the TFA is expected to decrease the incidence of trade-related corruption and increase the customs' duties collected.

The TFA, as I mentioned, will enter into force once 110 WTO members have ratified it. To date, 92 have already done so. I urge all hon. members to do their part by ratifying the TFA and bringing Bill C-13 into force as soon as possible so we meet the stipulations to allow us to move forward to ratify the TFA.

In short, I have listened a lot to the debate and I have heard it diverge to TPP quite a lot. I understand the tendency to move toward TPP as soon as we start discussing trade. It is an important trade agreement that is now before Canadians.

It is important that we learn as much as possible about the TPP, and in my view move toward its ratification. However, at the same point in time, I want to go back to Bill C-13, because so many times we have diverged from the legislation today. There are two simple things that we really need to adopt, and I hope we will have cross party consensus to support the wonderfully lucky Bill C-13.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion here today and hope that I too will get the same treatment as the previous member, because I am going to talk about the many reasons to support this legislation, but with a little stylistic flair of my own.

It is an honour to be back in this place to do the work that Canadians expect of us, and more so given the recent economic indicators that are neither promising in terms of jobs nor economic growth. In fact, the only significant growth we are seeing these days is in the new debt being added, not just by our federal government but by many provincial governments as well. That is something that should trouble all of us, given that there will be less revenue available to pay for other much-needed government services as interest on the debt grows. That is why I believe that bills like Bill C-13 are very important and why I am here today to speak to this bill.

First, I think I already let the cat out of the bag by saying that I will be supporting this bill. It is well known that the World Trade Organization agreement was negotiated under the previous government. I would like to publicly commend the new Liberal government for seeing it through, given the political temptation to abandon legislation solely for the reason that a particular party did not come up with the idea originally. I would also like to explain why I strongly support the bill.

I am very concerned about Canada's future, as I believe all of us are. We know that our population is aging and that the fastest-growing segment of our population is over 65. In fact, over the next two decades the number of Canadian citizens over the age of 65 will basically double, from roughly 4.7 million citizens today to over 9.3 million by 2030. We also know that the ratio of workers remaining in the workforce to help pay for benefits like old age security and the guaranteed income supplement will basically fall in half over the same time frame. Let us also not ignore what this will do to our future health care costs, let alone what the interest costs will be on debt at that point.

What does all of that have to do with Bill C-13? I am glad you thought of that question, Mr. Speaker. I think the one thing we can all agree on is the importance of growing our economy, adding jobs, and creating new sources of revenue and opportunities for employers and investors. Obviously, we may disagree on how best to do that, but Bill C-13, in my view, is definitely an important step in the right direction.

The last Conservative government was a strong believer in the importance of trade. As much as some tried to falsely claim that all of our eggs were in the oil and gas basket, it should not be forgotten that when the Conservative government came to power, Canada had free trade agreements with just five countries. Over the course of the previous government and the under the leadership of our former prime minister, and of course his very capable minister of international trade, the member for Abbotsford, Canada concluded free trade agreements with an additional 39 countries. I should say there were other trade ministers as well, but the member for Abbotsford has my full attention.

That takes us back to this bill. While free trade agreements are a critical first step, the mechanics of getting goods smoothly across international borders is a very important step. This is of particular concern to poor developing countries who lack the capacity to do so, which can lead to lost opportunity, increased costs, and delays. These things are what we often call “regulatory red tape”. One of the best ways we can combat red tape is to harmonize regulations and procedures so there a more universal language with free flows of goods and services across borders, and that is essentially what Bill C-13 proposes to achieve.

We are fortunate here in Canada that we have always been a successful trading country. However, for the sake of example, let us take a moment to provide an example to better illustrate how increased efficiencies at the border can benefit other nations that traditionally may have lacked capacity and expertise. In Rwanda, the people introduced a single-window system in 2012, a very simple concept. This basically enabled customs documents to be submitted online. This not only cut processing time in half, it also saved an estimated $10 million U.S. per year due to increased efficiency.

This means that the time it takes a shipping container to move from the Mombasa Port to Kigali has gone from 21 days to 6 days. For someone from an agricultural producing area, such as Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, any time we say that we can cut down the time it takes for a shipping container to be processed, that gets my attention. Why? It is because the longer that is, usually the less shelf life of the fruit and other agricultural products that we produce in the Okanagan. Therefore, this is why we need to look at measures within the WTO agreements and look to adopt them as important ways to increase our markets.

Keep in mind that for this TFA to come into force, two-thirds of the WTO membership must have this agreement ratified and adopted. I have mentioned why it is important to recognize that by supporting this bill, Canada is also fulfilling our international obligations, which will benefit not just our own trading relationship but those of other developing nations. In fact, a recent bank group research study suggests that full implementation of the TFA will promote global welfare gains in excess of $200 billion per year.

Again, helping developing countries to become more self-sufficient raises the ability for them to enforce labour and environmental laws. It allows them to become more innovative and pay for important things like health care and education. I would imagine that would make them more competitive, which means we would have to be more competitive. These are things where the rising tide raises all boats, and Bill C-13 is one way to do that.

On a local level, I am also pleased that streamlining customs documents and procedures makes it easier for small business owners in my riding to access new and emerging markets outside of our local trading area. We heard earlier how the premier from Saskatchewan was in South Korea. My premier in British Columbia, Christy Clark, has made many visits to the Asia-Pacific area. She knows that British Columbia's future is in those markets.

For a small business owner, this can mean less time with these new markets where limited cash flow is tied up in a holding pattern waiting for goods to clear customs. As we witnessed with the port of Vancouver disruptions, many small business owners can become financially crippled when goods they depend on are tied up because they are sitting idle at port.

Decreased shipping times, in particular, are important for growers in my riding. As I said, they are shipping perishable goods. It is another important consideration, and one that benefits both B.C. agriculture and aquaculture producers as well.

As some members will know, I have been a strong advocate for reducing regulatory red tape and increasing trade opportunities at every opportunity since becoming elected as a member of this place. In my riding, many of the key private sector employers depend upon trade. That is a fact.

When the port of Vancouver shut down some time ago, it was not just small business that was impacted. Even large-scale employers such as lumber mills were potentially looking at shutdowns and layoffs, and that can devastate a small community like Princeton and Merritt. The largest municipality in my area wholly situated in the riding is West Kelowna, and its largest private employer is a mill called Gorman Bros. Therefore, the biggest private employer needs access to those markets.

Again, removing regulatory road blocks is generally not costly on government. In fact, in many cases increased efficiencies provide savings to taxpayers. That is why it is encouraging to see the Liberal government getting on board and supporting a trade related measure that can help many Canadian business owners who are employers and job creators.

I mention this, of course, because the Liberals could have delayed the bill with the usual consultation, followed by reviews, followed by more consultation, followed by hopefully a decision at some yet to be determined point, much as the case with internal trade. Yes, I am going to go there. I have to raise internal trade for a moment.

While it is commendable that the Liberal government is finally moving one trade related measure forward while so many sit on the consultation merry-go-round, let us not overlook that it is important to note that not every Canadian supports increased international trade. However, I have yet to find a Canadian who does not support the principle of buying Canadian.

In fact, when the official opposition tabled a motion calling on the government to elevate the Comeau decision to the Supreme Court for clarification that would help us to grow internal trade, both the NDP and Green Party joined with us in support of that motion. I thank those members for that support.

How often do these three parties agree on an economic measure? Yet, when it is a proposal that could support increased internal trade, that is precisely what occurred. Of course, it was the Liberal government, despite promising free votes, that instead whipped the vote and said no to that.

Let us recognize that despite turning their backs on internal trade and using the endless consultation routine to stall other trade related agreement opportunities, at the very least Bill C-13 is being supported by the Liberal government, and in a timely manner. Given that it was the former Conservative government that made this agreement, we know how challenging it is for the Liberals to support it here in this place. Again, kudos to those who are seeking that this legislation move forward.

While I applaud the government for moving this bill forward, I remain confused on exactly what the Liberal position is on trade deals like the trans-Pacific partnership, as an example. In 2015, we know the Prime Minister said “The Trans-Pacific Partnership stands to remove trade barriers, widely expand free trade for Canada, and increase opportunities for our middle class and those working hard to join it.”

In fact, one month later the President of the United States, when sitting with our Prime Minister, further stated, “We are both soon to be signatories to the TPP agreement...”

I believe that sounds positively clear, yet it has also been reported that the Prime Minister will not allow a free vote on the trans-Pacific partnership deal within his own government caucus. Our trade minister now states that even though the government has signed onto the TPP, it is not necessarily committed to it. I would submit that this position is not positively clear, positively clear as mud perhaps, but not positively clear.

To summarize, I believe Bill C-13 is an important bill. Reducing regulatory red tape and harmonizing regulations at our international borders will be of benefit to exporters and importers alike, and consumers will also benefit. This will streamline and create efficiencies for our fellow WTO members that will particularly benefit developing nations that are lacking capacity.

I also believe that decreasing shipping time is beneficial to shipping fresher produce and other agricultural products, something that my farmers are looking forward to.

We also know that there are significant cost savings, as well as other economic benefits that will help increase prosperity and the economies of World Trade Organization member nations.

It is also refreshing that in spite of the Liberal government fondness for cancelling initiatives they did not author, in this case, the good work of the former Conservative government is being recognized and supported. . I am hopeful that the Liberal government will continue to recognize the value of trade, as is reflected by their support for this bill, and that they will continue to support other trade deals given our long-standing record as a trading nation.

Sometimes taking a stand and making a decision instead of kicking the can down the road through endless consultations and reviews may be politically unpopular with some. However, I submit that making difficult and unpopular decisions is necessary if we are to continue to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada.

In an era of stagnant economic growth and increasing job losses, our government needs to take decisive action and recognize that bills such as Bill C-13 are important steps to making trade work more efficiently. We also need to have trade agreements in place for bills like Bill C-13 to enhance the trading relationship.

Again, I am proud to support this bill and appreciate that members in government and opposition recognize the value of making trade between nations more affordable and efficient. Let us hope that this new-found support for trade will also extend into the government's agenda with more agreements announced in the near future.

In particular, rather than trying to force a national carbon tax on Canadians that will only increase costs to the very middle class the government covets the support of, if the government has a mindset to force anything on Canadian provinces, I would suggest that instead of a carbon tax, how about a true inter-provincial trade agreement that recognizes that free trade within Canada is a right as guaranteed by section 121, the free trade clause within our Constitution?

We know that this is a principle that all Canadians can get behind and support, much as I believe many will support the principles of Bill C-13 that help ensure trade agreements between nations are more prosperous, successful, efficient, and beneficial to all those involved. I am very pleased to be here representing my constituents. I thank everyone for their time and attention to this important bill.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I admire my colleague's passion and concern about trade. It is something we all share. Canada is a trading country. We all want to see us prosper in that regard.

I did sneak into his riding a few months ago to go to the meeting of the Council of Forest Industries, and I am bringing this around to the TPP since that seems to be the theme here this afternoon. At that meeting, a noted Conservative economist, Jock Finlayson, was speaking about the forest industry and trade throughout the world. He was asked about the TPP and how Canada would benefit. His very candid answer was that we are not really going to benefit at all, but it would be better to be on the inside looking out than on the outside looking in. I thought that was very tepid support for what other members in the House seem to think is a very beneficial bill, when data shows we will be losing jobs in Canada and above all we will have investor-state dispute mechanisms that reduce the sovereignty of the government, provincial governments, and even municipal governments like West Kelowna. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member will have a chance to go to the different mills in his riding, but most mills in British Columbia have what is called the J-grade of wood. That is the most perfected wood that is available and they charge an extreme amount to the customer who ultimately buys it. I asked what J-grade stood for. Originally when the Japanese first came to British Columbia mills seeking new supplies for wood, they wanted to make sure that the wood could be displayed in their homes quite proudly and they were willing to pay large amounts for it. We benefit in British Columbia from a lot of sales to Japan of that highly rated wood, which is part of the trans-Pacific partnership that we are trying to get ratified. I am sure that consumption of that wood will only go up.

On the flip side, China does purchase quite a bit of wood from British Columbia. Oftentimes, though, it is for outside formations. That kind of wood does not supply high-paying jobs, but again, China is not part of the trans-Pacific partnership. From the perspective of wood, I would suggest that since Japan is such a major purchaser of British Columbian wood, we would benefit greatly and would see even more exports of our great Canadian British Columbia wood in Japanese stores and homes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House. I hope you had a great summer and hope all my colleagues in Ottawa did as well.

As an Albertan, I have heard loud and clear the fact that through our trade agreements Albertans are having trouble right now. We have 10% unemployment in central Alberta and Red Deer. People are hurting. People are suffering. People are walking away from their homes. The Liberals have a tremendous opportunity and the opportunity does not cost the government anything. It is just a matter of making a decision in this place that we are going to do some nation-building and build some pipelines. Whether I talk to ambassadors, to consul generals, or trade commissioners from other countries, the question I always get, and also from a Japanese friendship society event in my riding just a couple of days ago, is when we are going to build a pipeline. That is because in Japan they are paying $14 a gigajoule for LNG and we have it at $3 a gigajoule in Canada. We should be into that marketplace.

I wonder if my colleague from beautiful British Columbia wants to comment about the similar types of problems they are having there.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would love to ask a question of the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, but I am going to answer his question first.

I would simply point out what I said near the tail end of my speech, that sometimes it is important for governments to see a broader picture and to make decisions, not simply to kick them down the road. Pacific NorthWest LNG is a decision that the government will have to come to terms with. It is the greatest one-time investment that we have seen in Canadian history, billions of dollars in short-term construction and billions of dollars in the long term. That means revenue for British Columbians and taxes for the government to be able to pay for all the things we want.

I would simply suggest that the government needs to focus on growth. All of the outcomes, whether in terms of the environment or health, can be possible if we have growth. Right now we do not have growth. That concerns me, and I hope the government will take a bigger picture approach when it comes to some of these contentious decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, in December 2013 the agreement itself was signed off on. As the member is likely aware, the World Trade Organization comprises about 160 countries, a certain percentage of whom have to ratify the agreement. It would appear as if there is support on all sides of the House to see Bill C-13 advance. I am wondering if my colleague might share his thoughts with members of the House on how he believes this legislation should ultimately go through. Does he see it consuming a great deal of time or would he rather see it go through quickly, given that it appears that all parties are support it and that 108 countries' support, I believe, is required for its ratification?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a great question. As long as the member wants to rise and add to the debate, the government simply has to make a decision as to whether it wants to cease debate. There are a variety of different motions it could use, which member probably knows better than I to do, or it could simply hear us talk. It is up to our party leaders and other individual members of Parliament to confer and decide how much longer it should take.

There is a lot on the agenda that needs to be looked at. I want to reinforce that we do need growth. We need it for our long-term prosperity. We need it to address our short-term economic concerns. As the member for Red Deer—Lacombe previously pointed out, Albertans are hurting and British Columbians want growth. Premier Christy Clark wants to see things like the trans-Pacific partnership dealt with quickly and decisively with a positive outcome. She also wants to see Pacific NorthWest LNG taken care of by the Liberal government so we can get to yes in British Columbia and grow our economy.

All of the outcomes I have talked about come down to our being able to get to a yes. I would encourage the member across not just to look for yes on this legislation, but on all these other projects that are going to be good for all of us, not just in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Alberta, but right across this great country.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, after about 10 years of Conservative government and a Conservative trade agenda in this country, Canada experienced some of the largest trade trade deficits it has ever experienced in 2015. This spring, under a Liberal government, that unfortunate record continued, with Canada setting new records for the largest trade deficits in Canadian history.

I am wondering if my colleague could tell the House why he thinks Canada is experiencing these record trade deficits after 10 years of his government's pursuit of these trade agreements, which are supposed to have helped Canada improved its trade conditions.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member asking a very clear question. I will try to give it as quick an answer as I can.

First, we have seen the drop of oil prices, energy prices. Energy exports are a major part of our GDP. Obviously, if we are sending less and receiving less for it, we are going to see a greater trade deficit because we still have a lot of manufacturing.

Also, in the case of globalization, we are now getting microchips and parts from other areas of the world, such as Asia, where it is sent to Canada. We draw it in, and then we repackage it in today's automobiles. That makes us competitive. It also allows for the benefits of trade to extend wider and further. Therefore, that raises the trade deficit.

However, if we talk to most macroeconomists in the area of international trade, they will say that a deficit is not a bad thing; it just has to do with the context surrounding it.

If the member wants a more concise answer, he should speak with a variety of economists and seek out whether this environment is suitable for that level of trade deficit. Again, if it is a large number and it cannot be accounted for, we should seek answers and clarity.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House to speak for the first time since coming back. It is my first speech since the first election. I was asked to make this speech before we rose for the summer, and I think, like most of us here, when we saw the topic of the bill and were asked to speak for 20 minutes on it, we wondered what in tarnation we could speak about for 20 minutes on what seemed to be an insignificant bill. However, it is not. As many of us have discovered as we have continued this deliberation, there is more and more at stake and much more to be discussed when we speak about Bill C-13.

In essence, it is a bill to make some substantial small changes to the Food and Drugs Act and a number of other agencies. One could ask, why is it so important that the government pass this legislation? As was said, it is part of a trade facilitation that took place in 2004 when there was a movement toward freer trade.

When did that begin? I heard a number of dates tossed about. I think we could go back even further. I think 1949 was the first time that the WTO began the proceedings, because it saw, after the devastation of World War II, what could happen when nations begin to fight with one another, especially in the 20th century, and the damage and horrors that could be inflicted.

They also recognized, probably from men like Adam Smith, who wrote his book The Wealth of Nations in the 1700s, the profound and good things that can come about when nations begin to trade with one another.

That is the reason, I would presume, that as we continue these talks, we talk more and more about free trade. I would not be one to say that it is without controversy. There is much controversy. We heard that here in this House. I am on the trade committee and we have done consultations across the country. We heard some dire warnings about what could take place in a free trade atmosphere. Those are the things we need to discuss here. Not only do we need to discuss them here, but we also need to understand them thoroughly so that we can take them home to our constituents so they can understand them as well. There are decisions that the Liberal government and we as a country have to make.

I am the last Conservative speaker, so I guess that makes me clean-up. I hope I do not fare like the Blue Jays and strike out, but I would love just to talk about what has happened in these last few weeks, particularly today, what we are discussing, and why it is so important.

We are very fortunate in this country to be a nation that is involved with trade. It started right from the beginning with fur traders first came to this country. Prior to them, our first nations were traders, and we continued that tradition. We were not a large people. We did not have a big population, but collectively, we were able to do some amazing things. We were also very fortunate to border the largest economic powerhouse the world has ever seen, the United States of America with its 300 million people, compared to our 33 million people. I think it is actually 330 million—a ten to one ratio. We are able to bring our goods a relatively short distance. In my case, in Chatham-Kent—Leamington, it's about 50 miles or 80 kilometres, and in Chatham-Kent—Leamington, it is very important that we have this free trade agreement.

That took place earlier, in the l990s, when the NAFTA agreement was formulated. We recognized at that time as a country that we needed to continue and to have in place rules and regulations so that we could continue to carry this out.

In Chatham-Kent—Leamington and in Windsor, and some of my colleagues are here today in the House who represent Windsor, we are involved in the auto trade industry. A lot of people do not realize this, but cars are not just made in a particular factory. Rather, they are pieced out in a number of factories. Sometimes those factories produce the product and have to bring them across to the other side of the border where there is added value. Then they come back to Chatham. They tell me that this is done many times over. Can members imagine if we did not have an agreement in place that allowed for those goods?

Canada and the United States are able to show just how well a free trade agreement can work. I do not want to digress because I only have 20 minutes, but I will say that there are some alarm bells that are going off at this particular time when we think about what is happening south of the border today. Actually, it is north of the border. Here is a little trivia for members. What is the country that is north of the border of Windsor? It is the United States. The United States has been rattling its chains and talking about rewriting NAFTA. That would have some catastrophic effects on us as a nation. Maybe we can talk about why that would happen.

The other great thing that we can be very proud of and are very fortunate to have are some incredible trade negotiators. Having had the privilege of serving on a number of committees of the House, the finance committee for four years and the trade committee for the past year, I got to meet some of those people. When we asked questions of the people who are involved in trade negotiations, they told us that we probably have the best trade negotiators in the world, people like Steve Verheul, Kirsten Hillman, and others, that marvellous team we have that has managed to do some incredible free trade agreements, such as with the Ukraine, as was mentioned here, Jordan, Colombia, South Korea, and the countries of the European Union, which is our biggest trade deal since NAFTA. Yes, there are some problems, but not on the Canadian side. It is not with respect to the negotiations that we did, which were excellent. However, there are always countries that see free trade as a threat.

I will take a little sidebar now because I want to talk about one of those countries. It was mentioned a number of times in the House. It is one of the BRIC countries. It is Brazil, which is the first letter of the BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, China. When I travelled to Brazil a number of years ago, I saw something that was very disconcerting, something that just did not look right. What I saw was a nation that had built a protective wall around its economic borders. In so doing, it managed to produce pretty much all of the goods that it consumed. Some people would say that it is a wonderful idea and that is what we should be doing as well.

However, what happens is that there is a class of individuals, usually what we call the “one percenters”, who have the factories and produce these goods and have a captive audience. Brazil has a population of 200 million people. Then there is the class of people right below that who distribute those goods, sell those goods, or who may be in management positions. However, there is a huge underlying class of people who live in poverty because inevitably what happens when a country does not have access to trade in goods, when it is not involved in free trade and the good economic practices of competition in the workplace and the marketplace, the price begins to go up. That is precisely what happened in Brazil.

For instance, I know there are those who say that we should produce our own cars in this country. We know we cannot do that. I can say the auto manufacturers have told me that a manufacturing facility must produce at least 300,000 cars a year in order to be economically viable. We would quickly consume that in this country. In Brazil, with 200 million people, it thought it would be able to do that. Therefore, when Ford wanted to sell a car in Brazil it had to produce it there. If General Motors wanted to sell one, Brazil had to produce it. If Volkswagen wanted to, it had to be produced there as well.

As a result, if we watch the economic news, we see that Brazil is in a real tight spot. For that reason, because Brazil saw that position challenged, it put opposition against that free trade agreement.

As I said before, we are a nation of traders. I talked about our history. When we envision Canada, when we think about the map, for instance, we see these huge agricultural areas. We travelled, as I said, across the country to a number of provinces, right from the west to the end of Quebec. In my riding, for instance, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, we are number one in counties for wheats, I think for soybean, and number two for corn. I am bragging, but I think we can all brag about our ridings, especially those who come from the agricultural side. We produce tomatoes and breweries. The other thing we produce in my riding is greenhouse produce. It is a billion-dollar industry. Again, the fact that we are next door to the greatest economic power in the world gives us an opportunity to move those goods to the other side of the border.

I think I heard that in Europe the average individual consumes something like 100 pounds, or it might have been 200 pounds, of greenhouse goods. It was quite high. In Canada, it is about 20 pounds. In the United States, it is about three. Think about the opportunities. One day's drive: 200 million people, and think if those borders were closed. I think we can all come to the conclusion that trade has been good to us. It has been good to us in agriculture. It has been good to us in manufacturing.

Even in my riding, we have suffered. We definitely have taken a setback in our auto industry. Nevertheless, when we crossed Canada on our tour, we came in contact with many who were involved with agriculture. I remember the trip from Montreal to Quebec and I get excited. I am not one of these people who sits in the bus and chats about nothing; I am always looking. I saw so many new manufacturing operations, small and medium-sized manufacturing buildings in Quebec. When I talked to my Quebec colleagues, I asked them about this. They told me there are nouveau businesses that are excited about the possibilities, but they need markets. They told us that we need free trade agreements. We need a free trade agreement with Europe. We have a great trading relationship in the United States, but we have to expand that. We cannot, as somebody said, put all of our eggs in one basket. We need to be able to sell our produce to more locations. Europe is one of those agreements. The TPP is another. We have discussed that at length too.

What I want to lay out more than anything else is that the concept of free trade is a noble one. It has enriched and empowered people and brought them out of poverty. With regard to countries like Korea that were in such dire straits after the Korean war, we cannot imagine the poverty that was there, and yet the free market system lifted that country up to the world-class society it is today. That is what free trade does. That is what the free market does. That is why we have to defend it.

Are there problems? Absolutely. We are never without risk when we go on ventures, especially one as noble as the one being described. There is always risk. I believe there are risks from globalization. We must always continue to make sure that we keep our national institutions in our communities. That should not be destroyed as we move out.

Those are some of the things we heard when we crossed Canada. People are a little afraid of this. In some cases, they are very afraid of it. What we are seeing in the United States and what we saw in Britain is a result of the fact that people are fearful that they are going to lose the power they possess as a culture and as a people and that it will be shifted to another organization or another seat of power. Those are things that we need to defend and fight for in the House on a continual basis.

The concept and the reality of free trade is an excellent one. If we think about our people in the east, in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, the first nations, all of our diversity, we are a trading people. We know this to be true and we see the difficulties that can arise when we lose that power or the rights that we have negotiated for something like the softwood lumber industry. Today, the United States is again looking at that agreement and attempting to break the agreements we have made.

Therefore, it is incumbent on us here in the House and on the government to make sure that we fight for them, so that the people in B.C. have access to wood, and that people in the Maritimes, where the Conservative caucus just visited, and Quebec, and Ontario still have those places; and so that the people in Alberta are able to sell their oil and gas and beef.

When I first came to the House, we talked about peak oil. Does anyone remember that? Is there someone here from the class of 2006? We were going to run out of oil and it was only a matter of time. We no longer talk about peak gas. As one of my colleagues mentioned, we talked about the importance of getting that gas to market and having agreements. When Alberta has such an enormous amount of gas from fracking and Japan is prepared to pay the price, it makes economic sense.

In my neck of the woods, when I was first elected, people were paying $11 a gigajoule for gas in the greenhouse industry. Today, I think it is about $4.50. Think of the ability that gives us to compete with our neighbours and in the marketplace. That is why we need to make sure that we have these agreements in place for Alberta, and for Saskatchewan with canola. That is why we need a government that has the fortitude and the strength to tell the Chinese there is a problem that needs to be straightened out, that there is too much at stake for the people of Saskatchewan to lose their canola to foreign countries that do not operate in a fair way or for Manitoba to lose out on wheat exports, as well as the pork industry and farming. In Ontario, it is auto parts manufacturing.

The Ford Motor Company announced that its platform in Brantford, I believe, will be used to ship cars to Europe when the trade agreement with Europe comes to fruition. As a matter of fact, it is going to do it before that, but it will be a much better agreement once that starts to happen. Bombardier is involved with the aerospace industry both in Ontario and Quebec, and I already mentioned the greenhouse industry. Quebec has hydroelectric power and could sell electricity. Then, of course, in the Maritimes, there is fishing and lumber. Free trade is good for Canada.

I want to finish by saying that free trade needs to be extended. We cannot stop. We need to extend it to the trans-Pacific partnership. There are 800 million people in Japan and is the third largest economy in the world. Those opportunities will escape us if we do not take the necessary steps. All of us need to be bold and vigilant to ensure that the right agreement is made in the best interests of our people. However, let us not be afraid. Let us not be afraid of free trade. We have a stronger, more diverse economy by taking goods to more people in the world, because trade is good for Canada.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Chatham-Kent—Leamington and welcome him back to the House. We have the pleasure of serving on the House trade committee together. I can be frank. He is a good contributor to that committee and brings a lot of insight and perspective that we all appreciate on that committee. We on this side of the House agree with him that free trade is good and is good for Canada. Of course, it has to be fair trade. I think he agrees with that as well.

I want to pick up on one of his closing comments on his support of the TPP. As he knows, we have heard a lot of Canadians speak about the TPP in our committee work. The auto industry is concerned about the effect the TPP might have. Coming from the part of Ontario he comes from, I wonder how he can reconcile some of the pressure the auto industry is facing with his support for the TPP.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member and welcome him back, as well. I look forward to working with him and his seatmate again once we get back.

He is right. The auto industry has suffered a blow. However, we can do things as a government. When I think back to the 1970s, for instance, we had an enormous advantage over the Americans. It was our health care system.

I have put forward a proposal. We could look at something like a pension plan, but not the one being proposed. I feel that it is going to cripple the economy. However, we could use our imaginations, and we could again make this a great place, because we have great automakers. We have the best in the world. We can talk about Windsor and the knowledge that is there. We have to start talking about those things, cross borders with each other, start discussing things, and come up with some interesting proposals. One of them is our pension plan. We can reform that in a better way than is being proposed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for quite a far-flung speech. Not too many people can go from Adam Smith to current economic theory in this House.

I want to ask him a little about the auto sector, knowing that he comes from that area. He mentioned that the Canadian auto sector did very well in the 1970s. He attributed that to Canada's health care system, which no doubt played a role. I would argue that the Auto Pact actually played a much larger role in building Canada's auto industry at the time, which is a form of managed trade as opposed to free trade.

The TPP would lower the rules of origin so that the content of a car made in one of the TPP countries that qualifies for tariff-free import into Canada would be less than 50%. That means that a car made 50% in Malaysia or Vietnam, that is maybe contributed to from China, because it only has to be 50%, or slightly less than that, could come into Canada tariff free. I wonder if he could tell us how a car that, say, has 45% Chinese content and 55% Vietnamese or Malaysian content, with their low wages and lack of standards and government programs in those countries, would affect the competitive abilities of the carmakers in his region?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I agree on those things. We have to look at the overall picture, though, and what has happened in the auto industry. We have seen the introduction of many automakers. There was a time, when I grew up, and I was involved in the auto industry, when we talked about the Big Three. We talk about the Detroit three today, because they are no longer the Big Three. There have been other players. That has had an effect on some of the things he is talking about.

The other thing we cannot forget is that we also have an enormous parts manufacturing industry. When we did our cross-country consultations, we heard repeatedly from those who supply those automakers that we should get this deal done and that it was going to be good for Canada. Why is that? I mentioned Japan, with 120 million people. Anyone who has been to Japan knows that there are an awful lot of cars there. Japan has a protectionist system in place that we would be able to compete with. We would be able to make parts for those auto industries.

The member is quite correct that there are times when we would, on the one hand, lose some, but on the other hand, we would gain.

When we expand our trade, because we are good at it, because Canadians are good automakers, good traders, and good bankers and do a lot of things really well, we have nothing to fear. When we get out into the workplace and out into the marketplace, we can compete, and we will succeed. We will succeed in that industry as well.