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

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

moved that Bill C-13, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with this opportunity to rise today on Bill C-13, which is legislation that would reinforce our government's already strong track record on trade.

The bill before us would make a variety of amendments to other laws, so that Canada could implement our commitments under the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade facilitation, or TFA for short.

The TFA is groundbreaking in many ways. It is the very first multilateral trade agreement concluded since the creation of the WTO over 20 years ago. More importantly, it is the very first time in WTO history that developed and developing countries have recognized that each commitment within an agreement should be linked to each country's ability to implement it. Specific provisions are set out to help least developed and developing countries. It is about better trade.

At the heart of Bill C-13 and the TFA are the commitments I believe all of us share, to see more open borders and the freer movement of goods and services around the world. It is also about freer trade.

As the Prime Minister has said, today's world is full of challenges, but there are also tremendous opportunities with the opening of new markets, the growth of developing countries, and the emergence of new technologies, and of sustainable development.

This is one reason our government is pursuing a progressive trade agenda. It is also one reason the Prime Minister committed to the expeditious ratification of the TFA during his meeting with G20 leaders in Antalya.

The TFA will help to enhance global trade by putting measures in place to expedite the movement, release, and clearance of goods across international borders. It also contains provisions to encourage closer co-operation between customs officials at the border.

Overall, the WTO estimates that the trade facilitation agreement will lower trade costs by more than 14% for low income countries, and by more than 13% for upper middle income countries by streamlining the flow of goods across borders. Therefore, I urge all hon. member to support this bill before us today.

We all know that from the early days of the fur trade to today, Canada has always been a trading nation. Canada has made a name for itself in green and renewable technologies, pharmaceutical products, and the aerospace sector. In fact, trade is as much a part of our national and provincial identities as hockey, and certainly more so than the Leafs.

Today, trade represents 60% of Canada's annual gross domestic product, and one Canadian job in five is tied to exports. Trade leads to wage increases and a higher standard of living. Furthermore, it helps companies create better paying jobs, increases the number of middle-class families, and makes them more prosperous.

That is why our government is going to such great lengths to increase market access for business people and investors across Canada. Our efforts will also create new opportunities for Canadian companies and workers.

With our progressive trade agenda we are making every effort to create opportunities and foster prosperity for all through the liberalization of trade and the opening of borders and markets.

Canada's trade agenda emphasizes the role of women, indigenous groups, and small and medium-sized businesses, as well as the role of a diverse population that is connected with the rest of the world. This agenda also seeks to place environmental protection and labour protection at the heart of our efforts, right from the outset. It seeks to ensure that the middle class and those working hard to join it truly benefit from the trade spinoffs both in Canada and abroad.

It is about progressive, ethical, and greener trade.

Our comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, with the European Union clearly shows that an inclusive and progressive trade agenda tailored to the 21st century is possible. Our focus now is getting this gold standard deal signed this year and implemented early next year, so that Canadians and Europeans can take full advantage of the benefits. The Minister of International Trade has on numerous occasions met with our European friends and partners to help ensure that we accomplish just that.

Canada is pleased to be moving forward with CETA ratification now that the legal scrub of the English text has been completed. We fully support the modifications that were recently made to its investment chapter. These changes reaffirmed and strengthened the right of governments to regulate in important areas like labour, health, and the environment. The changes also modified the dispute resolution system in a way that makes it more transparent, independent, and impartial with high ethical and procedural standards.

Our government's progressive trade agenda is also focused on strengthening our long-standing friendship and trading relationship with the United States and Mexico. The minister has already had some great productive meetings with her counterparts in the U.S. as well as with several key Mexican and U.S. decision-makers in Washington.

The minister also visited Mexico City this week where she held bilateral meetings with Mexican government and business leaders while also meeting with the Council of Ministers of the Pacific Alliance to sign a joint declaration with member countries to reaffirm the ties of friendship, solidarity, and co-operation between our countries and making Canada the first observer to enter into a strategic partnership with one of the most important economic blocks in the Americas.

Not long after being appointed Minister of International Trade, the minister represented Canada at the tenth WTO ministerial conference in Nairobi. Among the many other issues, the members of the WTO agreed on a series of development measures that will help the less developed nations integrate into the global trading system and benefit from it.

These measures include preferential rules of origin for least-developed countries and commitments to help them participate in global trade services. I know that we are all in favour of these objectives and the general work that the WTO does. Trade can lift millions of people out of poverty, as was the case for India and China.

Trade can also promote investment, innovation, and technological changes that are all essential to sustainable development. Trade is not just synonymous with exporting goods and services. It means working together to meet the needs of people and societies grappling with long-standing problems such as poverty, and new problems such as the repercussions of climate change.

In both developed and developing countries, trade can play a significant role in strengthening the middle class, which is a top priority for Canada's new government. Most importantly, trade can lead to transformation. For years, the WTO has recognized that opening markets is not an end in and of itself. Open trade is a function of our values. It is one of our central objectives, as set out in the WTO's founding document.

Among our many objectives are raising the standard of living, creating more meaningful jobs, achieving full employment, ensuring the sustainable use of global resources, and protecting the environment.

I already talked about reducing poverty. More open trade can contribute to the spread of innovative technology and help groups in rural regions and people with low incomes in developing countries take part in the global economy. As we all know, global value chains can augment the benefits derived from trade in terms of the economy and resources. Open trade can also help address inequality among people and promote women's economic independence to a significant degree.

Today, there are nearly one billion women around the world who could be contributing more robustly to their economies were they trained or allowed to do so.

Seen in this light, closing the gender gap would be equivalent to adding a new China or a new India to the global economy. We simply cannot afford to sit idly by and not seize the potential or the fairness of this tremendous opportunity.

The trade facilitation agreement, which the legislation before us will implement in Canada, can be an important catalyst for achieving these goals. Lower trade costs along with enhanced timeliness and predictability in the delivery of intermediate goods will drive growing participation by SMEs in world trade as the high cost of international trade disproportionately affects small and medium-sized enterprises as well as developing nations.

Helping SMEs reduce their trading costs will also benefit women in developing countries, as the World Bank estimates that 8 million to 10 million SMEs in the developing world have at least one female owner.

In general, implementation of the TFA is expected to deliver an unprecedented and significant stimulus to the world economy. The WTO estimates that the 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.

Canadian and international stakeholders, including the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and nearly all agriculture and agrifood associations, have voiced widespread support for this agreement.

To date, 81 members of the WTO have ratified the trade facilitation agreement, or TFA for short, including some of our major trading partners like the U.S., the European Union, China, and Japan. They expect Canada to do the same without delay. Another 27 countries need to ratify the agreement for it to come into effect.

The legislative changes in Bill C-13 are necessary to the ratification of this agreement in Canada. These changes aim to protect the health and safety of Canadian consumers and workers, as well as the environment, in the event that goods in transit are diverted into the Canadian market. They also aim to clarify the practices for dealing with rejected goods.

Canada is committed to promoting prosperity around the world and helping the poorest and most vulnerable people reap the benefits of economic growth when it comes to reducing poverty. Canada can do its part by ratifying the TFA as quickly as possible.

I therefore urge all hon. members on that committee to support the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-13 so that Canada can do its part to ensure the agreement is fully implemented.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the implementation of this deal builds on the important work that was done under the previous government. It is great to see some of that at least continuing under the current government with respect to this particular trading initiative.

We are aware that it is not just tariff barriers to trade that can prevent trade. It is also these kinds of non-tariff barriers. I wonder if the member could talk more specifically about the work we can do to expand trade, not just in terms of tariffs but also non-tariff barriers such as this agreement and other areas.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous government for its work. I see the previous minister of trade in the House, as well as the previous minister of agriculture. Both of them have done yeoman's work on these files.

It is true that non-tariff barriers are an incredibly important part of the picture. It is by harmonizing various kinds of standards, such as sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and harmonizing through science the way we look at genetic modification, for example, that we will be able to build better, more efficient trade agreements in which the only barriers are real and justified barriers and not idiosyncratic or imaginary ones.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the hon. parliamentary secretary across the way on this file. These are the types of trade changes, the facilitation that we are talking about here, that we in the NDP can get behind as well.

Bill C-13 makes some changes to how Canada deals with goods in transit and non-compliant goods, including hazardous products and pest control products. It is very important to Canadians that they are assured that they are safe within our country and that these ingredients and products will not harm our environment. Therefore, my question to the member is this. Is he confident that the changes to Bill C-13 maintain existing health and safety standards for workers who may come into contact with these products?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and her work on these files.

Yes, we are confident that our domestic health and safety standards as regards workers handling these kinds of products will be maintained, if not enhanced.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the efforts that the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of International Trade have put in, in a relatively short time span. There has been a great deal that has been accomplished, whether we talk about our lumber industry, Bill C-13, or the necessary work to get the EU agreement into a position where, ultimately, it can be ratified.

I say that because it has been a very aggressive, progressive government on the trade file, because we recognize that Canada is a trading nation and we need to take initiatives of this nature in order to be able to continue to grow and prosper into the future.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would reflect on how this particular piece of legislation would build upon the important trade that we need to ultimately see in order to continue to grow and prosper and have our middle class become even stronger in the future.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly have done a lot of work in a short period of time, but I want to recognize that the previous government had done a lot of work, as well.

What we are trying to do and I think what distinguishes the work we are doing is that we are really focusing not just on more trade but on better trade, a progressive trade agenda that cares about the environment, that cares about the status of women, that cares about labour standards and other ethical concerns, that cares about helping nations that are developing or are in various stages of development. We think that is all part of the picture, and that is where we are really working hard in order to make this trade agenda work. This agreement is part of that. This agreement tries to do those sorts of things and it fits in with the other trade projects that are currently in front of the minister and all the rest of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talked about progressive trade, claiming the government is supportive of trade. Where are we at with the TPP? Why is it taking the government so long? Canadians have, I think, been clear on this in support of it. President Obama has called this the most progressive trade deal ever. Certainly, many of the things that he is talking about being important are clearly identified in the trans-Pacific partnership. Our party has a position. The NDP has a position. We have yet to hear the government's position.

Given what he said about the importance of trade, I wonder if he will take the opportunity to finally tell us where they stand on this important trade deal.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our policy is good trade agreements. We still are not sure that the TPP is a good trade agreement. We are still learning about it. I can honestly say to the hon. member that despite having a pretty good knowledge of it, I am still learning about corners of the TPP through our consultations on a daily basis.

The hon. member is correct to say that there are people in Canada who fervently support the TPP. However, there are also people in Canada who are very critical of the TPP, all of them are advancing reasons, all of them are advancing studies, all of them are asking us to take their opinions into account. We feel that we need to do this for an agreement of this size and stature.

It was negotiated by the previous government. We need to decide, as a government, whether this is a good trade agreement or not, and whether we, as a government, will get behind it. I can frankly say that we are not near a conclusion on that yet. We simply need to learn more.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned several times that there is the opportunity here for us to improve the lives of women, specifically in other countries.

Basically and simply up front, does this mean that we are going to have an implementation with these other countries that is going to promote increasing access to financing for women entrepreneurs? Is this what is actually going to happen?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is an important one. The trade facilitation agreement in and of itself improves the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises, many of which are run by women or which have a woman who is one of the owners or one of the partners, to be able to trade more. I cannot say for certain, in all honesty, that it also improves access to financing as well.

I do know of the work of Martha Nussbaum and A. K. Sen and others and microfinancing in various parts of the world. One would hope that the increased number of small and medium-sized enterprises and increased number of women trading would lead to better access to financing and microfinancing in a variety of different countries and places.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my good friend on his speech and his support for the TFA, but as he knows, this was a hard-fought agreement, one which had emerging economies up against some of the developed economies. It took a lot of hard work to finally arrive at a consensus post-Bali.

I wonder if the member could comment on the state of the World Trade Organization. There are many who believe that the organization is moribund and I would appreciate hearing his comments about the WTO.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not refer to any Monty Python sketches. I do think that the WTO has its place. There is an important place in the pantheon of trade for bilateral agreements, plurilateral agreements, and a multilateral organization like the WTO. Each of those instruments has its own strengths and weaknesses. The WTO has its strengths and weaknesses. We do have to be a part of it. We do have to understand what those strengths are and try to play to those strengths. I think this agreement is an example of one of them.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the chair. You are doing a great job, thank you.

To my colleagues in the House, I want to begin by saying I will be splitting my time on the bill with the former minister of trade.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Since this is the first round, I am afraid I need unanimous consent. Do I have unanimity in the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It will be split then. Thank you.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me also congratulate my friend across the way. I see another friend from the trade committee. We are getting some great work done. As he is rightly pointing out, there are a tremendous number of opinions out there as to what constitutes good trade, what constitutes progressive trade, and what constitutes us giving away the country that I do not agree with.

Having said that, we are a trading nation. We always have been. It was traders who came to this great country and settled it many years ago. The first nations that were here when they arrived were traders, and they continue to be. We had several of them before committee yesterday. There is a huge contradiction, whether they are for it or against it, what the day is, and so on.

On Bill C-13, lucky 13, the trade facilitation act, a number of things come into play. The former minister was up just a moment ago talking about how difficult it was. I happened to be at that particular WTO meeting in Bali. It was one of the last ones I attended. It was always interesting to see the countries siding with certain other countries. He said that there is a tremendous amount of disagreement between the developed, the developing, and the underdeveloped countries and how we get from one level to the other, with everyone scrambling.

The unfortunate part with the WTO is that it seems to want to bring everyone down to a median as opposed to lifting everyone up. That is what caught my attention at my first WTO meetings, almost a decade ago in Geneva. What we were discussing then was already irrelevant, but we were trying to get that passed so we could move on. Rather than shift it aside and move on to something more relevant, they were stuck in a situation where everyone had a veto and they really could not move forward. To actually bring this through in the Bali package, as it was called, and India was very much against it, took another year of negotiation back in Geneva.

It takes two-thirds of the membership of the WTO to make this happen, so roughly 108 countries have to agree. Once we get this done here in the next little while, we will be number 82, so there is still a tremendous amount of work to do before it actually comes into play.

What it seeks to do is level the playing field to create more predictability and stability in trade corridors around the world. These are global trade corridors now. Certainly, Canada is part of all that global movement. However, it will also help the developing countries.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the women entrepreneurs around the world. I could not agree with him more. That is one of the strengths I see in the TPP, which hopefully we will get to at some point in this august House as well. There are labour and environmental standards, and it seeks to reinforce them throughout the world.

Countries that are involved in the TPP, like Vietnam, are looking forward to it. I had a good opportunity to be in Vietnam about a year or a year and a half ago. It is looking forward to using our level of labour standards, our workers' compensation, and a number of other things to reinforce its ability to grow. It has an economy of some 80 million people in a small area. It does a lot of secondary processing that goes into other economies around the world through any trade corridors that work. There are a tremendous number of women involved in what happens in Vietnam. It is looking forward to that. With the environmental standards, too, it does not have to commit the errors that a lot of us, as growing economies, did. It does not have to go through coal-fired generation. It can go right to something green. There are all those opportunities out there as well.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary on this. If I say that three times, someone slap me, because that will be enough.

At the end of the day, this is all about making sure that we have global standards that are enforceable. As obsolete as the WTO is at times on certain fronts, it really is the only rules-based organization that everyone belongs to. We used that operation when we were taking the United States to task on country-of-origin labelling. The parliamentary secretary will have an idea of how much work went into that over the two or three years it took to wind through the appellate body at the WTO. It started to come together fairly quickly when the United States realized that it had run out of options, and it finally put forward a piece of legislation and took that off its agenda.

However, they are the only rules we have on a multilateral stage. We have rules involved in NAFTA. We have rules involved in the TPP. There are rules involved with the CETA and ISDS adjudication, which is groundbreaking. We look forward to those rules being put in place and having the ability to argue our side, make our case, and move forward.

It takes things like this TFA, almost housekeeping, because it is sort of reactionary to what has happened before. It needs to be addressed, but it is not forward looking, as we see in some of the movement we have with the CETA and the TPP. It is today's economy.

When I was first elected to this place almost 20 years ago, cell phones were not in vogue. Few people had them, so at one point I took my garage door opener with me a couple of times just to make it look like I was part of the in-crowd. Now everything is done at the speed of commerce. We have to address those situations throughout the world and go back into some trade agreements and address how we download cultural products and so on.

There is a lot of concern about getting it right as we move to that in CETA and the TPP. I think we have. A lot of consultation went on with respect to both of those agreements as we moved forward page by page. The former minister of trade and I worked hard. The TPP agreement is 6,000 pages long. There is a lot of stuff in it. We went through it page by page as it developed over the years Canada was involved in negotiating it.

I want to take a moment to congratulate all the great people at DFAIT, as it was called at that time. Now it is called Global Affairs. I want to congratulate all the negotiators, the Steve Verheul, the Kirsten Hillman, who did the heavy lifting day after day, taking, some would say, a schizophrenic position that Canada always carried into those agreements and making it work. They did tremendous work, as did all of the people who worked with them. We owe them a tremendous amount of gratitude for getting us to this level today and for making Canada a broker in the world.

On my first trip to Geneva, we were still working on the Uruguay round of GATT. Everyone has since forgotten about those things and moved on, but they are still important, because they set the foundation.

I remember being with Steve Verheul on a number of different fronts. At that point, the director-general of the WTO was Pascal Lamy. He had the idea that if he kept everyone dangling until midnight then put them to work, he would get something done. That did not work. He just ended up with mad people around the table. We did not get anything done. He would break us into country groups of five and cherry-pick who he wanted. I remember going out with Steve for a beer afterward or supper late at night or whatever, and his cell phone never stopped ringing with calls from the five people who were in the room who were asking him what they should do. He was the broker involved behind the scenes for a lot of the countries. They relied on Steve Verheul and people like him.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work these people have done to get us to this point. Now they are watching to see how long it will take us to do the light lifting and put into play what they worked so hard to do.

This is a good first step, but there are so many other things that need to be addressed as we move along. It seems almost hypocritical to me that we are going to implement border-smoothing operations under the TFA while at the same time we cannot seem to clean up our own interprovincial trade. We have a motion coming forward, and the government has already said it will not support. The government is going to support this at the international level but we are not going to clean up our own house at the same time. That is a bit hypocritical and is something we will really have to bear down on.

Other countries are watching. We talk about rules and about how Canada is a global trader, but we have all of these anomalies right here within our own country we need to address.

The Senate has done some work on this. We will be doing some work on it, I am sure, at trade committee. I look forward to those future discussions.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would second my hon. colleague wholeheartedly on the capacity and intellect of our trade negotiators. I have now come to the conclusion that trade negotiators are among the most intelligent people I have ever met, including Steve Verheul and Kirsten Hillman.

I want to ask the member about the TPP. I want to ask him for a couple of specific examples, putting the best cases forward, as to why the TPP might qualify as a progressive trade agreement.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of chapters in the TPP that are unique to the TPP. I talked about cultural downloads, digital downloads, and a lot of different things like that. The rules and regulations, when it comes to moving products around the world, address what we really have here, which are global supply chains. It is not just raw materials going to Japan. It is goods that go back and forth to finish them up.

Canada is very good at certain things. We are not as good at other things. We export between 50% and 90% of what we produce on the agricultural side: what we raise, grow, and produce. At the same time, we import 50% of what we eat domestically. We have to have good, solid trade corridors for that to happen.

We have to diversify our trade portfolio the same as anyone would diversify a stock portfolio. If we rely strictly on the U.S. market, as we have done for years, when they have a problem, we face the same problem.

CETA, on one hand, is a very aged market, a very mature market. The Pacific Rim, on the other side, of course, takes into account a growing, emerging middle class we will have access to, so between the two, we will have access to some 80% of the global GDP. It is very important that we have both.

It is also very important that we have strength with the TPP countries in our hip pocket if and when we move forward on an agreement with China. The size and scope of the Chinese economy will swallow us whole overnight.

I have often said, from an agricultural standpoint, that if everyone in the middle class in China had a bacon cheeseburger and a beer once a month, we could not supply it. That is the size and scope of that market.

We have to move into that realm with caution. I am a firm believer in doing more with China. It is a tremendous opportunity, but I think we will do it and fare a lot better when we have the strength of the TPP in our hip pocket. It is the same as having the CETA agreement in our hip pocket. In the final days of negotiating the TPP, it was very helpful.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the trade committee for his hard work on this file, although we fundamentally disagree, certainly, on the TPP.

I think it is interesting that the member mentioned his own stock portfolio and worrying about that. Most Canadians do not have the luxury of worrying about whether their stock portfolio is doing well, and the TPP would severely impact these people's lives.

Getting back to this particular piece, he spoke a bit about the challenges we have here in our own country. Really, the inability of small and medium-sized enterprises to actually access these market is a huge problem. We have heard this on the trade committee. We are talking about over 80% of Canadian businesses. They are simply unable to get into other markets and get into an export situation.

I am confident that the hon. member believes, as I do, that the government has to focus more of its efforts on improving opportunities in trade for SMEs, such as the tax reduction that all three parties agreed to during the election campaign, which unfortunately, we have seen the Liberals fail on. That will end up costing small and medium-sized enterprises in our country millions of dollars that they simply cannot afford.

I wonder if the hon. member could actually speak to some ways we could improve trade avenues for small and medium-sized enterprises, such as things that have been identified at the committee.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certainly my colleague and I disagree most of the time on the trade committee, but we do agree that Canadians need to be better off and that we cannot tax them into submission. They have to be able to have a number of different things at their disposal.

I never said I had a stock portfolio. I was a farmer. Before that I was a general contractor to pay for that nasty habit. I said that just as people would say that they should have a diversified stock portfolio, they should also have a diversified trade portfolio.

When it comes to small businesses doing trading, I consider myself, as a farmer, a small business, and I was not scared about selling my canola, my lentils, into other countries around the world, because there were corridors to do that. We educate ourselves, we find the knowledge, and we work with others to make that happen, and there are always people who will facilitate that.

First we have to have the ability to do it. Then we have to have the knowledge and the wherewithal to actually make that happen. Once one starts doing it, it is almost a drug. One can get hooked on the ability to move products through and watch them being enjoyed by other countries.

I had the great opportunity in my former role as the agriculture minister to be on pretty much every continent and in every country enjoying Canadian products. Without a word of a lie, there is no better product for consistency and quality of product, when it comes to foodstuffs, than the Canadian one in the world.

It is unbelievable. When we go into other countries and they serve what they consider to be a steak or lettuce or whatever, it does not measure up to ours at all.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to build on the comments of my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster. In his speech, he mentioned some of our remarkable trade negotiators. He mentioned Kirsten Hillman, who spearheaded our TPP negotiations, and Steve Verheul, who spearheaded our negotiations with the European Union.

There are others and I do not want to leave out. For example, Marvin Hildebrand negotiated our trade agreement with the Ukraine and our updated agreement with Israel. Ian Burney did that monumental trade agreement with South Korea and J.B. Leblanc was responsible for negotiating a number of trade deals within Central America and South America. All of these trade deals are driving prosperity and job creation within Canada.

Let us get back to Bill C-13. Those who are viewing across Canada may not understand what we are talking about when we talk about TFA, trade facilitation agreements, when we talk about the Bali package. We need to go back 30 years when there was a large number of like-minded countries around the world that realized there were no common sets of rules around the world to govern trade. As countries traded with each other, tariffs could be increased or reduced, protectionist measures could be enacted day upon day, and it made trade very unpredictable.

Back in 1986, negotiations started under what was called the Uruguay round and then in 1994-95, an agreement was finally reached, in which tariffs were eliminated or, in many cases, reduced. It also addressed some of the behind the borders challenges to trade. That was called the Uruguay round. That culminated into the creation of the World Trade Organization. Today, I believe there are 162 or 163 members in the World Trade Organization.

It was under this WTO that a second round of trade negotiations started back in 2001. Think about it. That was 15 years ago. Very little progress had been made over those years and I will get to the reasons for that in a moment.

Countries at least were able to get together and put together a small package under the Doha round, which we now call the Bali package. This was an outcome that included trade facilitation, which, in other words, improved customs processes and the ability to export and import products more efficiently.

There was a second piece to that, which involved food security for developing countries, things such as the public stockholding of food, and also addressed export competition. Certainly, there was financial support agreed to for the least developed countries, to help them actually take advantage of trade opportunities around the world.

During the Bali package negotiations, I was in Bali, Indonesia and at that time there were 157 countries. It was hard fought because there were so many different competing interests trying to come to a consensus. We finally came to a consensus on these three smaller packages, which we bound up in a ribbon called the Bali package.

We took it home and then, suddenly, we heard that India had a change of government. Prime Minister Modi was now in charge. He said he did not like the agreement and wanted to renegotiate it. That is an indicator of how difficult it is today to reach consensus within the World Trade Organization.

Fortunately, negotiations among India, the U.S., and some other partners were finally able to resolve that impasse and today, we are here in the chamber implementing one part of the Bali package, which is the trade facilitation agreement.

I want to be very clear that we in the Conservative Party strongly support this legislation. We strongly support trade facilitation because it would allow us not only to improve our own trade opportunities around the world but also give a hand up to other countries, in most cases the poorest countries in the world, to start to think about trade as a way of improving their own prosperity and raising up more people into the middle class.

The trade facilitation agreement is actually the first multilateral trade agreement to be concluded since the WTO was established over 20 years ago. It would likely eliminate up to 14% of the trade barriers and the costs related to those trade barriers around the world.

The biggest beneficiaries of this trade facilitation agreement are actually the poorest countries in the world. Of course, they cannot do that without receiving support from the developed countries, countries like Canada. We have agreed to support them. We are streamlining the flow of trade across borders.

The agreement sets forth a series of measures for expeditiously moving goods across borders based on best practices from around the world. Most of those best practices come from the developed nations, like Canada. It will also simplify customs procedures, reduce red tape, expedite the release and clearance of goods, reduce costs associated with border processing, and make international trade more predictable. As I mentioned, it will also establish a program to financially assist the poorest of the WTO members to actually take advantage of trade.

The reality is that the WTO has struggled to make meaningful progress and eliminate additional tariff and non-tariff barriers. The Doha round was started 15 years ago, and we have the Bali package, which is actually relatively small compared to the aspirations of the Doha round.

Many people have asked me what has made the WTO somewhat sclerotic, in other words comatose, in achieving the kinds of trade goals and trade ambitions that we as Canadians have for the world.

It is all about the emerging economies. Countries like India, which I already mentioned, Brazil, China, Russia, and South Africa, the BRICS countries that are flexing their muscles, realizing they have some economic clout within the global marketplace, and are exercising that clout, often preventing consensus from occurring at the WTO.

That is why it is so difficult to get this Doha round completed, to make meaningful progress in eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers around the world.

What has Canada done? In the absence of a robust trade agenda at the WTO, we are doing bilateral agreements, trade agreements with countries like South Korea and Ukraine. We have negotiated trade agreements with countries like Jordan. Of course, the largest agreement of its kind is our free trade agreement with the 28 countries of the European Union.

This is an economy of some 500 million consumers with whom Canada will now have preferred access. The same thing is true for the trans-Pacific partnership. I am quite disappointed that the Liberal government does not seem to understand the importance of being a leader, showing leadership in moving forward with ratifying this very important agreement.

This agreement, the TPP, actually involves 12 countries that want to raise the ambition for trade, have high level rules for trade within the Asia-Pacific region. We are talking about partners like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, but also other partners that are less developed, like Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Peru, and Chile, all countries that want to work together to eliminate trade barriers, to drive prosperity in our own countries.

Our previous Conservative government really worked hard to embark upon the most ambitious trade agenda Canada had ever seen. Over a 10-year period, we were able to negotiate free trade agreements with 46 different countries, bringing to 51 the total number of countries with which Canada has trade agreements.

I am issuing a challenge to the Liberal government that has yet to show a sustained interest in trade. In the previous 13 years, under the Chrétien and Martin governments, very little was accomplished, just three small trade agreements. It left Canada far behind in the global marketplace, in the global trading world.

We need to be ahead of the curve, otherwise we lose out. Our Canadian businesses lose out because they do not have preferred market access that other countries have.

This is my message to the Liberal government. Take trade seriously, as perhaps the most significant driver of prosperity our country has available. It is a key tool. Then get us to the next level, improving standards of living within Canada, providing consumers with the kind of value that they look for when they are buying goods, providing our businesses the kind of preferred access they need to expand their opportunities around the world.

Again, we strongly support this trade facilitation agreement and encourage everyone in this House to vote in favour of it.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and former minister for his comments. I really would like to pick his brain, given his experience, and ask a reformulated question I asked the previous speaker from his side of the House.

What arguments can you give this House to say that the TPP is an agreement that would actually raise standards as opposed to lower standards?

Unlike CETA, it is an agreement with a variety of different countries with a variety of social, labour, and environmental standards. Perhaps the member can give us his best arguments as to why this is an agreement that would raise all those as opposed to just foster a race to the bottom?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I recognize the member, I want to remind hon. members to speak through the chair and not ask questions directly.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer that question.

The trans-Pacific partnership, of course, involves some highly developed countries, like Japan, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, that have very high standards not only when it comes to non-tariff barriers and disciplining non-tariff barriers but also have high standards when it comes to things such as intellectual property.

One of the biggest challenges Canadian companies have around the world is doing business in places like China and Vietnam where those standards are not robust. Canadian businesses lose value. The TPP actually raises those standards for everybody within that partnership.

The same thing is true for labour and environmental standards. There are separate chapters for each of those that would impose upon the parties much higher standards than many of them have been accustomed to actually applying within their own jurisdictions.

This is a huge opportunity for Canada to carve out preferred market access within the Asia-Pacific region. That is a region that is difficult to do business within because often it is a very opaque trading environment where we do not always know exactly what the rules are or how they are going to be applied.

The TPP actually sets out very strong disciplines on how behind the border issues, such as standards, regulations, and rules are applied in a manner that actually facilitate trade rather than hinder it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for his wisdom and insight. Being a former minister on this particular file, he certainly has some insight to bring to this House. I want to let the member know that the trade committee is working extremely hard, not only on the TPP and the pre-study that we are doing but certainly on every endeavour that we undertake.

When we talk about trade, we must talk about the responsible approach and look at the way that it is going to impact Canadians. There is a group of people who are often left out when we are talking about the types of changes to our trade facilitation that we are talking about today. They are the ones who are most responsible for its implementation.

I am talking about our Canada Border Services Agency people, who do an incredible job every day to ensure that our borders are safe. These people are on the front lines of facilitating trade while enforcing regulations and keeping our country safe.

Does the member believe that CBSA requires additional support to make our borders more efficient and secure, in particular when we are looking at expanding the ability of things to move through our country?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do need to have a border service that is able to process the billions of dollars of trade that travels across our borders from other countries around the world. However, it is important to note that the trade facilitation agreement that we are debating in this House today actually would apply mostly to countries that do not have an already high standard of customs processes of trade facilitation within their own jurisdictions.

When we look at this agreement, virtually everything that is outlined in this trade facilitation agreement as being required of the partner countries to implement, we have already implemented. In fact, we have implemented them many years ago.

We do not expect that this agreement would impose any substantive additional burdens upon our border officials who have to ensure not only that excise duties are paid but also that smugglers are not using the borders for illicit gain. We understand the work that the the border officials do is absolutely critical to keeping our borders safe and ensuring trade happens in a legal manner.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Essex.

Before the hon. member starts, I want to compliment the room tonight. This could be a very emotional topic and everyone has been very respectful. We often hear the Speaker talk about when things go bad. However, things are going very well. Thank you.

The hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that wonderful compliment to the House this afternoon.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, 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.

As we know, the legislation before us today would enable Canada to implement the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade facilitation, the TFA.

Bill C-13 will bring various acts it seeks to amend into conformity with Canada's obligations under the TFA. There are about 71 clauses to this bill, not including related and coordinating amendments. It will be important to carefully look at each clause. However, I will not focus my remarks today on attempting to provide a detailed clause-by-clause analysis.

I would like to thank the department officials for providing me with a helpful briefing on the bill.

I would like to discuss more broadly what a trade facilitation agreement is, how it will impact global trade, and it what it means for Canada.

The TFA is the first multilateral agreement concluded since the creation of the WTO in 1994. It emerged from the WTO Bali ministerial conference in 2013, and it was a priority for developed countries. It aims to liberalize trade by harmonizing customs and border procedures among all 162 WTO member states. This could lower trade costs and boost trade. It makes sense that developed countries would want to see greater trade facilitation as it could provide greater opportunities for our companies to do business abroad.

Developed countries, such as Canada, are already in vast compliance with the measures proposed in the TFA. We have modernized customs and border procedures with a highly skilled and professional workforce at the Canada Border Services Agency.

On the other hand, developing countries may require a lot more changes to both their legislation and practices in order to implement the TFA. These costs are difficult to estimate. It is important to acknowledge that TFA implementation could divert resources and energies away from other development priorities.

The TFA has two main sections. Section I is about how the TFA will expedite the movement, release, and clearance of goods in transit. Section II sets out how developing and least developed countries will implement the TFA. It stipulates that they should receive assistance and support for capacity-building. I wonder what this would mean in practical terms, and I would like to hear more from the government on what mechanisms will be in place and what role Canada may play in this.

Overall, Canada should support the promotion of a more level playing field at the WTO that encourages sustainable, inclusive development.

There are two specific articles in the TFA that Bill C-13 addresses, Article 10.8.1 on rejected goods and Article 11.8 on goods and transit.

On rejected goods, TFA Article 10.8.1 requires that a country must allow importers to return to exporters goods rejected when they do not meet prescribed sanitary, phytosanitary, or technical regulations. A set of criteria outlines how these rejected goods should be dealt with. They can be returned, reconsigned, or handled in other ways, for example through seizure, detainment, forfeiture, or disposal.

Five of the six acts being amended by Bill C-13 are in relation to the issue of rejected goods and how Canada deals with them. Bill C-13 would give Canada the authority to take action on non-compliant goods and avoid having to maintain indefinite care and control of non-compliant goods.

In the bill we see some examples of what these goods could be, such as products with improper labelling or products that may contain certain hazardous materials. In some cases, if attempts to locate the rejected goods' owner are unsuccessful, the WTO member may now have the option to destroy the rejected goods.

The second TFA provision addressed by Bill C-13 is article 11.8, which states:

Members shall not apply technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures within the meaning of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade to goods in transit.

In order to comply with article 11.8, four federal acts require amendments, as follows: the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999.

Currently, certain Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada statutes prohibit the transit through Canada of goods that do not comply with Canadian technical regulations. This restricts food, drugs, cosmetics, or devices that are not compliant with Canadian regulations from passing through our borders.

Bill C-13 would create the legal authority to allow Canada to exempt goods in transit from the technical regulations outlined in these four acts. I would like to see some close study of these amendments at committee stage and look at some examples of what could be allowed to transit through Canada under these new provisions.

For some statutes under the administration of Health Canada, Bill C-13 would impose conditions that identify goods in transit that may not comply with Canadian technical regulations, so that in case these goods are diverted into the Canadian market, we know what they are.

Conditions would also be imposed under Bill C-13 that would provide oversight on products, such as certain pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs, not captured under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1992, which are currently not permitted to transit through Canada but will be once this TFA is implemented.

The government asserts that this oversight maintains safeguards that protect the environment, health, and safety of persons who may come into contact with such goods. I am interested to hear more from witnesses at committee to ensure that this is the case, as the health and safety of workers is of paramount concern, as is the protection of our environment.

On the surface, many of the changes we see in Bill C-13 are seemingly minor, but we need to hear from experts in order to fully understand that this is the case.

For example, Bill C-13 would make changes to the product safety information section of the Pest Control Products Act, section 8.3. While much of the language remains the same, it deletes specific reference to a requirement to provide material safety data sheets, or MSDS. I wonder why this is the case, as we all know the importance of MSDS for workers who handle potentially hazardous products.

I talked about the TFA and its specific articles, and now I would like to discuss the potential benefits of the TFA to Canadian exporters.

We often see in trade agreements the tendency to overstate the potential benefits and understate the potential costs. We certainly see that with the trans-Pacific partnership. Initially, the previous Conservative government touted the benefits of the TPP. However, when we look at the studies conducted so far in this agreement, we see a different story.

On the one hand, we have a study by the Peterson Institute, which predicts a 1.3% rise in the real income of Canadians, but this is only a modest increase, and we have to question some of its assumptions, such as the assumption that we have full employment. In contrast, several have predicted negative or negligible impacts.

The independent study by the researchers at Tufts University actually criticizes other studies for using unrealistic assumptions in their TPP analysis. The Tufts study predicts that Canada will lose 58,000 jobs by joining the TPP. Negligible GDP growth for Canada is also reported in this study, and the same is true for the results produced by the World Bank, and the C.D. Howe Institute.

There are many reports, some suggesting gains and some suggesting losses; however, none of these reports are replacements for a full economic impact analysis that we are still waiting on the minister to provide.

At trade committee this week, we again heard calls for an impact study, and first nations groups also called for a human rights impact assessment. The government needs to provide this analysis to Canadians and their elected representatives so that we can get a better understanding of the potential benefits and costs of the TPP.

In the same vein, I wonder if the government has done any modelling or deep analysis of the trade facilitation agreement. Therefore, I approached the WTO numbers on the potential gains of the TFA with some caution, but let us talk about them—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry that I have to interrupt. It is time for private members' business.

The member will have 11 minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Essex has 11 minutes remaining on debate.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude my remarks on Bill C-13, a bill we began debating before the summer about implementing a WTO agreement on trade facilitation, or the TFA as it is called.

This agreement is largely about harmonizing border rules around the world in order to expedite the flow of goods and to give businesses greater certainty. We know how important it is to Canadian producers that they have predictability when exporting their goods. Many of these producers are the small businesses that create jobs and drive our economy.

Canadian SMEs stand to benefit from this TFA through greater predictability of customs and border procedures for exports to developing countries. It could increase Canadian SMEs' access to markets in emerging economies, assuming they are equipped to do so. We want to see the government assist SMEs in realizing the potential benefits of the TFA, as well as address other weaknesses in Canada's SME export performance. With a sluggish economy, it is absolutely imperative that the federal government be looking at ways to better support Canadian small businesses.

The Liberal government made a lot of promises last election to small businesses. It promised to reduce the tax rate to 9%, but broke that promise in its first budget.

There is a lot the government can do to support SMEs who export their goods abroad. In the previous Parliament, the Standing Committee on International Trade adopted an NDP motion to undertake a study of the global markets access plan and how the government can better support Canadian SMEs with accessing international markets. The committee's report outlines recommendations for how the federal government can pursue consistent and ambitious policies that further secure SME success in international markets. The NDP wants to see the government implement the study's recommendations and the recommendations outlined in the NDP's supplementary report.

The committee heard that Canadian SMEs have not reached their full potential in terms of accessing international markets. Only 10.4% of SMEs exported in 2011, and most of this trade was done with the United States. There is so much opportunity for them to increase trade with emerging economies, which is what we are essentially talking about today. However, our SMEs face a lot of challenges in terms of difficulties and inefficiencies with border clearance, as well as accessing capital to expand and grow.

In my riding of Essex, so much of our economic prosperity depends on the ability to move goods efficiently through the border with the United States. Having the necessary infrastructure in place is critical, which is why the NDP is such a strong supporter of the new bridge crossing between Windsor and Detroit. For people in Windsor-Essex, a strong Canada-U.S. relationship is a big priority. We're directly impacted by border and customs issues. We watch closely when the Prime Minister and the president meet, as we have a lot riding on seeing concrete outcomes from these meetings.

Last time the leader of the Liberal Party went to Washington, he met with the president about pre-clearance at the border, which is welcome but is not new. The general agreement on this was signed a year ago.

Earlier this year, I participated in the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance conference. There were a lot of excellent discussions focused on how to make cross-border trade more efficient and streamlined. With increasingly integrated supply chains, we know how important it is for Canadian businesses to have simplified, harmonized, and standardized controls to govern the movement of goods across national borders. Canada is on the cutting edge of these discussions, because we are a trading nation. Many of our livelihoods depend on trade.

Around the world, we are seeing growing criticism and dissatisfaction with the kinds of lopsided trade deals many right-wing governments have been focused on negotiating. This rising anti-trade sentiment can be extremely hurtful for Canada, but I also understand that some of this sentiment is rooted in the realities we see around the world. The gap between the world's wealthiest and everyone else is bigger than it has ever been before, and the world's trade and investment liberalization agenda is not trickling down the way we were all told it would.

Deals like the TPP are not focused on creating jobs for the working class. They are focused on granting corporate rights and privileges that trample on the public good. We know that if the TPP comes into force, it would cost Canadian jobs. It would create a culture of fear among our governments of legislating in the public interest. It would hurt our ability to legislate action on climate change. It could mean no national pharmacare program in Canada.

Over the summer, I held a series of town hall meetings on the TPP. I also spoke with a lot of people in my riding about the kind of trade they want to see.

Canadians want to see solutions to the trade issues that matter in their communities. Steelworkers want to see an end to the unfair steel dumping practices that directly threaten good Canadian jobs. Forestry workers want a solution to the softwood lumber issue, not a renewed trade war. Farmers want a payment protection program so they can export with confidence. Dairy farmers want a fair system in place for dealing with improperly labelled imports. Grain farmers want greater access to markets such as Japan, and canola farmers want to export to China with confidence.

These are the bread and butter trade issues that matter to working Canadians, and I will be working hard to hold the Liberal government to account. I believe strengthening trade opportunities for Canadian SMEs is a bread and butter issue too. It matters to a lot of Canadian families and communities.

I will be supporting Bill C-13 at second reading, and I want to hear more at the committee about how Canadians might benefit from the TFA.

According to the WTO, the TFA could boost global merchandise exports by around $1 trillion, with up to $730 billion accruing to developing countries. It also estimates that the agreement will benefit women entrepreneurs in developing countries who head up many of the SMEs that could benefit from the TFA. The average growth of women-run enterprises is significantly lower than those run by men. I would like to hear more about how the WTO will support developing countries in implementing the TFA and how it will support women in the least developed countries as beneficiaries of increased trade.

The WTO makes big claims about how beneficial the TFA will be. It seems quite common for proponents of trade deals to produce extremely optimistic studies. Just the other week, the Liberal government released a TPP economic study that many say overstated the benefits and understated the losses.

In conclusion, I see some potential benefits in this agreement for Canadians, including for the people in my riding of Essex. The bill deserves further study at committee, which is why I will be supporting it at second reading.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech earlier on today, she talked abut goods flowing through Canada and the possibility of goods being diverted. Does she have any clear examples of how that could possibly happen?

We understand that goods coming into and flowing through Canada have to leave Canada, and we have all the policies and procedures in place to make sure that happens. Therefore, I would like some clarification on the statement that the member made in her presentation.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some examples of the goods in transit that the member is speaking about in Bill C-13 appear when we talk about enabling Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to comply with article 11(8) of the TFA, which essentially prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through the WTO member's territory. It definitely speaks to transit through Canada of goods that do not comply with Canadian technical regulations, and Bill C-13 would create the legal authority to allow the government to exempt goods in transit through Canada through these technical regulations.

At the end of the day, we want to identify that the goods in transit are safe. We want assurances from Health Canada that we will not be endangering any Canadians in the transit of these particular goods through our country. That is incredibly important to the NDP. Again, we will be watching closely the study that will happen at the committee level.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the NDP will be supporting the bill at this stage. I think it is an important bill for facilitating trade for Canada and in Canada's interest.

I want to ask the member about the trans-Pacific partnership.

President Obama has championed the trans-Pacific partnership as a progressive trade deal with important protections for the environment and workers' rights. Clearly, the member disagrees with him. Therefore, I would ask her who she thinks should be setting the rules of trade in the Asia-Pacific region. Should it be like-minded nations, western democracies, or should it be China?

If we do not move forward with the TPP, we put ourselves in a situation where much more likely the rules of trade are going to be shaped to a greater extent by China. I would be concerned with that. I think we are better off with the TPP negotiated by President Obama and others, which protects environmental issues and workers' rights. Does the member not agree that is in fact a better way to go?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear that my colleague is in favour of this deal, because essentially, this is a Conservative deal that was negotiated behind closed doors and that did not include large numbers of groups. There were many people in Canada who were not included. Labour was not part of the conversation, nor were environmentalists, seniors, or our youth. The list goes on. Those who protect public health in our country were not part of the conversation on the negotiation of the trans-Pacific partnership.

It is not good enough for Canada to sit and watch what is happening in the U.S. We need to take leadership on this. We need to ensure that we are protecting Canadian jobs.

At the end of the day, what we see of this trade deal is 60,000 jobs lost. We have the economic impact study that came out last week. Again we see negligible growth being projected for the next 24 years. If the amount promised to our supply management sectors, $4.3 billion, is actually realized, we will see no net benefit from the trans-Pacific partnership, according to the report that was released.

Again, the report released by our own government says nothing about jobs. It actually says in the study that it does not take labour into account. It does not talk about digital rights. It does not talk about many of the chapters included in the trans-Pacific partnership that need to be part of the conversation Canadians are having.

I can also let the member know that I travelled across this country this summer talking about the trans-Pacific partnership, and I have yet to find an average Canadian who thinks that this trade deal is good for our jobs, our economy, and our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to meet average Canadians who support this trade deal, I invite her to come to my riding at any time. I can introduce her to many of them.

The member is selective in the studies she quotes. I want to ask her this very directly. She said that this is a Conservative trade deal. I am certainly proud of the role our Conservative government played in negotiating the trade deal. Of course, it was a deal that involved many countries. Would she not at least recognize the leadership that President Obama showed on this issue, pushing it forward and pushing the negotiations? Would she consider it a Conservative trade deal on the basis of the many different nations, representing different political philosophies and different political parties, that considered this an important deal for global trade?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only extend to the member down the bench that I am more concerned about our Prime Minister looking at this trade deal. I am more concerned about his lack of leadership with respect to this trade deal than I am about what is happening with our neighbour to the south. Our trade with the U.S. is incredibly important. I come from a region that relies on that. I certainly understand the benefit of that, but we need to look at this deal.

When we look at the report that came out a couple of weeks ago, we see that we already have TFAs with countries that are in the trans-Pacific partnership. Even the chief economist said that trade with those countries will go down. We will actually see a loss in trade with countries we already have TFAs with.

It is time in Canada to look at the way we are engaging in trade. We have heard the minister opposite mention a progressive trade agenda. I would love to explore that further and understand what exactly she means by that. We need to look at these trade deals, on balance. There have been 60,000 jobs lost in our country, and negligible growth, by all reports. Regardless of who we are looking at on the economic impact study, it shows negligible growth for our country. Yet we will see a depletion of jobs, which is something we certainly cannot have happen in our communities. I would venture that the member down the bench cannot afford to have those jobs lost in his community, either. Therefore, I encourage him to have a town hall in his riding. I will be following up to ensure that he does so, so that he can actually engage with people in his riding on the trans-Pacific partnership. I look forward to hearing the results of that town hall.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem with a number of the statements the member made is that the NDP traditionally have just said an outright “no” to agreements, including the TPP, even before there has been any sort of real discussion. Our government has been very clear about working with Canadians and stakeholders, whereas the New Democrats have a foregone conclusion on all trade agreements, and that is to oppose them. It does not matter what the content is. I have not seen them actually stand in their places and vote in favour of a trade agreement.

I am glad to hear that it appears that they will be supporting Bill C-13. The Conservatives and the NDP are building a consensus to vote for it, and I am appreciative of that.

Does the member not believe that Bill C-13 allows for the type of consultation that is necessary to ensure that Canadians are protected within our different trade corridors?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-13 I would like to see a further exploration of the technical changes that are happening to this TFA so that ultimately we can determine whether this would be good for Canadians.

As far as the trans-Pacific partnership goes, the NDP has voted in favour of trade deals in the past, and I think the member is well aware of that. What I would like to say about this particular deal is that as vice-chairperson of the trade committee, I have listened to hundreds of people who have come before the trade committee as well as to hundreds of people out in communities across Canada. It is something the Liberal government has promised to do as well. When the resounding message from Canadians is that this deal will not be good for their jobs, for their families, and for their communities, I hope I will see the member opposite standing up and representing those people in Canada and voting against the trans-Pacific partnership.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her incredible leadership on this issue in standing up for not just us as New Democrats but for Canadians on the issue of the TPP.

I wonder if once again the member could talk about how important it is to have a federal government that defends good Canadian jobs rather than the interests of investors and some of the most wealthy CEOs around the world. Can she speak to the sentiment that she is hearing on the ground from Canadians who are concerned about the lack of leadership from the current government and its willingness to sell us out?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one particular point I would like to hit on is that Canadians understand the inability to afford medication. The trans-Pacific partnership would extend the patents, which would mean that it would cost Canadians more money to take the medication necessary for a pathway to health. That alone is egregious in the trans-Pacific partnership, and people understand the impact of that on their lives.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about Bill C-13, the legislation that would allow Canada to implement the World Trade Organization agreement on trade facilitation, otherwise known as TFA.

As members may know, the TFA is the first multilateral trade agreement finalized since the establishment of the World Trade Organization, in 1995. It is truly a landmark achievement. The TFA focuses on streamlining, harmonizing, and modernizing customs procedures. It has enormous potential for reducing trade costs and time, particularly in developing and the least-developed countries. In fact, the WTO estimates that full TFA implementation has the potential to increase global merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion, and it could reduce global trade costs by an average of over 14%. In the event that not all WTO members fully implement the TFA, the real-world impact will be significant.

Domestically, implementation of the TFA will provide Canada with the unique opportunity to promote inclusive growth. It will do this by making cross-border trade easier for businesses of all sizes, particularly SMEs.

I would like to speak today about some of the legislative amendments that are required for Canada to join the ranks of 92 other World Trade Organization members, including the EU, the U.S., and China, which have already ratified the TFA.

While Canada's customs regime is compliant with the vast majority of the provisions in the TFA, certain statutes require amendments for Canada to fully implement the TFA and to maintain safeguards for the health and safety of Canadians and our environment. These amendments relate to two provisions of the TFA: article 10.8.1, rejected goods, and article 11.8, goods in transit.

Today I would like to talk about amendments related to article 11.8 on goods in transit.

Article 11.8 prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point, which are known as “goods in transit”. This provision will allow foreign goods to move through Canada—for example, from Europe to the United States—without complying with our technical regulations.

The transit through Canada of some goods, such as pharmaceutical drugs, cleaning products, and pesticides, which do not comply with the technical regulations, is currently prohibited by certain federal statutes: the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

While most importers are aware of the prohibitions on the transit of unregistered or unauthorized products, from time to time companies request one-off permission to transit such products through Canada. Such activities are expressly prohibited by legislative or regulatory requirements and are routinely denied.

Preventing products that do not comply with technical regulations from transiting through Canada can be considered a trade barrier. This is because the health and safety of Canadians and the environment can, in fact, be protected in an equally effective, less trade-restrictive manner.

The legislative amendments proposed in the bill would specify that Canada's technical regulations would not apply to goods in transit through Canada as long as certain requirements for protecting health, safety, and the environment were met.

More specifically, Bill C-13 includes requirements designated to mitigate the risk that certain goods in transit could be diverted in the Canadian market or compromise the health and safety of Canadians, or the environment as a result of accidents or spills. For example, labelling requirements for certain goods in transit will enable inspectors, border officers, handlers, and sellers to distinguish between goods destined for import and those just passing through. Such labelling could denote the origin, intended destination, and product safety and handling procedure for goods in transit.

By implementing the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Device Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Canada would improve the flow of goods and services to its border.

The world is more connected than ever before, yet all too often outdated and uncoordinated customs procedures slow down the movement of goods and raise trade costs. Bill C-13 would enable Canada to facilitate custom procedures at home. The TFA will do the same around the world and bring considerable economic benefits to Canada and other World Trade Organization members.

I support Bill C-13 and all the benefits it would bring to Canadians. More specifically, I support it because it would benefit the many small and medium enterprises in my riding of Richmond Hill, such as those in the construction industry, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, service delivery, agriculture, transport, and others.

Although it is a small suburban town, Richmond Hill has huge export and import potential and the residents of Richmond Hill can stand to benefit significantly from the removal of these trade barriers.

I urge hon. members to support this legislation, which would enable Canada to do its part to bring the agreement into force and ensure the health and safety of Canadians and the continued protection of the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, members of the Conservative Party support this legislation as well. It is important and we need to move forward on it.

We are at a critical time internationally, when there are many voices criticizing the idea of open trade and an open economy. Now would be a good time for the government to make up its mind on critical trade deals like the trans-Pacific partnership. We have no leadership from the government on that. People know where the Conservatives stand. People know where New Democrats stand on this trade deal. The Liberals have been in office for close to a year and have continually been punting on this important deal. They refuse to take a position and show any leadership.

Consultations have gone on. It has been a long time. The government has had plenty of time to become familiar with the deal. What is that member's position on the trans-Pacific partnership? When will the government finally decide whether it is going to speak for the idea of open trade or not?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that he and his party are supporting Bill C-13.

On the matter of the TPP, as our government has stated and clearly demonstrated, we continually conduct consultations, and a report on those consultations will be provided. We have clearly stated that this bill or agreement needs to be shared, discussed, analyzed, and its impact on all sectors made clear. We made a commitment to do that and we continue to do that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before moving on to the next question, I would remind hon. members not to address one another directly, but to do so through the chair.

The hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something the member brought up in his speech this afternoon is of particular interest to me, that being the CBSA. Amazing women and men work for the Canada Border Services Agency. They protect our borders and are on the front lines of facilitating trade while enforcing regulations and keeping our country safe. They have an incredibly difficult and challenging job and I thank them for the job they do.

That said, it is clear that they bear the majority of responsibility for imports and exports, as they should, but the agency is severely under-staffed. The agency needs more men and women at the border to be able to prevent the importation of things like diafiltered milk, and the issue we are having around that in particular. When we are talking about expanding the dangerous goods that will be travelling through our country, we need to ensure that the CBSA has all of the tools it needs to be able to do so safely, as the member mentioned in his speech.

Do you believe that the CBSA requires additional support to make our borders more efficient and secure?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before the hon. member for Richmond Hill answers, I am sure the hon. member for Essex did not mean the Speaker, because she was speaking through the Speaker. She did not mean “you”, meaning me. She meant the hon. member for Richmond Hill. I want him to take that into account when he answers that question.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the budget cut by the Conservative government put us in the position we are in. Having said that, our commitment to Bill C-13 is to bring the visibility and oversight that is needed. Actually, we are dealing with the process first. Once the legislation is in place and there is an alignment with the other 92 members, we will take it into consideration for the 2017 budget to ensure that those legislative amendments are supported with the proper resources.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about Bill C-13, legislation that would allow Canada to implement the WTO agreement on trade facilitation, otherwise known as the TFA.

As members may know, Canada played a key role in the negotiation of the TFA at the WTO.

The TFA would enhance the predictability and transparency of customs decisions for traders; expedite the release of goods through the use of modern technologies, such as electronic payment; and increase the efficiency of customs procedures through improved coordination between border agencies. Canada ensured that the TFA would provide a full range of trade facilitation measures while preserving our ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.

Today I would like to speak about some of the legislative amendments that are required for Canada to join the ranks of 92 other WTO members, including the EU, the U.S., and China, that have ratified the TFA. The TFA will enter into force once two-thirds of WTO members, or 110 out of 164 WTO members, have ratified it. Canada needs to do its part to make this happen.

While Canada's customs regime is compliant with the vast majority of provisions in the TFA, certain statutes require amendments in order for Canada to fully implement the TFA and maintain safeguards for the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. These amendments relate to two provisions of the TFA: article 10.8.1, on rejected goods; and article 11.8, on goods in transit, which my colleague addressed.

Today I would like to talk about the amendments required to implement article 10.8.1 on rejected goods. Article 10.8.1 requires WTO members to allow importers to return to the exporter goods that were rejected on account of their failure to meet certain health and other technical requirements unless another means of dealing with the rejected goods is provided for in that country's laws, such as seizure and disposal.

Governments that wish to retain the ability to treat goods other than by allowing their return will need to be able to point to specific provisions in their laws or regulations that provide the authority to do so.

To ensure that the Government of Canada's statutes and regulations comply with this provision while not increasing risk to the health and safety of Canadians and the environment, amendments to five statutes administered by Health Canada are required. Those statutes are the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. Specifically, Bill C-13 identifies criteria under which non-compliant goods could be either returned to the exporter, re-consigned, or seized, detained, forfeited, and/or disposed of by customs.

Bill C-13 would enable Health Canada to deal with seized goods more effectively and in a more harmonized way. What exactly does this mean? It means that non-compliant goods arriving at the border, goods such as drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, food, tanning equipment, children's toys, hazardous products, and pesticides, could be seized and not returned in certain cases. For example, when products pose unacceptable health and safety risks, they could be seized and not returned. In other cases, products could be returned or reconsigned.

These amendments would enhance predictability and transparency in how rejected goods were treated at the border and would help ensure that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment continued to be protected.

By making the proposed amendments, Canada will meet its international obligations under the TFA in respect of article 10.8.1 in dealing with the treatment of rejected non-compliant goods. Bill C-13 would also enable Canada to avoid having to maintain indefinite care and control of non-compliant goods. It would enable Canada to take action to recover costs and to avoid having to maintain indefinite control of non-compliant goods.

I support Bill C-13 and all the benefits it would bring to Canadians. I urge all hon. members to support this bill, which would enable Canada to do its part in bringing this agreement into force and in ensuring that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment remains protected.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch a bit on what the member across the way talked about in terms of hazardous products and pest control products. It is important for us to understand that it is not just that these products travel safely; it is that communities are protected from any potential damage during transport. It is also that the people who work to transport these products across our country are protected and that their health and safety is ensured.

Because Bill C-13 would make some changes in how we would deal with goods in transit and with non-compliant goods, is the member confident that the changes in Bill C-13 would maintain existing health and safety standards for workers who might come into contact with these products?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I honestly do not know that detail. The member mentioned in her speech the importance of looking at this in committee. I expect that any concerns will be brought to light in that environment. Overall, the bill is well worthwhile and will protect the environment in the ways we need to do so.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for this bill. We will probably support this, mainly because we all know that one in five jobs is created by trade. The Asia–Pacific gateway is in my riding of Richmond Centre in British Columbia, so trade is very important to my riding and also to British Columbia.

We support the bill because it would enable Canada to implement the trade facilitation agreement, the TFA, which was concluded under the previous Conservative government. Canadian investors, importers, and exporters of goods, including small and medium-sized businesses, the SMEs, which I have listened to, would benefit from the implementation of the TFA. Also the inactivity of many SMEs as players in international trade has more to do with red tape than with tariff barriers.

Will the Liberals adhere to the recent G7 leaders' declaration and the economic impact report by the Office of the Chief Economist and commit to ratifying the trans-Pacific partnership, independent of the United States?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to hear that the Conservatives support one of our bills. The TPP is an issue that is still under consultation. My riding is certainly affected. There are a lot of exports coming from my riding, even though we are not anywhere near the border, and I will be following this very closely.

I appreciate the question. There is more to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that opposition parties seem to be in support and maybe we could even see it passed, given the comments we have heard. There are 162 countries in the World Trade Organization. Two-thirds need to pass the agreement for it to be ratified. We are getting closer to 108, which then would put it into place. I think just over 80 countries have already ratified it.

Could the member comment on how important it is that Canada ratify it as soon as it is most appropriate for the House to pass it?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously very important to pass this bill and ratify the agreement. We need 140 out of 184 countries to agree to it before it can move forward. Until it is ratified, it is up in the air. It is important that we pass this bill and get on with it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the Environment; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Employment; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Rail Transportation.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-13, which would ensure that Canada meets its obligations under the WTO's trade facilitation agreement. This is something that our party will fully support.

Our previous Conservative government concluded the trade facilitation agreement. We value whatever makes it easier for Canadian companies to conduct their business both here and abroad, because they are our country's best job creators. We value simplifying custom procedures and cutting red tape. We value expediting the release on clearance of goods and reducing the cost associated with processing. Trade must be predictable for Canadian businesses, and this is something that the WTO is good at and which the trade facilitation agreement furthers.

Canadian investors, importers and exporters, and especially small and medium-sized enterprises would greatly benefit from the passage of the bill. Our party will vote in favour of it, because Conservatives know that small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. We saw it as our duty in government to give the support they needed to do business, not just within Canada but also internationally. We understood that our SMEs were doing very well, and Canada prospers when they do well.

International trade is vital to the Canadian economy. It represents more than 60% of our GDP, and one out of five jobs are linked to exports. Without international trade, there would be 3.3 million fewer jobs in Canada, meaning our unemployment rate would skyrocket to 25%. This is why it is absolutely vital that we support our business community. It is also why it is vital for Canada to look beyond the WTO to further our market access around the world.

Before the House rose for the summer, my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, spoke during this debate and gave us a history of the agreement at the WTO. The trade facilitation agreement is part of the Bali package which is a group of outcomes that took about 15 years for well over 100 countries to negotiate, agree, and now to ratify in our respective legislative chambers. It is 15 years and counting, I should probably say, since over 20 countries have yet to pass this agreement after us.

While the timeline for accomplishing anything at the WTO is concerning, it does serve a purpose, the highest of which is the common set of rules it sets that govern international trade. The WTO holds countries to account when they are suspected and found guilty of breaking the rules, and Canada has certainly benefited from this oversight.

Take the softwood lumber dispute for example, or the United States' country-of-origin labelling requirements for beef and pork. Rulings on these issues by the WTO ensured Canada was able to hold the United States to account for its cross-border trade indiscretions and give us the moral authority to demand nothing less than favourable outcomes for the Canadian industry. However, 15 years is a tremendously long time to negotiate an agreement like this, which largely deals with measures with which our own customs regimes already comply.

My colleague, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, also spoke earlier in this debate before the summer recess and alluded to some reasons of why the WTO was a difficult body in which to accomplish anything meaningful in a period of time. It is a large group of countries of very diverse interests and everyone has a veto. It is an organization that values and protects the free flow of goods around the world, but its limitations are evident. That is why the government should follow in the steps of its predecessor and continue to build on Canada's legacy as it supports job-creating industries by pursuing bilateral and smaller multilateral agreements that hold real promise for Canadian exporters and are achievable in the not too distant future.

I have in mind three things: the continuation of the global markets action plan, the ratification of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, and the ratification of the trans-Pacific partnership.

The global markets action plan, or GMAP for short, was a revolutionary yet simple way to think and go about doing international trade with the ultimate goal of nearly doubling the number of Canadian SMEs exporting to emerging markets from 11,000 to 21,000. To do this, the plan called for the government to concentrate its efforts on determining the markets that held the greatest promise for Canadian business by engaging in vigorous trade promotion and ambitious trade policy.

At the heart of GMAP was that it played to the strengths of the business community. A strength of GMAP itself was that it was methodically based on the insight of the businesses themselves that would be the government's partners in the plan.

In order to ensure that the program was built in a way that served Canadian SMEs best, our previous government created an advisory panel comprised of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canaccord Genuity Group, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Alliance Grain Traders, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Cenovus Energy, CGI Group and the University of Alberta.

Contrary to what the current government might think, it does not have a monopoly on the act of consulting. Perhaps the difference is that our previous government consulted in meaningful ways that gave those affected by a policy real input into its creation.

The results of the GMAP exercise with the identification of three party market types with engagement by Canadian officials in each of the countries identified as having potential for Canadian businesses, two of these market types target emerging markets.

As past chair of the Canadian ParlAmericas group, I was able to see first hand what GMAP meant to Canadian business in trying to expand into the Americas.

When I went to Peru in the late 2000's, officials were talking about how the increase in wheat exports were happening there. It showed what happened when all of a sudden farmers were allowed to sell their grain, but also when there were trade agreements in place so they had bankability and knew exactly how to go about selling their grain into Peru and thus the exports approved drastically increased.

To my knowledge, the government has not expressed its intent to work toward growing the engagement of Canadian SMEs in emerging markets under GMAP, and it would be a shame for the government to let down those who actually do trade and export around the world. These are the same people who resoundingly endorsed GMAP. I look forward to hearing from the Minister of International Trade on her plans for this highly-valued policy framework.

The second thing the government should do to help our exporters create jobs is ratify the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This agreement is huge for Canadian exporters because it would give them access to over 500 million affluent customers ready to buy whatever Canada has to offer. It is estimated that CETA could help grow the Canadian economy by adding $12 billion annually to our GDP, which is the equivalent of 80,000 jobs or raising the average family's income by $1,000 annually.

It is imperative that the Liberal government get this agreement across the finish line, and to be frank I am concerned about its action on this file so far.

If reports out of Europe are to be believed, it looks like the agreement is coming apart at the seams and the actions of the government seem to corroborate this, first with the secret reopening of the negotiations to revise the section on investor-state dispute settlement to appeal more to some European interests, and now with the appointment of a new CETA envoy to help get it done. Both of these developments do not beget a lot of confidence within the Canadian business community, but I join with our exporters in hoping that the government meets its target to have the deal signed in October. Perhaps the good news out of Germany today that its chancellor has the necessary votes to proceed with the deal will be a sign of positive things to come for CETA.

The third thing that the government must to do to continue to build Canada's economy and create more jobs is join with our allies in preparing to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership this fall. The TPP is arguably the most important trade agreement of the 21st century. Indeed it is the largest free trade agreement in Canadian history as it would give our exporters access to 800 million customers from 11 different countries. Notably, it would grant us free trade access to the Japanese market which, as the world's third largest economy, is possibly the biggest advantage of the TPP.

The other large advantage of the TPP is that it is good and safe strategy for increased engagement with Asia because it sets the rules of engagement for that region. Increasing our business relationships in that part of the world is imperative for Canada so that we do not fall behind in the global marketplace. A report by the Asia-Pacific Foundation on Canada's Asia strategy says that by 2020, almost two billion people, 1.7 billion to be exact, or 54% of the world's middle class, are projected to spend almost $15 billion annually. That is 42% of the world's total consumption and Canada would be remiss to not prepare for the massive growth that is projected for Asia in the future.

China is undeniably a large part of increasing growth in Asia as a 2011 Asian Development Bank estimation suggests that China will contain about 20% of the world's middle class by 2030. It is also clear that what China demands, Canada has to offer, with our energy and agricultural resources being particularly in demand.

The TPP was developed with the express purpose in mind of some day bringing China into the fold of freer trade on our own terms, with our allies and the force of precedent on our side. Importantly, it treats issues that Canada should be wary of when looking to engage further with China.

Take for example the issue of China's state owned enterprises. Now let me be clear. Our party does not disagree with foreign investment in Canadian industry. Quite the contrary, in fact. However, we do insist that it must occur under the right conditions. Following the purchase of Nexen by the China National Offshore Oil Company in 2012, the previous Conservative government announced a new policy consisting of two elements: limiting further acquisitions of oil sands assets by state owned enterprises; and requiring additional scrutiny of acquisitions by state owned enterprises in other sectors.

China has asked Canada to loosen these restrictions, which should be concerning for Canadian companies, which would face unfair competition within Canada as a result, in addition to other international companies that do business here under globally established laws and norms.

Chapter 17 of the TPP tackles the issue of state owned enterprises as the partner countries agree to ensure that their SOEs operate on the basis of commercial considerations and act in a non-discriminatory manner when making purchases and sales. The chapter commits countries to fair competition and includes rules to generate better transparency with respect to government control over commercial state owned enterprises. By ratifying the TPP before pursuing a free trade agreement with China, Canada will have some clout to ensure that we can achieve outcomes that do not infringe on fair competition within our own economy.

Another area that those pursuing a freer trade with China should be wary of is labour rights. Chapter 19 of the TPP deals with this head on as it contains enforceable commitments to protect and promote internationally recognized labour principles and rights. It ensures that TPP partner countries provide acceptable working conditions in terms of minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational health and safety, and includes commitments to ensuring that national laws and policies provide protection of these fundamental principles and rights.

Non-tariff barriers are also a concern when it comes to doing business with China. Canadian farmers know all too well about the damage non-tariff barriers can cause to our industry. Our canola farmers are still operating under an immense amount of uncertainty as to whether they will be able to continue to sell their crops into China. China has been threatening to block our canola exports, supposedly over concerns of blackleg, and it claims the matter can be resolved if Canadian exporters lower the amount of extraneous plant material in its shipments to below 1%. Our Canadian industry has been telling us that this ruling is not based on solid science and that the current limit of 2.5% is a number that already poses an extraordinarily low risk for blackleg transmission.

The increased time and cost that would have to go into preparing a shipment of canola to be sold in China with a dockage rate of less than 1% is prohibitive for Canadian farmers. Though the Prime Minister announced that the September 1 deadline for this new Chinese regulation had been delayed, this has done nothing the alleviate the future uncertainty for western Canadian canola farmers who are harvesting their co-ops right now as we speak.

Around 40%, or $2 billion, of Canada's canola seed exports go to China, so non-tariffs of this sort can have real consequences for our economy. China has been known to use regulatory barriers in the past to block other Canadian agricultural products, including beef, pork and biotech crops, whether to protect its domestic industry or to strengthen its negotiating position on other issues.

Chapter 7 of the TPP combats non-tariff barriers by affirming each country's rights and obligations under the WTO sanitary and phytosanitary Agreement and by establishing a series of new commitments regarding regionalization, equivalence and science-based analysis. Most important, it also provides increased transparency in the application of each country's SPS regulations, including a requirement that TPP countries notify others of all regulations that may have an effect on trade.

Indeed, the government should really consider the benefits of using the TPP as a springboard towards further trade with China, given the Canadian public's deeply divided sentiment on the matter. Polling numbers released by the Asia-Pacific Foundation to coincide with the Prime Minister's recent trip to China show that an equal number of Canadians both oppose and support a free trade agreement with China at 46% each. We know that those who are hesitant to support more engagement with China do so largely for concerns involving security, human rights and the rule of law. By ratifying the TPP before pursuing free trade with China, the government can begin to negotiate from a position of increased coordination among our allies in the Asia-Pacific region. They say there is safety in numbers, and the TPP means exactly that.

Beyond giving us access to the Japanese market and the tools it offers in preparing for further trade with China, the most compelling reason for ratifying the TPP this fall is that this is an agreement that Canadian businesses want. Our businesses create jobs in Canada and ratifying the TPP will help them create even more. Across the board, in every region of the country, we will find businesses that support increased trade in Asia through the TPP. Those who are supportive include companies in aerospace, agriculture, food processing, auto manufacturing, wine and spirits, fish and seafood, forestry, information technology, pharmaceuticals, medical technology, mining and extractives, financial services and transportation.

By ratifying the TPP, Canadian businesses would be the only G7 exporters to have free trade access to all of the U.S. and Americas, Europe and the Asia-Pacific continents. That is over 60% of the world's economy and every industry and region in Canada would have access to these customers. It is lost on me why the government is continuously delaying the ratification of the TPP.

Besides having Canadian industry tell them to get this deal done, Global Affairs Canada's own chief economist has found that joining the TPP would provide a net advantage to Canada by creating significant new export opportunities, particularly in Japan, while warning of the loss in opportunity Canada would suffer by staying out of the agreement. With the private sector and her own chief economist all touting the benefits of the TPP, it is a mystery as to why the Minister of International Trade continues to go out of her way to avoid ratifying this deal.

International trade is about jobs in Canada. The more markets we have to sell into, the more jobs are created here at home to satisfy the global demand for what Canada has to offer. With our economy losing some 110,000 jobs in June and July, and with the unemployment rate creeping up another tenth of a point in August to 7.0%, the government should be spending more time thinking about ways it can facilitate more trade for Canadian goods and services. It cannot afford not to.

This brings me back to Bill C-13. Canada must continue to work within the WTO framework and support the efforts there towards freer trade around the world. That is why I and my party will be voting in favour of the bill, because in doing so we vote in favour of the Canadian economy and Canadian jobs.

I would also urge the government to use this as an opportunity to seize the international trade file with more vigour than it has shown thus far. The government must be smart about its trade policy and only pursue those agreements that will benefit and create opportunity for those actually practising international trade and employing Canadians. Continuing the important work set out in the global markets action plan, getting CETA across the finish line, and ratifying the TPP before pursuing free trade talks with China will set our economy up for continued growth and prosperity through the years to come.

These are all things that I hope our trade minister gets and understands. As we look forward and look at what is going on in the Canadian economy, we have heard a lot of promises from the Liberal government, promises I think it intends to keep, at least I hope it does. We all remember the commercial with the Prime Minister going down the escalator, talking about how he had a plan for creating jobs here in Canada. That is very important, because we need to create jobs here in Canada.

However, the results have been somewhat lackluster. They are not there. We have lost jobs here in Canada. Our inability to show a clear direction on what we are doing on the trade file has Canadian companies really confused about what their future holds.

A good example is that on TPP the Liberals are dragging their feet, waiting to see what happens in the U.S. However, when it comes to the Asian development bank, they go in headstrong, full steam ahead, with a commitment of close to $1 billion, with no agreement from our allies. The U.S. and Japan are telling us not to be a part of that. Looking at that consideration, Australia belongs to that bank and only gets 4% of the benefit.

There is no commitment for that $1 billion to be spent on any company that generates jobs here in Canada. It is doing what we should not be doing. What we should be doing is working with our allies on all fronts, setting up the proper tools and regulations.

It just creates inconsistency in how businesses are supposed to plan for the future. If we see a consistent message by their ratifying the TPP now, and a strong argument for CETA, and getting that done here in October, that would tell the business community here in Canada to invest. It tells the business community that it will have market access and not just in Europe but in Asia. That is pretty exciting. We will see job growth happening from that. We will see the benefit almost instantaneously.

Why the Liberals are hesitating on this file is beyond me, unless they just do not have a clear vision of what to do in the future.

I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that Bill C-13 is an interesting bill. It is something that should probably go through the House in a matter of 30 seconds. It is a no-brainer.

We are doing the stuff that is required in this bill already at the Canada Border Services Agency, so it is not like we are adding new expertise or new procedures and processes. We will be spending money in other countries to help them get up to the level of conduct that we expect, which is a good thing. As we improve their regulatory processes and combine them or harmonize them with Canadian processes, it makes it easier for our companies to do business in those countries.

I look forward to seeing this ratified and moving forward. I look forward to seeing legislation on TPP, hopefully this fall. I look forward to legislation on CETA so that we can get these trade deals done and move forward with things like the Pacific Alliance and other opportunities that await us in the trade file.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments made by the member opposite. I have to admit, as the member stated when he was observing what the government is doing to add incentive and to add co-operation, especially with those folks at the municipal, regional, and provincial levels, we are doing just that.

In my riding in the past month, we announced the groundbreaking for General Electric, 220 jobs in the Niagara region, and that was based on the co-operation that the Prime Minister was directly involved in, as well as Minister Freeland, to ensure that she understood the package we had available in Niagara, the province of Ontario, and therefore our great nation.

My question has to do with a level playing field and fair trade. Does the member in fact believe that the TPP offers that fair trade, especially when looking through a triple bottom line lens of environment, economics and social, and in comparison to and in competition with those countries that we do trade with? Is that equality actually there? Is it actually fair trade? Is Canada actually on a level playing field? Does the member opposite truly believe that the TPP offers our business community fair trade and that our workforce to be able to compete within that market throughout the globe, as well as its being fair to this great nation?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. If we look at what we have today, we have nothing. There is no agreement. There is nothing in place. There is no ability to get a dispute solved. Is TPP perfect? Probably not. Will it need some improvements down the road? We can bet on it. However, it is a basis to build upon. It gives some bankability and stability. It addresses things like labour rights and the environment that do not exist today in any agreement with those countries.

When we ask, “Is this good for Canada?”, there is no question that this is good for Canada. I would rather have the rules set by these 11 countries as we deal in the Asian basket than trying to do a bilateral deal with China and have rules such that in fact we would not be able to enforce non-tariff trade barriers. This would allow us to do that.

My suggestion, as has been consistent in my speech, is to get TPP done. That would allow the door to open, under TPP, to negotiate with China in a situation that is beneficial for Canada and keeps everything even fairer going into the future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go on, I would like to remind hon. members not to mention other members' names, only their title, their rank, or their riding.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few counterpoints to make to my hon. colleague's remarks before I ask my question. One of them is that Canada already has free trade agreements with four of the major economies in the TPP: the United States, Mexico, Chile, and Peru. The other countries that make up the balance of it are actually relatively small economies.

It has been shown that the average tariff in the world right now, without any tariff agreement, is in the single digits, and of course Canada already can trade with countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, and does so every week without any real problems.

The question I want to pick up on has to do with the question my hon. colleague on the government side asked about human rights. One of the countries involved in the TPP is Brunei. Brunei has adopted a form of sharia law that makes homosexuality punishable by being stoned to death, as well as adultery, for that matter. I know that John Baird, when he was the foreign minister, said that Canada would never tolerate any country that dealt with homosexuality in that way, and he singled out Iran at that time.

I wonder what the Conservative Party position would be, in terms of why he would be advocating giving preferential economic treatment to a country that kills people based upon their sexual orientation. Does he think that is sending the right message from a human rights perspective?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did enjoy my time when the member was on committee. Actually, I will say that when he was on committee, the NDP was pro-trade and went forward on the Korea trade agreement and he was quite helpful in getting that through the legislation. We had a unanimous report out of committee suggesting that we approve that agreement.

With respect to his question, any of those are not acceptable. Canadians will not accept them and the Conservative Party will not accept those things either. However, we need a mechanism to deal with them and economics is one mechanism to deal with them, to basically lay out the line and say, “No, we won't accept that”. We have the ability to work with 10 other countries to tell them that, to raise that standard, to say these are what acceptable human rights are. However, if we do not have an agreement, we have no influence, we have no say, we have no sway.

With respect to the small tariffs, those small tariffs put us at a disadvantage in a huge amount of areas. When we look at it and say, “It's just small tariffs. We already have a trade agreement with four of the bigger countries”, what about these emerging countries like Vietnam? They are emerging. They are going to be big players somewhere down the road. Their middle-class economies are growing. Do we not want to have our companies in there, growing with them? They are going to do business with somebody around the world. Would we not rather have them do business with Canada than somebody else?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the summer I had a chance to hold a round table within my riding, where I had the opportunity to talk with small business owners and medium-sized business owners and really hear what mattered to them. One of the things they brought up was the obstacles in their way with respect to trade.

I also took the opportunity to look at a study that was done across Canada by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. There was a survey that was completed, and again, this was one of their top barriers with respect to generating capital and creating jobs.

I would like the hon. member to comment on how the TPP might actually help solve this problem. Specifically, I am interested in my context, where Lethbridge, Alberta, is a fairly rural area, largely agrarian in nature or agriculture-based. How would the TPP go about facilitating further developments and business capital within our region?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Lethbridge area very well and I thank the member for her question. She does a great job and we are proud to have her here.

I was lucky enough to travel in that region for a company called Flexi-Coil back in my other life, in earlier days, and it is a very astonishing area. Its ability with irrigation, ability with the feed sector, the cattle sector is just phenomenal.

Let us look at the cattle sector, for example. Let us look at stability in the market in Japan so that we have access to that market and a stable process. Let us look at the fact that if there was a dispute, we would have a mechanism that we could go to settle those disputes. Those are things that are necessary in order to maintain a steady trade balance or trade into Japan. We do okay in canola and other crops, but when there is a dispute it is hard to resolve that dispute because we do not have a panel to help resolve it.

When we have TPP in place, we will have bankable access into that market. We can develop those market chains. We take big feedlots that are located south of Lethbridge, in Picture Butte and up to Nanton, Claresholm, and that country. They can look at it and say they have the opportunity to maybe add a few more thousand head to their feedlots in that part, which means more barley sales, which means more green sales. Again, the economic activity just flourishes from that point.

Then when we throw that economic activity into Lethbridge, it goes throughout the rest of Alberta and Saskatchewan, because they buy a lot of goods from other provinces and other areas. They buy a new truck, a new tractor, and a new combine, and we see that economic activity all generated because they had the ability to sell beef to Japan. That is what trade can do.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my comment to my colleague is that the more we delay the decision on TPP, the more hesitant business is. In our province, our premier is currently over in South Korea trying to get business to Saskatchewan.

Could the hon. member talk about the Premier of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall, over in South Korea today signing agreements, hoping to ensure some prosperous business with South Korea?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work and his great questions.

Saskatchewan is a trading province. It has over a million people who grow a lot of grain and a lot of beef. We have resources like potash and uranium.

We have a trade deal now with Korea. We can actually go into that market with confidence knowing that the premier has an agreement in place that he can use for backup in case of any disputes. He also has preferential treatment going to that market, depending on whatever goods he is choosing to promote and sell.

Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership has been around for many years, and that is what they are very good at. When they see a market opening up, they are very good at taking Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises, introducing them to those markets, and helping them go through the process of selling goods in those markets. I think GMAP has also done a great job in identifying and helping SMEs look for those markets.

When we look at this, it is so good for our western economy, so good for the Canadian economy. We see this being promoted by all the premiers and leaders. They are asking for this deal to be done too, so I would encourage the government to just get on with it and get it ratified.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Mount Royal. Having said that, let me get right into the debate and pick up on the member's last comment where he was trying to encourage the Government of Canada to in fact speed up on it.

There was an agreement that was signed off by different ministers at the World Trade Organization in December 2013. We are talking about 162 countries that make up the World Trade Organization. Once it was signed off, in order for it to be implemented, two-thirds, or 108 of those countries, have to ratify it. That is what we are talking about today. We have legislation before us and we want to be one of the countries to ratify it. Right now there are just over 80 countries that have ratified it in one form or another. The essence is there and it has been ratified. We are hoping to demonstrate some leadership by moving it forward.

It is important to recognize that it was not that long ago that we had a change in administration. The Harper government was replaced with the current government, and I would suggest that there has been a new attitude and tone. It is one that has a very aggressive approach in dealing with trade, and it goes far beyond Bill C-13. We have seen that in some of the comments that have been made today by opposition members. However, here we are months later, and now we have Bill C-13 before us. It would appear that all parties are at the very least prepared to see it pass second reading, and it would be most encouraging, as a sign and gesture of goodwill and understanding of the legislation. As one of the New Democratic members of Parliament said, let us get it to committee where we can look at possible amendments or changes.

There is a different attitude once we get to committees. We have a Prime Minister who has been very candid, saying that if members have ideas and thought it through, an amendment that can get the support of a committee is a welcome amendment. I do not know what the restrictions might be specifically on Bill C-13 and what might not be an acceptable amendment, but that is not for me to decide. All I know is that it seems that the Conservatives and the New Democrats would like to see this bill pass. It would be a wonderful thing to see it pass through to committee today. If in fact the opposition members are true to what they are talking about, we would advance it to a committee. It would be nice, and I would suggest it is in fact quite doable. As I indicated, l08 countries need to ratify it in order for it to take effect. Many colleagues, on all sides of this House, have talked about the benefits when this piece of legislation not only passes but the law is in fact administered by the trading organizations or different countries.

In listening to a number of the comments, especially from the Conservatives, I made mention that this government has an aggressive approach to trade. We recognize the value of trade. Trade is what creates good jobs in many different ways. One of my colleagues just made reference to General Electric. There are examples today, and hopefully there will be many more examples into the future, as we look at ways in which that we can enhance trade with countries, whether it is on a multilateral basis or in a very general way. I was quite pleased that the Minister of International Trade signed off on an agreement over the summer in Ukraine. That agreement was not a done deal by the previous administration. There were a number of outstanding issues that had to be resolved, just like CETA. CETA is not a done deal, and we are seeing a lot of problems.

Those problems are not coming from Canada; they are coming from European countries that are having second thoughts. One of the most invited and able-minded individuals at the table is trying to ensure that not only the interests primarily of Canada—we have a bit of a bias—but of the European Union as well are being served to see that this agreement gets back on track. Hopefully through the efforts of this government and other like-minded governments, we will see that pan out.

It is interesting to hear members on all sides of the House talk about the TPP. This is an issue that came up during the election. We were aware of the Conservatives' position during the election. It was clear. It did not matter. Earlier today, I talked about the Conservative Party losing touch with Canadians. The TPP is yet another example of how those members have lost touch with Canadians.

Some might suggest that New Democrats have always been out of touch, but that would be rather harsh. I would suggest that their conclusions on the TPP are premature at best. They have taken the position that we should vote against it no matter what the content, no matter how it might benefit or draw back Canada.

Prior to being elected as the government, we told Canadians that we would review the TPP thoroughly before any sort of decision or vote took place in the House. This government is committed to doing that.

Bill C-13 seems to have substantial support. I do not know where the Bloc or the Green Party stand on it, but it seems to have substantial support. I am encouraged by that, because I recognize, as I am sure most people in the chamber recognize, the value of trade. Canada is a trading nation. That is not new to the Liberal Party. Liberal governments have always made major strides toward enhancing trade. In the dying days of the Paul Martin government, we had a multi-billion dollar trade surplus. In the sixties, we had the auto pact agreement, which generated thousands of jobs. Many of the industries that are here today are because of that trade agreement. We understand and appreciate the importance of trade to Canada's economy, to the vitality and strength of our middle class. This is one of the reasons we are pursuing it aggressively. It would enhance the strength of Canada's middle class and those who want to be a part of it.

I look at industries in my own province, whether it be the pharmaceutical industry, or one of my favourites, the pork industry. Manitoba has more pigs than people. Manitoba exports pork, which is one of many other commodities. This is an industry with which I am quite familiar. I have had the tours and I have seen the wealth that has been created as a direct result of that particular industry. That industry would not be where it is today if it were not for the ability to export. That basic principle applies to every region of our great nation in terms of our ability to export. It is critically important.

We are just months into a new session and we have an important piece of legislation. I understand and appreciate the support that is being offered. I would suggest that the House might even want to see it pass shortly.

I thank the House for the opportunity to share my thoughts. It is always a privilege to share my thoughts on issues such as trade, which is important to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that I went three months without hearing from the member for Winnipeg North. All now seems to be right in the world.

I want to ask the member a question about TPP. This is from Global Affairs Canada's website, from the office of the chief economist. It states:

According to our modelling results, should Canada choose to remain outside the TPP Agreement, and all other current TPP members are parties to it, this is projected to lead to GDP losses of $5.3 billion (US$ 4.2 billion).

In light of that information that his government is making available about the economic losses if Canada does not join TPP, will his government finally be ready to state its position on TPP? If not, would he at least be prepared to tell us when it will make a decision on this important trade agreement?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is in due time, after we have had the opportunity to do what we promised Canadians.

We have been very aggressive on the trade file. All we have to do is look at the summer, where we signed off on the Ukraine trade agreement. The Minister of International Trade has been spending an immense amount of time outside of our country, promoting and encouraging and trying to broker trade agreements, or promoting all of those valuable export opportunities we have here in Canada.

We are very aggressive at defending and selling Canada's potential for exports. A part of that is trade. That is why we have Bill C-13. How many sitting days have we had since the election? There have been 80 or 90 days of actual sitting, and we are already dealing with a bill that the Harper government sat on for a period of time. It was not a long time, in fairness; it was December 2013, but it could have brought in something in 2014 and chose not to.

We have seen a change of attitude, and it ultimately shows that there is more transparency and accountability. We want to make sure that when it comes time to have the debate on TPP in the House that members like me, my colleagues, stakeholders, and Canadians will have had the opportunity to participate extensively in making sure that the right thing is done on the TPP.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister has promised a rigorous debate on the trans-Pacific partnership. She has been out there consulting with Canadians, meeting with people, and listening to pretty much every dissenting voice that is out there. I am wondering where those meetings and the feedback are leading to. I did a town hall on TPP in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, and people clearly did not want to see the TPP move forward as it stands.

My question for the member is this. Is he going to hold a TPP consultation town hall in his riding to hear from people in Winnipeg North? If people in Winnipeg North do not want to see the TPP move forward as it stands, is he going to support it and push it forward? From what I am hearing from people across Canada, there is not support for the TPP as it stands. The member could perhaps tell us a little more, whether he has read the text of the agreement, and how that might affect the decision-making.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an advantage over the member; I have the opportunity to have a choice. He, as a member of Parliament, has no choice on this issue because the NDP, even before there was any real consultation, had already decided it was in opposition to it.

The answer to his question is that I have already had some public meetings, and I will be having another public meeting, in part dealing specifically with the TPP. However, there are other ways that I consult and work with my constituents that go beyond public meetings, even though I have just had two public meetings in the last week or 10 days.

The point is, I have confidence and faith in the government, in particular the minister and the Prime Minister, that they know what they are doing on the TPP. They are allowing Canadians and different stakeholders to provide the input necessary for us to make a smart decision on it.

I am looking forward to an active debate. At least there will be one party in the House that will be open to an actual debate on the issue.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is just a reminder to members to address answers and questions to the chair.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I just want to compliment our colleagues here today in the House, because Canadians are competitive. They have been competitive for decades, centuries. We reinvent ourselves.

I look at my province. We have the best agriculture farmers in the world. Everybody wants our product. Everybody wants a product from Ontario, because we have good workers. We have not talked about that in the House, but Canadians are one of the best in the world at producing, one of the best in the world at manufacturing. I think that is something that we should be proud of in this country. We have not talked enough about it in the House here.

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

Madam Speaker, I will say through you that the member should not stop there. He should not stop with manufacturing. Let us think about the farmers.

When we did that cross-country tour, I saw what was taking place in Alberta and I saw what was taking place in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I know what takes place in southwestern Ontario. When I took that trip from Montreal to Quebec and saw the innovation that is taking place there, I saw that we have so much to be proud of. Just spending time in the Maritimes and seeing how our fishing industry is rebounding again, we could go on and on. We have the finest institutions in our education system. We have schools that people from across the world are dying to get into. We have so much to offer. We have nothing to fear. I believe that as a nation, given the chance, when we compete, we will succeed.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question that I think my colleague will appreciate.

The member's riding is a riding steeped in trade history. It used to be the home of the Canada Southern Railway, the Cayuga Subdivision, and the CSX from Blenheim to Sarnia. These are all major lines that were very important to southern Ontario.

Could the member address how losing many of these lines has affected trade in his area?

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

Madam Speaker, I think most of us would agree that the times they are a-changing. What was once the best mode of transportation is no longer the best mode of transportation.

I sometimes wonder when I travel down the 401, for instance, and I see all of those trucks, if we are doing this the right way. That is what we can do as Canadians. The trucking industry is another one that I failed to mention, and I should have. I once chaired a caucus called the trucking caucus.

We talked about Adam Smith, the unguided hand. This is an area where, and this is the beauty of it, if we are involved in trade that is unfettered, where everyone gets an opportunity, somebody is going to come along with an improvement in trucking or rail. We can start to do those things. That is why I get excited when I think about free trade. That is why I get excited when I go across the country and see the innovation and all the great minds that are involved in this enterprise.

Again I say, we have nothing to fear. We will move forward.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-13. As New Democrats, we support getting the bill to committee, but there are some serious questions that need to be addressed at committee.

Over more than a decade, I have seen an almost juvenile debate against trade or for trade. All these things turn off many Canadians, because they understand that trade created this country. Even in terms of the foundation of this country, there were different items that allowed for trade and sale. Some of the most severe, for example, were related to slavery. Canada and the British Empire were one of the first to end that trade practice, despite our neighbours to the south who continued that practice. It is part of the heritage of the area of Windsor West, which was the end of the Underground Railroad, where people came for freedom. They were a commodity.

Trade is ingrained, in a much more social fabric, and is part of our history.

Bill C-13 is very important and we should not underestimate it. Those who think it is just a maintenance bill have to go no further than reading the acts it is amending. The Food and Drugs Act is obviously very important for our health and items related to our food chain.

The Hazardous Products Act is significant. I come from a community where more than 30% of our daily trade with the United States goes along two kilometres of the border, and in that two kilometres, we fight daily to make sure that hazardous material crosses on a ferry system, in full compliance with the law, versus going over a bridge, where there is no way to get fire services to put out a fire in a truck that has chemicals or other things that should not be there. Unfortunately, in that process, some people in trucking institutions change the placard that says that it has dangerous or hazardous materials and has to cross at certain crossings. They will change that placard by taking it off or putting another one on to hide it so they can cross the border. Nobody sees them, at times, until they get to the other side. If there is such a thing as a spill, there is no containment and capture on the Ambassador Bridge. It seeps into our drinking water.

Another act needing amendment is the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. Nuclear waste is a significant issue that we as a country, and many other countries across the globe, have not taken seriously enough. I fought a campaign about four years ago to stop Great Lakes nuclear waste items, which were not emitters themselves but were contaminated from the work they did, from going on ships across the Great Lakes. Exposure would be like standing by the shore and getting an X-ray.

Imagine if there had been any problem with the turbines and they ended up in the Great Lakes. There was no recovery system for them. However, they were then to go all the way across the ocean to Scotland to be worked on, basically to be melted down, to be consolidated in a more solid form and come back across more highly radiated but smaller. We would end that process.

The point I am making is that even during the creation of nuclear waste, these items that we are amending through this process could even involve hospital things, the secondary nuclear waste. This relates to the current campaigning that we are working on right now, because the government has on the table a proposal to store secondary nuclear waste for up to 100 million years right next to the Great Lakes.

This waste material is to be put down a shaft the length of the CN Tower within a kilometre of the Great Lakes for 100 million years, and only three of these in the world. Two are closed in Germany, and the third in New Mexico caught fire a couple of years ago and radiated some of the people working there.

Therefore, the single-source location for this experiment is something that we have opposed. A more progressive and thoroughly exhaustive approach to dealing with this nuclear waste is needed, as opposed to just saying, “Okay, we're going to put here, we'll give you some cash, you guys deal with this. You'll get some jobs, hooray, and we'll leave this for somebody else 100 million years from now to deal with”. Even the most stringent heavy nuclear waste facility could only last 10,000 years at best with the estimates they are making. Therefore, these issues that we can change here with Bill C-13 are very important.

The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act is another issue that would change here. It worries me, with the bill before us, and I want to see some of the testimony that comes forward. The background work that I have done on some of the counterfeit and knock-off items that are coming into Canada and also being used across the world relates to the proposed legislation, which would potentially make it easier for the movement of those materials.

People might think right now that maybe it is just a knock-off of a favourite Marvel t-shirt, sports t-shirt, or whatever it might be. It is not a big deal for them. However, when we look at the data and the research, often the people making those things are children. Instead of going to school, they are being exploited to produce those items.

At one time this parliament had an all-party committee that I co-chaired with Dan McTeague, a Liberal at the time, and we had a Conservative member, James Rajotte, formerly of the Canadian Alliance and then Conservative Party. We had several meetings on the types of items, and it was not just those handbags and t-shirts. There were counterfeit items, like circuit boards, which were in hospitals. They had CBS standards stamped right on them. Therefore, installers, electricians, and others could not determine which were the knock-offs versus the others. We heard about other types of issues, including plane and automotive parts getting into the manufacturing assembly process.

Why, when we look at Bill C-13, is this very important? It is because we are amending some other acts that would increase some of the trade, which can be good for jobs and can be good for some of the processing that we do in this country, but it comes with some risks. How do we mitigate the risks?

What I mean by that is the fact that we only screen about 4% of the containers coming into our ports in this country. We have around 10,000 trucks going through the Windsor-Detroit corridor per day. We have a compliance rate that is one of the best in the world, and an oversight rate that is among the most stringent.

Meanwhile, we only screen 4% of the containers coming in to ports like Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver. We have heard about a number of different things, as I mentioned, related to knock-offs and counterfeits. In that, we also have drugs, some of them are not just illicit drugs but prescription drugs that are getting across the border. This act also calls for issues related to the Pest Control Products Act, chemicals that are listed in Canada. The act would now make us compliant with the WTO. With all those goods and services coming into Canada, it would give us the provision to do some screening, and I would argue that we would actually have better response. We could send them back, store or keep them, or we could redistribute them.

I have been supportive, to a degree, of that type of thing, and I will give my Conservative colleagues credit on this. I had a bill on invasive carp in the last session of Parliament, and it was passed through regulations. We had a big campaign on it. The bill was about allowing invasive carp that come from the United States into Canada to be seized by CBSA officers. Without waiting for Fisheries and Oceans officials, because in certain areas we do not have those people, the CBSA officers could then send those fish back to the United State right away or destroy them.

Here is a quick lesson for people. Invasive carp stand high when they are stood up. They eat everything so that nothing else gets food. It is an invasive aquatic species that has destroyed the Mississippi River and the heritage there, and it is sold illegally in Canada. It is seen as a delicacy, and there are other types of uses. We have been fighting to keep this out. There is an electrical fence in the Mississippi to try to keep them out of the Great Lakes, but they come across into Canada.

My bill, with some penalty improvements and a number of things, was graciously accepted by the then government and it was implemented. Now we do not have to wait for Fisheries and Oceans officials to come before sending back the invasive carp. As an interesting side issue, the reason it is so important is that the invasive carp, like the Asian carp, can live in packed ice for 48 hours. They have “zombie-like characteristics”. They can be taken out of the ice, thrown into a tank, and they will wake up. The danger is that they are not just getting into the Great Lakes but into Ontario with its thousand-plus lakes, and in other lakes across this country. They are stored in ice to be sold to market, but some people have been releasing them into those lakes. If they happen to be females that are going to give birth, we have a real risk there, and we are seeing this more.

My point is that with this new bill, it will be interesting to see some of those things taking place. However, my concern is about the workers and the obligations of sending illicit products into our country that have a high degree of risk. With this agreement, we would get that type of a benefit, but here is the drawback, and it is a serious one. If Canada is not the point of destination for something that is not approved, we have to allow it to be moved to another point. Someone could be shipping something that, for example, contains mercury that is legal in another country, or perhaps asbestos, which is another banned substance. That has been in everything from drywall to crayons for kids. These materials that are not regulated in Canada then escape our laws here and they move through. That is a best-case scenario.

That is assuming that there is no potential for those products to get further into Canada through our systems, whether by rail, plane, car, truck, or any way whatsoever. We have to rely upon the shipper to do that.

We have talked a bit about trade and competition and other things like that. I saw the Prime Minister in China. I want members to think about this. I have heard the same argument over and over again, that if we could just make sure that we have access to China and other countries, they will change their practices, they will not use children, they will not use cheap awful labour with humanitarian discrepancies, and they will not use the environment basically as a subsidy for production.

One of the things I am most proud of, and I give credit to the Liberals for eventually changing this, is that it used to be legal in Canada for an environmental fine or penalty to be a business-related expense. That is what happened. I arrived in Parliament in 2002-03. I could not believe it. Individuals could get half of their money back from a fine or a penalty. This was a judge's ruling. Say for example that a company poisoned a river and was later fined for doing so. That company could claim up to 50% of the fine as a business-related expense. There were drug cases involving illicit drugs on the market that were marked wrong and were sold to men, women, and children in Canada. Those companies were later fined for marketing infringements. Unbelievably they could claim up to 50% of that fine as a business-related expense. That is unbelievable. It would be like a person receiving a $100 speeding ticket and then getting $50 back because they were on their way to work and it could be put down as a business-related expense. That is the way the law worked when I arrived here.

Think about this. It was a bigger argument than just the injustice of that. It was the injustice to the fair competitor who was doing the right thing, the company that was not draining oil in the auto shop out back, the company that was not processing meats and other products and disposing of them and not making sure viruses were not taking place. It was the farming community that did not use pesticides and other types of operations as a subsidy versus their competitors using illegal activity. They would have to compete against this illegal activity. We still see this behaviour taking place. I give the Liberals credit for this. At that time it was the Canadian Alliance, the precursor Conservative Party. We all finally agreed on a motion that I made at the industry committee. We did not budge from it and it was changed in the budget, so that is no longer the case. It is about fair practices. That is why Bill C-13 is going to be interesting; it relates to fair practices in China and other places.

I will quote from an organized crime research brief. Some people might think that this is a New Democrat conspiracy using a document from Public Safety Canada, a review that it had in our courts on organized crime. The number one methods and techniques used by organized crime groups include smuggling methods and concealment techniques such as the use of shipping containers, concealing contraband among legitimate imported goods by using fraudulent shipping documents, and the use of transit countries and co-operation among different criminal groups. That is the problem. Therein lies some of the challenges in terms of the use of those containers that we currently have a problem on, but only at 4%. They could contain lead toys, materials not approved by Health Canada, or other materials that should not be in our consumption stream.

This is a serious piece of legislation. It is about Canada competing with other countries. It is also about Canada competing with other rules that may or may not sync up with our values.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very far-ranging and knowledgeable speech. He comes from Windsor and I know he has done an incredible amount of work on both sides of the border to help facilitate greater understanding between Canada and the United States, and of course in nurturing that very important trade relationship.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elaborate on the implications he sees in this legislation for opportunities to enhance Canada's relationship with the United States. We have been talking about the TPP and CETA being other trade arrangements with other countries of the world, but Canada and the United States always will remain the number one trading relationship for our people.

Does he see opportunities or challenges in respect to this legislation with respect to the Canada-U.S. trade relationship?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question is very important and is one that I did not get a chance to discuss. As we are increasing our trade, which is good, we also require the same investment for our processing and our infrastructure. That is critical, because right now we are deficient on both fronts.

We are trying to build a new border crossing in Windsor, which was supposed to be built in 2013 and now has been delayed for the RFP process because they want to do a public-private partnership indefinitely. That is giving a lot of people cold feet, because the RFP has been sitting in a box, so to speak, for seven months.

We have to invest in those allocated resources necessary for infrastructure, but also CBSA. Our men and women, who are not only checking the devices and the things coming in, but are very important in protecting against organized crime. Put the workers who were laid off back to work. They were doing investigative work with the CIA, the FBI and the RCMP.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time for government orders has expired and therefore the member will have approximately eight minutes left for questions and comments when the House takes on the topic again.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Windsor West has eight minutes remaining on debate. Questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I was here last night and listened to the member's interesting speech about the trade issue.

In this debate, we have been covering a number of different aspects of the trade discussion. I want to ask the member about the issue of consultation on the TPP. One of the criticisms we have heard from the NDP is that this discussion supposedly happened in secret.

I have with me a list of more than 150 different stakeholders who were directly engaged in the conversation throughout the negotiating process. They signed non-disclosure agreements and were able to be part of the discussion. The member knows that.

The reality is that when there are international trade negotiations, those negotiations cannot be held in public because of commercially sensitive information that is discussed. However, there were many different stakeholders involved throughout the process.

Does the member recognize that reality and that bringing many different key Canadian stakeholders into the discussion and doing so in a way that respects the reality of commercial sensitivities is an appropriate way to conduct negotiations?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I actually did not raise the TPP during my speech, but I would be happy to answer.

The concerns the NDP members have raised, and they are concerns brought to us by many stakeholders, not just here in Canada but at the beginning of the discussions on the TPP, were that they were done in private and created an agreement that, basically, we cannot amend right now.

Let us imagine that someone went to buy an automobile—my personal preference, in terms of my riding, would be a Pacifica—and in trying to negotiate the sale was given a contract, with the only option being to sign that contract.

Later on, when there were discussions and hearings, as we are having, we heard concerns that people were not consulted during the creation and have no avenue to deal with the issue.

I would continue to at least look at some of the benefits and some of the challenges we have. On Bill C-13, I have talked a lot about organized crime and the exposure of our ports, with goods and services coming into Canada, which would expand, as would the problems we have with organized crime.

Interestingly, we are going to have a chance in this chamber very soon to deal with a bill on organized crime. It is my private member's bill, Bill C-221, which is up for a vote on Wednesday. That bill alone will end a $10-billion annual benefit, in cash, for organized crime in Canada alone, and $4 billion in Canadian money that goes offshore.

We can affect things right here, right now. This bill, C-13, will have further challenges if we want to tackle organized crime.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-13 is about a meeting that took place among the World Trade Organization members. Some 160-plus countries came together, recognizing that there was a need to facilitate an agreement to ensure that the world would be better off in terms of trade.

Two-thirds of those countries need to approve the agreement, signed in December 2013, to ultimately implement it. Since June, just over 80 countries have ratified it.

Bill C-13 is about ratification by Canada so that we accept what is being proposed. My understanding is that the New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-13 going to committee.

Is the member aware of any amendments he might want to share with the House that he believes should be brought forward at the committee stage?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, there will be amendments, and there will also be concerns raised with regard to the ports, where the volume of traffic coming into the ports is only checked at 4%. I submitted evidence yesterday, including from the minister's organization, the Public Safety Canada report that talked about how only 4% of containers that come into Canada are checked for contraband or illegal goods and how organized crime uses this as the number one element to get goods into Canada.

Interestingly enough, what was in the government report was the fact that contraband and illegal goods were mixed together, and this is something we will have to deal with. To summarize, we are going to need the proper resources. Instead of the government neglecting and cutting Canada Border Services Agency positions, we need to invest in it to ensure safety for CBSA personnel and for our country.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-13 would amend several pieces of legislation, and during yesterday's debate the member for Windsor West raised a series of points to consider related to trade and organized crime. Could he expand on these concerns?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have raised this extensively because Bill C-13 would amend several pieces of legislation that deal with everything from poisons, to hazardous material, to other potential contraband coming into Canada. Organized crime uses this as a serious plank for operations, and that is why I spoke earlier about my private member's bill that will be up for a vote on Wednesday to send it to committee. It deals with single event sports betting in Canada, which amounts to $10 billion annually that goes to organized crime base, minimum. Last time, Joe Comartin's bill passed to the Senate, and since then there has been about $50 billion of estimated gaming revenue going to organized crime, with no public good.

There is $4 billion that goes offshore for other types of practices as well, and people are asking for regulation. This chamber will have a chance on Wednesday to strike first and fast at organized crime's number one tool, and I am hoping Bill C-13 could be the second tool for that issue.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I would like to thank my hon. friend from Windsor for all his work on Bill C-221. It is an excellent proposal and I look forward to voting on it on Wednesday.

Today, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the organization that made the agreement on trade facilitation, known as the TFA, happen: the World Trade Organization.

The TFA is the first multilateral agreement concluded since the creation of the WTO over 20 years ago and is a notable success for both the organization and the multilateral trading system.

As an export-driven economy, one in five Canadian jobs depends upon exports and over 40,000 Canadians companies abroad. The WTO has played an important role in helping to liberalize trade, and trade liberalization remains vital to Canada's future.

For these reasons, Canada has been a key player in the development of robust international trade rules since the 1947 beginnings of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which later became the WTO.

The WTO remains a cornerstone of Canada's trade and investment policy and serves as a backstop against protectionism. The continued enhancement of global trade rules benefits Canada and the international community as a whole.

The WTO provides an important and effective forum for settling trade disputes, which has dealt with 500 cases in just over 20 years.

Today, 98% of global trade takes place under the WTO rule book, and the WTO's 164 members actively monitor each other's trade measures against those rules in order to improve transparency and avoid protectionism.

It is a system that continues to deliver results, as evidenced by decisions in Canada's challenge of the U.S. COOL rules; that is, country of original labelling.

The WTO delivers results in other areas too, such as the Nairobi package announced at the 10th WTO ministerial meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, late last year, which included discussions on issues important to developing and least-developed countries, including the elimination of trade-distorting export subsidies and conclusion on the expanded Information Technology Agreement, the ITA.

Once implemented, the ITA will eliminate tariffs on certain information technology products that represent around 10% of global trade, which is about $1.3 trillion annually.

The Minister of International Trade participated in the 2015 ministerial conference, where she talked about the importance of inclusive growth and shared prosperity for both developed and developing countries. We want trade and opening up of markets to help raise standards of living, empower women, and protect the environment.

The WTO better helps to integrate developing countries into a global trading system and ensures that they derive real, tangible benefits from it. The WTO also provides the technical assistance required to help improve their trading capacities.

The TFA, a multilateral undertaking, was successful in large part due to the flexibility it allows in the way new commitments are taken on, which has proven to be a crucial ingredient for the WTO's recent successes. It allows developing WTO members to implement commitments in ways commensurate with their capacity.

Under the TFA, developing members are able to divide commitments into those they can implement immediately, those for which they will require extra time, and those requiring both additional time and technical assistance. Developed economies are to facilitate the provisions of technical assistance.

Canada is well positioned to assist developing WTO members in implementing the TFA's provisions and has been refocusing development programming to promote trade facilitation reforms.

Key examples of our efforts include contributions to the World Bank's trade facilitation support program and the new Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation.

The World Bank's trade facilitation support program is a multi-donor program that helps developing countries implement trade facilitation reforms in a manner consistent with the World Trade Organization's TFA. Canada donated $2 million to this worthwhile initiative.

The Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation, launched in December 2015, is an innovative public-private platform to ensure effective trade facilitation reforms in developing countries measured by real-world business metrics.

The key innovation of the alliance is to leverage private expertise to identify, validate, and support practical reforms that simplify customs procedures, reduce border wait times, and reduce trade costs—to which Canada contributed $10 million, as a founding donor.

The TFA has attracted widespread support from Canadian and international stakeholders, including the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and a large number of agriculture and agri-food business associations.

The TFA will only enter into force once two-thirds of WTO members have ratified the agreement. Some 92 members have already ratified the TFA. This includes our major trading partners—the United States, the European Union, China, and Japan—and Canada is expected to follow suit expeditiously. An additional 18 ratifications are required for the TFA to enter into force.

The statutory amendments contained in Bill C-13 are required to allow Canada to ratify this agreement. These amendments are designed to protect the health and safety of Canadian consumers and workers, as well as the environment, in the event that goods in transit are diverted into the Canadian market, and to clarify practices related to the treatment of rejected goods.

Canada is committed to making the world more prosperous and helping the poorest and most vulnerable reap the poverty-reduction benefits of economic growth. Canada can do its part by ratifying the TFA as quickly as possible.

I urge all hon. members to support the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-13 that will enable Canada to do our part to bring this agreement into force.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from St. Catharines for his speech. We have better wine in Sherwood Park, but I hope he passed a good summer all the same.

As I have been asking other Liberal members, I want to ask the member this as I would like to hear his perspective. Does he support the trans-Pacific partnership? It has been a year. I think he probably has some opinion on it. If he is not ready to say, when does he expect we will know the government's opinion? Does he think we will have to wait until after the Liberals see what the Americans are doing, or does he think his government will be prepared to lead before that?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to address the comment about better wine. Those are fighting words.

Now I will address his question on the trans-Pacific partnership. The Government of Canada is engaging Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We are maintaining an open mind. I am as well.

I do have concerns. I have heard from constituents in St. Catharines. Many of my constituents are auto workers, and there are some concerns related to that. However, I am confident that my colleagues on the international trade committee and my colleagues in the Government of Canada are working hard and listening to all stakeholders. I am keeping an open mind and I look forward to their reports.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly some members know about better “wining” than others.

It is clear that the member gave a good speech today. I am interested in Bill C-13 going to committee. I do want to highlight this in light of some of the broader bills over the last number of years that have avoided committee.

The member for St. Catharines knows very well the importance of the auto sector. I would like to congratulate Unifor for reaching a tentative agreement with General Motors this morning, which will now go to an actual ratification vote.

Perhaps the member can highlight the importance of the automotive sector for his region, the importance of those jobs, and especially how committee can play a role to look at the potential issues we have to deal with, related to Bill C-13 and making sure the auto sector is thriving for this country.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, St. Catharines' largest private employer is General Motors, which currently produces engines for export. It has been a long-standing relationship. Therefore, St. Catharines understands the importance of an export-based economy.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising the point. The negotiation between General Motors and Unifor was exceptional news to wake up to this morning. It is a tentative agreement, which does need to be ratified by the members of Unifor. However, it shows General Motors' commitment to Canada. It shows that it hears what the government is saying with respect to investing in Canada and that Canada is open for business.

With respect to the member's point about a committee studying that, I look forward to the committee's review of this, and hearing the recommendations, if any, with respect to ways of improving or helping the automotive sector, as it is important to both Niagara and Windsor.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a new and different attitude toward the whole idea of trade and its importance. We are debating Bill C-13 today, and over the summer we reached a wonderful trade agreement with Ukraine. We have a very proactive government.

Would the member want to provide some further comment on the trade issue?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government understands the importance of trade. Recently in Niagara, General Electric has decided to build a brilliant new facility. This new factory is being built, which is incredible and has not been seen in Ontario in a while.

The government remains committed to trade, and Bill C-13 is part of that commitment.

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

Madam Speaker, our government strongly believes that trade can serve development objectives by fostering expanded economic opportunity, productivity, and growth in Canada and around the world. The high costs of international trade disproportionately affects developing nations and the least developed countries in particular. Our government is focusing on initiatives that can both support and sustain global growth and poverty reduction, including the ratification of the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade facilitation, known as the TFA.

The TFA would streamline the flow of goods across borders by cutting red tape. It would simplify the documentation required to clear goods at the border and streamline the procedures used by border agencies. All traders would benefit from faster, simpler, and more predictable trade at the border, which translates into lower trade costs. Governments would benefit from more efficient border procedures, fewer opportunities for corruption at the border, and increased revenue collection. Lowering trade costs can increase trade, contribute to a higher national income, and reduce poverty. Countries that do more to lower trade costs, for instance by improving logistics, tend to grow more rapidly.

Most economic gains from the TFA would flow to developing countries, as developed countries, including Canada, are already compliant with the vast majority of the TFA's provisions.

Another benefit of the TFA is that is supports economic diversification in the developing world. TFA implementation could enable developing countries to both expand the types of products exported and the new markets they reach. According to the World Bank, the number of new products exported by less developed countries could increase by up to 35%. Developing economies would require technical and capacity-building assistance to implement the TFA reforms and reap the resulting poverty reduction benefits.

The TFA would allow developing countries to implement the TFA based on their capabilities and to identify their needs for assistance. It also requires developed WTO members to provide the practical support necessary to meet them. In fact, the World Bank has found that trade facilitation projects have some of the biggest returns on investment among development efforts. According to the World Bank, reducing supply chain barriers and speeding up border administration could increase GDP six times faster than tariff elimination.

Canada is well positioned to provide this assistance, having provided nearly $47 million in funding for trade facilitation assistance through a range of bilateral, regional, and multilateral programs from 2010 to 2015. For example, Canada is contributing $12 million in trade facilitation assistance, about 10% of the project's total funding, to the trademark East Africa integrated border management initiative. This initiative will significantly reduce border delays and trade costs between East African Community members—Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and South Sudan—by establishing a single customs territory and supporting improvements to border and custom management practices.

Prior to this endeavour, multiple customs declarations were required on both sides of each EAC border and clearance and payment of goods could only be completed upon arrival at the destination. Clearing customs was a slow process. This trade facilitation initiative helps integrate customs procedures through automation and the establishment of a one-stop border post. Ports in the EAC now operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As a result, average cargo clearance times have been reduced from three days to eight hours within the EAC.

Results like these have the potential to lift millions out of poverty. TFA implementation could replicate results like these elsewhere.

The TFA's potential will be fully shown when it enters into force. This will only occur once two-thirds of the WTO members have ratified it. To date, 92 of the required 110 WTO members have ratified this agreement. The legislative amendments contained in Bill C-13 would enable Canada to ratify the TFA to help bring it into effect as soon as possible.

To enable Canada to do its part in unlocking the benefits of this agreement, I strongly urge all members of the House to support Bill C-13.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague speak a bit about economic development, and development in Africa specifically.

I want to ask my colleague for his perspective on the government's participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The government has signalled that it is interested in putting millions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars into a Chinese-dominated infrastructure bank. Does he think it would be better to use those resources in concert with like-minded democratic allies to promote development and infrastructure in a way that reflects our values, including protection for basic human rights, for the environment, and these kinds of things? Does he think it is better for us to work to advance trade and development in concert with countries that share our values, or to do it in concert with countries who do not?

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

Madam Speaker, trade across the world and the trade our country has done over many decades has been done carefully. We like to trade. Canada is a trading nation. Trading with partners that we sometimes may disagree with gives us the ability to have those conversations, to engage with them rather than isolate them. It allows us to have a meaningful dialogue with countries that sometimes do not have the same values as us.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, this being my first speech in the House as the session begins, I would like to start by welcoming our pages, who are new to the job, on behalf of all my colleagues, whom I encourage to be patient.

I would also like to thank my colleague for his speech and ask him a question.

The trade facilitation agreement, the TFA, is good for small and medium-sized enterprises. The World Bank estimates that women own between 8 million and 10 million of the SMEs in emerging markets, or 31% to 38% of all SMEs in the market. However, the average growth rate of women-owned businesses is much lower than that of SMEs run by men.

Can my colleague tell us more about how the WTO will support implementation of the TFA in developing countries? Will that support specifically involve promoting and improving access to capital for women entrepreneurs in developing countries?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure of the exact question, but I believe the member asked if Canada is working with the WTO to help get more women and more disadvantaged groups to benefit from this agreement. I can assure the member that if that is the question, our government is working with our partners to make sure that we have more inclusive trading relationships, to make sure that disadvantaged groups such as women and indigenous groups are involved and benefit from these agreements. Our government is committed to that.

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

Madam Speaker, could the member share his thoughts with the House on why this is an important piece of legislation? We have the World Trade Organization. This is a trade facilitation agreement that was signed in December 2013. From what I understand, this is the first time this organization has come forward with something like this, and we need to get a certain number of countries to ratify the agreement. The way to ratify it is for us to pass the legislation. It is important that this legislation passes, because it would give a vote of confidence to the World Trade Organization

[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.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-13 would change how Canada deals with goods in transit and non-compliant goods, including hazardous products and pest control products. There are several small manufacturing businesses in my riding that work tirelessly to protect their employees and to encourage growth. The NDP wants to see some of these small and medium-sized businesses flourish with agreements like this.

Is my colleague confident that the changes proposed in Bill C-13 will maintain existing health and safety standards for workers who may come into contact with these products?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for being a strong advocate for the safety and health of people in her riding. We take that seriously as members of Parliament.

A lot of work and effort is being put into making sure that we are protecting our citizens in these kinds of trade negotiations. The one thing we are focused on, in addition to the concerns that my colleague is bringing to the table, is reducing the barriers that so many SMEs have right now in getting their goods and services across the border. From talking with small businesses in my own riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, which not only borders Ontario but is also close to the U.S., the reality is that they are being hit really hard by the excessive trade expenses in trying to get their goods and services into other markets.

I am proud that what we are really ensuring here is a reduction of that burden on small and medium-sized businesses, which currently, as we all know, are suffering all across the country.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today on the World Trade Organization's trade facilitation agreement, commonly referred to as the TFA, and Bill C-13.

Trade facilitation generally refers to the simplification, harmonization, and standardization of the controls governing the movement of goods across national borders. In Canada, this generally covers policies and measures implemented by the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, and partners that operate at the border, such as Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The TFA is designed to make trade faster, cheaper, and more predictable, as a lack of transparency, multiple documentation requirements, and lengthy clearance processes increase trade costs. Global value chains, just-in-time delivery systems, e-commerce, and the fast nature of transactions today require quick and reliable border crossings and clearance processes.

Since simplified trade procedures benefit all trade partners, trade facilitation reforms are best addressed on a multilateral basis. The WTO TFA helps provide a global foundation that will extend trade facilitation, modernization, and its benefits to WTO members once it enters into force.

WTO members started negotiations toward a TFA in 2004, and negotiations concluded in December 2013. This major accomplishment was a major gain for the global trading community and the WTO, as global trade rules were developed to expedite the movement, release, and clearance of goods.

The WTO estimates that trade costs will be reduced by an average of over 14%, including an average reduction of nearly 17% for least-developed countries, and that the implementation of the TFA could boost global merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion, including up to $730 billion for developing countries. Even in the event that some WTO members do not move to fully implement the TFA, the real-world impact will be significant. Mechanisms are in place to assist developing countries to implement the TFA.

The implementation of the TFA would benefit Canadian traders by expediting, streamlining, and enhancing the predictability of customs and border procedures for their exports to developing countries, which translates into lower trade costs. The benefits are expected to be most significant for small and medium-sized enterprises for whom trade costs are disproportionately high. The implementation of the TFA by developing countries could help Canada's SMEs increase their export presence in emerging markets, from Latin America and the Caribbean to Africa and Southeast Asia.

The TFA will enter into force once ratified by two-thirds of the WTO members. As of today, 92 of the required 110 WTO members have ratified the TFA. That includes Canada's major trading partners, the United States, the European Union, China, and Japan. The sooner the TFA can enter into force, the sooner the global trade community will be able to reap its benefits.

Canada is already compliant with most of the TFA's provisions. The proposed amendments within Bill C-13 would allow Canada to implement two specific provisions of the TFA while maintaining safeguards on the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. Bill C-13 proposes amendments to six Canadian statutes, which fall under the responsibility of Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, in order to ensure compliance with the TFA. Bill C-13 would lead to greater consistency in how goods are treated at the border and facilitate the transit of goods through Canada.

More specifically, Bill C-13 addresses two specific TFA provisions: one, article 10.8.1, which deals with the treatment of non-compliant goods rejected at the border; and two, article 11.8, which deals with goods in transit.

Article 10.8 of the TFA requires WTO members to allow importers to return to exporters goods rejected on account of their failure to meet certain health and other technical requirements. It also includes an exemption, which allows a WTO member to dispose of non-compliant goods in alternative ways, where this is provided for in its laws.

Bill C-13 would identify criteria under which non-compliant goods could be either, one, returned or re-consigned, or two, seized, detained, forfeited, or disposed of. The proposed amendments would provide Canada with the necessary authority to take action regarding certain non-compliant goods shipped to Canada, including in order to avoid having to maintain indefinite care and control of non-compliant and dangerous goods.

Amendments designed to ensure compliance with TFA article 10.8.1 are proposed to the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.

Bill C-13 would also enable Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to comply with article 11.8 of the TFA. This provision prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point; for example, goods in transit.

Currently, certain provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, prohibit the transit through Canada of certain goods that do not comply with Canadian technical regulations. Bill C-13 would create the legal authority to allow the government to exempt goods in transit through Canada from these technical regulations, thus helping to facilitate trade.

For some of these statutes, conditions would be imposed which, among other things, first, would identify goods in transit that may not comply with Canadian technical regulations in the event that the goods are diverted into the Canadian market and, second, provide oversight on products, such as certain pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs, not captured under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, which are currently not permitted to transit through Canada but will be, once the TFA is implemented. This oversight maintains safeguards protecting the environment and the health and safety of persons who may come into contact with such goods.

I urge all hon. members to support this bill, which would enable Canada to do its part to bring this agreement into force and ensure that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment remains protected.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Brampton comes from a riding similar to mine in Oshawa. Automobiles are manufactured there too. I paid attention to his speech because he really talked about international competitiveness. Regardless of what some people say, this is the new reality for the world.

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to answer this question and he did not answer—he skirted the question—so I will ask this member, because he did actually bring up something very specific in his speech. He talked about just-in-time delivery, which is important to the automotive sector.

I do applaud the implementation of Bill C-13 because I do think it is something like a step in the right direction, but the Liberals are dithering on the TPP. They are also putting in something called a carbon tax, just as the Ontario government has done, and we have seen those taxes and the high cost of electricity. They have also increased the CPP, which will really affect our competitiveness.

I want to ask the hon. member about these carbon taxes, because we know the Ontario carbon tax will increase the cost of fuel by 5¢ per litre. Could he explain the federal carbon tax and what cost that would put on our manufacturers and our just-in-time delivery? How will they implement it? Will it be a tax on top of the Ontario tax? Will it be a blended tax?

There is a lot of uncertainty. We are trying to get new investment into our province. How would this carbon tax affect our competitiveness?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his passion on climate change and the issues he brought up.

My speech is focused on Bill C-13 and the implementation of the TFA, which I will reiterate is extremely important for Canada. I think we can all agree that the world is getting smaller in terms of e-commerce, just-in-time delivery, and global business.

Any first-year business student across this country, across the world, would be able to tell members of this House that, in order to be competitive in today's economy, we need to have access to emerging markets. We need to have access to simplified procedures. We need to have access to the world's markets to sell our goods and products.

They have to be able to flow easily, but at the same time, we have to make sure we protect Canadians and the health and safety of individuals who come in contact with dangerous goods, and that is exactly what the bill would do, exactly what the TFA would do. It would add almost $1 trillion to the world economy. It would add almost $730 billion to developing countries. This is a good deal. It is important for Canada to implement this agreement.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Brampton East for a very good intervention, which also touched on several complicated issues related to this agreement.

I was also pleased to hear the discussion around CBSA. What I have raised on Bill C-13 is the question of organized crime, and particularly the goods that get into our country. The ports only check 4% of goods that come into our country, and they will be mixed, including now, with new types of materials and other things that are going to other countries.

Organized crime is one of the things that I have been pushing against with a number of different things, including my bill that will be voted on this Wednesday, Bill C-221. The bill would help eliminate $10 billion in organized crime from single-event sports wagering. We have British Columbia, Ontario, and other provinces onside to diminish organized crime in this country.

I ask the member if, in his opinion, CBSA would get enough resources to tackle the potential of organized crime, basically using Trojan horse trade coming in to allow other goods and services of contraband, which should not be coming into Canada, to go to other countries.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that there is a delicate balance between making sure goods flow easily, quickly, and efficiently, protecting the health and safety of Canadians, and fighting against organized crime. This is exactly what Bill C-13 would do.

The bill would empower the CBSA and the Government of Canada to fight back against organized crime and ensure that only the products get through that need to get through. This would help legitimate businesses that are participating in the transit of goods in Canada to succeed, and would make it more efficient and easier, so that we help small and medium-sized enterprises benefit from a world market.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity to speak on Bill C-13.

This bill is an important piece of legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the ratification power it possesses, because it brings Canada into the fold with the rest of our World Trade Organization partners, which is vital for Canada as we move forward in the new economy.

Bills of this nature simplify procedures, and as has been said in the House before, help cut red tape, expedite the release and clearance of goods, reduce costs associated with processing, which is extremely important for our competitiveness, and make international trade more predictable for Canadians and more predictable for Canadian businesses that want to make new investments and build our economy.

Most importantly, steps to ratify trade agreements need to be taken to avoid putting Canada on the outside of free trade agreements with our WTO partners. This is a very important point. Many countries, including our largest trading partners and fellow NAFTA members, Mexico and the U.S., have either done so or are actively working toward ratifying agreements, particularly agreements such as the TPP. I am happy that we are having this debate. It is important that we ratify the powers in Bill C-13.

I also want to talk about the overall picture. Right now, the Liberals have a very important agreement on the table. If we believe that today is an important step forward, and we want to believe what the Liberals are saying, we have to look at what they are saying but also at their actions, because actions speak louder than words. The reality is that, to date, the Liberals have made no attempt to ratify the TPP agreement. This lack of action by the government is a large risk for the Canadian economy.

The Liberals must realize that trade has the power to grow our economy without spending billions of dollars. That is the commitment we are seeing from the Liberal government. Instead of moving forward on agreements that are on the table in front of them, they seem to be focused on spending billions of dollars. When we look at the Conservatives' approach versus their approach, much of the work on the agreement we are talking about today was done by the previous government. I applaud and support it, but we are now moving forward at an accelerated pace. The government has to take a big picture view of what is going on with the different trade agreements, whether it is the European trade agreement or the TPP.

The Liberals are standing on the largest trade agreement in over 20 years. Stalling on the ratification of the TPP agreement will only put Canada further behind, when Canada should be moving ahead. It is clear that not signing this agreement will damage our economy and reduce the global supply chain, which will ultimately lead to job losses. We have seen the latest numbers. We cannot afford that.

Signing the TPP would send a clear message to Canadian businesses, and this is extremely important, because, first, it would give our exporters the opportunity to prepare and take advantage of preferential market access. Second, it would lower tariffs. I think everyone is in agreement that this is a good thing. Third, it would remove trade barriers. Fourth, and what is very important for the economy of Ontario, it would further integrate global supply chains.

I am the MP for Oshawa. Trade agreements have a lot of implications for my riding. It is the home of the General Motors assembly plant. Today we got some good news; it was able to get an agreement with Unifor. I applaud GM and Unifor for coming to an agreement, because the reality for the business world and labour is that the world will be doing business in a new way.

A really important point for me, as a local representative, is that our NAFTA partners are moving forward to ratify the TPP. The presidents of Mexico and the United States were here, and one of the things they talked about was how they are moving forward to ratify this agreement. If they ratify it and we do not, it is going to be devastating to manufacturing and our local economies. Consider that 80% of Canadian vehicles are made for export. Having access to new global markets, and over 800 million potential new customers, with the TPP is going to be significant.

To put that in context, the European free trade agreement would mean 400 million new customers. This would give Canada exclusive access to both markets.

It is important to take a moment to explain exactly what that means. It means that Canada will be unique in the world. Unique among our trading partners, it will have preferred access to Europe and preferred access to the Asia Pacific. That is 1.2 billion people. That is huge.

What we are seeing from the government is further dithering on the European free trade agreement, which was ready to go under our government. The TPP is ready to go. We see President Obama and the Mexican president moving forward, and what is happening with the Liberal government? It is dithering.

The numbers involved for GDP are $29 trillion. Access to these markets would give Oshawa a competitive advantage in the production of vehicles at our assembly plants. They would be destined for new and existing markets. We are going to have a unique opportunity to manufacture in Oshawa. We will have access to Europe and the Asia Pacific. Therefore, there is a need to connect Canada with the global supply chain. This would allow Oshawa and all of Canada to grow competitively and to continue to show investors that doing business in Canada is profitable.

With access to new markets, Canada would not only benefit from cost savings but would be on par with our fellow NAFTA countries, and this is extremely important. Ratification of the TPP would allow Canada to have the same preferential market access as other TPP countries. Not signing the TPP would make Canada suffer, as these markets would be accessible to our largest trading partners, the United States and Mexico, and we would be out of the deal. Both the U.S. and Mexico would be more competitive, and investment would be driven away from Canada.

The previous Conservative government laid the groundwork in a negotiation process to ensure that Canadians would prosper as a result of trade relations that were freshly established in these markets, because it is the new way of doing business.

A report released by the Office of the Chief Economist from Global Affairs Canada includes important observations on what the TPP would do to benefit Canada as well as on the consequences if Canada does not sign this important agreement. I would like to take a moment to go over some of the benefits.

First of all, there would be a boost to Canada's GDP of 0.127%, generating a GDP gain of $4.3 billion by 2040.

The TPP would liberalize barriers to trade and provide estimated tariffs savings of $428 million per year for Canadian exporters.

Auto companies, which currently do not have access to Japan on an equal playing field, would now have that access. This is something auto companies have been asking for for years.

The most significant benefit would be a $1.1 billion export increase to Japan, with exports of pork, beef, and wood products leading the way.

Canada cannot afford to remain on the outside. Not signing the TPP would lead to GDP losses of $5.3 billion. Canadian automotive production and investment would both decline by 4%, and the way it would affect our global supply chain would be catastrophic.

Canadian beef exports to Japan would fall by more than 66%, and pork exports to Japan would drop by 13%.

Canada's exports to TPP countries in 2014 accounted for 81.1% of the total value of Canadian exports, totalling $759.4 billion.

In conclusion, my message is simple. Today we are looking at Bill C-13, and that is a great opportunity, but we must also ratify the TPP. Canadians, especially businesses, deserve the advantages and opportunities the TPP can offer. The significance of trade cannot be ignored by the Liberals.

Canada cannot fall behind, especially now, and especially when trade has the power to significantly increase the total GDP of Canada without spending billions of dollars, which seems to be what the Liberals are obsessed with doing.

I want to take this opportunity to encourage my colleagues here in the House to support any of these agreements that facilitate trade.

I want to bring up an important point I have been trying to get the Liberals to address today. On one side, they seem to be talking about increasing business and increasing trade, which I think everyone agrees is a good thing, except maybe the NDP. On the other side, the Liberals are bringing in policies that are hurting our competitiveness internationally. I wanted to talk a little about that.

When we are talking about trade agreements, we are talking about the competitiveness of Canada versus other parts of the world. Recently the government brought in changes to the CPP. This is something I have been talking to my business community about.

What the Liberals are proposing to bring forward would cost Canadian businesses up to $2,000 per employee. Let us put that into perspective. General Motors has 3,000 employees in Oshawa. If we do the math, that is a significant increase in cost for doing business in Canada. It would also mean that individual Canadians would have to match that. Now we are talking about $2,000 for the employer and $2,000 extra that employees would have to put into this plan that many will not have access to.

We want to talk about the competitiveness of our energy policies. I have brought up the example of Ontario. We have seen what the Ontario policies are doing to our competitiveness in the manufacturing field. Right now, Ontario is so worried it has backtracked somewhat on its electricity policy, because it has realized how much of a concern it is.

We are looking at a policy that has basically contributed to the loss of 300,000 good-quality manufacturing jobs in Ontario. The federal Liberals are supporting these policies moving forward in Ontario and are parroting its policies and bringing them into the federal jurisdiction.

That leads to the next issue I need to talk about. I need to get clarification today from the Liberals. I want to talk about the carbon tax.

We know that the people we compete against the most, Michigan for example, do not have a state carbon tax. Texas does not have a state carbon tax. Texas has a cost of energy that is 75% less than it is in Ontario.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change have been very clear that they are actually going to be bringing in a carbon tax federally. I do not think the uncertainty of this can be overemphasized. Companies, when they are making investments in our economy, are making investments over a 10-year or 15-year period. Instead of getting certainty from the government, all they are getting is uncertainty.

The only certainty companies are getting is that it is going to cost more to do business. We are talking about the CPP costs, energy costs, and carbon taxes. It would drive up the cost of everything. What we are talking about in our factories is increased costs for heating factories. We are talking about increased costs for food in our factories. We are talking about the electricity going into these factories. Individual Canadians will be paying more. Basically, this is a tax on everything.

It really affects our competitiveness. On one side, the Liberals are saying that they want to be competitive. As I said, Bill C-13 is a great step forward. However, we need to address the other side. What domestic policies are the Liberals putting in place that are killing our competitiveness? On this side of the House, we think we have to look at these policies in conjunction.

Moving forward, this whole idea of economic policy needs to be addressed. We cannot just farm one section out, and say for trade we are going to move forward on positive things in that regard. Other countries are doing that as well.

It is the domestic side of the equation that the Liberals seem to be ignoring, to the point where this is going to make manufacturers and businesses in our communities less competitive internationally. Even with the good work moving this forward, the Liberals need to take a step back and do some work at the other end on domestic policies.

One of the things I would like to see moving forward within the next couple of months is certainty coming out of the Liberal government. As I said, this debate we are having today is a good thing, but what about the TPP? What is the government going to do to move that important agenda forward? Companies that are making business decisions right now do not have any certainty. That is a major thing and they may not be choosing Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member was saying. He spent a great deal of his time talking about the TPP and encouraging the government to break its word to Canadians by making some sort of a decision prematurely. The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to review the TPP thoroughly. He asked members of Parliament on all sides, but particularly members within our caucus, to do our homework on this particular agreement and I look forward to the debate on that. The Prime Minister is encouraging us to speed up on it.

Bill C-13 is a ratification of an agreement with over 160 countries participating in it, and they are encouraging us to ratify it. The United States ratified it in January 2015. It was negotiated back in December 2013. Why does my colleague believe that the Conservative government was not able to do what the United States did? The member drew a comparison to the TPP. Why was the Harper government not able to bring it forward in January, February, or March of 2015? The member will correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe the United States has signed off on the TPP.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. The Americans are moving forward with the TPP. Mr. Obama was right here in the House. The Mexican president was here as well. We have an agreement on the table and the current government seems to be happy with just following the lead of other countries.

This is the most important trade agreement in 20 years. It is going to benefit Canada and place Canada in a unique position. The member has seen the recent numbers about the economy. We left the Liberal government with a surplus. The parliamentary budget officer has said that the government's policies moving forward are unsustainable.

I talked about the importance of moving these agreements forward. I do hope that members on the other side agree that we move this agreement forward as quickly as we can. We have been clear. We support the legislation moving forward today but it is not only about today. It is about moving forward over the next few months and the TPP is an important part of it.

Domestic policies are important too and none of the Liberals have addressed this issue, which is important for manufacturing communities here in Ontario. What about the domestic policies that are now making us less competitive internationally? It is all fine and dandy that this agreement is moving forward here today, but the Liberals are dithering on the TPP. We can all see that. They seem to want to consult on this forever, but there are real impacts to real Canadians who work in real industries.

I would like to see the TPP brought forward as quickly as possible. The Liberals are in government now and they like to bring up issues about the past. I would like to see one Liberal today address the domestic policies, which have the exact opposite intention of the trade agreements and make us less competitive because of carbon taxes, high energy costs, and things like doubling the CPP. This really hurts small businesses and their opportunities to be competitive in our country.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we said earlier, we support Bill C-13 at second reading. It will be important to ask questions in committee, especially since this is a measure that could help small and medium sized enterprises.

I would have liked the government to do more, including lowering the tax rate. That is a broken election promise that is going to cost SMEs millions of dollars.

Does my colleague think that the government should do more to bring developing countries together, be it through trade or development assistance?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the insight of her question. She brought up the fact that one of the things that the Liberals promised was lowering taxes, and it seems to be a promise that the Liberals do not have a problem breaking.

The member asked whether Canada should do more. That is why I am very passionate about moving forward with agreements such as the TPP, because moving forward with agreements such as the TPP gives our businesses and our Canadian reputation the ability to get out there. As for human rights and rights inside the countries that we do these trade agreements with, we have seen historically that one of the best ways to get better human rights around the world is to get involved with these countries, do business, have their people come here and give us a bit of information, and we go there to give them a bit of information. It is a win-win when we have these different types of agreements.

Right now, Canadians have seen the economic challenges brought forth by the new government. We have seen, sadly, that there has been an overemphasis on spending. What was it this year? Was it a $30-billion deficit or something like that? The Liberals like to say they have made certain promises. Let me just see. They were talking about a very small deficit for a very small period of time. I think they said $10 billion. That is their idea of small; I do not know where that came from. However, it is now $30 billion.

My colleagues over there say that during the economic downturn the Conservatives had an increase in deficit; that is true. However, during the economic downturn, the Liberals wanted more. I was here in the House when they were arguing, saying that we were not spending enough. Now, within six months the parliamentary budget officer, not the Conservatives or the NDP, is saying that the way the Liberals have turned the country is unsustainable. Six months is all it has taken.

Should we be doing more? Absolutely, and one of the ways we can do that is with the bill that we are debating here today, but also looking at trade moving forward such as the TPP, and I will also bring up the European free trade agreement. We have to move forward on these things. It does help people when you raise them up. Economic advantages and economic growth to individuals really work toward helping them, but also toward spreading the values of human rights that Canadians hold so dear.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being in a riding in an area that has such a heavy reliance on manufacturing and has a heavy reliance specifically on auto manufacturing and discussing some of the domestic policies that are making our economy and our manufacturers less competitive, which policies in particular can you identify that you have seen pushing our economy in that direction? Perhaps you can comment on this.

I would also like to note the loss of 39,000 small businesses last month alone, the loss of 40,000 manufacturing jobs this year alone, and the effect these domestic policies are having on that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before the hon. member answers, I just want to remind all the members that when they say “you”, I am sure they do not expect the Speaker to answer the question. I am sure they mean for the hon. member to answer the question. I just wanted to clarify so that the hon. member knows who is answering that question.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for this extremely important question, but also for all the work he has done for manufacturers. He is doing something positive by bringing awareness to the actual policies that are killing jobs in his community and in my community. As he said, 39,000 small businesses were lost. There are huge losses in manufacturing.

At the end of the day, this is about Canada's and Ontario's competitiveness. This is where the big contradiction is in the House today. I would like to address three important domestic policies that are killing our ability to compete internationally. Number one is the Liberal changes to the CPP. This is $2,000 more per employee that business owners are going to have to pay, $2,000 more than individuals.

Second is carbon taxes and the uncertainty that is totally the responsibility of the Liberal government. We have this horrible carbon tax in Ontario, increasing the cost of heating, electricity; and just-in-time delivery of fuel, at 5¢ per litre more. Now the federal government wants to add on top of that.

The third thing I want to talk about is the high energy costs. What scares me is that we have lost 300,000 jobs in Ontario because of these irresponsible policies. Moving forward, in the next few months the federal Liberal Party is parroting these exact policies that have killed so many jobs. We are starting to see those effects. We need to ensure that domestic and international policies jive and that we are all working toward the same goal.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today, to be back in the House of Commons, to see all my colleagues again, and to know that we are all sitting in the House together at the same level, men and women alike. We do not need to look up to the gallery to see whether women or other people are sitting there.

I am very pleased to speak to this bill. Extraordinarily, we strongly support this bill introduced by the current government, as it is about the economy. It is about developing our economy here in Canada, and about free trade. Anything that promotes free trade, economic prosperity, anything that helps our businesses produce more and export more freely, and brings foreign investment to Canada, is a good thing, a good idea, which must be developed and supported. That is exactly what we are doing today by showing our support for Bill C-13 currently on the table.

I would like to begin by saying that, basically, the purpose of this bill is to implement the agreement to facilitate trade between various countries that was concluded by our Conservative government, that of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, at a meeting held in Bali a few years ago. We were not the only ones involved. Over one hundred countries concluded this agreement. However, every legislature in each of those countries must also implement the agreement, and that is what we are doing right now.

This bill serves as a reminder of the history of free trade in Canada, and I would like to talk a bit about that before getting into the substance of Bill C-13.

Canada is an exporting country because of its size and our extraordinary assets, including our natural resources and our universities, which year after year produce excellent people to work in our businesses and industries and conduct high-tech research. With a population of over 30 million people, we may be relatively small in number, but we are rich in character and proud of it. Clearly, all countries, but Canada in particular, must rely on exports to fully develop their economies.

In that respect, I am reminded of more recent free trade issues. I could go back as far as the last century, but let us talk instead about the issues encountered in more modern times. Canada signed a milestone free trade agreement with the United States in 1988. That was a momentous occasion and a turning point in Canada's economic development. We opened our doors wide to export our products. Where would Canada be today if we had not signed that free trade agreement? Let us remember that it too was signed only after a long political debate. To put it mildly, some people had concerns about free trade in the beginning. Fortunately, now that some time has passed, today we see that the free trade agreement has had a positive impact, thanks to people's goodwill and especially their open-mindedness. We are fortunate to have signed that agreement.

Perhaps some members understood what I meant when I said that people needed time to warm up to the idea. Some members may remember that during the 1988 election campaign the Liberal Party, which is currently in power, expressed serious reservations about the agreement, even opposed it outright. A few years later, the Liberals finally recognized that it was a good thing.

These are the facts. It is important to mention that the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who was behind the 1988 free trade agreement, had also expressed some reservations previously. In 1983, during the Conservative Party leadership race, leadership hopeful John Crosbie, former Newfoundland MP and minister, championed this revolutionary and extremely important idea of free trade between Canada and the United States. During that same leadership race another candidate, Brian Mulroney, expressed very serious concerns and said that it was like a mouse laying beside an elephant. We would be crushed and and nothing good would come of it.

We have to admit that, back then, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's views had changed. Thank goodness we had this great leader in Canada, at a critical time for our economy, who made the agreement and its ratification possible. Members will recall how unusual the political landscape was back in 1988, particularly in my province of Quebec.

There were people who were sovereignists through and through. I will not call them separatists because that can have a pejorative connotation. Social democrats including Jacques Parizeau, Bernard Landry, former leaders of the Parti Québécois, and former premiers of Quebec came out in favour of free trade. They were strongly in favour of the free trade agreement. They spent their entire lives as social democrats and sovereignists and even they saw the economic benefits in the agreement that were essential for developing our country and Quebec.

That is why we sometimes saw a surprising alliance between right wing federalists, Conservatives, and so-called left wing sovereignists, like Jacques Parizeau. They worked side by side for the free trade agreement. I do not want to get into too much regionalism, since we are all Canadians, but some might say that the whole thing succeeded because of Quebec. It was Quebec's support for the Conservative Party that allowed the free trade agreement to be ratified in 1988.

Events and history proved the Mulroney government right, so that was good. When the government of the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien came to power, there was good reason to have some concerns about the development of free trade in Canada. Fortunately, those who in the past had said that the agreement was no good and they would tear it up instead maintained it and even expanded it, with the famous agreement between the three amigos, namely Mexico, the United States, and Canada. As a result, what had begun as the cornerstone of Canada's economic development, in a more contemporary setting, in 1988, was expanded into an agreement between Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

Without going into too much detail, it was about a year ago that negotiations were concluded for the trans-Pacific partnership. Once again, Canada is lucky to be part of that agreement because it represents an extraordinary opportunity for our economy. It should be noted that when we talk about free trade, we are really talking about exports. We are talking about goods that are manufactured here in Canada, by Canadians, and sold in other countries. It is about money from other countries invested here in Canada to pay our workers' wages. There is nothing more lucrative and more profitable for our economy than exports. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada depends on exports.

That is why we are so proud to see how important, how very essential this is for our economy, particularly in light of the following figures: $54 billion for exports of materials for transportation; $48 billion for exports of mineral products; $26 billion for exports of electrical machinery and equipment and parts thereof; $19 billion for exports of base metals; and $18 billion for exports of products of the chemical industries. That is what export, free trade, and economic development are all about. That is what creates wealth in Canada, and that is why Canada is an exporting nation. It must continue to be an exporting nation, and we must do everything we can to open even more doors around the world so that everybody everywhere can enjoy the quality of Canadian products made by us, by Canadians.

I also want to say that circumstances can shift, people's thinking can change, and some who were once against free trade may now be in favour of it. So much the better. What really matters is the end result, and that is why we strongly support this government's Bill C-13.

I would like to talk about this bill, which would see Canada ratify the agreement on trade facilitation. I will start with some background. In August 2004, the World Trade Organization opened negotiations to hammer out three essential facets of free trade. The first was to improve developing countries' access to today's competitive markets. That is essential. It is fine to say all the right things about helping our friends, about how we are all citizens of this planet, about how we have to help people in developing countries.

However, they should have access to our products and vice versa. As of 2004, the intention was to open markets to developing countries, cut red tape related to trade, and reduce tariffs. In some cases, the cost of the paperwork exceeded the savings that could be realized with trade agreements between different countries. That does not work.

Fortunately, the WTO began examining the issue in 2004. Finally, in December 2013, the Bali package, incorrectly named the “paquet de Bali” in French, was agreed to. The Bali agreement covered the three aspects I just mentioned. They were committed to paper and then everyone was asked to enshrine them. This occurred on November 27, 2014, with the Protocol of Amendment.

Here, in Canada, a proposed trade facilitation agreement was introduced on May 13, 2015, by my colleague from Abbotsford, the former minister of international trade, whom I would like to salute. Not so long ago, he was seated on my right, here on this bench. It is always very pleasant to have neighbours on our right, even though I think I am not much to the left of my colleagues.

I would like to say, from my seat in the House of Commons, that the member for Abbotsford made a major and exemplary contribution to Canada's economic development. Canada should be grateful to the hon. member for Abbotsford, who signed historic agreements that are vital to Canada's economy. He is from British Columbia, a part of this country that I am discovering more and more. We are lucky to be MPs in Ottawa, because it gives us the opportunity to discover our beautiful, vast, and productive country.

On May 13, 2016, the member for Abbotsford, the former minister of international trade, introduced a sort of set of instructions for the agreement on trade facilitation. I am pleased to see that the current government is continuing that work by introducing this bill to implement the agreement on trade facilitation. It is a rather long bill.

The bill makes many technical changes. Amendments must be made to the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999, the Pest Control Products Act, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, and the Safe Food for Canadians Act.

The list of amendments is long, but they are necessary to allow Canada to reach its full economic development potential. More specifically, amendments must be made to two provisions of the trade facilitation agreement, namely article 10.8, which deals with the treatment of goods that are rejected at the border because they do not comply with certain health and other technical requirements, and article 11.8, which prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory to a point outside its territory, or in other words, goods in transit.

I prefer reading, rather than speaking off the cuff, because these details are very technical. It is better to rely on good notes, to know what we are talking about.

Basically, the bottom line is that this will give Canada access to more countries, and it will make it easier for all countries to do business with one another. It will also help ensure the safety and security of the products traded, give developing countries greater access to trade, and give our exporters access to those emerging markets, which, in the past, were often overlooked, but now must be part of the equation.

We are glad that, in 1988, we concluded an agreement with our largest trading partner, the United States. We are also happy that those agreements have been expanded to include all of North America. Bravo.

We are pleased to see that, over time, whether it was under the leadership of the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien or the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, all governments came together to open our markets and help our businesses export their products.

While it is true that we have a fundamental difference of opinion and specific concerns about each other, one thing that unites us and brings us together is the issue of free trade. Free trade is synonymous with economic development.

This is why the legislation is very important and we deeply support the bill. We will study it, line by line, to ensure that everything is all right, but the purpose of the bill is to open our country to new markets and to create jobs.

Basically, this agreement will boost exports from developed economies from $310 billion to an estimated $580 billion per year. Global exports could rise by nearly 3%, and 21 million jobs could be created worldwide.

That is the kind of potential we need to cultivate and evaluate carefully. As we said earlier, we have to get used to this and recognize the need for an open-minded response to new challenges. While we may have had reservations about the quality of what developing countries are producing and how they produce their goods and services, there is no denying that the best way to help these countries achieve higher standards is to trade with them.

Furthermore, as many historians would agree, trade is the reason that we have not had a world war in nearly 75 years even though, unfortunately, wars do break out around the world from time to time. Countries are working together and trading with each other.

General de Gaulle, who was not against European countries working together, said that this was one of the fundamental factors for ensuring national security and peace in Europe. General de Gaulle certainly knew what he was talking about, having suffered the horrors of the First World War and led his country in a honourable fight during the Second World War. This man, who fought fiercely against the Nazi enemy, reached out to Germany and all the other countries, including Italy, in order to work with them. That was the first global move toward international trade. It was legendary and now countries can help each other advance their development.

I can assure hon. members that on this side of the House we are in favour of this bill. We will work very hard and conscientiously on it and carry on the excellent work done by the hon. member for Abbotsford, under whose guidance previous agreements were concluded, bringing us to the introduction of Bill C-13 today.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent had started wearing glasses at an earlier age, he might have taken a slightly different political path.

I appreciate my colleague's support for this important file. My question is this: if this file is so important, why did the Conservatives take so long to introduce it in the last Parliament?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of my colleague's comments about my glasses and I will reciprocate in due course.

Seriously, in international affairs, we must take the time to do things right. If we rush things, if we do them willy-nilly, we run the risk of painting ourselves into a corner.

Personally, I am very proud to be a member of a political party that has done its utmost to ensure that our country has access to an even bigger market. I am very proud to belong to the political party that signed an agreement with Pacific Rim countries. Consequently, today, Canada is one of the countries, if not the country, that is party to the most agreements with other countries. I am very proud to have fought one year ago, under the leadership of prime minister Stephen Harper, who signed the largest number of agreements with other countries in Canada's history. Yes, I am very proud that, under the leadership of the member for Abbotsford, we signed that agreement and that we are now doing what is required to enshrine it. We are doing this so that our workers, exporters, businesses, SMEs, and creators of wealth have access to a larger market.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my province of British Columbia, trade deals signed by the Harper Conservative government and successive Liberal governments, especially over the last 10 years, have cost 21,000 jobs in value-added manufacturing in the forestry industry. We have lost 21,000 lumber-producing and pulp and paper jobs, which were well-paying, solid, lifetime jobs. This has had devastating consequences for some of our communities.

I am curious what my Conservative colleague would say in response to this question. Why did the Conservative government, during its time, not focus more of its efforts on facilitating domestic trade and improving opportunities for small and medium enterprises instead of negotiating these flawed trade deals that are sacrificing a great many jobs at the local level and harming our economy?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to adapt to the realities of the market and the existing situation. That is life.

We can take a a romantic view of the situation, where everyone is equal, everything is going well, life is good, and there is no problem because the wealth will be distributed to everyone. However, we need to create wealth in order to be able to do that. From what I can see, free trade agreements have resulted in the creation of real wealth across the country.

Today, one in five Canadian jobs are linked to export policies. One in five. We need to adapt to the new reality. I am feeling very inspired by General de Gaulle today. As he said, it is perfectly natural to feel nostalgic for the splendour of sailing ships, but no policy worthy of the name can ignore the realities. The same is true here. Markets and doors are opening around the world and Canada needs to be part of that. This reminds me of the fearmongering that we heard in 1988, particularly from the Hon. Ed Broadbent, a man for whom I have a lot of respect and regard but who was completely mistaken in this matter.

He is happy that we have free trade agreements to ensure our country's prosperity.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member stated quite clearly in his speech that trade is in fact good for Canada. It is good for our economy overall; it is good for our present, and it is good for our future.

Would my colleague elaborate on how trade agreements in Canada benefit tomorrow's young people? I want to know the impact they have on our youth.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when we talk about exports, we are talking about creating jobs. When we talk about exports, we are talking about products made here in Canada that we are selling somewhere else. As a result, someone else is giving money to Canada. It is the Americans, Europeans, Japanese, or whomever. This is good for Canada, because we are bringing in fresh, new money here.

When we talk about opening the door, we are also talking directly to youth, because youth are involved in high-tech business and high-tech manufacturing. In my own riding, as I am sure is the case in other hon. members' ridings, I have a lot of businesses that are hiring bright young people with high-tech facilities and skills. This will create new products that can be sold offshore, and that offshore money will come back to Canada. This is how we create jobs in Canada. This is what is good for youth all around this country.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague championed free trade in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

He took the opportunity to recognize the sound economic thinking of several Quebec separatists, such as Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry. I would like to thank him for that because federalists, who tend to favour ideology, so seldom acknowledge the economic contributions, wisdom, and importance of Quebec separatists.

In his speech, he also talked about how exports are vital to creating wealth for people. In Quebec's economy in particular, exports have slumped in recent years. Quebec has been in a trade deficit situation since the early 2000s, and the manufacturing sector has lost a lot of jobs, more than 220,000. The number of jobs has kept falling in recent years. Canada has different economic priorities, such as supporting western Canada's oil economy.

Will these natural resources end up having a negative long-term impact on our economy? For one thing, we will have to cope with the aftermath of oil extraction and deal with climate change. For another, they are hurting Quebec's economy.

Does my colleague think that the Canadian economy is negatively impacting Quebec's economy?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.

In response to each of the points in my Bloc Québécois colleague's argument, I would say that, when we are having an economic debate, it is very important to consider all the information.

Yes, I am pleased to recognize Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry and remind the House of their contributions. I do so without any acrimony and in all sincerity. I know that in their political family, things have not always been easy, especially on the left, since the unions vigorously opposed the free trade agreement. Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Landry had the courage to say that it was good because it was going to create jobs in Quebec.

The member talked about a certain reality in Canada, specifically that some areas of the economy sometimes produce more than others. Businesses need to adapt to that reality, but what does that mean? It means capitalizing on start-up companies, which employ people with specific high-tech training. That is also what real wealth creation is about. It is about creating companies in which those people are going to produce things that do not yet exist. That is what is going to create the need, create the sale, and create exports.

To respond to what my colleague said, indeed there is a lot of oil in Canada and that is good. I am quite pleased about that. Need I remind the hon. member about the equalization payments Quebec has been receiving for far too long? What about the big ticket for the economy and the very future of this country, the energy east project we are still waiting for the government to decide on? We think this project is good for Quebec, good for Alberta, good for Canada, and good for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to discuss and debate Bill C-13.

Oddly, since this morning, except for a few interventions, very few people have spoken to the content of Bill C-13. This bill seeks to enact legislative amendments to comply with a World Trade Organization treaty or agreement that was signed to facilitate trade. I would say it is not an extremely controversial bill. We are supporting the bill at second reading simply because there are very few changes in it, since Canada is already largely compliant with the terms of the trade facilitation agreement. Very few legislative changes will be needed.

However, given that one of the arguments put forward by the government and those supporting the agreement's ratification is that this will truly help small and medium-sized business, we would also like to see, not just in the bill, but in the government's actions, concerted efforts to promote the economic activity of SMEs. Unfortunately, the government's efforts in that regard have been rather lacklustre from the start of its term. We hope this will change.

I very much enjoyed hearing the various debates from both sides of the House. They did not necessarily pertain to the bill itself, about which little has been said, but focused on who is the staunchest supporter of free trade in the House. I find that very amusing because arguments are being bandied back and forth, and members are accusing other members of not supporting free trade as much as they do. What we should note is that very little is being said about the content. Not much was said about the impact of this bill, except for the impact according to major economic theories and concepts, which we do not disagree with when it comes to trade. Canada is a nation that exports and imports. Its economy is open and benefits from the opportunity to develop through exports.

No one objects to that, and that is why the NDP will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading, just like we voted in favour of various other initiatives, such as the Agreement on Internal Trade. The NDP has also supported various trade agreements that have been signed, including those with Jordan and South Korea. That explains why, in some situations, we are still waiting to see what decisions the government will make, particularly with regard to the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, for which the previous Conservative government promised specific compensation for dairy farmers and fish processors, as well as for the provinces, for drug expenses. We do not really know what the Liberal government is going to do about that.

With regard to the agreement with the European Union, we are not opposed to it at first glance, but we need to carefully analyze the compensation that will granted by the government, if any. This may seem surprising because I often hear my Conservative colleagues and, to some extent, my Liberal colleagues saying that the NDP is against trade agreements and free trade. That is not the case. Unlike the other parties in the House, the NDP is more focused on the content of these trade deals.

This is extremely important because we need a lens we can use to evaluate our support for these agreements. I have not really heard these arguments from the Conservatives in the past. I have not heard them from the Liberals, either.

I would like to tell you a story. After the trade agreement between Canada and the European Union was signed, about two or two and a half years ago, Prime Minister Harper returned, and we discussed that trade agreement in the House. The day after the signing, the first statement in the House by the Liberal leader, now the Prime Minister, was to extend congratulations on signing the agreement. He said that the Liberals supported it, and he asked when we might have it. This seems quite absurd to me, since a trade agreement is a contract. In a contract, there is content to be reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate for Canada’s needs and what Canada is seeking.

That is why we need a lens, an evaluation grid or a set of principles for assessing the content of these agreements.

The NDP always evaluates three particular factors before deciding whether to support an agreement or not. First of all, any trade agreement between Canada and its partners must bring definite economic benefits for Canada. We are not talking about a zero-sum game. We fully realize that both parties may gain something. What should concern us is whether Canada gains something in the end.

It is important to realize that, in any trade agreement, some industries benefit more than others. Some of them may even lose in the deal. It is necessary to assess the overall economic impact of the agreements.

That is where the problem lies in the case of the trans-Pacific partnership. In the House, the Liberals and the Conservatives are ready to support it without first studying its economic impact on the country. This is pure carelessness, dogmatism, and irresponsible behaviour.

As parliamentarians, our duty is not to rubber-stamp a trade agreement simply because it is a trade agreement. We first have to clearly determine what the specific and overall pros and cons are for Canada. That has not been done in the case of the trans-Pacific partnership.

In fact, it is very rarely done for most trade agreements. It is rare for a specific study by the Department of Finance or Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada on how a trade agreement will affect the Canadian economy to be tabled in the House.

The first prerequisite is therefore that the trade agreement must have a positive effect on the Canadian economy with regard to growth and industry.

Second, such an agreement must be reciprocal. A trade agreement between Canada and a trading partner must afford Canada the same access and conditions that Canada gives its partner within its own borders. That would seem obvious, but it was not the case when we concluded certain agreements in the past.

For example, in the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement we signed with China, a number of elements did not ensure reciprocity between Canada and China. Nevertheless, the two parties in the House were fully prepared to sign the agreement. It is worth noting that the agreement has not been ratified since it was signed four years ago.

This makes me smile, because people gripe about why the Liberal government still has not brought the trans-Pacific partnership to the House for ratification, when the Conservative government signed agreements such as the one with the European Union and the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China that were never put before the House for ratification.

The third condition is that a trade agreement with any partner must comply with conditions regarding environmental protection and the protection of workers’ rights. In general, it must respect and promote the protection of human rights in the countries concerned. Once again, despite the claims made on both sides, this point does not seem to be of particular interest to the House or the committees studying the matter.

Since 2011, my first year in the House of Commons, we have been extremely consistent about supporting or rejecting trade agreements discussed in the House. We rejected agreements with Honduras, Panama, and Colombia, because those countries do absolutely nothing to protect human rights.

In committee, the two parties told us that signing a trade agreement would automatically promote the development of human rights and that there was no need to include provisions in the trade agreement.

They said that reviews would be carried out year after year regarding the human rights situation and how the treaty affected human rights. Systematically, there is never any follow-up on this issue. As a result, agreements are signed with countries that consistently violate human rights. We still sign agreements without bothering to try to insert provisions that will safeguard human rights and the environment.

That is why the agreements with Panama, Colombia, and Honduras were rejected by the NDP. That is why the NDP supported the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Since the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union seems to pass this test at this time, we are quite willing to study it further.

That is a long way from the picture of the NDP that the Conservatives and the Liberals are trying to paint. When all is said and done, we are the only party that is truly responsible with regard to international trade, because we are the only party that does not automatically support everything that is put before the House and everything that is signed by successive governments. We pay attention to details and content.

In progressive circles, more and more people find that in fact, a trade agreement is not a bad thing in itself. It is an agreement that establishes the rules of the game between the two trading partners. However, it will be extremely important to amend this content in the future, because it is not just a matter of free trade.

These treaties generally say very little about the barriers to be eliminated; they have more to say about protecting investors. Indeed, that was the case for the trans-Pacific partnership. The bulk of the TPP, and of the agreements tabled in the House, is not about eliminating tariff or non-tariff barriers; it is about protecting investors in the various countries.

If we could stop talking about free trade, since the issue is not free trade, and start thinking about what could be called fair trade, Canada would be in a position to alter its negotiating stance with the various countries and include elements that would add a significant component of fairness to its trading. This would ensure that the benefits underlying international trade would go to everyone, not just to the privileged few. That is the basis of the NDP’s argument on international trade.

Let’s return to the issue of the TPP. We should ask ourselves whether it will be beneficial or not and whether there will be benefits for Canada or not, once again, beyond the usual elements—clichés, I would call them—concerning international trade. Let us ask the question. About 80% of our exports to the countries that already trade with Canada, namely all of the 12 countries in the TPP, are raw and semi-processed materials. If we look at what we import from those countries, 80% of those imports are high value-added products.

We are therefore in a situation where, economically, many experts complain about or lament the deindustrialization of Canada, Canada’s shift toward an economy that used to be industrially diversified, an economy that relies increasingly on raw or barely processed materials.

I think we would do well to have a debate and think seriously about how the Canadian economy has evolved in that direction, particularly since the 1980s.

The economic impact I mentioned includes another factor. Tufts University estimated that the trans-Pacific partnership would cost up to 60,000 jobs in Canada. However, the Conservative government, on whose watch we negotiated that agreement, did not present any economic analyses about job gains or job losses. What will the economic impact be with respect to growth?

In the United States, that analysis was done, and it was estimated that the trans-Pacific partnership could increase the gross domestic product by nearly 0.20% by 2025. We are going to make major structural changes in the American economy and all of the signatories’ economies for a 0.20% gain. At some point, we have to be critical of these agreements, not with regard to the principle of trade, but with regard to what our goals are when we negotiate and ratify these agreements.

There are very few analyses and debates in the House, only platitudes. That is a real shame, and also the reason I am proud to be part of the NDP. Since at least 2011, the year I was first elected, that party has taken a consistently procedural approach to analyzing these agreements. We want to continue doing so. An agreement such as the trans-Pacific partnership will have repercussions for supply management and the cost of prescription drugs, since there will be a big impact on intellectual property. These are repercussions of unprecedented scope. Let us not forget that Canada is currently the country with the second-highest cost of prescription drugs in the world. The agreement also gives enhanced protection and profits to makers of brand-name products rather than makers of generic products, which will drive up the cost of prescription drugs significantly. In the end, not only will the people have to foot the bill, but the provinces as well, since many of them have drug insurance plans, like the hospital sector, which is managed by the provinces.

So I want to reiterate the NDP’s support for this bill, which, in the end, does not have a big impact on the Canadian economy, but I also want to remind members that our primary role is not just to say yes or no to a trade agreement, when we have to decide on one, but to analyze it in depth to see how it will affect the Canadian economy and the people we are supposed to represent in the House.

I urge members to take a much more rigorous approach in this regard. We are already doing so. We are giving the other parties an opportunity to step up.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on his speech. I very much appreciate that he takes the time to go over every agreement.

At the beginning of his speech he said that the Conservatives and Liberals support the trans-Pacific partnership without having conducted an economic study. That is not really true, however. The first thing we see on the website on consulting Canadians on the TPP is a link to the economic impact of Canada's potential membership in the TPP. That is the first thing we see. We are studying the issue. Consultations are under way to determine which questions need to be answered. That is why we have not done it yet. We are still studying it.

I just wanted to point that out to my colleague and tell him that these studies are ongoing, contrary to what he says.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that consultations are being held on this right now, but that is not the same as having systematic impact assessments of these agreements done by the Department of Finance and the Department of International Trade, who have been negotiating these agreements in recent years since they have the resources to do so.

I worked at a number of agencies in civil society and I noticed a difference in holding consultations where stakeholders quite often have an opinion from the outset, whether for or against this agreement, and having studies done systematically by the government departments that are involved and have the necessary resources to undertake these studies since they work in this area on a daily basis.

It is good to get the opinions of certain stakeholders during consultations, but it is not the same as having those departments submit a report to Parliament so that we can really delve into the issue of the agreement's impact.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on my colleague's theme on consultation around the trans-Pacific partnership.

Friends in the labour movement have said that their consultation of the TPP was a phone call two hours prior to a meeting, asking if they could they come to it. That is not really meaningful consultation to us.

I want to pursue my colleague's conversation about supporting the trade facilitation agreement, which we do support. Could he talk a bit more about concerns around worker safety? Some of the changes around hazardous goods in transport would conceivably involve more exposure to hazardous materials, including pest control. Could he tell us about his concerns around protecting workplace safety and about conversations we might have in committee on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who pointed out that I was guilty of something I criticized in the House: people not talking about Bill C-13.

Basically, Bill C-13 will make changes to Canadian law affecting the goods in transit through Canada that are not destined for the Canadian market. In many cases, such goods will go through airports, for example. Products that are subject to specific regulations in Canada will touch down on Canadian soil on their way to somewhere else.

Under this legislation, Canadian regulations will not apply to such products, which raises concerns about Canadian workers handling these goods in transit. I do not think that has really been analyzed.

We do not feel that the government has paid enough attention to worker health and safety concerns. I hope the committee will take a good long look at this issue if this bill passes at second reading, which it probably will, to ensure that it will not chip away at worker protection.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in his thoughtful speech that people should not support or approve trade agreements before they had seen all the details. I am assuming he is also saying that parties should not speak against or take a position against agreements before they have seen all their details.

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

Mr. Speaker, as soon as we see that certain provisions of a trade agreement are going to have serious repercussions on certain areas, and that they have not been taken into consideration, of course we are going to take a position. I think the members of all parties need to keep an open mind, depending on the provisions of the agreement and the analysis that is done.

If a trade agreement seems unacceptable at first glance, a party can oppose it, but if the facts then address those concerns, people need to be open enough to change their minds. At present, with respect to the trans-Pacific partnership, we have not seen any willingness to make changes or ask for changes during negotiations.

We are currently faced with a fait accompli, and a number of provisions regarding supply management, the protection of intellectual property, and many other areas are hardening our original position on the issue.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his analysis of this very important bill. Of course we want to continue to diversify our economy, support SMEs, and encourage exports through good agreements. However, some agreements are better than others.

My colleague mentioned the trans-Pacific partnership, or TPP, among others. I wonder if he could explain why it is a bad agreement and what makes a good agreement versus one that is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I did summarize the main problems posed by the trans-Pacific partnership. The government has not really done an impact analysis of the higher drug costs that the provinces will have to cover. This increase will be quite significant and this alone should justify an impact study, at least for the provinces.

There are concerns about supply management. Concerns were expressed about the European Union agreement and compensation has been promised. In fact, it was clear that there would have to be a transition period for dairy producers so that they can adjust to changes in import quotas for cheese. It is obvious that the trans-Pacific partnership significantly undermines Canada's supply management system. Once again, there is no transition period or mechanism that will help the industry adjust to the changes resulting from the trans-Pacific partnership.

Certain aspects of other agreements led the NDP to oppose them. For example, the NDP opposed the agreements with Honduras and Colombia because of those countries' lack of respect for human rights. In Colombia in particular, labour activists, people who want to improve the lives of workers, are killed, routinely murdered, and the government is not doing anything about it. None of these factors convinced the other two parties to include protections in these free trade agreements.

The human rights issue also played a role in the case of Panama. We do not agree with the fact that successive governments have refused to make some sort of connection between tax treaties and trade agreements. Panama is a tax haven and we are signing a free trade agreement with that country that will help facilitate tax evasion in more ways than one. Once again, this did not persuade any of the parties in the House to make amendments. That is why we voted against that agreement.

We need to analyze the impact of each trade agreement in order to determine the benefits as well as the missed opportunities. That explains the positions we take.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I would like to remind hon. members that we have just wrapped up a period of debate where members had 20 minutes for speeches followed by 10 minutes for questions. We are now going to continue with a period of debate with 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by welcoming all my colleagues on all sides of the House back from their summer. I hope they enjoyed it as much as I did. Like many of them, we attended fairs, we did farmers markets, we did parades, we met with constituents, and championed causes. I was very happy to visit all communities in my riding from Dorset and Cardiff in the north and northeast to Seagrave and Millbrook to the south, and many other towns in between. Like every other summer, I ate way too much Kawartha Dairy ice cream. I am looking forward to Thanksgiving when only the gravy and pie can make me feel less guilty about my summer indulgences.

However, today I am pleased to be back to speak to Bill C-13. The bill would implement the trade facilitation agreement concluded by our previous Conservative government at the World Trade Organization's ninth ministerial conference in Bali in December 2013. I hope the Liberal government will continue to build on this record of international trade.

Bill C-13 would create jobs and opportunities for Canadians. It would simplify customs procedures, reduce red tape, expedite the release and clearance of goods, reduce costs associated with processing, and make international trade more predictable for Canadians. It would help protect jobs, not only for Canadians but also in jurisdictions right around the world.

As we all know, Canada is a trading nation. We have a rich history in the development of trade. From the Hudson's Bay Company to our oil fields in Alberta, it has all contributed to the Canada that we know and love today.

The TFA will be the first multilateral trade agreement concluded since the WTO was established over 20 years ago. Once it enters into force, global merchandise exports are estimated to increase by $750 billion to $1 trillion per year. The exports of developed economies are estimated to increase by $310 billion to $580 billion per year. The overall boost to the world export growth is estimated to be up to 2.7% and 21 million jobs created. That is just shy of the population of Ontario and Quebec. However, these jobs will not just be in developed nations like Canada; they will be spread right across the globe. It is important that Canada act quickly on trade matters to show the world that Canada is open to the world for business.

The TFA will enter into force once two-thirds of WTO members have completed their domestic ratification process. Currently we sit at 81. We need 108 of those members. So far, those include EU, United States, and Japan. Since June 2016, the following nations have ratified the agreement: Madagascar, Senegal, Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, Uruguay, and Mexico. That is just since June of this year. Many other nations have already ratified the agreement: India, China, Turkey, and New Zealand just to name a few.

As members can see, this would not benefit just one or two nations. Bill C-13 would benefit countries and people right across the globe, including people in our hometowns, and my hometowns of Bobcaygeon and Fenelon Falls. In fact, this agreement would reduce total trade costs by more than 14% for low-income countries, more than 15% for middle-income countries, and more than 13% for upper middle-income countries.

To quote the World Trade Report 2015:

The TFA is groundbreaking because it provides for assistance to developing and least-developed countries to help them implement the Agreement. The Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility, launched by the WTO in July 2014, is designed to help deliver this support to them.... WTO work on trade facilitation culminated in the adoption of the Trade Facilitation Agreement...at the WTO’s Ninth Ministerial Conference in Bali in December 2013. It is the first multilateral agreement since the establishment of the WTO in 1995.

We all know that Canada is a trading nation. We cannot afford to allow ourselves to be alienated. We cannot afford to exclude ourselves from these multinational agreements. Our refusal to be involved would put Canadians at a distinct disadvantage in international trade when compared to nations with bilateral or multilateral agreements. Our previous government knew this, which was why we were responsible for signing agreements across the globe. We understood the importance of trade, which was why we worked so hard to ensure that Canadians had access to large and growing markets. The TFA will introduce further rules and regulations that will level the playing field for Canadian businesses.

I want to take a minute to relate this back to my riding. My home riding, like many members' ridings, is filled with small and medium-sized businesses. There are many local businesses across Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock that would benefit from the TFA and other trade deals. These deals would allow farmers in Cannington, Kirkfield, and Bethany to export their products abroad and would give businesses like Kawartha Dairy a level playing field to expand and create opportunities for Canadians. We as parliamentarians need to ensure that Canadians are given the opportunity and ability. Agreements like the TFA and TPP would do just that.

I am pleased to see that the Liberal government introduced this bill. I hope to have that signed, and once it is done I hope the Liberals continue on other agreements, like the TPP, which I mention many times. As we all know, the TPP is an international trade agreement. It represents a market of almost 800 million potential customers, with a combined GDP of $29 trillion. It is projected that the TPP would boost Canada's GDP by $4.3 billion by 2040. Staying out of the TPP would likely lead to a reported $5.3 billion in GDP losses, according to the Global Affairs Canada website.

There is a very strong case to be made for ratification. The government needs to take action and ratify the TPP to ensure that hard-working Canadians have not only the opportunity but the ability to prosper as well. In Canada, one in five jobs are directly linked to exports. Canadians cannot afford to be left out of this deal. Trade can grow our economy without spending billions of dollars that we do not have.

I do not normally find myself in agreement with the members opposite, but I am happy to see the Liberals are continuing to build on our previous government's accomplishments, of course regarding trade. I hope that this deal is signed and that our colleagues across the floor will ratify the TPP as soon as possible.

If the Liberal government were serious about trade, it would adhere to the recent G7 leaders' declaration and commit to ratifying the TPP, independent of the United States. That would ensure that Canadians are given a strong position to grow and expand their businesses in the future, putting something into place that would lower trade barriers and increase market access, which will be critical for the success of Canadian businesses and the protection of Canadian jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I do not necessarily agree with him. When I think of the World Trade Organization, I see it as a body of 160-plus countries around the world that came together in recognition of the value of trade. It is something on which our government has been fairly aggressive in following suit and making sure deals get done. We just signed off on a Ukraine trade deal. We can cite the many efforts of our Minister of International Trade. She has spent a great deal of time in the EU area trying to get that deal back on track.

The Conservatives continually make reference to the TPP. The Prime Minister made a commitment that we will be looking at it and consulting, and at some point in time there will be a debate on it.

When we think of the World Trade Organization, and Bill C-13 today, this is probably one of its greatest achievements. We need 108 countries to ratify, and I understand 91 have actually signed it. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on why this is important. Ratifying this would send a very strong message to the World Trade Organization for the efforts it put into the agreement.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are on the same side on this. We on both sides of the House see the importance of ratifying this deal. We all know trade is a growing part of the world economy. We are seeing that nations across the world are reducing their trade barriers. They are not being protectionist. They are not isolating themselves from the world. We are seeing that right now at the WTO. We need 108 of those countries. More and more come on all the time. I listed the group that has ratified since June and some that have done it before. Also, these include countries that believe in the same things we do: labour laws, environmental protection, and the list goes on. These are countries of all sizes and progression levels.

We are seeing that trading, opening up our barriers, and getting our products out are good things, especially in Canada. We are an exporting nation and we need to get our products to market. Hopefully, we can continue trade agreements like we are seeing and like we have seen already. There are 51 total agreements. We would like to see that progress continue to the benefit of our economy and Canadian jobs.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned in his speech that it is very important for Canada to act quickly on this trade negotiation. He went on to say that, without trade, Canada would be at a significant disadvantage on the world stage.

The question I have for my colleague is this. I would like him to elaborate on why this is so important. In particular, I am interested in hearing his thoughts with respect to small and medium-sized business within the agricultural sector. This sector is very prominent in my community. It is very important to us to make sure we get commodities to market, within agricultural sectors. Therefore, I would like him to elaborate with respect to the importance of this trade agreement.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my friend from Lethbridge probably knows, a large section of my riding is agriculture-based. A large section of that economy is based on the success of agriculture, whether it be beef, canola—just name it and we probably have it in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. Therefore, getting those products to market and expanding those opportunities are huge.

When we have 800 million potential new customers, especially related to the TPP, with a growing middle class that wants our high-quality products, we have an opportunity to not only boost the revenue for those farmers but also encourage the young farmers who want to get into it if they know they can make a living, succeed, and get their product to market easily. That is something the government can do. I believe every government has a responsibility to create an environment for private sector growth. This is one way to do it, especially in our agriculture communities. We often talk about getting young people involved in agriculture, and this is one way to ensure there are opportunities. If people know they can get their product to market and earn a living, that is a little more incentive to get those young farmers starting up and getting their operations going.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate on Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement. Of course it comes as no surprise that I am going to be supporting this piece of legislation, as technical as it as and as difficult as it was to read through it.

I think it gives us an opportunity to celebrate the good work of the previous minister of international trade, the member for Abbotsford, a friend on this side of the House, whose hard work on behalf of Canadians has borne fruit.

It was at the ninth WTO ministerial conference, as the previous member mentioned, in Bali in September 2013, that ministers adopted the Bali package, which included allowing developing countries more options for providing food security, boosting least-developed countries' (LDC) trade, and helping development more generally. The largest deliverable was streamlining customs procedures through the trade facilitation agreement, which is now before us, which we have a chance to debate, implement, and ratify.

The previous government not only made free trade a centrepiece of its economic agenda but also demonstrated that Canada can be ambitious and bold when it seeks to expand access to new markets for Canadians. Over a 10-year period, the Conservative government was able to negotiate free trade agreements with 46 different countries, bringing the total number of countries with which Canada has trade agreements to 51. That is 4.6 agreements per year.

The Liberal government, on the other hand, is coming close to one year in office, next month, and it has exactly zero. It has zero new agreements ratified and consented to by Her Majesty. I think that is quite the record for the first year of government. It has no record on free trade to call its own. In fact, a previous treaty that we implemented and that this House passed, Bill C-11, the Marrakesh treaty, was passed last session and was, again, the work of the previous government and is now implemented in legislation.

I am not complaining. I would like to see the government implement more legislation based on the good work of the previous government, especially on the free trade agenda. There are lots of legacy pieces there that should be implemented. Again, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade spoke on this bill originally, he said this would reinforce the government's strong record on trade; except there is no record of which to speak. It is the record of the previous Conservative government, and in fact, all the good ideas and all the hard work of the member for Abbotsford, who contributed more to Canada in terms of free trade agreements signed, negotiated, and ratified than any other member in maybe the last 50 years.

There is no record for the Liberal government to promote, reinforce, or strengthen here. This bill, though, does lay the foundation for the potential of a record. There is an opportunity. There are two more free trade agreements that the government could bring before the House so we could ratify them properly.

Like many good ideas, they started with the Conservatives and, I want to again mention, the member for Abbotsford who deserves high praise. Many of these agreements, many of these successes, are thanks to him and the work he did when he was a member of the government.

Bill C-13 is good news. We know that trade accounts for 60% of Canada's annual GDP and represents one in five Canadian jobs that are tied to export. Members of the WTO have ratified the TFA, like those mentioned before: the United States, the European Union, China, and Japan. They expect Canada to do the same without delay.

We know that 108 countries, two-thirds, have to complete the domestic ratification process. The sooner we do it, the better for Canadian investors, importers, and exporters of goods, including small and medium-sized businesses, which will benefit from the implementation of the TFA.

I want to highlight one business in my riding that would benefit from this agreement. This business is called Tundra Process Solutions. We know that in Alberta right now times are tough in the oil patch. Easily more than 100,000 jobs have been lost. That is direct jobs and does not even count the indirect jobs.

I was pleased today to join the member for Lakeland, when she was doing a press conference on her e-petition. It was very successful. She had an oil worker there from Grande Prairie, talking about the job losses he is seeing.

Tundra Process Solutions is one of those companies in the oil patch that is diversifying. It is a great Canadian story. It is in my riding. It has purchased a manufacturing company that builds equipment, from California, and actually moved it to Calgary. It is a manufacturing oil and gas company producing equipment that it is selling to the world today.

With this type of agreement today, it could export to new countries, bypassing some of these very complicated customs rules and tariff rules, as well as the paperwork, the red tape required for it to move its product to a willing buyer in another country. This is how it is going to make money. Its 25-plus workers who depend on export will be quite happy when the TFA is passed, because their jobs depend on finding new markets for the product they produce.

With the lowering of tariffs across the globe, the cost of complying with customs formalities has been reported to exceed, in many instances, the cost of duties to be paid. Trade costs are among the most fundamental factors shaping the evolution of trade.

We have to remember that we do not live in a static world. If Canada does not move forward with more free trade agreements, others will, and that, by definition, will start cutting us out of those markets. Therefore, we have no choice but to pursue a free trade agenda.

The TFA is critical for many parts of its legislative measures, and there are two of them specifically. I will mention one of them, but there are two important ones. Article 11.8, which the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent mentioned before in debate, prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point as a good in transit. This would affect Tundra Process Solutions Ltd., because it is moving equipment from country to country, some of which is being purchased and some of which is being leased. Oil and gas is an international business. Many companies are horizontally and vertically integrated and can move equipment around, so this is good news for them. This is measure is an excellent one to introduce.

I think of the government's financial agenda and the budget it proposed. This would have no financial implications for the Government of Canada. This would be paid for with current dollars.

To support the TFA's implementation, Canada, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. provided support in December 2015 for the launch of the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation. It is a fantastic idea. It is more good news from the previous government and more good work by the member for Abbotsford. This initiative was designed to assist developing countries to implement the TFA.

The UN Conference on Trade and Development estimates that the average customs transaction involves 20 to 30 different parties; 40 documents; 200 data elements, 30 of which are repeated at least 30 times, and the re-keying of 60% to 70% of all data at least once. In my previous life working for a chamber of commerce, I know that specific point is when errors begin to happen and costs begin to rise, because the errors have to be fixed but oftentimes can start to compound. Then there are regulatory problems and delays in the business. If this agreement could help to at least reduce these by 50%, it would be a huge change for Canadian businesses. Again, there are many technical and legislative benefits to the TFA.

I want to finish on the principle of the matter. Free trade at its core is about a willing buyer and a willing seller meeting and making a voluntary transaction. Its core is about freedom. As former Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, "Canada is free and freedom is its nationality."

The great debates in Canada were about reciprocity, reciprocity between provinces, and reciprocity with our closest trading partner the United States. That has been the fundamental part of what it means to be a Canadian. We have had a lot of trouble with internal trade between our provinces. We can all agree that we want new markets to send our products to, so they can see the maple leaf and the words, “Made in Canada”. I am proud of that when I see it overseas when I travel. Trade between people regardless of nation they live in is the ultimate proof of the nationality of freedom that Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke about.

The economy does not need more stimulation or subsidies. What it needs is us to get out of the way and get rid of these laborious customs rules and the paperwork involved. That would provide more freedom for businesses owned and operated by Canadians. It is for Canadians. We can recapture that spirit of freedom that Sir Wilfrid Laurier encouraged.

Let us pass the TFA and move on to the true record of the government. It could ratify the Canada-European Union free trade agreement. It could ratify the trans-Pacific partnership agreement. It would have a record to speak about. It would have a legacy to speak of in 10 years. It would have something to look back on. It could say it was a government that promoted free trade.

Free trade has always been a part of this country. It was about reciprocity in a different generation. Today we talk about free trade. Sometimes we talk about fair trade, equitable trade, but it is about choice. It is about giving Canadians the choice on whom they choose to trade with, and with the least rules possible. Let us give Canadians the freedom to trade as they wish. Let us live up to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's call that “Canada is free and freedom is its nationality”. That quote appears in our new passport. It is in each so that every single Canadian can turn to the middle of the page and look at it right there. That encapsulates what Canada is all about. It is about the freedom to trade, the freedom to associate, the freedom to speak one's mind.

I cannot see anything better than ratifying this agreement and proceeding to ratifying the next agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member started by commenting on the Stephen Harper government and how the Conservatives were great at trade. I believe he said there were 46 trade agreements, to give the impression they have done a fantastic job in signing trade agreements.

However, we need to recognize that while the European Union agreement is with over 26 countries, it is just one agreement. Yes, it does affect many countries, but it is somewhat misleading. This deal has been off the tracks. If we check with some of the European countries, we will find out to what degree the current government is trying to resolve outstanding issues because the previous Conservative government did not get the job done.

The current Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister got the job done in a trade deal with Ukraine. It was the president of Ukraine who stood in the House and challenged us to bring forward a trade agreement. I was there, as were other members. This is an initiative, and trade is important.

However, when the member looks at Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement was signed off on in 2013. The United States signed it and ratified it in January 2015. Why does the member believe that the Conservatives did not ratify it in a more timely fashion?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North because I was worried that over the summer he had become mute, but I am glad he will be here in the chamber debating as passionately as he always has.

As I mentioned, there were 4.6 agreements reached per year, and the Liberals do not have any of that. They have proceeded with exactly zero agreements. They have had a year to work on this, including an entire summer. They are free to go around the world to find countries willing to sign a free trade agreement with them. It is really up them. It is not up to us to go around trying to find partners for them to negotiate with.

I will mention the free trade agreements that we negotiated. We negotiated an agreement with the European Union in good faith, and since then individual EU member states have been changing their minds as politics changes and new parties have come into power. That is simply the nature of politics, especially international politics. We have national elections in different countries. We have the European Union with 26 member countries, and any one of them can go in a different direction after signing onto the agreement.

Again, it is not a matter for us to debate whether they made a right or wrong choice. When they signed the agreement, we signed it in good faith at the time, and it is up to them to ratify it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why did the Conservative government not focus more of its efforts on facilitating trade and improving opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises instead of negotiating flawed trade and investment deals that sacrificed tens of thousands of Canadian good-paying jobs?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I will bring up the example of a medium-sized company in my riding.

The company was actually purchased from California and moved to Calgary, Canada, despite the economic downturn, specifically because the purchasers wanted to produce the product in Canada and export to different countries. They wanted that made-in-Canada Maple Leaf showing on the side of their products, because it is a sign of reliability, durability, and of a group of people who will stand up for their product. There is a warranty when one buys from a Canadian company.

In every single free trade agreement that we sign, there will be companies that will suffer and workers who may lose their jobs, because they are at a competitive disadvantage. However, every time we sign one of these agreements and ratify it, we gain from it. We gain new markets, new companies come about, and companies move around.

If we do not do this, if we do not sign onto agreements, specifically multilateral agreements, then we will be cut out of other countries' markets. This would affect our automotive industry, and especially industries that are integrated across the border, because they will have difficulties moving Canadian product to be part of the final product exported to another country.

The international scene moves. We cannot just be at a standstill and simply ignore the fact that free trade agreements, bilateral and multilateral agreements, are being signed all the time by other countries. We need to keep up, and this is a great way to do it. Bill C-13 is a great bill, and we should be supporting it.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-13, which would enable Canada to ratify the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade facilitation, the TFA.

The main purpose of the TFA is to update and simplify customs procedures, primarily as regards non-compliant goods and goods in transit. I think it is very important to talk about this issue, which will also be good for small and medium-sized exporters in the greater Drummond area.

People tend to see political parties in terms of stereotypes. Many people think the NDP is against all international agreements, which is not at all the case. We are in favour of fair international agreements that respect workers' health and rights as well as social aspects, the environment and the health of the planet, all of which are extremely important.

That is why we encourage trade that can be conducted through WTO agreements, for instance, but also why we are totally against the trans-Pacific partnership, or TPP. It is not a free trade agreement per se. Rather, it is an agreement on the rights of investors disguised as a trade agreement. I will come back to that point a little later. It is really troubling. It is worth noting that this agreement could cost us up to 60,000 good Canadian jobs, with only a negligible impact on economic growth.

The NDP has long been the champion of small business. During the 2006 and 2008 election campaigns, I helped the NDP candidate. I came back in 2011 and 2015, and every time, the main economic theme was small business. Small and medium-sized businesses are the largest job creators in the country. They are really important. We must support them, encourage them, and do everything in our power to improve their situation. Facilitating international trade and exports is very beneficial to the small businesses in my region, greater Drummond.

On that subject, I have here an article from La Presse Affaires of May 4, 2015, explaining the importance of SMEs in the greater Drummond area. The article is called “Drummondville, the industrial oasis along the 20”. The 20 refers to highway 20. In it, the economic power of SMEs in the beautiful Drummond region is described as an industrial oasis. In our region, we are very proud of the economic diversification that we have managed to achieve over the years.

I would like to read the first paragraph of the article.

Drummondville definitely continues to amaze us. Last year, the most vibrant region in Quebec had a record $220 million in new industrial investments, which led to the creation of 1,069 jobs, which is also a record.

When we pool our resources to encourage SMEs and to promote economic diversification, we can succeed, just like Drummondville. We really have to commend the work of the Société de développement économique de Drummondville, the SDED, and successive municipal councils, which did an excellent job. Martin Dupont, SDED's executive director, said, “Almost 30 years ago we took a chance on SMEs and diversification, and it paid off.”

I could give several examples of why Drummondville is an industrial oasis in Quebec and Canada. It is home to the biggest business incubator in Canada, which is quite something. In fact, that business incubator expanded again recently. That is a testament to the strength of entrepreneurship in our region. It is extremely important.

We are going to support Bill C-13, despite our concerns regarding goods in transit that are hazardous or prohibited in Canada. They may be accepted, but they will have to be checked. If the bill is passed at second reading, we will have to do everything in our power in committee to protect the health and safety of those working in proximity to these goods in transit.

The NDP wants to facilitate economic trade for our SMEs, foster economic diversification, and promote the entrepreneurship and competitiveness of the small and medium-sized businesses in the greater Drummond area that we are so proud of. There is a reason why a journalist referred to us as an industrial oasis. However, we also want to ensure that we do this through agreements that are good for Canada and that will not be harmful to Canadians.

Unfortunately, the agreement that is going to hurt Canadians is the TPP. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz called the TPP “the worst trade agreement ever”. Obviously, neither the Conservative government nor the new Liberal government did their homework. This agreement will be disastrous for supply management, which Quebec is fighting tooth and nail for.

This summer, I visited all of the rural municipalities in my riding, and I saw the members for Berthier—Maskinongé, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We talked to hundreds of farmers from all over central Quebec to find out which issues are important to them. They told us that protecting supply management is extremely important, as is staying away from agreements like the TPP, which will hurt our economy and the agri-food industry in Quebec and Canada. People told us that we all have to work very hard on this.

Another problem farmers brought up was diafiltered milk. The Liberal government has to get moving on this issue. It has not yet dealt with the situation, and that is horrible. Hundreds of the people we met while visiting the 18 municipalities in my riding told us they are worried about the price of milk, which is determined to a significant extent by diafiltered milk entering the country illegally. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has so far failed to step up on this issue, and that is really disappointing.

In conclusion, we are in favour of free trade agreements when they benefit Canadians, promote a healthy environment and protect workers' rights. That is what really matters, and that is why I will continue to fight for greater Drummond's local economy and its SMEs.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his speech, which I appreciated.

He said he travelled around his riding, which I also did. Did my colleague encourage his constituents to take part in the consultations on the TPP, so that the government can hear the opinions of Canadians and so that their voices can be heard?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The TPP is indeed an agreement that raises a number of concerns in my riding. This agreement will not benefit Canadians in any way whatsoever. I mentioned Joseph Stiglitz earlier, but other experts agree. In fact, we have an expert coming to Drummondville in a few weeks to explain the TPP agreement.

To answer my colleague, yes, we will do the work necessary to ensure Canadians are consulted. What we are hearing is that this agreement is disguised as a trade agreement, but it is really more of a financial agreement. It is going to hurt our economy. What matters to me are my constituents and the small businesses in greater Drummond, and this agreement is not going to help the economy of the greater Drummond area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for mentioning that he organized an event in his riding focusing on agriculture and certain factors, especially trade agreements, that will have an impact on the agriculture of tomorrow.

In my speech, I spoke about the considerations that guide the NDP in the debate and when deciding whether to support certain trade agreements or all trade agreements presented. I spoke about the fact that we need to ensure that there is reciprocity, and that Canada needs to ensure that it benefits from an agreement. The country on the other end of the agreement can also benefit. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the net benefits to Canada are positive and that the agreements also include elements that protect the environment, workers' rights, and human rights.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about applying these principles and the effect on the NDP's decision-making process, in terms of determining whether to sign free trade agreements.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for coming to my riding to present his private member's bill on the transfer of family farms and small businesses.

Everyone supported his bill. It was unanimous. I hope that the Liberals will pass it because it is an excellent bill that will help our businesses and our family farms across Canada.

When we think about concluding trade agreements, we have to ask ourselves whether it is a win-win situation. As my colleague said, it is extremely important that we give it some thought to ensure that these agreements are fair. Yes, we have to be able to benefit from them. Yes, our SMEs will be able to keep diversifying, be competitive, and export, but we must also ask ourselves whether we considered human rights, and the rights, health, and safety of the workers in these countries. It is very important. Unfortunately, among the countries that are party to the TPP there are some that do not respect workers' rights. There are some that do not respect human rights and are downright dangerous in that regard. We have to be careful.

We have a responsibility to ensure that any agreement we sign is satisfactory not only on an economic level, but also in terms of social, environmental, and health concerns.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise, and according to the clock, I will be taking us to question period.

I have to admit, I always enjoy talking about subjects involving trade. Frequently when we talk about issues in the House, they tend to be fairly specialized. Ironically Bill C-13 that we are talking about today is very specialized.

However, trade is one of those aspects, one of those things, that affect all of us in Canada. For a country approaching 40 million, it seems a bit odd to characterize it this way, but Canada is a small, open economy. We do a lot of trading. If we look at our history, this is how Canada really started and got going as a geographic, national entity with the fur trade pushing out, starting in New France, Quebec, and pushing through Rupert's Land through all of western Canada.

One thing that has been observed throughout the years is that people sometimes forget the obvious about trade. The same principles that involve individuals, one person to one person, actually apply to nations.

Trade works. I trade with the Government of Canada. It gives me a salary. I do a certain amount of work as a member of Parliament. I then go out and trade. I go to the grocery store. I give people at the grocery store a piece of paper, known as a $20 bill, and they give me some products back, perhaps milk, bread, pizza, or whatever. Those obvious interactions that we see in our day-to-day lives are the same basic principles that need to be applied as we go forward, as we look out to the entire world. The idea that I have something of which I have too much or that is not useful to me, pieces of paper, for example, dollar bills, money, and someone else has some food, etc., that idea works in both directions.

Trade is good. Economists have long recognized that free trade in an idealized state is the absolute best. Although for reasons of national security and other reasons like that, we may not always have pure and perfect free trade. We know that as far as economic conditions are concerned, the freer the trade, the better the conditions.

This brings us today to a bill known as Bill C-13. It has a fairly long name, talking about the various amendments it is bringing forward to a variety of acts. What it is really doing is helping us fulfill some of our agreements that we have as far as the trade facilitation agreement goes. It is a bit of a technical issue.

What it basically says and what we know is that, in the modern world, trade needs to have some sort of rules. For countries like Canada that operate under the rule of law, not just in theory but in practice, this is a good thing because there is so much information, so many different standards, and so many different products and ways to measure things, that it is difficult to understand. In the old days when we had a considerably less sophisticated economy, considerably fewer products, less product depreciation, and not quite international trade, rules were not so much necessary. However, now if we are going to trade something, be it electronics, be it herbicides, be it certain forms of foods, we need to understand what we are getting on both sides.

That is ultimately what the purpose of the legislation is. It is to help bring Canadian standards, in the few ways that they do not conform, into a way that other countries can understand, that we can work with, and that we can mutually benefit from.

It is interesting reading the background literature, and no other members have brought this forward. These technical standards, these technical issues, some exist just because different countries do things in different ways. Some, however, are used to deliberately discriminate and favour local businesses for political purposes. However, these technical issues, these matters of interpretation and understanding of how to trade across borders are actually more costly than the standard tariff barriers that we often think about. These are often they key issues when it comes to trade negotiations between countries, so it is very important that we get these right. Again, this benefits Canadians.

When we have these debates and when we talk about free trade, I admire and I listen to the good stories of my colleagues who talk about the small businesses, the medium-sized enterprises who are held up by these barriers. However, the one thing I always listen for and I do not usually hear it, sometimes I do, is how this benefits consumers, because each and every Canadian is a consumer, every day. We do not always know where our products come from, but of course, we are happy and proud when a product is made somewhere close to home.

I love to buy things made in Saskatchewan. I am from Saskatoon, so that is quite natural. However, if we can get better quality products by trading something we have that is superior to something they have that is superior, this is a win-win. We need to remember this whenever we engage in a trade negotiation.

The more efficient we can make the system, the better we can make the trade rules, the more the consumers win. This needs to be emphasized over and over again. Canadians need to export but when we export, we will import more. If we import more, that will help our consumers. Therefore, both exports are a win and imports are a win for Canadian consumers.

This also brings me now to the next thing which has been talked about today. This legislation does not deal directly with the trans-Pacific partnership trade deal, but is somewhat viewed as a—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind the hon. members coming into the House that there is someone speaking so please keep it down. I understand summer was great and you want to catch up. If you do not mind, if there is something you want to talk about, maybe just go to the back or outside and come back after.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Saskatoon—University to continue please.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude. I understand we are getting close to question period.

The trans-Pacific partnership has been talked because this involves trade rules and trade rules naturally are one of the fundamental issues being discussed. As much as I have encouraged and been supportive of the government ratifying the TPP, having been our party's Canada-U.S. critic for basically the last year, I am very pessimistic about the probability of the TPP being ratified. I base this upon the reality of the American political system.

There are two candidates, one who is vocally opposed to it and one who previously supported it and now does not. I also have had conversations with congressional leaders. This leads me to give the following advice to the government and to our party as we begin to take a look at our positions going forward.

With the likelihood being very small that the TPP will be successful, while continuing to urge its acceptance, we need to begin to position ourselves for the future. Acceptance of Bill C-13 helps us to do that, but we need to begin to think not where the puck is, but as Wayne Gretzky always used to note, where the puck will go. That means we need to begin to think about how to position ourselves on bilateral trade agreements with countries that are involved in the TPP if this agreement does not pass. If the United States is not going to be part of this agreement, we need to think about how we can begin to open up markets and expand markets, not just with current trading partners with which we have agreements, such as Mexico, but countries like Japan and other countries there.

This is a technical legislation, but it is necessary legislation. It is based on two basic things: free trade is good and the rule of law is necessary to have that free trade.

After question period I will be more than happy to take questions from my colleagues.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, 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 be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by nine minutes.

When the House last took up this question, the Hon. member for Saskatoon—University had finished his remarks and was about to start questions and comments. We will ask for questions and comments to the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe we could just start off the questioning by asking about the importance of the World Trade Organization and, as I said earlier today, of the agreement that was achieved back in December 2013. It was quite a significant agreement from the World Trade Organization.

Ultimately we need to see 108 countries, I believe, ratify the agreement. Hopefully Canada will be able to ratify it shortly. There have already been 90 or 91 countries that have ratified it to date.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts or comments in regard to how important it is that Canada endorse and ratify this agreement, because it would send such a positive message to the world, and in particular to the World Trade Organization, on what is likely one of its most significant accomplishments since the inception of the organization.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a bit of a unique situation here in Canada. The political trends, particularly in Europe and in the United States, now tend to be away from freer trade.

In Canada, we have not yet seen that, possibly because we have had such a good experience with growth, and also possibly because it is a smaller economy than others, either the trading block of the European Union or the United States. We are more trade dependent.

I think it is an important signal. First, it helps to send the message to poorer countries in the world that Canada wants to engage in trade, and we want to grow their economies and our economy, back and forth. Second, it sends a political message out to the world—in a minor way, but we are working on that with other things, encouraging the government to back other trade legislation—that there are historically growing, prosperous countries that continue to support a basic fundamental principle of economic growth.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise to speak since returning from vacation. Allow me to say hello to you. It is always a pleasure to see you lead our proceedings.

Bill C-13 seeks to implement the agreement on trade facilitation concluded by members of the World Trade Organization. This bill amends a number of Canadian statutes. I sincerely believe it is imperative to scrutinize these changes in committee. For example, major changes are being made to regulations on Canadians' health and safety.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to two clauses in particular. The first is on rejected goods. By accepting Bill C-13, an importing country could hereby return goods that do not comply with its health standards. If the bill were passed, Canada would no longer be required to keep questionable goods indefinitely. Moreover, if it were not possible to identify the shipper, Canada could simply destroy the dangerous goods.

The second clause I want to focus on deals with goods in transit. At present, Canadian regulations prohibit the transit of any goods that do not meet national technical standards. For instance, if a food product is banned by Health Canada, its transit within our borders is simply prohibited.

The bill ends that prohibition. Products could pass through our borders even if they do not meet Canadian regulatory requirements regarding health and environmental protections, since they would not be destined for the Canadian market.

Clearly, specific measures or conditions could be applied to certain statutes under the administration of Health Canada, and of course the NDP wants to ensure that any changes made to the way goods are treated do not compromise the health and safety of Canadian workers, who would be at risk during the transshipments.

Given that I represent a riding where marine transportation plays an important role, I feel it is my duty to ensure that workers who might have to handle those products are not in any way at risk. That is why I would like the committee to call on as many experts as possible in order to highlight any potential consequences of this change. The health of workers must not be compromised in any way.

I will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading, so that we can shed as much light on it as possible and get as many answers as we can to all our questions.

The NDP has always supported good trade measures. How do we distinguish between a good trade measure and a bad one? Once these regulatory changes are raised, we should try to see whether there are any economic benefits to this WTO agreement and whether it will facilitate trade.

For the benefit of those watching, I would like to point out that the NDP's support for any international trade measure depends on the findings of a careful study of, among other things, respect for human rights in the various countries concerned and respect for environmental rights. In fact, respect for environmental rights is becoming increasingly important and should be a major element of every agreement. The protection of workers, which I alluded to, is also one of the elements studied. The last aspect is the strategic interest of the agreement to Canada.

Canada's geography already provides a link to major world economies because we have access to three large oceans, which facilitate international trade.

Accordingly, cutting administrative red tape and streamlining customs procedures can improve the predictability of trade and reduce costs at the border for Canadian exports. This in turn means that SMEs in developing countries could also benefit from streamlined regulations resulting from this agreement.

This looks promising because all partners win. We call this a win-win situation.

Conversely, I will digress briefly and refer to a bad agreement that is being proposed by the government, the TPP. To quickly give you my views on this agreement, I need only quote the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which has proven that the agreement's so-called trade benefits are nothing more than a smokescreen:

It is a vast overstatement to say the TPP grants Canada new access to Pacific Rim countries when 97% of Canadian exports already enter the TPP economies tariff free.

Behind these figures and these words, there are 60,000 jobs that could disappear. In Mauricie alone, dairy, poultry, and egg producers will be the big losers. The Fédération de l'UPA in the Mauricie region estimates that 300 farms will be impacted by the trade implications of the TPP. When I say “impacted”, it is clearly understood that they will be negatively impacted. These policies are detrimental to Quebec producers, local communities, and well-paid jobs generated by the industry.

Pierre Lampron, member and president of the UPA in the Mauricie region, made it very clear who would pay the price of these policies when he said, “At the end of the day, it is our producers who will pay the price, because a pound of cheese produced outside Canada is one pound less produced by local businesses”. He was likely implying that Quebeckers and Canadians can only eat so much cheese.

I hope that the government will listen to reason when it comes to the TPP. After that aside, I will now come back to the benefits that the trade facilitation agreement will bring to our SMEs.

It is true that the implementation of the TFA could reduce the administrative burden on our SMEs. Small and medium-sized businesses spend a lot of money on administration, and reducing those costs could improve their export potential. However, the federal government must do a lot more for SMEs. The government could keep the election promises it made to support SMEs. After promising to lower their taxes from 11% to 9%, the government is depriving SMEs of the tax relief required to invest and create jobs.

In Trois-Rivières, over 2,000 small businesses would have benefited from this measure, but the government prefers to give tax breaks to large corporations that do not put those tax savings back into the Canadian economy.

By abandoning our small businesses, the government is also abandoning the middle class, since, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, one-third of business owners earn less than $33,000 a year, and 41% work more than 50 hours per week. I would remind the House that one has to earn at least $45,000 in order to benefit from the most recent tax cuts.

With this budget, the Liberals are turning their backs on hard-working families just trying to make ends meet, but it is true that small businesses depend largely on international trade. Therefore, in order to ensure the success of small businesses internationally, the government needs to develop a specific support policy taking into consideration the following two facts: first, Canadian small businesses have very little presence in international markets—a measly 10% to 14%—, and second, those that do export their products are still far too exposed to the vagaries of the American economy.

To improve the situation, the government needs to make it easier for small businesses to access funding when they are trying to succeed in international markets. Small businesses often do not have the resources to carry a lot of inventory and keep up with demand.

I see I am running out of time. I would have liked to say so much more. I will probably have a chance to make a few more points as I answer questions, but let me wrap up by saying that following a careful assessment, I can support TFAs as long as they are concluded with strategic partners that respect basic human rights.

I would also remind the House that, while the TFA might be beneficial for small businesses, the government needs to do more. Finally, the TFA's measures can help developing countries, although I did not have time to address this issue and I hope to come back to it.

I will stop there and I look forward to questions from my esteemed colleagues.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my hon. colleague and his party will be supporting Bill C-13 at second reading to get it to committee. I want to delve a little more deeply and examine the questions he ultimately is concerned about that might be presented at committee, particularly, as he noted, with respect to protecting the safety of workers.

This legislation clearly deals, in part, with non-compliant goods and goods in transit that may not be compliant with existing Canadian regulations. The intent is simply to give the Government of Canada authority to provide exemptions to allow goods to continue in transit, keeping in mind that it would still have to protect Canadians and workers.

Could the member perhaps explain what his specific concern is and what would make him more comfortable in supporting this legislation at third reading with respect to simply giving the government the authority to look at the particular situation in question and then grant an exemption where it thinks it is appropriate?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

At this point, it is relatively easy to support this bill, even at second reading, because it makes only minor changes to Canadian legislation.

To answer his question, I imagine that the first questions asked in committee will be about the health and safety of the workers directly involved in the transshipment of goods that must remain in or pass through Canada.

We simply want to ensure that all workplace health and safety standards will be respected under the new agreement. The agreement only needs to be ratified by two-thirds of signatory countries to come into force. Therefore, Canada's support is not needed because some 78 countries have already ratified the agreement. Nevertheless, we are staying the course to ensure that workers' health and safety remain a priority every step of the way.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct the record on what the Minister of National Defence said earlier today in the House.

The minister rose to say that we announced a national security and rule of law dialogue during the Prime Minister's visit on September 12. While the announcement was made on September 12 and in conjunction with a trip, the Prime Minister concluded his trip to China on September 2.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle for this clarification and bringing it to the attention of the House at the first instance.

Questions and comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brampton South.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about Bill C-13, the legislation that would allow Canada to implement the World Trade Organization agreement on trade facilitation, otherwise known as the TFA.

As members may know, Canada played a key role in the negotiation of the TFA at the WTO. The TFA focuses on streamlining, harmonizing, and modernizing customs procedures. It has enormous potential for reducing trade costs and times. The TFA would enhance predictability and transparency of customs decisions for traders, expedite the release of goods through the use of modern technologies, and increase the efficiency of customs procedures through improved coordination between border agencies. In these negotiations Canada ensured that the TFA would provide a full range of trade consultation measures while preserving our ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.

I would like to speak today about some of the legislative amendments that are required for Canada to join the ranks of 92 other WTO members, including the EU, the U.S., and China, who have ratified the TFA.

While Canada's customs system is compliant with the vast majority of provisions in the TFA, certain statutes do require amendment for Canada to fully implement the TFA and maintain safeguards on the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. These amendments relate to two provisions of the TFA: article 10.8.1, rejected goods, and article 11.8, goods in transit.

Article 10.8.1 requires WTO members to allow importers to return to the exporter goods that were rejected on account of their failure to meet certain health and other technical requirements, unless another means of dealing with the rejected goods is provided for in that country's laws—for example, seizure and disposal. Therefore, governments that wish to retain the ability to treat incoming goods other than by permitting their return will need to be able to point to specific provisions in their laws or regulations providing authority to do so.

Article 11.8 prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point, known as goods in transit. This provision would allow foreign goods to move through Canada, for example, from Europe to the United States, without complying with our technical regulations.

The transit through Canada of some goods, such as pharmaceutical drugs, cleaning products, or pesticides, that do not comply with technical regulations is currently prohibited by certain federal statutes, which need to be amended. To ensure that the Government of Canada's statutes and regulations comply with this article of the TFA while maintaining safeguards to the health and safety of Canadians and the environment, amendments to five statutes administered by Health Canada are required. Those statutes are the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act; the Food and Drugs Act; the Hazardous Products Act; the Pest Control Products Act; and the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.

Bill C-13 identifies criteria under which non-compliant goods could either be returned to the exporter, re-consigned in accordance with article 10.8.1 of the TFA, or alternatively, seized, detained, forfeited, and/or disposed of by inspectors or customs officers. This means that non-compliant goods such as drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, food, tanning equipment, children's toys, hazardous products, and pesticides that pose unacceptable health and safety risks could be seized and not returned in certain cases. In other cases, in the absence of significant risk factors, products could be returned or re-consigned.

These amendments will enhance the predictability and transparency in how rejected goods are treated at the border, and will help ensure that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment continue to be protected.

In regard to article 11.8, most importers are aware of the prohibitions on the transit of unregistered or unauthorized products, although sometimes companies request one-off permission to transit such products through Canada.

Presently, these activities are expressly prohibited by legislative or regulatory requirements, and are routinely denied.

Preventing products that do not comply with technical regulations from transiting through Canada can be considered a trade barrier. This is because the health and safety of Canadians and the environment can in fact be protected in an equally effective and less trade-restrictive manner.

The legislative amendments proposed in the bill specify that Canada's technical regulations would not apply to goods in transit through Canada as long as certain requirements to protect health, safety, and the environment are met. More specifically, Bill C-13 includes requirements designed to mitigate the risk that certain goods in transit could be diverted into the Canadian market or compromise the health and safety of Canadians or the environment as a result of accidents or spills.

For example, labelling requirements for certain goods in transit would enable inspectors, border officers, handlers, and sellers to distinguish between goods destined for import and those just passing through. Such labelling would denote the origin, intended destination, and product safety and handling procedures for goods in transit.

By implementing the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Canada would meet its international obligations under the TFA with respect to article 10.8.1 in dealing with the treatment of rejected non-compliant goods, and with respect to article 11.8 to improve the flow of goods across its borders.

Bill C-13 would enable Canada to update and better coordinate customs processes that will help bring economic benefits to Canadians. I support this bill, and I urge all hon. members to support this bill, which would enable Canada to do its part to bring this agreement into force, and ensure that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment remains protected.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is lovely to be back in the House of Commons. I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

Certainly, I am always happy to hear about trade and new trade happening. If I think back to our Conservative government, when we were in government, and the 44 countries with which we introduced trade deals, I think it is wonderful.

I specifically appreciated how the member looked to the technical details of what is involved in trade, a lot of times, because if we do not get those right, they can be a barrier. I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks there is some ability to leverage what we learned in this specific deal, so that we can deal with interprovincial trade in a better way. Many times there, as well, we see that it is technical differences between specifications in the provinces that are causing the barrier to trade.

I would be interested to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we went back to Canadians during the campaign and reminded them that our priority is pro-free trade.

We support increased trade with other countries because it is good for Canada. In my riding of Brampton South, I see how businesses and connections from all over the world benefit our economy and families when we are setting Canada's standards high.

I am supporting this bill and all the global work done by the minister on this file.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton South for her speech.

Any measure that will help SMEs take on the challenges they face every day is praiseworthy. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, not enough of our SMEs are in the export market, so Canada's decision to sign and ratify these agreements is a great thing, especially because the agreements are for SMEs, business people, products, jobs, and workers, unlike the TPP.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. This agreement seems to please investors more than it does the manufacturing sector.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the government supports free trade as we open markets for Canadian goods and services, grow Canadian businesses, and create well-paying jobs. It will also boost our economy and is good for Canadians.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our industry committee is currently studying a manufacturing strategy for Canada. We are looking at pharmaceuticals and cosmetics manufacturers as well as people working in the food industry, and looking at the opportunities to increase exports for SMEs.

Could the hon. member comment on the bottom line improvements that this type of an agreement could give the SMEs when they are trying to develop into emerging markets?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada completed the legal review of the Canada and European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Our government supports free trade. It is how we open the market to Canadian goods and services, grow businesses, and create high-quality jobs. CETA would remove trade barriers, give unprecedented access to a market of 500 million people, widely expand free trade between Canada and the European Union, and increase opportunities for the middle-class.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard multiple times in the member's speech and comments in answer to questions that she supports free trade and her government supports free trade. The trans-Pacific partnership was drafted over a year ago. The government has had over a year to look at it. Liberals say they have been consulting and are continuing to consult. Are they simply going to wait until the U.S. makes a decision on this, or is the Government of Canada ready to approve this free trade agreement, the trans-Pacific partnership, that would open up more access to 800 million people, similar to this agreement?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is working hard toward this, as is Bill C-13. We fully support the bill. The TFA would increase trade by modernizing and simplifying customs and border procedures and lowering trade costs as well.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is basically a technical bill stemming from a World Trade Organization agreement. It will streamline border services' administrative procedures in all 162 member states, making them faster, more transparent, and less arbitrary.

In terms of trade, the impact here will be minimal. Our main buyer is the United States, with which we already have agreements that cover more ground than the WTO agreement. Bill C-13 will remove a number of irritants for exporters whose goods might otherwise have been held up at customs. While such situations can be frustrating for people who get tied up in red tape, they are few and far between.

Certainly some aspects of the bill merit closer scrutiny. Chief among these are the importation of hazardous materials and prohibited pesticides for which less control is not desirable. Nevertheless, we will support Bill C-13 in principle.

Quite frankly, although this bill is large, it is not very substantial. The only thing the WTO member countries could agree on were the technical details. The last WTO agreement was concluded 22 years ago. There have been nothing but obstacles since then. The Seattle round never got off the ground. The Doha round is moving at the speed of a zombie in an unending coma. There is something not right in the world of trade.

The irrelevance of the Bali package, the Marrakesh protocol, and the subsequent Bill C-13 is a testament to that. We seem to be forgetting that behind the multilateral trade agreements was a desire for lasting peace, and a strong humanitarian motivation.

GATT played a big part in the decolonization movement and the dismantling of the empires that followed. That is not at all what drives trade discussions these days. Natural resources and manufactured goods currently move freely, with some exceptions. In fact, 85% of all goods move freely without quotas or tariffs. On average the remaining tariffs are 5.5% on all the goods traded on the planet. Essentially, free trade already exists.

When it comes to freer trade, the discussions currently underway are focused on two things. The first is agriculture. It is a sensitive subject. Agriculture is not like other sectors. Most people in developing countries depend on it. When prices skyrocket, people in urban areas go hungry because they are unable to afford food. When prices drop, people in rural areas lose their land because selling prices are lower than production costs. They are at a major disadvantage compared to large American and European farmers who are heavily subsidized. Our producers, who are under supply management and are not subsidized, face the same threat.

In short, unfettered free trade threatens food sovereignty, social peace, and land use, which are also sensitive subjects. This explains why the discussions are so difficult. What is more, we are at the table with a number of ultra-liberal and intransigent countries. These countries are net exporters of agriculture products and want the borders to be thrown wide open. They form what we call the Cairns Group, the same group that is attacking supply management. Canada is among those ultra-liberal countries.

Harmonizing standards has been another focus of many stalled discussions. Countries have always had laws and regulations that reflect their notion of the common good. Some of the more lenient societies, such as the United States and English Canada, are more geared toward free enterprise. Others are more restrictive, with the state setting itself up as the guardian of the people's will and the common good. Those are two opposing models of society. When trade agreements seek to harmonize standards, the problem is that their provisions always end up restricting the state's ability to act.

No trade agreement will ever require universal education. That is not what trade agreements are for. They can place restrictions on states that want to prohibit GMOs, however. No trade agreement will ever say that a 0% tax rate constitutes unfair competition, but a state that intervenes in the economy by supporting businesses whose growth is desirable because they are considered strategically important would be accused of unfair competition.

Given our quasi-free trade situation, trade agreements no longer have much to do with trade as such in terms of customs tariffs and import quotas. What they do is affect states' ability to act for the common good.

They make interventionism or stringent regulations illegal. They codify an economic model and make illegal anything that deviates from it. It is no wonder that everything is blocked. The bulk of Canadian agricultural production is from monoculture destined for export. There is good reason to liberalize the entire agricultural sector and ensure that countries do not have the right to ban GMOs, since Canada is one of the largest GMO crop producers in the world, or require that they be labelled.

I have no ill will toward Canada. I am speaking in Canada's interest and the same goes for government interventionism. Canada has one of the worst records in the world when it comes to supporting its businesses. It invests very little in R and D, so that is normal. Since it has a subsidiary economy, its businesses are not terribly innovative.

Canada also wants very strict agreements that prevent other governments from intervening in the economy and definitions of subsidies that cover everything. In 2016, it is defending an economic model from the 1990s. It is one of the most intransigent countries at the table, and this intransigence largely explains why everything is being blocked at the WTO and why we are discussing such an irrelevant matter as Bill C-13 here today.

I do not take issue with that. That is Canada's prerogative. The problem is that my society does not work like that. We have innovative enterprises in Quebec, homegrown enterprises, and an ownership economy. We have large government institutions that intervene in the economy and regulations that seek to protect the public and defend the common good, but many people do not like them because they see them as barriers to trade.

We are claiming our right to build a distinct society in North America, a society that reflects who we are. Since market forces are pushing more toward uniformity, then we need an active government that enjoys a healthy dose of freedom.

For 20 years, trade agreements have taken their toll: our middle class ended up in direct competition with exploited workers in developing countries. Free to trade everywhere without having to adapt to different regulations, multinationals uprooted their production chains and encouraged tax havens that would allow them to hide their earnings abroad and avoid paying taxes. They stopped contributing to the communal pot, forcing governments to cut services.

We can continue to repeatedly deal with these obstacles, pretend that the rounds of negotiations are not moving as slowly as zombies, and discuss austerity measures, such as those set out in Bill C-13, or we can start fresh and consider how trade can become a real instrument for progress for humankind, not just for multinational corporations; consider how producing while destroying the environment or exploiting children is a form of unfair trade; and consider how the diversity of peoples and their economic and regulatory models contribute to the world's wealth.

I know that I am not in the right country to say these things and that Canada is too attached to the 20th century and its development model. However, I also know that my country, Quebec, would resolutely choose the 21st century, social progress, and sustainable development because they are in our best interest.

In the meantime, I will discuss Bill C-13 in the Parliament of Canada in preparation for the day when my people will be able to take control of these debates. Then everything will be different.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montcalm for his speech. He obviously knows a lot about this topic. We are lucky to be able to learn from his expertise.

I would like to ask him whether it seems obvious to him that, during all this time, the people who are discussing and developing these major contracts between investors are seeking to secretly influence governments. Rumour has it that the TPP could be ratified very soon.

Are there not major issues on which Quebec must stand and be counted? I am thinking about the unbelievable Netflix clause that would mean that we could not intervene in the delivery of what are commonly known as over-the-top services on the Internet. These types of hidden clauses have a huge impact on culture and perhaps even on agriculture.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to claim to be an expert. I would like to thank my honourable colleague for saying that my speech was well researched.

While I can say we will support the principle of the bill and then find, in the clause-by-clause study, where the devil is hiding—because they say that the devil is in the details—my point is not to have an arrogant attitude toward Canada or believe that it should not protect its interests. I just wanted to show in an objective and structured way that there are two competing economies in Canada.

There is the branch plant economy, as we saw with Rona. In Canada, all guidelines, all parameters are set by Bay Street, in Toronto. Quebec, however, has developed an owners' economy. Therefore, it is hard to understand why we are so attached to our head offices.

Canada and Quebec have two different and competing economies. In fact, they are objectively different. When, this country speaks, instead of Quebec, about international agreements with such organizations as the WTO, it is not protecting Quebec's interests.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He obviously does not believe in Canada.

If, as he wishes, Quebec were independent, how would it engage in that kind of trade at that level? Would it have the power to do that?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that, as soon as Quebec is no longer subordinate to the federal Canadian state, it will have no trouble taking its seat at various international tables and speaking on its own behalf.

When that happens, we will stand up for our farmers and supply management. We will not send others to speak on our behalf. I talked about the Cairns group. I am appalled at the way they attack supply management, the way Canada lets them speak on our behalf, and the fact that Canada is even part of the group, given the need to protect supply management. It comes as no surprise that, a year after this government was elected, our farmers are still waiting for it to keep its promise.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government firmly believes that trade can help us achieve our development goals by creating new economic opportunities and increasing productivity and growth in Canada and around the world.

The high cost of international trade disproportionately affects developing nations, especially the least developed countries. Our government is focusing on initiatives that can both support global growth and reduce poverty, including the ratification of the World Trade Organization agreement on trade facilitation. This agreement, also known as the TFA, aims to facilitate the cross-border movement of goods by cutting red tape. It will simplify the documentation required to clear goods at the border and the procedures used by border agencies. Faster, simpler, more predictable border procedures will lead to lower costs for traders.

Governments, meanwhile, will benefit from more efficient border procedures, fewer opportunities for corruption at the border, and improved revenue collection. Lower trade costs can increase the volume of trade, help increase national revenues, and reduce poverty. Countries that are making efforts to reduce trade costs, for instance by improving logistics, generally enjoy more rapid growth.

Most economic gains from the TFA will flow to developing countries, since developed countries, including Canada, already satisfy the vast majority of the TFA provisions. The TFA will also help promote economic diversification in developing countries.

Implementing the TFA could help developing countries broaden the range of products they export and the new markets they can enter. According to the World Bank, the number of new products exported by less developed countries could increase by up to 35%.

Developing economies will need technical assistance and help in strengthening their capacities for implementing the TFA reforms and taking advantage of the opportunities it presents for reducing poverty. The TFA allows developing countries to implement it according to their capacities and to outline what they need in terms of assistance. It also requires WTO members to provide practical support for addressing those needs.

The World Bank found that the return on investment generated by trade facilitation projects was among the most profitable development efforts. According to the World Bank, reducing obstacles in the supply chain and accelerating administrative procedures at the borders can increase GDP six times faster than eliminating tariffs.

Canada is in a good position to provide that aid. From 2010 to 2015, we invested nearly $47 million to support trade facilitation through bilateral, regional, and multilateral programs. For example, Canada provides $12 million in trade facilitation aid to the Trademark East Africa integrated border management initiative. That represents approximately 10% of the project's total funding.

This initiative considerably reduces delays at the border and trade costs between members of the East African community, namely Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and South Sudan, by creating a single customs territory and supporting improvements to border and customs management practices.

Before this initiative was launched, many declarations had to be made at the border of each East African country. Customs clearance and the payment of custom duties could not be completed until the goods arrived at their destination. As a result, customs clearance was a very slow process. This trade facilitation initiative helps integrate customs procedures through automation and the creation of single border crossings. East African ports are now open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, the average cargo clearance times have gone from three days to eight hours in that region. Such results could lift millions of people out of poverty.

The implementation of the TFA could produce similar results in other places. The full potential of this agreement will be reached once it comes into force.

The agreement cannot take effect until two-thirds of the WTO members have ratified it. To date, 81 of the 108 WTO members that need to ratify the agreement have done so. The legislative amendments set out in Bill C-13 will allow Canada to ratify the TFA and bring it into force as soon as possible.

I strongly encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-13 to allow Canada to do its part and reap the benefits of this agreement.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

Given her knowledge of what SMEs experience, specifically those in retail, can she help us gain a better understanding of how the measures in this bill will actually benefit Quebec or Canadian exporters?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, I have worked with SMEs and in retail. This agreement will definitely help SMEs from across Canada export their goods to these countries. It is the first multilateral agreement concluded since the World Trade Organization was established in 1994. It is a very good agreement. It is a fine victory for multilateralism. I thank the member for his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the World Trade Organization and what it has been able to accomplish, this agreement is probably the most significant of its accomplishments since its inception. As such, I think that passing it through the House of Commons and then ratifying it would be a wonderful endorsement for the world organization of trade. Would she not agree that is an important reason for us to do that, because as a nation we believe in trade?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Canada is a trading nation. Yes, this agreement will benefit us. It will facilitate trade and modernize and simplify customs and border procedures by reducing tariffs on trade.

Everything about this agreement is positive, and I believe that all parliamentarians agree that this will speed things up. I am very pleased with it. Once Canada has ratified the agreement, the other G20 countries that have not yet done so will quickly follow suit. I am very proud of Bill C-13 and I invite all my colleagues to support it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a bit of a different tack. When we talk about trade, Canada is signatory to international treaties that restrict Canada's trade in endangered species. There is an upcoming meeting on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Some countries want to tighten the restrictions on the trade of ivory coming from endangered species, including elephants. I understand that Canada may not be taking a positive position on that. I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to comment on that.

Does she believe the Government of Canada should participate with other countries and agree to the bans on trade of products from endangered species?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I would say that Bill C-13 will streamline tariff agreements and help countries party to them.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is on the trade committee, for her wonderful speech today. My question has to do with the CBSA.

It has been brought up numerous times at the trade committee that there are issues at our borders. Bill C-13 speaks to that as it will require more safeguards in place at the border because we are talking about some dangerous products that will be travelling through those borders. Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague if she believes that the CBSA requires additional support to make our borders more efficient and secure.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who, like me, is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

We are definitely looking closely at certain aspects of border crossings. Today, in committee, we talked about certain things that were happening at customs. However, that is not really what we are talking about here. Some products could move within Canada, but what we are talking about here is making things easier for other countries, helping them export, and helping our SMEs get into other countries.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bill for the important reasons I will outline in my speech.

First, let me say that I started in the House 19 years ago next to the curtain and I am right back beside the curtain, starting another journey.

Coming back to the issue, during the period of time that I was the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, for international human rights, and for international development, one of the reasons that I went around the world was to promote international trade for Canada. The previous Conservative government worked very hard to make free trade one of its priorities, because it recognized that being a country rich in natural resources, as well as innovation, with a small population, free trade agreements with other countries were extremely important for the country to prosper. As such, Conservatives are very proud to have been associated with a government that saw the need for free trade agreements.

My colleague, the former minister of trade, now the member for Abbotsford, signed the treaty at the WTO, which we are now talking about in the House for implementation purposes. This is a technical bill that, again, follows a process in which we need less bureaucracy and more space to carry out international trade.

In today's international world, we see that protectionism is rising. We have seen that south of the border with both candidates talking about protectionism, yet all indications are that NAFTA has been positive for all countries. Even with regard to CETA, today the Minister of International Trade issued a statement in Europe that there are still a lot of areas to cover. There is a lot to cover on the free trade agreement with India. Nevertheless, this is what the government should focus on. It should ensure that our negotiators continue to be aggressive in finding more markets for our products in this country.

As we face the downturn in both the oil and resource industries, but most importantly the oil industry, it has had an impact right across Canada and it is having even more of an impact on my province of Alberta, where there is story after story of people losing their jobs. These days, when I travel through downtown Calgary, it is amazing to see the streets so empty and the business towers becoming empty downtown. This has a serious impact on our country. We need to understand that while we are a very big country with different resources in different parts of the world, each is interdependent on the other. We should not forget that.

We should also remind people like the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, and everyone else, that ultimately the prosperity of Canada is the prosperity of Montreal, as well as Quebec. He does not live in an isolated city. The provinces tend to work together to help each other represent Canada. That is important. We never distinguish what one province or another is doing. Rather, we talk about what Canada as a whole could provide to the world in terms of not only trade but other aspects related to trade, and we have been very successful in doing that.

However, we are now facing a crisis at this time. Pipelines have not been built. Even the NDP government in Alberta, as a matter of fact, is raising the issue of getting our natural resources to tidewater. Yet, very interestingly, the situation is arising where we need to create an environment, which this bill would do, to ensure that Canadian companies have the opportunity to fairly, and I repeat the word “fairly” very strongly, compete around the world.

This is why the issue of supply management comes to mind. We have to be very careful when supply management is involved that we do not sell our country to other foreign countries that are trying break into our market. We must ensure there is a level playing field for our farmers. I am, of course, talking about the supply management that will be part of the free trade agreement that we are signing, the TPP, and everything else. It is critically important that the government, through the implementation of this agreement, get that message.

I am glad the Liberals are implementing this agreement, but I guess they have no choice. However, as I listen to other Liberal MPs, it seems like suddenly they have discovered free trade and that this bill is something on which they had been working. As we know, the current government came into power not even a year ago, and it is now mostly implementing many of the positive aspects that the previous government had done around the world.

It also surprises me that, now, after environmental targets, the Liberals are going to go back to what we had said would be the targets. Therefore, it was amazing when the current government came out and said that Canada was back. Canada was always back.

On this agreement, all due credit goes to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade officials who worked very hard. It was a privilege for me to work with them for the last 10 years. I recognize their expertise and dedication in working toward this objective. This is what they have been doing. Therefore, when the government raises the idea that nothing existed before the Liberals came into power, that is absolutely wrong. My colleagues on the other side need to recognize that we work together as a country. We work together on these issues to ensure we give Canadians what they are looking for, which is clearly very important in this part of the world: jobs and the economy.

The economy comes first, which is why the carbon tax, from my point of view, is a regressive situation. A tax tends to slow the economy down. When we are trying to meet targets, a whole problem arises out of this thing, which is that we cannot create an environment where Canadians cannot work freely, innovate, and carry on what we have been doing for years in our country.

My party is in support of the bill, but the former minister of trade and the previous government should have full credit for working this out there, signing free trade agreements, and working to ensure we have a regime in our country and an environment where our businesses can go out and take the world on, because we are first class in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, I am also very close to the curtain, and I do not know where I will be in 14 years. Who knows where he will be in a couple of months, but we appreciate his comments today.

I would like to make something clear. I do not think that anyone on this side or anyone in the government is taking credit for this being a Liberal initiative. The Prime Minister was in Turkey last November saying that we were going to quickly ratify this agreement. Therefore, clearly in November we could not possibly take credit for something as we had just been elected.

I do acknowledge the good work that his friends on that side of the House have done, and the good work of the member for Prince Albert, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington who sit on the international trade committee with us. They have all contributed well to the international trade debate.

If Bill C-13 passes, could the member elaborate on what it will mean for the people of Calgary and how this will perhaps help the economy there and his constituents?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did ask me a good question, but I thought the answer would have been “thank you very much”. However, he has asked me to elaborate.

The most important thing in Bill C-13 is that it would take away the red tape. There is a great amount of red tape in international trade, including within our country. The bill works toward reducing it through the WTO, which would force other countries to do that too. Therefore, we could carry on with a level playing field and fewer hurdles for our people in red tape.

I remember going to Vietnam and other countries that wanted to be part of the WTO. We taught them and trained their officers on how to do this, because they had no expertise. Nevertheless, Bill C-13 would make it easier for countries to trade with each other, which is good for everyone.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for five years now I have been listening closely to my hon. colleague's speeches. I am quite familiar with his rhetoric on the economy.

My question is simple. Given all the measures that were put in place by the previous government, how is it that Statistics Canada is telling us that only 10.4% of SMEs, which let us not forget create the majority of jobs in Canada, succeed in moving into export market? Is that because the old Conservative measures fell flat or because the cuts at Statistics Canada prevent us from getting reliable figures on which we can agree?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for listening to my rhetoric for five years. Hopefully, he will get something out of it.

This is precisely what we are talking about. The bill would remove the red tape so SMEs can get more involved in the free trade market around the world. I went on many trade missions where SMEs came with me. In fact, I was a SME. In one of my previous speeches, what he called rhetoric, I said that the biggest hurdle for small businesses was red tape. This is what international trade means. This is taking away the red tape so small businesses can go and look for markets.

However, one of the biggest and the most important things is that our government has signed free trade agreements with other countries. When we have a free trade agreement and we remove many of the restrictions and the red tape, it allows SMEs to access the markets in other countries, and this is a good thing for Canada.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Sarnia—Lambton is a border community, so we have seen benefits from the North American Free Trade Agreement. About 40% of the trade in Canada is there. I guess we are also a port city. We are really looking forward to seeing the TPP and the agreement with the European countries signed. It seems to be taking a long time.

I am happy this bill is coming forward at this time, and I would like to see the pace picked up on the ratification.

With all of his years of experience in the House, could the member say what he thinks Canada should be doing to encourage a faster signing of all these deals?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Parliament, I went to Doha for a WTO meeting, called the Doha Round. There was a huge number of countries in the WTO. This was going to be the agreement that would open up trade around the world. Unfortunately, all of that optimism slowly dissipated as more and more protectionism came from these countries.

The member has very rightly pointed out that the opening up of the markets and of free trade routes is one of the ways that not only Canada prospers, but everybody in the world prospers. If we look back at history, when there was free trade all around the world, there was a massive income increase. When the protectionism comes, then the whole world economy goes down and everybody suffers.

Taking that into account, it is a good thing to ratify this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, Taxation; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Health; the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, Indigenous Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13. I will not read the entire name of the act because it would amend a number of different acts, but we are referring to it as a trade facilitation agreement.

This is an agreement that was concluded by the previous Conservative government, and one that really would go a long way to helping out our small and medium-sized enterprises, those business where the owners have always been apprehensive about engaging in exports because of all the hassles they experience dealing with customs officers, brokerage agencies, and trying to get their goods across the border.

However, this TFA, the trade facilitation agreement, would greatly simplify all customs procedures. It would cut through the red tape that so many businesses experience at the border. It would expedite the release and clearance of goods. Often we see goods get caught up in storage. If they are dealing with food products that have an expiration date, we have to ensure that these goods, especially fresh meats and fresh vegetables and fruits, get over those borders quicker. As well, we want to ensure that those imports that so many of our businesses rely on are not getting tied up in that bureaucratic red tape at the border. Essentially, this whole process would make international trade for all Canadians, specifically for our small and medium-sized enterprises, much more predictable.

We have to always remember that when the Conservatives were a government, we worked very strenuously to reduce red tape for all businesses right across the board. Bill C-13, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative government, really would go a long way in cutting back that red tape that is unfairly burdening our businesses and small enterprises, often the family-run operations, with extra paperwork and processes. Business owners do not have the time, energy, or staff to make that happen.

It is interesting to note that this was a WTO commitment. As any of us who have been involved in trade know, negotiations and dealings at the World Trade Organization are extremely slow. We often think about the wheels turning very slowly on things in Ottawa, but nothing moves slower than what we see at the WTO.

This negotiation started back in 2004, and only concluded in December 2013. It took nine years to negotiate. Those of us who were around when the Doha Round started to try to advance the WTO and expand the number of products that were going to be covered through trade under WTO, the number of countries that were going to be in the WTO, and how much tariff rate barriers were going to be reduced are glad to see that this is one part of the WTO that has successfully reached a conclusion. It is imperative upon all member states of the WTO to ratify these agreements.

It would come into force as soon as two-thirds of all the member states of WTO have signed on to the FTA. Currently, my understanding is that about 81 have signed on. It means that Canada and so many other countries need to get this ratified as quickly as possible. Back in May 2015, as a government, the member for Abbotsford, when he was minister of trade, tabled this document in the House to start this process.

Two main issues are addressed in this trade facilitation agreement: article 10.8, which deals with the treatment of goods rejected on account of their failure to meet certain health and other technical requirements; and article 11.8, which would prohibit the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point. Therefore, these are goods in transit.

This would not impact on Canada's ability to protect the health and safety of our consumers. The goods that Canadians receive, especially food products, would still live up to our high phytosanitary and health standards. It would also not impact on how any of these goods have any impact on our environment.

As I said, this is the first time we have actually seen the WTO agreement reach any ratification level in 20 years. What we are seeing is that this would increase global merchandise anywhere from $750 billion to $1 trillion. Developed economies would see a growth of $310 billion to $580 billion per year. World export growth would increase 2.7%; that is 21 million jobs that could be produced around the world. We would like to see some of those jobs created in Canada.

We talk about trying to get through some very difficult times in our economy. As we see the energy sector continue to struggle in western Canada, as we continue to experience a sluggish economy across the country and jobs continually being shed, from one end of this country to the other, under the current government, we need to have something that gives clear direction and stimulus to the economy. One way we can do that is by approving the TFA. The other thing we can do is approve the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP.

I am so proud of our record as the previous Conservative government. We signed trade deals with more than 46 countries. Compare that to the Liberal record, which is three countries. Now the Liberals are signing on to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Of course, that was negotiated by our previous government. They have an opportunity to finalize the regulatory and legislative processes to put the trans-Pacific partnership in place.

I am concerned, from what we are hearing in the opposition benches, that the government has a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to the TPP. All members of the trans-Pacific partnership are part of the WTO and are part of the TFA we are talking about, the trade facilitation agreement. The key point on TPP is that rather than wait and see what happens in the U.S. elections, we need to be more aggressive and move forward.

We are talking about major gains. The Chief Economist of Canada released a report just last week that said that if we are part of it, Canada's gains in GDP will be $4.3 billion a year. If we are not part of the TPP, our losses will be $5.3 billion a year. These are big numbers.

Again, we want to grow the economy. As Conservatives, we want to see more Canadians employed. If the United States, because both candidates for president seem to be anti-trade in their rhetoric at this moment in the election cycle, does not sign on to the TPP, it actually presents a greater opportunity for Canadian farmers, Canadian manufacturers, and Canadian exporters to grab a greater share. The potential to grow would be beyond $4.3 billion.

In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, beef production is by far the main economic stimulator. Hog production is as well. If we do not have access to those trans-Pacific partnership countries, we will see a major decline. Estimates by the Chief Economist himself are that beef exports could drop by two-thirds. That will be a real stab in the back for all Canadian farmers, from one end of this country to the other, but especially in western Canada. We need an opportunity, and this is the opportunity, to grow jobs and expand our economy.

If the United States becomes more protectionist because of the current nominees for president, it presents a greater opportunity for Canada in the TPP, the WTO, and other trade agreements.

I urge the Liberals to ratify the Conservative- negotiated trans-Pacific partnership. I urge them to make sure that we get Bill C-13 passed and that we continue to stand up for all of our export-based industries. If we truly believe that we are a trading nation, we have to support them by reducing tariffs and red tape. Bill C-13 does that, and so does the trans-Pacific partnership. The Liberals should get on side and get the TPP passed immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we agree on many things in this debate. Obviously, every party is agreeing on Bill C-13. I also think we agree that free trade is good, but it has to be fair trade.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments in regard to the TPP.

I have the good fortune of sitting on the international trade committee. What we are doing is listening to Canadians. We have listened to a lot of Canadians, and there are a lot of Canadians who really want this ratified quickly, but there are just as many Canadians who have some concerns about it. We are trying to find that balance. However that plays out, it will play out, but I think we all know that if the U.S. does not ratify it, the deal will not be there.

I spoke with many food processors and hog producers from the hon. member's province, and they are excited, actually. One of the markets they are very excited about is Vietnam, because there is a growing middle class there, and they enjoy pork products, especially Canadian pork products.

I am wondering if the hon. member would be willing to work with our government, in light of the TPP not happening, in perhaps getting some unilateral trade agreements with countries like Vietnam and Japan to get those great goods to markets and create jobs here in Canada.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard the member say, the TPP may not be signed. The Americans may not sign it, but that does not kill the deal. I do not think the Americans will sit on the sidelines forever after the election, if all the other member states move forward.

It is important to note that if the United States decides to become more protectionist and does not sign the TPP, it is highly likely that it will also try to renegotiate NAFTA. If that is the case, if it is going to turn into a protectionist, navel-gazing country, as we have seen from the two presidential nominees, we need to find alternative markets. That is why the TPP is so important.

The member mentioned Vietnam. Hog producers and cattle producers see the opportunities that exist in Malaysia, Vietnam, Korea, and especially Japan, which has some of the highest tariff rate quotas in the world. If we are going to reduce those tariffs and all those costs, we have to get on side and sign the TPP.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would like to correct in the member's speech. When he mentioned the chief economist and the report that came out about a week and a half ago, he said that there would be $4.3 billion over one year. The $4.3 billion that was mentioned would be over 24 years, and $4.3 billion is the amount the previous Conservative government, which included the member, actually negotiated as compensation for our supply management sector. Essentially, it is a wash. We would see no benefit at all, according to our chief economist and these numbers, from the trans-Pacific partnership.

While we know that beef and pork would see the benefits of trade with Japan, would the member not agree that we should pursue the bilateral agreements we were previously doing before we entered into the trans-Pacific partnership so that those sectors could see the benefits of that trade?

Ultimately, I want to speak to his piece about our getting in. He said that it is important that we get in so that we have preferential market access. That is absolutely not true. There is a certification process that takes place after ratification by our Parliament, and all the cards are held by the U.S. The U.S. is not going to enter into an agreement where Canada has preferential access to those markets before it does.

Was the member aware of the certification process and the fact that ultimately, whether we ratify it or not, the U.S. holds all the cards in this deal?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, she is partially correct about the $4.3 billion. It is an annual increase by 2040, because we have to slowly reduce those tariffs. There is a timed phase-in as tariffs are reduced and eliminated. However, it does result in a huge increase.

We can sit here and argue about the small print, but the reality is that if we are not at the table, if we are not signing this deal, we are not going to have the opportunity to access all those markets.

The U.S. does not hold every card in its pocket. It may decide to walk away. If it walks away, the certification process changes. The member states that are there will still have the opportunity to move ahead with this deal.

Because it would vacate its opportunity to have preferential access to those markets, the U.S. will ultimately want to stay in when reason sets in for the presidential nominees as the selection cycle matures and Americans make their choice in November.

We need to understand that we should be leading on this, not following the United States. Right now we are distracted by politics and very ramped up, torqued rhetoric.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the House of Commons today to discuss Bill C-13, an act that would allow Canada to implement the trade facilitation agreement.

Trade is an incredibly important tool for growing the Canadian economy and economies throughout the world. Its benefits to our economy are vast. It has helped put Canada on the strong economic footing we have enjoyed for the last few years.

Trade deals are designed to enhance businesses to allow them to be competitive and productive and to deliver goods around the world in an environment that is less encumbered by trade barriers. A trade deal is a tool by which governments can deliver new hope and opportunity to Canadians. Trade provides businesses with new clients, people with new products, consumers with cheaper goods through more competition, governments with closer ties, developing countries with greater economic growth, and developed countries with greater economic security.

It is no wonder that I will be supporting the trade facilitation agreement today, which seeks to reduce barriers to trade throughout the world.

Why is this so important for the Canadian economy? Let me describe the state of the economy today. Manufacturing has been consistently contracting this year. According to StatsCan, there are more than 40,000 fewer Canadians employed in manufacturing today than there were last year. That means that there are over 40,000 families that have lost economic means due to the sharp reduction in manufacturing employment, 40,000 families that are finding it difficult to send their children to post-secondary education, 40,000 families that are finding it difficult to pay a mortgage or rent, and 40,000 families that may even be finding it difficult to put food on the table.

What new hope or opportunity is the government offering? It is not a plan for economic growth, not a plan to create jobs, and not a plan for Canadians to be personally responsible. The only focus of the government is bigger government and more reliance on the government.

This brings me to the trade facilitation agreement that seeks to reduce barriers, increase the speed and ease at which goods can be moved through and to jurisdictions, and essentially to reduce government intervention and the size of government in the trade of goods between jurisdictions and through jurisdictions.

While the trade facilitation agreement is designed to increase competition and access to markets around the world, the current government is making our manufacturers and businesses less competitive.

When Canadian manufacturers are less competitive against businesses internationally, our economy sheds manufacturing jobs, and we end up with more unemployed folks right here in Canada. There is no strategy to create jobs in Canada from the Liberal government. In fact, I would argue that there is nothing but a Liberal unemployment strategy.

What is it that the government is doing to breed a less competitive Canada and to ensure increased unemployment?

I spent the summer travelling our country and conducting economic round tables, touring manufacturing plants, visiting new small businesses, finding out the state of the sharing economy, and determining how to create more jobs for those who are not working. Number one at every single round table was the need for freer and more free trade.

In no particular order, I would like to outline the concerns I heard about what is happening domestically here in Canada.

The Liberal government's failure to lower taxes on Canadian small business and entrepreneurs, after promising to lower them from 11% to 9%, is hurting.

The Liberal government would be carbon taxing the provincial carbon tax, without providing any concrete information so businesses can start planning for costs and people can budget these costs into their home budgets.

The Liberal government would be introducing payroll taxes and increasing the costs for employers and employees by as much as $2,000 a year.

Finally, Liberals have failed to waive EI contributions for one year with the hiring of young people between the ages of 18 and 24. To quote the Liberal platform, what was said was:

to encourage compa2nies to hire young Canadians for permanent positions, we will also offer a 12-month break on Employment Insurance premiums. We will waive employer premiums for all those between the ages of 18 and 24 who are hired into a permanent position in 2016, 2017, or 2018.

While it is understood that small businesses gain substantial benefits from trade, as we can see, small businesses and their opportunities are being damaged by Liberal government policies that are stifling our Canadian competitive advantage in the world.

In fact, the policies of the Liberal government are damaging businesses so much that last month alone 39,000 self-employed workers went home. To repeat: 39,000 small businesses closed their doors and are no longer in operation in the month of August alone.

I know from the riding I represent, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, that we are feeling the pain. Our economy is built around manufacturing, agriculture, and small business jobs that will benefit from the trade facilitation agreement and greater trade opportunities overall. However, these self-employed workers are being negatively affected by the high tax practices of the current Liberal government. Since the Liberals assumed government, our unemployment rate in the greater Barrie area has soared from 6.1% to 8.7%. Specifically, the increase in payroll taxes, the proposed provincial carbon taxes, the removal of the hiring tax credit, and effectively increasing taxes on Canadian small businesses from 9% to 10.5% are all measures that are creating dismal job results to date and the the worst economic data since the great recession.

While manufacturing employees and self-employed workers have been so negatively impacted by Liberal government policies, the resource sector has and will feel the effects of these taxes as well. This is a sector that has lost over 100,000 jobs since the drop in the oil price. While the government is continuing with the former Conservative government's approach to the trade facilitation agreement, it is also adding pain to these through the high tax, no pipeline approval policies that we have witnessed to date.

Freer trade is designed to open up access to economic growth for the future. There is no group that better embodies our collective future than our young people and our youth. Unfortunately, these domestic policies are once again constricting our youth despite the many commitments made to us by the Prime Minister during the last election.

While the Prime Minister promised an increase in $300 million for youth employment, he also promised 40,000 jobs for youth each and every year for the next three years. Unfortunately, the reality of the government's domestic policies is again showing itself, but this time among the youth of our country. The August job numbers show that there were 48,000 fewer jobs for young people this summer, not the 40,000 job increase that was promised for youth.

While the Liberal government continues with our previous government's work on the trade facilitation agreement, its domestic policies are driving people out of work and to unemployment. Instead of following through with waiving EI contributions for the hiring of our young people, the government turned its back on youth and left them in the unemployment line with an unemployment rate of 13%.

When all is said and done on this topic, I do support freer trade, the reduction of tariffs and other barriers, and government interventions that stifle opportunity. I stand in support of this legislation because it would create greater opportunity not only for Canadians but also for many developing countries around the world. What I cannot do is pretend that this by itself would help unemployed Canadians find jobs. The government needs to stop raising tax after tax, running away from promise after promise, and finally develop a strategy for growing our economy and putting unemployed Canadians back to work.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in the House, to see my colleagues again, to develop legislation, and to analyze various policies.

I found my colleague's speech interesting. He certainly told us all about what the Conservatives did. However, there were a lot of mistakes in his speech, particularly with regard to the investments the government has made since it took office.

The government has committed to investing a historic $120 billion in infrastructure, a very impressive figure. Investments in youth, families, and children are also quite impressive. People are still talking about them. He forgot to mention all of these points.

The question I would like to ask him is this: since his government was supposedly such a proponent of world trade, why was Canada one of only four G20 countries to ratify this agreement? Why did the new government move forward with this bill so quickly? The Conservatives were in power for 10 years and they did not do it.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are happy that the government is continuing our work on this file. We are obviously supporting this moving forward. However, there are certainly many pieces of our economy that are hurting right now. We also believe that we should be focusing on our unemployed workers in western Canada who have felt the results of the drop in oil prices, and the unemployed workers in Ontario who have felt the results of a manufacturing sector that is being hurt badly. Quite frankly, our youth who bought into, believed, and invested in the promises that were made to them need to be taken care of as well.

Unfortunately, by the government's backing off of on its promised tax reductions for small business and its walking away from and breaking promises to our youth, in particular on providing benefits to businesses to hire youth, we are in a very bad job environment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats are supporting this bill at this stage in principle and look forward to studying its impact in detail at committee. However, one of the things this bill does is facilitates the transit of goods through Canada that may or may not conform with Canadian law, such as health care products and pesticides.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comment to share. As far as the New Democrats are concerned, while we all want to facilitate trade, we want to ensure that we do not allow Canada to be used as a conduit to ship goods that may be environmentally dangerous or dangerous to the health and safety of workers, or products derived from endangered species. Does he have any concern with respect to that or will he join will the New Democrats in making sure that this bill does not have that unintended consequence?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will work with the government and the House to ensure that Canadians are protected. That is what this bill does. It provides for our regulations and standards to exist when goods are being shipped to Canadians. We will continue to support that going forward.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a great speech and for highlighting the importance of trade agreements and the impact they can have on job creation.

I was just in Atlantic Canada and heard from my friends there the importance of these kinds of trade agreements. They told me that they could sell their lobster for $10 a pound here, but with the TPP could get $100 a pound from various other countries in the world. I want to encourage that and I wonder what the member has to say on it.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are certainly for opening up new markets, finding new places to send our goods, and putting Canadians back to work. That is something that we need to have the government move on, and hopefully it will do so very soon.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of sending this bill to committee at this time.

One of the things I find really refreshing about this debate is that there is a certain amount of simplicity to this bill as compared to other types of trade measures that often come before the House. That is not to say that the bill could not stand to be improved. I think my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway made some good suggestions as to how the committee might look at improving this bill.

For those Canadians listening at home, the object of the bill is relatively simple. It allows two things, in order to bring us into compliance with the TFA signed with the WTO. First of all, it would allow Health Canada to either send back or allow for the disposal of goods that come to Canada and do not meet certain health requirements. It would also allow the transit of goods across the country that may not be in compliance with standards that they would have to meet in order to stay here, but could be moved from coast to coast and then on to another destination.

These are the kinds of issues that it makes sense to talk about when we talk about trade, in trying to reduce barriers and trade-offs. That was part of what I think was driving that exchange initiated by the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

What is refreshing about it is that we see the government initiating a trade measure that does not, as we have seen so many times from Liberal and Conservative governments, sell out Canadian sovereignty in order to make life a little more convenient for foreign corporations. That is the kind of thing we are seeing with CETA and TPP.

It is really nice and refreshing for New Democrats, because New Democrats do support trade. We support reasonable measures to promote trade, but not having to have a debate about the nature of Canadian sovereignty and the ability of a democratically elected government in Canada to legislate to protect the environment and workers here. That is very nice. I wish we could do it more often in this place.

That is one of the reasons I am taking a certain delight in this debate, despite some Canadians who may be listening at home finding the debate kind of bland.

We are not talking about a trade deal, for instance, that would lock Canada into extra patent protection for large pharmaceutical companies that already have a 20-year life on their patents and would raise the costs of pharmaceutical drugs here. One of the reasons the NDP has been advocating for a national pharmaceutical plan, or a national pharmacare plan, has been to reduce the cost of drugs.

We do hear from the new Liberal government that it wants to reduce the cost of health care in ways that make more care more accessible to Canadians. However, instead of pursuing a national pharmacare program, we have seen it lending support to deals like CETA and the TPP that are going to do more to increase the cost of drugs for Canadians than whatever the government may do, short of signing a national pharmacare plan, to reduce those costs.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory for the government to bring in a national pharmacare plan—and I will be very pleased and also very surprised if that comes to pass in the term of the government—and then sign a deal like the TPP or CETA that would raises the cost of those drugs and nullify the benefit of the national pharmacare plan. If the effort to bring in such a plan just backfills the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, which are potentially going to receive less money under a pharmacare plan because the unit cost of drugs will go down, we are not obligated to sign a deal like the TPP just to put that money right back in their pockets. We are interested in the net gain for Canadian families, not for international pharma.

It is nice to talk about trade. We have heard the new Minister of Labour say that there has been a problem with the temporary foreign worker program, for instance, and that it has been abused. I would like to talk about how we reduce legitimate trade barriers without having to have a whole conversation about how we are going to create a shadow temporary foreign worker program that is hidden in an international trade deal with 12 other parties, a program that cannot be changed, when we know that even when the program was being administered only by the Canadian government, there were plenty of problems with it.

We were fortunate that the government was able to act unilaterally to try to curb some of the worst abuses of that program, a program that not only was making life difficult for Canadian workers who were then competing with temporary foreign workers but also making it hard for those temporary foreign workers who in many cases were being asked to pay obscene amounts of money in their home country just to get to a job, which when they came to Canada, was not what they were promised. Under threat of deportation by their employer, they had to put up substandard wages and substandard working conditions that were not part of the promised jobs.

That is not what it means to talk about reducing legitimate trade barriers. We should not have to conflate all of those issues together, and then be told that if we are opposed to enshrining a broken TFW program in an international trade deal, we are not in favour of trade.

We should not have to be told that, if we have a meaningful plan and believe in having affordable pharmaceutical drugs for Canadians, somehow we are anti-trade.

This is the kind of thing we should be talking about when we are talking about trade: tradeoffs. Some may be reasonable, some may not. We may ultimately be in favour of some, and ultimately not others. It will be because we think that the tradeoffs are, on balance, better for Canadians or, on balance, worse. However, the practice of successive Liberal and Conservative governments of ramming through a whole bunch of bad public policy and taking away the right of democratically elected governments in Canada to change those policies when they do not work and calling that a debate about simple trade is the dishonesty that needs to come to an end. At least we have been spared that dishonesty in this debate and, if nothing else, I am glad for that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think of Elmwood—Transcona as the rail centre of Canada with the Symington yard there and the CN yards. Trade, obviously, is a big part of the hon. member's constituency. Yet, in 2014-15, exports dropped by another 7% over the previous year. Even with the free trade deals, even with all the promotion of free trade, we were not trading.

Maybe the hon. member would comment on how the bill we are now discussing might actually result in some trade and may get some trains moving through Elmwood—Transcona and whether there are any other hindrances to trade that free trade deals do not address that maybe we should be considering.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question and for his knowledge of Elmwood—Transcona. Certainly, as a member of Parliament representing a rail community, I see two sides to the element in the bill that is about transporting dangerous goods from one corner of the country to the other.

On one hand, I am optimistic and glad at the thought that it might help increase rail traffic, because there are many people in my riding, definitely, who would benefit from that. On the other hand, we are also a community through which those very goods would be passing, so it is important to me. I would implore those on the committee to take seriously the warnings of the member for Vancouver Kingsway and to ensure that, however that comes to pass—and I am confident and hopeful that there is an appropriate way to do that—it would not put at risk either people working on the railway or people living in those communities.

I will end by saying I think the member is quite right. In spite of all the trade deals that have been signed, still we see that real wages have gone down and that untold tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have left the country. Paper access to markets is not the same as real access. We have given a lot away, in terms of Canadian sovereignty, in order to secure paper access to markets that has not necessarily resulted in real economic benefit for Canadians. That has to be part of the debate. That is what we in the NDP are trying to make part of the debate on the TPP, and I would appreciate the member's support in doing that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was the trade critic for three years in this House and privileged to represent our party in that regard. One thing I learned in that capacity is that trade is often a tertiary issue, meaning that trade determines who we are trading with and upon what terms we are trading, but the fundament question really is, “What are we producing to trade?” It brings to mind the fact that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to deliver a national industrial plan so that we can actually build the Canadian economy—take our blessings and our natural resources and actually build those to provide secondary and tertiary production. Then we would not be just shipping raw resources but actually creating the good jobs here in Canada to get that secondary value, that value-added production, out of those goods. We would not be shipping off raw goods and importing highly finished goods in return, which is often the case, still, in 2016. We are shipping important goods like coal, copper, and canola, but we are importing cars, equipment, and machinery.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any thoughts as to how Canada can get more out of our natural resources and how we can improve the production and high-level manufacturing of goods in Canada, so that we can not only trade with countries but actually trade high-value goods with the rest of the world?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right that we need a trade framework that enables a Canadian government to have a plan and take action on such a plan.

With the Unifor negotiations with GM going on, a lot of experts on television recently have been talking about the auto industry, which has been no small part of the conversation about how, since the signing of NAFTA, we have seen tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the auto industry flee Canada and go to Mexico. Over time, that becomes the question.

Yes, we want to trade with other people, but we started off with things to trade. If we do not have a strategy and do not engage in a proper trade framework, we may wake up decades later—not overnight but later, which is the point we are getting to with some of the agreements—and realize we just do not have anything to trade anymore; and we are not capable of generating the kinds of quality jobs here at home that are going to sustain our communities. That should not have been the point, signing those agreements back then. Advocates of those agreements did not say that was the point.

We need the courage to look at the data and say, if that is what is resulting from these agreements, then we need to stop doing the same thing and expecting different results.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me this afternoon to speak on Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement.

As we all know, and as we have stated here in the House for the last day and a half, Canada is a trading nation. It always has been and always will be, despite what is decided this year, this decade, or this century. Canada is known for trading.

From the early days, the traders came over to this country and settled many centuries ago. We should also be reminded of our first nations, because they were the first real traders of this country and they continue to be a valuable asset to this country.

I think our previous Conservative government raised the bar on trade. We started with the five agreements and we are at 51 now. With a country so rich in resources, we all agree that trade is essential in growing our economy here in Canada.

Canada needs to be a part of this trade agreement. As members know, it takes two-thirds of the WTO membership to make this happen. When we get there, hopefully we will be part of the solution.

This agreement seeks to level the playing field, and it would also help developing countries. I have a couple of instances in which I am going to talk about developing countries. So often we talk in the House about big business, but I am going to talk about how we in Canada, with our innovation, can help those in need throughout the world. I think that is an important part of this equation.

At the end of the day, this is all about making sure we have global standards that truly are enforceable. We talked a lot about the trans-Pacific partnership, and we will talk more in the House this coming year. On TPP, there is no question that it is the most comprehensive trade agreement in the world today, and I truly believe we must be a part of it.

We should reflect on the great work done by the previous government and the lead minister on the TPP, the member for Abbotsford, B.C. My province of Saskatchewan certainly salutes him. We averaged $23 billion in trade annually from 2012 to 2014. The TPP would eliminate the tariffs on almost all of Saskatchewan's key exports and would provide access to new opportunities, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Saskatchewan would benefit immensely from agriculture and agrifood.

We recently toured the Port of Vancouver, and I was delighted to see the rail cars come from Saskatchewan, with the word “Saskatchewan” on them, in the Port of Vancouver, dumping their grain into the ships for export worldwide. It was a thrilling moment to see the end part of that. Of course, being from Saskatchewan, I know that this is an important time in our province with the harvest that is going on. Our grain and agrifood is certainly a big part of who we are in this country.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to tour a potash mine in Allan, Saskatchewan. It was a real eye-opener to see what goes on in the potash industry. We spent the better part of the morning underground and then toured the facility on the surface as they prepared to ship Saskatchewan product to the world. Again, potash cars heading west with Saskatchewan product gives our province a sense of pride in the work that is being done by our men and women in the province of Saskatchewan each and every day. We all know that potash feeds the world, and even underdeveloped countries.

I should add that a number of new developments in potash have started in my province. We have the big miners, like BHP putting through their mine in Jansen. However, I want to talk about another mine that is coming up, K+S, originating from Germany. It is in the southern part of Saskatchewan.

Not only are the big producers benefiting from this agreement, but a number of the smaller ventures are also benefiting, such as mines like Karnalyte, which is starting a project in Wynyard; Gensource; and many other small operations that are exploring the possibility of exporting their product worldwide.

Also, pulse crops are really big in our province of Saskatchewan. Recently, I was flying back to Ottawa from Saskatoon and a delegation from the University of Saskatchewan was on the flight. They were going to Ethiopia to help partner with that country.

Ethiopia, as we all know in the House, is struggling, but the University of Saskatchewan has reached out, trying to develop Ethiopia's farming industry and pulse crops. People believe that pulse crops can be grown in Saskatchewan and also in Ethiopia. Canadians, as we all know, have great innovation skills and we love sharing our knowledge worldwide to make this a better place to live. That is what I mean about helping underdeveloped countries such as Ethiopia reach their potential.

I know several businesses in Saskatchewan that trade daily with countries around the world. I am going to name one in my city, Nutana Machine. It is in the city of Saskatoon. It supplies mining equipment, not only in our province but around the world. Imagine the sense of pride of the workers at Nutana Machine when they see their work being produced in Saskatoon. We talked about products produced and shipped over to Europe, and Nutana Machine now because of the Internet can deal with problems. If it does have an issue in Europe when it ships the product over to Europe, and Romania is one place that I have seen where it has shipped some goods, then the company can deal with it on the Internet and can actually see the end product. It is built in Saskatoon and then it is shipped to, let us say, Romania and they can see the end product and how it is working over there. Nutana employs right now a healthy workforce who live in our province of Saskatchewan. They certainly help our local economy.

Most of our farm-machinery outlets reach out to the world with their products and their knowledge. In the small community of St. Brieux, with a population of just over 600, is a farm manufacturer called Bourgault Industries. It does millions of dollars a year of business overseas. Looking at its website, we see it is advertising employment opportunities for assembly workers, for painters, for welders, for engineers, and for maintenance. All this is in a community of 600 people in St. Brieux. The company travels to Europe several times a year. In fact, I actually have a relative who works at Bourgault in St. Brieux. He travels to Europe several times a year, not only building relationships, which as members know is an important part of business, but has also adopted a second family from Germany who go back and forth. Bourgault Industries is one of the big success stories in our province.

I come from Humboldt. It is in the area called the “iron triangle”. Manufacturing firms have set up everywhere around the Humboldt community in places like Annaheim, Englefeld, and as I mentioned, St. Brieux. They are communities that probably would not exist today if not for some previous trade agreements. All of these communities have welcomed experienced workers from all over the world to come to Canada and start a new life. They have fit in well in our communities in Saskatchewan. They have contributed greatly to the economy and well-being of rural Saskatchewan. I would say that rural Saskatchewan would be a ghost town without these trade deals.

My late father was born too soon. He was the head flour miller for Robin Hood. He started his career in Ontario, went to Moose Jaw, and later to Saskatoon. He moved to Humboldt to help the Humboldt flour mills. Even in the 1960s, the flour that he produced was sent all over North America. I can imagine now if he were living today, hearing about this opportunity to show the world his product and the quality he could provide to others in other countries.

This agreement, as we all know, would give Canadian businesses access to over 60% of the world's economy. The gains from tariff elimination and improved market access in agriculture are especially significant in the markets of Malaysia. We have talked about Vietnam here in the House, and also Japan, but let us think about the market of Japan. Thirty-two per cent of tariff lines on agriculture and agri-food products would be duty free upon entry. That is a real opportunity for our economy, especially for our beef and pork producers, who would have access to that huge market. This would have a big impact on small- and medium-sized businesses. Trade missions to other parts of the world are a normal process in this country. There is not a province or a territory now that does not do trade missions worldwide. We have one from our province right now in South Korea.

Canada must act quickly on Bill C-13. There are 800 million new potential customers waiting for Canada. Canada is known for its hard work. We are known for our quality products and innovation. Let us not get in the way of this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate when the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood gets to speak in the House. He is always very thrilling to listen to, and I am wondering if he might consider a career in broadcasting after this career. I am not suggesting he has a face made for radio. I am sure he would be a great TV personality in Saskatchewan, so we appreciate his comments.

I am on the trade committee and we had the privilege of travelling to Saskatoon when we were doing cross-country consultations. Hearing from the pulp producers, the pork farmers, and the beef farmers impressed me a lot, as well as the size of some of these Saskatchewan farms. Coming from Ontario, I did not get a chance to appreciate until I was out there how big these farms are and what big operations they are. The Saskatchewan market, frankly, is not big enough to sustain those farms, so they have to find other markets. I am all for helping Saskatchewan growers and producers and everyone involved in that supply chain make sure there are markets for their goods.

I am wondering if the hon. member has given any thought to other markets. If the TPP does not come to fruition, is he willing to work with the government to go into Vietnam and Japan? We are already in Korea. There is also Malaysia. These markets are literally begging for Saskatchewan products. Will he help us get his products to those markets?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for the kind remarks.

Yes, the population of our province is just over 1.1 million. We were stagnant for years under an NDP provincial government. Now we have a progressive government in Saskatchewan and we are open to the world, and it is showing. I imagine when the trade commission went through Saskatchewan and Saskatoon, the glass was half full. They want to trade their product.

I go to major league baseball games in the United States, and one of the greatest thrills I have is getting a hot dog and putting mustard on that hot dog, because I know that mustard came from the province of Saskatchewan. It gives me great pleasure to say I am from Saskatoon in Saskatchewan in major league ballparks.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize the hon. member across the way. I did some of the hydraulic work in the flour mill in Humboldt, so I am familiar with the prairie ingenuity.

I was at the Ontario outdoor farm show last week and heard that the machine manufacturers in Ontario are now producing more agricultural machines than Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Being originally from Manitoba, that might not be good news but it is good to see competition.

Those manufacturers are not talking about free trade deals, they are talking about how hard it is to get their product through the paperwork and through the processes of the Government of Canada. It hurts them because they do not have enough people in their offices to do all that paperwork. Maybe the hon. member could comment on how the bill might help the good folks in Saskatchewan get product to market.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, these businesses are small. Like I just mentioned, in the community of St. Brieux of 600 people, 200 work at Bourgault. They employ a third of the community. Anything that we can do with this TFA to make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses, certainly we are all for that.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I very much enjoyed. I also really enjoy working with him. We agree on all kinds of things, but I do not think we agree on the TPP.

I would like to know if he is aware of this part of the TPP agreement, which I will read.

It says:

Canada reserves the right to adopt or maintain a measure that affects cultural industries and that has the objective of supporting, directly or indirectly, the creation, development or accessibility of Canadian artistic expression or content, except: (a) discriminatory requirements on service suppliers or investors to make financial contributions for Canadian content development; and (b) measures restricting the access to on-line foreign audio-visual content.

Knowing how familiar the hon. member is with all these topics, what do we do with such an exception that simply ties our hands behind our backs? What do we do?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have enjoyed the heritage committee. This is not a heritage issue, although he did bring this up.

For our province, it is simple. We need this agreement. We need the TFA. We need the TPP. With every trade agreement there is good and bad. There is no question about that, but we can work as governments to facilitate and make things easier for every company and country involved in these agreements.

As we mentioned before, there are 81 that have already signed on. We must be quick and sign on to this agreement.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill C-13. It is an opportunity to discuss the importance of trade. It is good to have a bill that I feel I can support the government on, because they are few and far between. It is a pleasure to be able to do that.

Obviously, to speak to the importance of trade we have to look at the fact that one in five jobs in Canada depend on trade. Sixty percent of our GDP is linked to exports, so that is obviously very significant. It creates jobs in the country and opportunities for businesses, particularly small business owners. History has shown us that trade is one of the best ways to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. As trade increases so does our nation's prosperity. We are putting more money into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

Under the previous Conservative government we had one of the most ambitious pro-trade agendas, probably the most ambitious in our country's history. We were able to conclude free trade agreements with 38 countries. That included Colombia, the European Free Trade Association, Honduras, Jordan, Panama, Peru, South Korea, and the 28 member-states of the European Union as well. We also concluded, signed, and brought into force foreign investment protection agreements with 24 countries. That is more than any other government in Canada's history as well.

Just to speak to a few of those, one of our historic achievements was the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. It was actually Canada's first free trade agreement with the Asia-Pacific region, one of the fastest growing regions. We also had the opportunity with a number of other countries. Ukraine is one that comes to mind as well. The Canada-European Free Trade Association agreement is another one that we certainly hope to see ratified. There is the TPP as well.

It is a pleasure to stand and support the legislation and continue to push for trade and growth in our economy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader standing, perhaps on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if you were to canvas the House you would see a will to see the clock at 5:39 p.m., so that we can move on to private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 5:39 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:39 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.