Bill C-79 (Historical)

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam

This enactment implements the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 13 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Agreement, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and gives the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.
Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of International Trade Diversification]

moved that Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with enthusiasm and optimism that I rise in the House today to speak about our government's plan to diversify Canada's trade. Specifically, I will speak about Bill C-79, the legislation before members today to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP.

This is the first government bill to be debated in the fall sitting. That is a statement in itself and I intend to speak to that too. It reflects the importance we attach to swift ratification of the new CPTPP so that our farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs and workers from across the country can get down to the business of tapping new markets and bringing brand Canada to more corners of the world.

There has never been a better time for Canadians to diversify. As a trading nation we need to add to our list of customers and to the roster of our innovative, hard-working, entrepreneurial and ambitious sellers.

Today I am meeting with my counterpart from the United Kingdom. In the last two weeks I was in Israel, Thailand and Singapore. After the United States withdrew, Canada took the lead in March 2017, relaunching stalled talks for the old TPP and then working tirelessly to secure a deal that reflected not just the ambitions of the few but the dreams of the many.

This effort was in large part about driving real changes for the middle class who have not always seen their interests reflected in agreements. We changed the terms of trade protecting our intellectual property, our unique culture and we expanded access to a market of 500 million consumers covering 13% of global GDP.

The new CPTPP was renegotiated with a view to looking beyond the few current large exporters to those unaccustomed or ready for new markets, because while competition is a very healthy thing, if workers feel that their quality work going out the front door is undermined by weaker standards of work coming through the back door, support for trade suffers.

Bill C-79 is of critical importance to the Canadian economy. It is vital particularly for our agricultural sectors that are now, even as I speak, reaping the harvests that will soon be shipped to new markets. As we have said from the outset, Canada will be among the first six countries to ratify as long as the House and the other place recognize the opportunity this deal brings to countless hard-working Canadians and move swiftly to pass the bill.

Bill C-79 brings forward all legislative instruments required to ratify and implement the agreement. Other regulatory changes will also be required for Canada to ratify and that regulatory process will follow royal assent of the bill. This is not just a new trade agreement for Canada. This is a signal to the world that trade matters, that rules matter and we will not be drawn into the world of protectionism. This bill is a statement that we will seek out every opportunity and negotiate terms that benefit the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The bill also speaks directly to Canada's diversification imperative. As a middle power, we cannot afford the status quo and we cannot afford to wait for the world to come to us. Our competitiveness depends on opening more markets and making those markets more accessible particularly for small and medium-sized businesses.

On Friday we will celebrate another landmark trade agreement secured under this government, the first anniversary of the trade agreement with Europe, CETA. In just one year, business is booming. Last week we learned container traffic at the port of Montreal is already up year on year 20%. That is 20% more traffic in the made-in-Canada goods Canadians produce each and every day.

In addition to trans-Atlantic trade, we are expanding preferential access across our hemisphere moving forward on a free trade agreement our government initiated with Mercosur, including Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and enhanced membership with the Pacific alliance, including Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia. With the new CPTPP, we extend our reach to the Pacific with an eye to the long term. We are, after all, a Pacific nation.

That is why reorienting and renewing what is now the CPTPP is so critical for us. Asia matters to Canada. Asia is home to the world's fastest-growing middle class. By 2030, nearly two-thirds of the world's middle class, estimated to be 3.5 billion people, will call Asia home. The CPTPP is a cornerstone for Canada's greater engagement with Asia-Pacific countries and solidly anchors Canada's place in the Asian market.

There are 10 new markets on offer: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. That is a trading bloc representing close to 500 million people and 13.5% of global GDP.

Under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, consumers will benefit from lower prices and greater selection. Workers will also benefit from the creation of more good-quality jobs in all export sectors across Canada.

The CPTPP translates to benefits for farmers and growers, fisher men and women, lumber jacks and jills, Bay Street and Main Street, miners and chemists, manufacturers and service providers. The CPTPP will also level the playing field for Canadian exporters staying even with competitors that already have preferential access to countries like Japan, the world's third largest economy. Last year our bilateral trade with Japan reached $29 billion; just imagine next year. The opportunities are enormous.

For example, the quality and beauty of Canadian wood is world renowned. In Japan, indeed throughout the Asia-Pacific region, the environmental and structural benefits of wooden construction are being embraced, including plans for a 1,048-foot wooden skyscraper. The home for the world's current tallest wooden building is here in Canada, a residential structure at the University of British Columbia. Incidentally, as Canada's minister of natural resources, I had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon on that project.

With the advent of CPTPP, market opportunities for Canada's forest products sector are inviting and impressive. Canadian high-tech companies like OpenText have been battling and succeeding in the ultra-competitive Asian markets for decades. The IP protections secured in the CPTPP will protect the investments these companies have made in Canada and allow them to compete and win in Asia.

We consulted extensively with Canadians for more than two years to get the agreement right. We fought hard on their behalf to make important changes, suspensions to certain articles or side letters with the full force of international law in areas such as intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, culture and autos.

The CPTPP also includes many other significant achievements. For example, financial service providers will benefit from enhanced investment protection and preferential access, including in Malaysia and Vietnam where commitments go far beyond what either country has offered in any FTA.

Through the government procurement chapter, Canadian businesses will be able to access open and fair procurement in all CPTPP markets. CPTPP parties will eliminate tariffs on over 95% of tariff lines, covering 99% of current Canadian exports to CPTPP markets, with the vast majority to be eliminated immediately upon entry into force of this agreement.

The CPTPP also addresses non-tariff measures that we know are prevalent and which create business uncertainty for our exporters. That includes the auto sector where we know non-tariff barriers have been a constant irritant. In addition, the chapter on state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies provides for rules to help ensure that state-owned enterprises operate on a commercial basis and in a non-discriminatory manner when making purchases and sales.

We did not stop there. The CPTPP also includes dedicated chapters on labour, the environment, small and medium-sized enterprises, transparency and anti-corruption. The labour chapter includes binding commitments to ensure that national laws and policies provide protection for fundamental principles and rights at work, including freedom of association, collective bargaining and the elimination of child labour and forced labour. When we relaunched stalled talks, these chapters were on ice. Now, both the labour and environment chapters are fully enforceable through the agreement's dispute settlement mechanism.

We reaffirmed our right to regulate in the public interest. We promoted labour rights, environmental protection, and conservation. We preserved cultural identity and diversity. We promoted corporate social responsibility, gender equality and indigenous rights. Canada is now poised to be the only G7 country with free trade agreements with all of the other G7 countries.

To realize that remarkable value proposition, diversification into new markets must be a national project to which every farmer, rancher, fisher, manufacturer, entrepreneur, business owner and innovator commits their efforts.

I want to be very clear: diversification is a national priority. Diversification must be a project to which every farmer, rancher, fisher, manufacturer, entrepreneur, business owner, and innovator commits their efforts.

We need every Canadian with ambitions to grow their business to think global. We have countless people-to-people ties to almost every country on earth. These are the bridges over which more trade can flow.

We also need to support our youth in gaining global experience for their future career prospects, and securing Canada's place in the global economy. We will not stop until Canada is the epicentre of global trade and the world's most connected, stable, predictable, innovative and in-demand market on earth. We are focused on providing the middle class with unparalleled access to sell east across the Atlantic, south across our hemisphere, and west across the entire Pacific basin.

My first trip as the Minister of International Trade Diversification outside of North America was to Thailand and Singapore. In Singapore, I pushed for an acceleration of talks toward a possible free trade agreement, with the ASEAN nations adding some of the largest and fastest-growing countries to our ever-expanding piece of the Pacific pie.

While we must open opportunities for all Canadians, we must also focus on areas where Canada has a clear global competitive advantage. Our most innovative business sectors have the greatest export potential. This is a message that is coming through loud and clear through the work of the superclusters and economic strategy tables for advanced manufacturing, agri-food, health and bio-sciences, clean technology, digital industries, and resources of the future. We are committed to continuing this work with industry partners to turn high-growth Canadian companies into global successes. We are a government that invests in its ideas.

We recently announced $50 million to support diversification efforts and opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses. We need to link our small and medium-sized businesses to global supply chains and to multinationals and global infrastructure projects the world over. More global companies should see Canada as critical and integral to their supply chain, and our SMEs need access to international markets to scale-up.

Exports and imports account for 60% of Canada's GDP. This government knows that our competitiveness depends on making real investments in our future. The previous government talked a good game but focused only on the detail that worked for the top 1%. They scaled back the programs available through our trade commissioner service so it could only serve the privileged few, the ones largely operating overseas. We will reverse that trend and get our sales numbers way up.

Canada will also carry the mantle of defender of the global rules-based order. Canada played a key role in building the multilateral trading system of the last century and we will not see it eroded. We will defend it and we will reform it. Our convening power and commitment to the rules-based order is an essential strength and we will put it to work for more Canadians. That is why next month I will host a WTO reform summit in Ottawa.

Canada is the home of Marconi's Signal Hill and Bell Northern Research, precursors to our current successes in high tech. We were the birthplace of the Ski-Doo and the regional jet; the home of canola, an agri-innovation that helps feed the world; and Cirque du Soleil, which helps feed the soul.

We are the home of international gaming studios and the burgeoning hub of artificial intelligence. We are the home of the Canadarm and CANDU, the Toronto International Film Festival and Canada Goose. There is nothing like brand Canada. We are naturally global, but we have not always been actively global. The CPTPP is a call to action.

I urge all members in this House and the other place to move swiftly on this bill. Now is our time.

I urge all members in the House and the other place to move swiftly on this bill. Now is our time.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to the role as the new Minister of International Trade Diversification.

I have a couple of questions for the minister. I want to point out that this party and its leader said in June that we would pass the bill at all stages so we could move forward on this initiative. It was also this party and its leader who said that we would come back in the summertime and move forward on this. It was also this party, under the former leadership, which had strong chapters on environment and labour, which remain virtually unchanged with the CPTPP.

I did read the article on the port of Montreal receiving 20% more, and we see that trade is up 12%. The challenge is that exports are only up 1% to CETA countries, to European countries.

Given the fact that the minister talks about certainty and the best place to do business, the challenge we have right now is around regulation and red tape. It is around getting some types of rules in place so people understand and can invest in energy, etc. in our country.

What will the government do to show the world that we are a predictable and reliable place to invest in?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member to ensure the bill can move as expeditiously as possible through the House of Commons and the other place.

The hon. member knows that in order to have expedited processes, unanimous consent of all parties of the House is required. This was not possible, and he knows that. However, I take it from his very constructive intervention that he will work with us to ensure the process is as smooth as it can be, and we both undertake to have serious conversations with our counterparts on the other side of the House to ensure the bill moves as fast as we know the Canadian people want it to move.

The member also knows that we have taken many steps to ensure the regulatory process is more clear, that the timelines are predictable and that investors understand at the front end precisely what is involved in the process. We think that is a step forward. We hope that for many years to come it will serve the people of Canada.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the minister. However, I am quite stunned by the minister's speech today. It indicates to me that the previous minister and his team have not fully briefed him on the impacts of NAFTA for working people, which he mentioned throughout his speech. We had 400 witnesses at committee on the TPP and we received written comments from 60,000 Canadians, 95% of which opposed the trans-Pacific partnership under its previous iteration.

The minister should really be well aware that industry and labour groups in the auto and auto parts sectors in Canada are strongly opposed to the CPTPP. The auto industry is already facing potential U.S. punitive tariffs. It is in the crosshairs of NAFTA. It knows its sector inside and out and it knows how false the Liberals' claims are that the CPTPP will open up markets in the Asia-Pacific, particularly Japan.

I really encourage the minister to speak with those in the auto sector in Ontario. I also encourage him to look at the statistics around the jobs that potentially would be lost. Twenty-thousand auto parts jobs in Canada would be lost under the CPTPP. It is not just me saying that. It is groups like the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada. If the minister speaks with his staff, he will find it has had several meetings around this.

The auto industry does not want this trade deal. As a former auto worker who represents a region filled with auto workers, I understand this impact. Why is the government ignoring them?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member to this new relationship. I invite her to join us in a very constructive way to ensure the legislation passes in the interest of the entire Canadian economy.

We have been having conversations, as the member knows, with various sectors for quite some time now. We are confident that this agreement will give access to markets that these sectors do not now have.

She also knows that trade produces growth and growth produces jobs. We are interested in creating new wealth for Canadians and that this new wealth is translated into new job opportunities for Canadians working now and Canadians who are looking for opportunities to work because we have opened up export markets.

I know the member's party is not traditionally supportive of any free trade agreements. We could look at the conversation in 1993 around NAFTA, and it would be very similar to the conversation we are having today. However, the world has changed. Canada is an outward looking nation. We know that these agreements will create opportunities for the working people of Canada, and we invite the member to join us to ensure we get there as quickly as we can.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to back in the chamber, this place of democracy in Canada.

I listened intently to the minister's speech. One of the things I heard over the summer was about the business climate in Canada, particularly in northern Alberta, Peace River—Westlock, the riding I come from, where we are seeing mass amounts of capital fleeing the province of Alberta and Canada. I know the government wants to use this to say that Canada is open for business. What is the government's plan to ensure we can get some of these major energy projects up and running again, particularly in northern Alberta?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I have had the privilege for the last two and a half years, almost three, of working with the people of northern Alberta, working with the energy workers of northern Alberta.

In my travels around the world, and most recently in the Asia-Pacific, I know there is a real appetite to have more serious conversations about the resources that are so important to the member's constituents, his province and indeed for all Canadians. Therefore, the sustainable development of our natural resources and the exploration of new export markets for those resources is a very important part of the government's strategic role. I look forward to working with the hon. member to ensure we do it in the best way we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canada is really dependent on world international trade. Since day one, the Prime Minister has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. In many ways trade is one way we can enhance and grow that middle class.

Could my colleague provide for the House his thoughts on how trade agreements and trade in general enhance the opportunity for Canadians in all regions of the country to benefit and, in particular, for what has been the Prime Minister's number one priority, Canada's middle class^

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Manitoban understands how dependent we all are on international trade and how important it is for us to diversify markets. However, it is important to add another dimension to the answer and the discussion.

We spend an awful lot of time talking about how we distribute the national wealth. These are very important conversations. We all have ways we think we should be distributing this wealth that are equitable, that give opportunity to Canadians.

Also, we have to talk about creating wealth. The wealth is created in large measure by small and medium enterprise. Those enterprises that trade most freely, particularly in expanding markets, are the ones that create good jobs, the ones that create higher-paying jobs. That is the link between trade, wealth creation and jobs.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister of international trade on his new portfolio. There are a lot of issues with TPP, but the short question is about the investor-state provision. We are now opening ourselves up to completely groundless charges against Canada, which Canada inevitably loses. Such was the case with Bilcon, where our Environmental Assessment Agency did a great job; two ministers, federally and provincially, did a great job; and Bilcon managed to go to a secret chapter 11 venue. Even though Canada appealed, we lost, and we now owe Bilcon up to $580 million.

Why would we open ourselves up now to disputes from additional countries, including Malaysia and Japan? I do not think we will have much trouble from Brunei, but from large economic players. Their corporations can attack our laws, which are in place to protect our environment, labour rights, and public health.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a small correction, if I could, for my friend and hon. member: It is international trade diversification. That is a very purposeful and important word, and it leads to an answer to her question. Canada must always retain the capacity to respect the rules of the world trade order. As a matter of fact, I think we are on the verge of helping to lead a discussion on reforms to the WTO. It is also important that investors have confidence when they invest money around the world that those investments are reasonably protected.

I also look forward to working with my hon. colleague as we seek swift passage of this important legislation.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are finally here for this debate to, hopefully, get this important trade agreement ratified quickly. CPTPP is a trade agreement that will greatly benefit Canadians and Canadian businesses. It will help diversify and grow our economy, and most importantly, it will help create needed Canadian jobs.

I have to say that it has taken longer than we thought for the current government to be able to get this implementation process in place. Having said that, now that we have NAFTA in jeopardy and a series of other issues on other major trade files, we need Canada to successfully continue to diversify its export markets now. There is no time to wait. We could have easily done this earlier in the summer when the opposition leader asked the Prime Minister to immediately convene an emergency session of the House to approve this agreement. It was disappointing to see that the Liberals rejected that offer. However, we are here now and we are ready to get it done.

For Canadians watching at home, it is important to explain what the CPTPP is. It is important because one out of every five Canadian jobs depends on international trade, and these are essential trading relationships that help generate 60% of our GDP.

CPTPP stands for the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is the successor to the TPP agreement signed by our previous Conservative government. It includes 11 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It was signed in March of this year and is still waiting to be ratified. Hopefully the government will finally get this job done.

CPTPP reduces tariffs in countries representing 13% of the global economy, or a total of $10 trillion. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that the TPP, in the version signed by the previous Conservative government, would boost Canadian income by over $20 billion over the next decade. The agreement comes into force 60 days after at least six signatory countries ratify it, and the deadline to ratify it is in February 2019. After that, we lose our first-mover advantage, and Canada will have to play catch-up with the other signatory countries.

The Prime Minister replaced his international trade minister earlier this summer and told Canadians that the government would renew its efforts to diversify our exports. This opportunity is now. In fact, the opportunity was there even in June when, on this side of the House, we stood ready to get this deal ratified when the House was still sitting. It is not just Conservative MPs but Canadians throughout the country who have been waiting for the Liberal government to wake up to the many threats that loom large over our national economy.

The Liberals are doing poorly on many fronts: market access for our natural resources, tax and regulatory competitiveness, and international trade diversification. They are also pursuing failed policies to increase taxes and drive down growth. They are trying to ram through a carbon tax and are going overboard with over-regulation.

Imposing the carbon tax on provinces, businesses and families has been a complete disaster for the Liberals. Now the environment minister says that any province that does not get on board with the Liberals' climate plan will not get its share of the government's $2 billion low-carbon economy fund. We ask, “Why are they blackmailing the provinces?”

Despite this, many provinces refuse to sign on to the Liberals' carbon tax. Even Alberta's NDP premier withdrew her support for Ottawa's national climate change strategy. Seeing this, the Prime Minister tried quietly to walk-back how much some large companies will have to pay under this new carbon tax, yet he still plans to impose the carbon tax on smaller businesses and families to make up for the taxes the big guys are not paying. This makes no sense and is fundamentally unfair. The carbon tax is bad for everyone, not just the companies that can afford it most. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal carbon tax has increased the cost of living for every Canadian, including driving already skyrocketing gas prices even higher.

On top of everything, the Liberals are refusing to come clean on the true cost of the carbon tax for the average family. What we know so far is that gas prices will go up by at least 11¢ a litre and the cost of living to heat one's home will increase by over $200. However, again, the Liberals will not tell us the overall cost to an average Canadian family, because they do not want people to know what this scheme will actually cost. The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report recently that found that the carbon tax will take over $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022, while other estimates argue that this cost could be as much as $35 billion a year. This will, without a doubt, hurt jobs, workers and their families.

The good news is that common sense is winning the debate on this issue. More and more Canadians realize that the carbon tax is unfair and will leave them with less and less of their hard-earned tax dollars. Foreign investors are concerned, because the Liberals are simply making Canada a less attractive place to invest. Investment from abroad went down by 42% in 2016 and a further 27% in 2017.

Even the CEO of CIBC, Victor Dodig, is sounding the alarm over falling levels of foreign investment in Canada, warning that the country needs clearer rules to shore up investor confidence. Last week, The Globe and Mail reported that during a lunchtime speech in Toronto Mr. Dodig said he is increasingly hearing from the bank's clients that opportunities for investment returns are better south of the border. He cited several reasons, from the U.S. tax cuts and regulatory changes to trade uncertainty. He also went on to say that Ottawa's criteria for approving large deals involving foreign firms are not always clear, creating uncertainty for potential investors. He pointed to the debate over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project as a prime example of Canada sending the wrong signals:

“That, to me, should be a siren call that that money is here. It will leave”, he said, “and I can't see any upside to it leaving....” Foreign investors “need confidence”, Mr. Dodig said. “They need an element of certainty. They need to know the rules. They need a clear understanding of how things get approved [here in Canada].”

The Globe and Mail article goes on to say that these comments are in addition to Suncor CEO Steve Williams, who told investors in New York, “There is clearly a question of confidence in Canada”, echoing Imperial Oil Limited CEO Rich Kruger, who said this summer that regulatory uncertainty and concerns about competitiveness are causing investment decisions to be delayed.

This is very worrisome. We can just look at what the Liberals have done with Canadian pipelines. It is absolutely stunning. When the Prime Minister was elected, three major energy companies had pipeline projects: northern gateway, energy east and Trans Mountain. They were prepared to build in Canada. Now, thanks to Liberal policies and decisions, we have none of these.

The Liberals piled on new regulations and red tape, and introduced an oil tanker ban and a bill that would effectively ban the future construction of pipelines, and that is on top of their carbon tax. These policies need to be repealed to restore investor confidence in the Canadian energy sector.

However, nowhere has the Liberal mismanagement been more evident than in their handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. It would be difficult for them to top this one.

When the Liberals announced that they were nationalizing the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, Canadians were told that it was going to cost 4.5 billion of their tax dollars to allow construction to begin immediately. The reality is that taxpayers are now the shareholders of this monstrous Liberal boondoggle, and not one centimetre of pipeline has been built. It is absolutely unacceptable that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $4.5 billion of pipeline that may never be built, and that is in addition to the estimated cost of somewhere around $9.3 billion to actually twin the pipeline. Also, recently, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the government had failed to consult indigenous people on the Trans Mountain expansion and overturned approval of the project.

Thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs because of Liberal failures. We gave the Prime Minister another opportunity to outline his plan on how he will get the Trans Mountain expansion built and Canadians back to work. We tried to do this through an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and, yet again, the Prime Minister forced the Liberal MPs to shut down a study of the government's handling of the Trans Mountain expansion. His government has been given multiple chances to reassure Canadians, but instead he has chosen to rely on empty rhetoric.

Our hard-working men and women in the resource sector, whose jobs and livelihoods depend on these projects, deserve to have a competent government that does not get in the way of resource sector jobs at every opportunity it gets. These workers deserve a concrete plan to ensure that the Trans Mountain expansion is actually going to be completed. The failure to get the Trans Mountain expansion built is now threatening other expansions in the oil and gas sector, adding to the total number of jobs at risk. The Trans Mountain pipeline is crucial to oil and gas workers across Canada and to the regional economies that stand to benefit from its expansion, including 43 first nation communities that have benefit agreements worth over $400 million, which now hang in the balance. I also mentioned that right here in Ontario, there are all kinds of businesses close to my riding and in southwestern Ontario that would also benefit from building pipelines.

How do we persuade potential trading partners that our country is open for business, when Liberal policies prove the opposite? The Liberals have not been able to address Canada's faltering position on the global economy. It is a position they put us in with their policies. It is one thing after another with the government. In fact, it is difficult to think of an example of a foreign policy win for the government since it took office in 2015.

That is why I hope that ratification of the CPTPP goes through smoothly. We cannot afford any more issues and delays.

Time and again the Liberals have demonstrated their lack of seriousness to our potential international trading partners. Last year, the Prime Minister touted a free trade agreement with China. What happened there? The Prime Minister's visit to Beijing actually set back our trading relationship. It also failed to address any of the concerns Canadians have about trade with China. The Prime Minister then skipped a critical meeting at the CPTPP, angering our Asia-Pacific partners like Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. There was also his embarrassing trip to India that still haunts us to this day. It is time for the government and the Prime Minister to take trade and our relationships around the world seriously.

I want to dedicate some time to speaking about our trade relationship with the United States, who at one point was a signatory to the original TPP agreement. It is important to note that the United States is Canada's most important trading partner. Twenty per cent of Canada's GDP is tied to our commercial relationship with the United States, and over 74% of Canadian exports go to the United States.

It is no secret that the government is in the midst of very difficult NAFTA negotiations. At this stage, the Americans seem to have already struck an agreement with Mexico and are using that as leverage. This could potentially impact millions of Canadian jobs. Canadians are concerned that our government was not at the table while these decisions were being made. It seems like we were on the outside looking in while major sectors of our economy and millions of Canadian jobs have hung in the balance.

We are heavily dependent on our American neighbours. This makes any tariff action against us very painful for our economy. American tariffs imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum are just another example of why we need to expand foreign markets for Canadian manufacturers. The CPTPP is one effective avenue for this expansion. It has the potential to boost Canadian income by billions over the next decade. That is why we cannot risk looking our first mover advantage. We do not want to jeopardize jobs and supply lines by not being part of the first six ratifying signatories.

We all know that this agreement has broad support. Several industry groups representing agriculture, agri-food, and forestry have all come forward in support of the CPTPP. That said, we would work with all sectors to minimize the risk under the agreement. However, we maintain that on balance this agreement is good for the broadest range of Canadian manufacturers.

Economic modelling by both the Canada West Foundation and the federal government confirm that there would be hundreds of billions of dollars in immediate benefits for Canadian firms if we are among the first wave of signatories to ratify the agreement.

I want to go back to American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum for a second, because they tie in with the urgency of diversifying our trade.

American tariffs have caused great concern among our workers in the Canadian steel and aluminum industries. Thousands of jobs and the livelihood of Canadian workers and businesses are all being threatened. This is even more worrisome considering the U.S. government's repeated threats to impose a 25% tariff on the auto sector. The longer we go without a deal on NAFTA and the closer we get to auto tariffs being imposed, the more anxious Canadians will get and the less certain they will be when it comes to making business decisions. The most pressing priority, and I believe we are all united on this, is to protect Canadian jobs and industry by having tariffs removed from Canadian steel and aluminum, and by stopping new tariffs from being imposed.

That is why we made it clear to the government that we would continue to work with it to bring forward concrete ideas to defend local jobs. Defending local jobs is exactly what my colleagues and I on this side of the House did during the summertime. We travelled across Canada to meet with workers, businesses, and labour groups to determine how best to respond to threats posed by U.S. tariffs and the continued trade uncertainty around NAFTA. We met with over 200 stakeholders from the steel, aluminum, automotive, and manufacturing sectors across four provinces.

We heard from stakeholders that they want the government to do three things: first, conclude negotiations and sign a NAFTA deal as soon as possible; second, provide immediate support to companies struggling to stay afloat; and third, take steps to improve Canada's competitiveness by reducing red tape.

Businesses need certainty. That is why the first recommendation to sign a NAFTA deal was by far the most repeated one by stakeholders this summer. We also heard that businesses have already cut orders, that shifts are being reduced, workers are being laid off, and that others will lose their jobs in the next couple of months.

I also want to mention that despite the government's promise of $2 billion in aid, we found that no one has been able to access any of this money. The $2 billion was earmarked for additional debt offered by EDC and BDC, as well as employment insurance programs like work sharing and retraining.

The challenge I have with the $2 billion is that $1.7 of that was to go to EDC or BDC in the form of additional loans, not tariff relief. We had $250 million to run the strategic innovation fund, and when we dug into that, we found it was for companies doing over $10 million in sales and employing over 200 people. Let us think about that.

No SMEs could get any access to the $2 billion fund. Then we see monies committed for work sharing. Work sharing, to me, sounds a lot like a postmortem of what is going on. It sounds like the horse has left the barn and we are just trying to save the furniture now. Work sharing is a good program, but we need to make sure that people can expand their businesses, not find ways for them not to be able do it. That is the challenge I have with the $2 billion.

We read a great Global News article last week. It said that only $11,000 has gone out, and yet there has been almost $300 million collected in tariffs.

The other thing we found out from talking to businesses is that the tariffs are not actually tariffs, but a surtax. They are actually not eligible for any kind of duty deferral or duty remittances, or any of these kinds of things. It is actually an additional tax.

We have over $16 billion's worth of items being tariffed, anywhere from 25% to 10%, depending on what the products are, which would, if we calculate that out, be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion in additional tax revenue, and yet we have not seen one nickel of that going back to SMEs. There is $2 billion of tax revenue coming in, in the form of surtaxes, and right now we have no plan, other than what was a perceived announcement, on how our small- and medium-sized enterprises are actually going to access any of that kind of tariff relief.

Some of the SMEs are going to have the conversation, asking how they are going to get the money back. They are being informed that they will be told in 60 or 90 days, whatever the case may be. I heard one company say that it may be up to 200 days. Let us think about that. Some of these companies will not be around if that is allowed to continue.

We talked to companies. I was with one of our members in Concord. We asked an aerospace company about what would happen if we did not resolve the issue around tariffs, and they said that it represented an existential threat to their company. They have parts whose prices have now gone up almost 100%.

We see what has happened because of tariffs. We see steel and aluminum prices, steel in particular, going up anywhere from 25% to 50% across the country. That presents a real problem.

I just do not think that piling on more debt, as I mentioned before, or easing workers' transitions into unemployment are adequate solutions. Companies affected by steel and aluminum tariffs are struggling to stay afloat, and need immediate support. This tit-for-tat with the United States makes it even more urgent that we seize every opportunity to expand and diversify our trading relationships.

On this side of the House, we have always supported this. The previous Conservative government had the foresight to conclude free trade negotiations and investment agreements with 53 other countries, including the countries of the original trans-Pacific partnership and the other 28 countries of CETA, which concluded in 2014. Speaking about CETA, another Conservative trade accomplishment, last week the Financial Post reported that CETA has boosted container shipping and promoted a hiring spree at the docks in Montreal.

Once again, the minister mentioned that there had been some increased activity at the docks in Montreal, and it is certainly great to see in Canada that the European free trade agreement is doing exactly what it was designed to do. I would caution, though, that as we have seen imports expand by 12%, our exports have only gone up by 1%. That means there is more work for government to do to get our companies prepared to be able to sell into these markets.

The Financial Post went on to say that the employers association that handles training for the port workforce, as well as the Montreal Port Authority, attributes much of the container flow to the CETA agreement. That is a good new story, but there is still more work that we need to do to expand our exports.

It is also said that the extra dock traffic spurred the association to start hiring 50 more longshoremen and 15 more auditors, resulting in several key terminals nearly doubling their operating time to 17 hours each work day. This is an incredible accomplishment and evidence that benefits come from diversifying Canada's trade.

Canada's Conservative Party is the party of free trade, and we understand the importance of reliable access to markets for Canadian business and workers. In conclusion, I would like to say that given the importance of the bill to Canadian livelihoods, it is crucial to the public interest that Canada ratify the CPTPP agreement as soon as possible.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague across the aisle on this and other important legislation that will benefit the entire population of Canada. I would like to start by advising my colleague not to talk down our economy. There is absolutely room for debate and discussion, but this constant talking down of our economy while all experts and economists are talking about the growth rate of our economy, one of the fastest in the G7, with the lowest unemployment in 40 years, and the doubling in foreign direct investment from last year. These are good measures. Yes, there is room for debate, absolutely, and let us debate that.

Given that the previous TPP left so much on the table, does he not agree that this version of the TPP, the CPTPP, better protects Canadian interests in intellectual property, jobs, environmental standards, and labour standards? I am curious if he agrees with me or not.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the parliamentary secretary as well.

One of the things I need to say is that it is not a question of talking down the economy. I personally talked to almost 150 stakeholders at over 26 meetings across the country this year, and what I heard over and over again is the fact that we have huge uncertainty in our economy. People are not making investments here because they say that our taxes and regulations are too high. They are saying that the regulatory pathway for how we approve energy projects makes no sense, and I was not necessarily just talking to energy people.

The fact remains that we have a whole bunch of issues on the table that make Canada less competitive. We talk to industries right now and they say they are not looking to invest in Canada. They are actually thinking of moving their investment dollars south of the border. When we look at high taxes, not even including the carbon tax, regulatory uncertainty, and increased red tape, it is true.

What we are trying to point out to the government is that it needs to do more work if we are to be competitive, attract investment dollars, and continue to grow our economy.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I serve as vice-chairs on the international trade committee. I take his point about the tariffs. It has been a very difficult summer in Ontario and southwestern Ontario. People are losing their jobs. Small shops are closing. It is quite devastating. We in the NDP have called for a national tariff task force, and I hope my colleague in the Conservative Party will join us in the effort to address all of the issues he highlighted and the fact that only $11,000 has been paid out to people who are struggling incredibly, when almost $300 million has been collected. This is a broken system, and we have people who are losing their jobs.

My question focuses on the auto sector, which is under attack right now. I often said throughout the summer that it is as though Donald Trump has custom made these tariffs for southwestern Ontario in particular, but certainly our auto sector. We have the steel and aluminum tariffs, the threat of the 25% auto tariff, NAFTA uncertainty, and now we have the CPTPP. It puts 58,000 manufacturing jobs at risk in Canada, including 20,000 in our automotive parts supply chain in Canada.

Does the member think that our auto sector in Canada has not given enough in trade agreements? Will the Conservatives not defend the auto sector and stand with the NDP against this trade deal that would harm the sector significantly?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to be in the member for Essex's part of the country this summer and to tour the Chrysler plant and to listen to some of their concerns. I know she is well aware that Chrysler employs over 6,000 people there, as well as another 4,000 in Brampton. They are very concerned. Ninety-five per cent of the cars they produce go to the U.S., so the talk about the threat of a potential 25% tariff is something that concerns them greatly.

On top of that, we have a whole bunch of other issues around the table. We have supply chains in the immediate area of these auto plants, and they are concerned as well. Certainly, the steel and aluminum tariffs have been major issues, not only for steel and aluminum producers, but also for those people who supply the industry.

As we move forward with any kind of trade deal, one of the things we need to be mindful of, which the auto sector did say it has some concerns about, is non-tariff barriers. Those are issues that we need to constantly fight against as we look at some of these things. We need to go into this agreement with eyes wide open, realizing there will be more work to be done to make sure the deal continues to do what it is supposed to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the trade debate, I appreciate the Conservatives are supporting this legislation. However, they seem to be stuck on misinformation that goes back to the era of Stephen Harper. I know they are great fans of Stephen Harper. Every time the name comes up they tend to applaud their new leader, who kind of tries to emulate Stephen Harper.

There is a bit of misinformation. The member opposite tries to give the impression that Stephen Harper signed 50-plus trade agreements. The reality is that the EU agreement, which had over 28 nations, was never finalized under Stephen Harper. In fact, it was off track, it was going nowhere.

The good news is that the current government minister was the one who got it back on track, and it was this Prime Minister and the efforts of this cabinet that got the deal done. The good news is that the minister who was responsible for getting it back on track is the one who is negotiating NAFTA. That is good news for all Canadians.

I would ask my colleague this. Does he not agree that achieving a good deal is the type of thing we should be striving for, first and foremost, for all Canadians?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague from Winnipeg North that those trade deals we brought wrapped in a bow and put them at the Liberals' doorstep. All they had to do was walk them across the finish line. All the heavy lifting had been done. However, that almost got screwed up, believe it or not. It was unbelievable in terms of the Prime Minister walking out, leaving the former trade minister at a table trying to explain where the Prime Minister was. It was like, “What happened?” There were no comments. I think actions like that have created a conflict that did not previously exist.

Quite frankly, when we look at what the differences are with the CPTTP, other than the name, which is mostly all that is different about that, the same strong regulations around labour and environment are still there. There are a few sidebar agreements, but most of these are non-binding. Therefore, at the end of the day, the deal that we have in place under CETA was largely negotiated by the former government. Yes, the current government still had to ratify it. As a matter of fact, the individual member states still need to do that today. TPP was the same. The current government should be thankful for all the heavy lifting that was done by the former government to get us to where we were. The Liberal government almost messed up some of those agreements. However, thank goodness it finally saw the light and was able to move these things across the finish line.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the Liberals say, “Don't talk down our economy.” For the last three years, all the Liberals have done is talk. The reality is if they had signed the TPP three years ago, Obama would have signed it and we would not be in NAFTA negotiations, as we sit today, and a lot of these problems that Canadian businesses face would not be there. However, what did they do? They talked and they talked, and the reality is we are in crisis mode.

I know this member has been across Canada talking to businesses, labour groups and different people right across Canada. Therefore, he should not talk down our economy; rather, he should tell us what they are telling him in those meetings.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague because I know that he has also been on the road talking to businesses this summer and I am sure he is hearing some of the same things I have heard.

I have heard a number of things. The first thing is that we need to get a NAFTA deal done yesterday. The challenge right now is the uncertainty that it creates around businesses that normally like to plan two to three to five years out. Some of these businesses are saying they cannot even plan for the next three to six months because they do not know what is going on. I have heard story after story.

I have personally talked to over 150 stakeholders, business people, associations and chambers of commerce. This is not stuff I am making up, this is stuff I have heard from people on the ground. I know that my hon. colleague has also heard from people on the ground. They are saying that uncertainty is the killer of business. It is what kills businesses with respect to being able to figure out what they are doing next week, next quarter. As a matter of fact, I have heard a number of people say they have issues. One company I talked to in Welland had already laid off 25% of its workforce because of the uncertainty. A number of other companies in the steel and aluminum industry have said there is no way for them to figure out the tariffs going across the border and because of that they will actually have to lay off some of the people on our side of the country.

The challenge I have is that when businesses do not have certainty there is no way that they can plan for the future. I had a number of businesses that were actually going to invest and double the size of their companies here in Canada with no government money, and they have put their investments on hold. Members should think about that. These were companies that were going to invest in their own businesses, and that has been put on hold because of the uncertainty in this country.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been preparing for a long time to rise in this place to debate Bill C-79 at second reading, which is an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, and 10 other countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It is critically important that we have the opportunity to debate this implementing legislation, as the CPTPP is a massive agreement with far-reaching implications for Canadians.

The Liberals and Conservatives tried to bypass this debate we are having today. They tried to shove the legislation through without parliamentary oversight.

I am proud of our NDP caucus. It has stood up for full democratic debate and a vote on this agreement, one which has working people across our country very nervous. I have committed to auto stakeholders, supply management farms, building trades and the 60,000 Canadians who wrote to the trade committee to have this debate.

As many will remember, the CPTPP started out as the TPP, which included the United States. Canada was late in joining the negotiations, and we were forced to accept everything that had been negotiated to that point. To say that we entered with a weakened negotiating position underplays the terms we accepted on key issues, including on intellectual property, digital and cultural policies, and ISDS provisions that would allow foreign companies to sue domestic governments like those in Canada.

The agreement was negotiated with little transparency or accountability, as Canadians were left in the dark about the government's agenda. This is an unfortunate trend that has continued under the Liberals in the same way it was under the Conservatives.

A deal was finalized in October 2015 in the midst of a federal election campaign, when many Canadians were asking if the Conservative government had a mandate to do so. I remember this time well. Like many of my colleagues, I was knocking on doors and talking to voters across my riding. People in Essex—Windsor were very concerned about the TPP, and for good reason. Many are employed in sectors that would be negatively impacted by this agreement. In our region, we build cars and supply auto parts, work in tool and die shops, and manufacture steel pipe and tube.

Over the last few decades, my region, like many in Canada, has watched as thousands of good manufacturing jobs have disappeared thanks to trade deals like NAFTA, and the exodus of quality jobs to jurisdictions with lower wages and weaker labour standards.

It is not easy for people to lose their jobs. I know this first-hand. I am a 20-year auto worker, and I, along with many of my friends and co-workers, was laid off in the economic downturn of 2008. These are not just numbers on economic reports, but are in fact people's livelihoods: their incomes, their means of supporting their families and in turn their contribution to their communities.

The impact of job loss on people and their families cannot be understated. Many of my co-workers struggled not only financially, but also with their own health and mental health in the aftermath of these desperate years. Marriages did not survive, keys were handed to the bank and some fell into addiction. Many struggled to find hope for themselves.

This is what workers in Canada face. Those occupying the 58,000 jobs under threat are facing this type of life going forward. When I say the TPP threatens to kill thousands of good Canadian jobs, we as parliamentarians must take that seriously. Once these jobs are gone, they are not easily replaced, and when they are replaced, it is usually with precarious part-time and low-wage work.

The people of the United States elected Donald Trump as their president, which was in no small part due to his attempt at luring people to vote for him under the guise that he understood the frustrations of generations of workers who had been left behind by unfair trade agreements. He promised to get rid of NAFTA and withdraw from the TPP.

Mr. Trump's message may have resonated with working people, but his proposed solutions completely miss the mark and will only make things worse for the very people he claims to represent. In fact, that is already the case.

After President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the trans-Pacific partnership in 2017, the remaining signatories continued to meet quietly behind closed doors, in secret. I find this beyond insulting to those who are involved in the current NAFTA renegotiations. I will never forget the betrayal that was expressed toward the Liberals when they signed us back on to the newly minted CPTPP in the middle of a NAFTA renegotiation round in Montreal. Stakeholders in labour were stunned to learn that while they were participating in NAFTA rounds in good faith, believing that the government had finally woken up to the reality of their valuable input into trade negotiations, they were blindsided by the signing, which the government failed to mention to anyone during the weekend. How is it that Liberals were spending day and night in meetings and that this massive trade announcement slipped their mind and they forget to mention it to the stakeholders in the room?

I want to talk a little bit about the TPP and compare it to the CPTPP. We have the old contents and we have the new ones. It will come as no surprise to most Canadians that they are largely similar. The Liberals will point to the mere 20 provisions that were suspended and the multiple side letters, as we heard the minister do earlier. All of these still remain uncertain for many Canadians and we have to keep in mind that all of these provisions were crafted without the input of key stakeholders.

The CPTPP contains the same harmful provisions on auto, dairy, temporary foreign workers, labour mobility and investor-state dispute settlement. The idea that the TPP was somehow transformed into something progressive is laughable. It appears to be a cynical attempt at misleading Canadians.

Trade agreements cannot be just made up of shiny fluff, the products of public relations and rebranding. They need to be meaningful to the lives of everyday Canadians. Canadians do not even know what was agreed to in multiple side letters, including those on culture and autos. How is it that we are debating this legislation and do not even have the full text still for us to be able to fully view?

I want to talk a little about these side letters. This is where Liberals will point to addressing all of the concerns that New Democrats have. It is time that these side letters are exposed for exactly what they are, aspirational language that has absolutely zero enforceability. It is also where the Liberals will point to the so-called progressive elements, which carry very little weight compared to the text in the main agreement. Side letters cannot supersede the text of the main agreement and a side letter is not enforceable through the agreement's dispute settlement mechanisms unless it is explicitly mentioned.

If a Liberal MP stands in this House and defends this agreement based on the side letters then they should be ashamed for fooling people they represent, or they clearly do not understand the way that trade agreements work at all. I hope that my colleagues on all sides of this House in auto ridings will keep that in mind when they are explaining to the people who will be losing their jobs.

Of the 20 suspended provisions, 11 come from the chapter on intellectual property. Many critics of the original TPP have welcomed these changes. However, it is important to remind Canadians that these suspensions are not set in stone and could enter into force at future dates. Suspensions are little more than a way to sell the agreement: “Do not worry. It is suspended.” This is a dangerous sense of security because those provisions could reappear in the agreement very easily.

The original TPP's chapter on intellectual property contained harmful proposals that would have impeded Canadians' access to affordable medicines. These include extended patent terms for medicines, 70-year copyright terms, minimum terms of data protections for biologics and rules that would have encouraged the pharmaceutical practice of evergreening. If the United States were to rejoin the pact, the suspended provisions could be brought back to life with the consensus of treaty members. This is very dangerous. It could lead to more stringent patent terms and higher drug costs for Canadians. In fact, we are anxiously waiting to see right now if a revised NAFTA will contain some of these same or even worse proposals. Canadians are very worried about this. At a time when the government should be introducing universal pharmacare and not just studying it again, and working to lower the cost of Canadians' prescription medications, they could in fact be setting us up for the opposite.

Now I want to talk a little bit about the rebranding and about the “P” in the CPTPP that stands for progressive. How can the Liberals brand this deal as progressive? Let us talk about some of the issues that exist in that. The new mandate letter, I should point out, for the new International Trade Diversification Minister omits any reference to this Liberal so-called progressive agenda, which is quite telling I think.

The CPTPP has no chapters on gender or on the rights of indigenous people, which is something that the government said was important in the course of NAFTA negotiations. Why has it disappeared from the CPTPP? The CPTPP does not even mention the words “climate change” and its labour provisions are extremely weak. It contains provisions that will weaken Canada's supply-managed sector. It contains harmful ISDS provisions that have been destructive for environment and corrosive to the sovereignty of our government. None of those things are particularly progressive. I will give my colleagues a quote from Scott Sinclair at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He stated:

If the Trudeau government’s rhetoric about progressive trade and inclusive growth means anything—which is an open question—then it requires a genuine rebalancing of trade treaties to better protect workers, citizens and the environment, and to confront the 21st century challenges of extreme inequality and runaway climate change.

The next thing I would like to discuss a little is the consultations. Certainly the Liberal government is in favour of consultations, although the meaningfulness of those consultations has really come under scrutiny, particularly over the NAFTA talks that happened over the summer.

As I have said, the Conservatives signed us on to this deal in 2015 during the campaign. As soon as the Liberals took office, they promised that their new government would be different and that it would consult with the public. Instead of undertaking meaningful public consultations, the government passed this on to the international trade committee, of which I am the vice-chair. Our trade committee's so-called public consultations were widely criticized for restricting public participation in a variety of ways. For example, we received over 8,000 submissions from Canadians, but we struggled to translate and adequately review all these submissions. The fact is that the committees, not just my own, have limited resources, and are not equipped to do true public consultations. The Liberals love to say that they are consulting, but their shallow definition of what constitutes public consultation is very troublesome. This was shown in the recent court ruling on the pipeline and the government's failure to properly consult indigenous people.

On the TPP, the trade committee hearings allowed for a one-hour time slot for the public to make presentations. Every city we toured was filled with people who wanted to speak about the TPP. In Montreal, 19 out of 19 public presenters were opposed. In Quebec City, three out of three were opposed. We heard from more than 400 witnesses and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians, of whom 95% were opposed to the TPP.

According to Global Affairs documents obtained by The Council of Canadians, only two out of 18,000 Canadians wrote to the government in support of the TPP. I want to repeat that: two out of 18,000 people who wrote the government expressed support. That means only .01% of everyone who participated in these email consultations supported the deal. It is no wonder the Liberals are using the guise of public consultations as cover to sign Canada on to the job-killing TPP.

Let us talk about the timing. At a time when the Trump administration is threatening to implement devastating auto tariffs, both the Conservatives and Liberals are championing a trade deal that would put 58,000 Canadian jobs at risk, 20,000 in auto parts alone. The leader of the Conservative Party asked to recall the House of Commons in the summer in order to ram through the TPP trade deal, which would decimate these industries, industries that are already endangered under Trump's outrageous tariffs. There could not be a worse time to be ratifying the CPTPP. Destroying one industry in hopes that another one will eventually grow is not diversification; it is a death sentence for our domestic sectors. Conservatives may be comfortable turning their backs on the auto sector, as it appears the Liberals are, but New Democrats will stand strong with them in these very difficult times.

Let us talk about tariffs. We know the CPTPP would lead to the elimination of tariffs on a range of imported goods and exports in sectors like aerospace, metals and minerals, chemicals and plastics, industrial machinery, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, and forestry and value-added wood products. However, it is important to note that we are already 97% tariff-free with CPTPP countries, so we are talking about three per cent of the tariffs being reduced inside this.

I understand this is significant for some in our agriculture society, but I also know our agricultural communities are struggling not just with the tariff reductions but the non-tariff barriers. Earlier, my colleague spoke to the fact that we have to do more. We have to address and tackle the true barriers, because too many Canadian exporters cannot access existing markets, let alone potential new markets, and there are many ways the federal government can support them.

I have heard CETA mentioned in this House today, and certainly the numbers out of the Port of Montreal. What is not being mentioned is the fact that since we signed CETA a year ago, our exports to those countries have gone down. Do we know what has gone up? Imports from CETA countries. There has been a flood from those countries. Again, Canada is in worse shape with those countries today after signing CETA than it was a year ago. Something is wrong here, and Canadians know it.

I also want to talk about the fact that, as I said, the auto sector is in dangerous times. Over the summer, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh visited the Windsor-Essex region, which is the epicentre of the steel and aluminium trade dispute. He heard from workers and businesses that are very worried about the increased tariffs and unfair trade deals. He committed to them that at every turn, the NDP will stand up for Canadian workers and against the job-killing CPTPP.

Industry and labour groups in the auto and auto parts sector are strongly opposed to the CPTPP. The auto industry is already facing those punitive tariffs and simply cannot stand any more pressure at this point. They know their sector inside and out, and they know how false the Liberals' claims are that the CPTPP will open up markets in the Asia-Pacific region. In fact, they have tried desperately to get the Liberal government to listen to them, to listen to the fact that they will lose jobs and that they are in jeopardy. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has refused to do so and is barely acknowledging the fact that they will be harmed.

The other thing I have to mention is supply management. How can we have a government that repeatedly stands and says that it will protect supply management when in CPTPP it is giving up percentages? At least under the Conservatives there was money attached, some type of compensation to help them. That has completely evaporated under the Liberal government. We are in a precarious time in NAFTA right now in our negotiating phase, and one of the largest issues on the table is supply management. Why, then, would the Liberals bring the CPTPP, which is damaging our supply management, as the very first piece of proposed legislation to put through the House, knowing that we are at this critical juncture in NAFTA? It is baffling, and our farmers are not fooled by the Liberal government and this death by a thousand cuts.

We find ourselves in this extraordinary time in our relationship with our largest trading partner and this delicate renegotiation of NAFTA. It seems like incredibly poor political timing to be pushing through the CPTPP, which some view as poking the bear, with the bear being Donald Trump.

I had a meeting with farmers in my office on Friday night. They are extremely worried about the future of supply management in Canada and in my riding of Essex. They hear Liberals repeating the same lines over and over—that they created and will protect supply management—but to farmers like Bernard Nelson in Essex, protecting our dairy sector means that we do not open a percentage of our market. Whether it is in CETA, CPTPP, or now NAFTA, it is a slippery slope toward the beginning of the end. Bernard and I agree that this approach is death by a thousand cuts and will hurt Canadian farmers.

Diversification is important, but it must be done in a responsible way. Ratifying the CPTPP is the opposite of this. How can Liberals be fighting for a better deal in NAFTA for the very sectors that they are willing give up in the CPTPP? I can tell members that the Liberals must stop signing onto neo-Liberal trade deals like the CPTPP and embrace a truly progressive trade policy that does not leave working people behind. The NDP is determined to continue fighting for truly fair and progressive trade that respects the rights of Canadians. It is time to put the interests of people first, including manufacturing workers, rural communities, and local and small family farms.

I move, seconded by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, because:

a) 95% of the more than 60,000 Canadians who made submissions on the deal were opposed to it;

b) experts have said that this deal could cost Canada 58,000 jobs;

c) the negotiations were shrouded in secrecy, despite promises of transparency from the government on trade deals; and

d) the agreement contains weak labour and environmental standards, and puts our public services and cultural sectors at risk.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. On the motion to move the amendment, I wonder if the hon. member for Essex had another seconder in mind. I see that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is not present.

It is the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, then.

Questions and comments.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech.

It is always great to hear a speech on trade from the New Democratic Party. It basically writes itself as it unfolds.

All of the experts around the world point us to the need for Canada to diversify its trade. All of the experts point us to those Asian and South American economies that are growing incredibly quickly, where managed trade relationships, structured trade, and privileged access to those markets is an absolute imperative for Canada. We have achieved that. We have achieved significant protections for key Canadian industries and significant advantages for key Canadian sectors.

The question that I have and that I always have for my friends in the New Democratic Party is this: what trade deal are they able to support?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the type of trade agreement that we will support is a good one, one that works for Canadians, one that is balanced, one that does not throw one sector under the bus in favour of another—balanced trade.

Our country and North America have been gripped by this issue over the summer, with the uncertainty with the United States. Certainly my region, being on the border, feels this very keenly.

I would invite the member to come to my riding at any time to speak to people about what Canadians think about responsible trade deals. I understand the need to diversify and we support that strongly, but it must be responsible. The CPTPP is not.

I will just point really quickly to the labour aspect. I heard the minister talk about labour earlier, and about how he felt that the labour section was an improvement. I am not sure that the Liberals are aware that in the original TPP, the U.S. had negotiated a 12-page labour reform to allow Vietnamese workers to have free and independent collective bargaining. That has disappeared. The U.S., under President Obama, struck a labour consistency plan with Malaysia and Brunei in an effort to ensure that both countries lived up to fundamental labour standards. Canada was not able to maintain those.

It seems as though when we went back to the table for the CPTPP, we made zero effort to improve this deal for Canadians. That was a missed opportunity, because essentially what the Liberals picked up was a Conservative negotiation.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair again.

I would like to comment on the speech by my friend from Essex. Last fall, when the Liberal government did not mention the auto industry and its importance in NAFTA for six months, it was actually that member and I who were pushing from both sides of the opposition, as part of Team Canada, to say that the auto industry, the hundreds of thousands of jobs, needed to be the centrepiece of NAFTA.

Why can the member now say that the auto manufacturing jobs in Windsor are not going to benefit from the TPP? If we are not part of the TPP, we will not be able to compete with Mexico and we will not be able to compete with the global auto industry. We cannot choose only one deal and not others. We have to have confidence in our auto supply sector and in our auto assembly sector.

Why does the member for Essex not have that confidence?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have complete confidence in our Canadian auto sector to be able to compete globally, absolutely, but when we are setting up trade deals where it is actually identifying to us that this is not the case, we need to listen. On the CPTPP, the auto sector was not part of the consultations under the Conservatives nor under the Liberals.

It is not me as the member for Essex who is saying that this deal will harm auto. It is the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. It is the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association. It is Unifor. It is the Canadian Labour Congress. This is not a reflection of me and what I think will benefit my region. This is what we are hearing from the stakeholders. It is baffling that in NAFTA all of these stakeholders are in the room and are part of the conversation driving where we are going to potentially go in a better NAFTA, but in the CPTPP, none of that happened under the Liberals or the Conservatives.

It is not me who is creating these questions of what is going on in these trade deals. It is the behaviour of the Conservatives and the Liberals in their negotiations and forgetting about the people who need to be in the room when talking about the jobs that they represent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some clarity for my friend across the way. When it comes to trade agreements, as has been cited, the NDP members have been consistent. They have consistently voted down trade agreements.

Canada is a trading nation. We need to trade with the world. If we want to grow our middle class, we need to have trust and faith in Canadian companies, including our automotive industry. We have the finest workers in the world in Canada. By taking on trade agreements, we are bringing in potential opportunities for growth in many industries.

No matter what the trade agreement, with one possible exception which I think might have been Jordan, the NDP has never supported the middle class by voting in favour of a trade agreement. Why not?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member listened to my speech today where I identified that 58,000 jobs are under threat in the CPTPP, some 20,000 auto supply sector jobs. If those are not middle-class jobs, I do not know what is. The people who are defending middle-class jobs in Canada are the New Democrats and we are listening to the auto sector.

When the member speaks about consistency, the only thing consistent on that side is the inconsistency. We have NAFTA where they pulled everyone into a big tent and they are having all these conversations with people and listening and trying to do better, but with the CPTPP, absolutely zero of that happened. When the member talks about consistency, I think he should look in the mirror with the rest of his party on how they are approaching trade agreements.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put some facts before the House. The auto sector is the largest Canadian manufacturing sector. Canada is the 10th largest vehicle producer in the world. We have 125,000 people directly employed by the auto sector. We are responsible for $103 billion in factory sales around the world.

On the CPTPP, the government has negotiated rules of origin where the regional value content for auto parts in cars that would qualify for tariff-free entry into Canada is between 35% and 45%. That means that parts that go into cars have to be made 35% to 45% in countries like Vietnam and Malaysia and they can source 55% to 65% of their parts from non-CPTPP countries, including China, India, Bangladesh, or wherever. That means one thing. It means extremely cheap labour is going into vehicles made in those countries that are then going to qualify for tariff-free entry into Canada. That means it is going to damage the Canadian auto sector.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on whether she thinks that the Liberals' rules of origin on auto are going to help or hurt Canadian auto manufacturers.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is where we really have to look into the actual pieces of this agreement and how it will work.

Right now we are in the middle of negotiating rules of origin in NAFTA and in the CPTPP we could potentially be signing ourselves on to rules that would allow better access, less Canadian content from CPTPP countries than we are going to accept from NAFTA, our largest trading partner. This is mind-boggling. I would point out to Liberals and Conservatives who sit in auto ridings, such as the member for Whitby opposite, these jobs are under direct threat. Losing tens of thousands of auto sector jobs will decimate communities across our country. The labour provisions in CPTPP are so extremely weak.

The side letters would do nothing. As I mentioned earlier, side letters have no enforceability, no impact whatsoever on the actual trade agreement. When we are pushing for better in NAFTA with arguably the biggest player on the planet, the United States and Donald Trump, in the most difficult negotiations that we face, why are we agreeing to these extremely weak provisions with countries where we have minimal trade? It makes no sense.

I want to point to CETA, which has been mentioned in the House several times today. We find ourselves a year after signing CETA with less trade going from Canada to CETA countries than we did one year ago when we signed it. It is time for Canada to start having trade agreements that have positive benefits for its communities and for jobs for Canadians. This deal would do the opposite of that.

We should not be signing this deal at this point in time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here on the first day of the fall parliamentary session to express my gratitude for being appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary for International Trade Diversification; to commit to working with my colleagues on this side of the House and across all party lines, as well as with our colleagues in the Senate, to ensure the passing of the bill, Bill C-79; and to ensure I work with stakeholders and all Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians to grow our economy, create jobs and to ensure our values are protected.

It is a great pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-79, the implementing legislation for the comprehensive progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP.

At a time when protectionism is on the rise, Canada's participation in the CPTPP sends a strong signal that Canada is open for business with the rest of the world, that our government is opening doors for our citizens and businesses to create more jobs and offer more choices, and that our government is committed to a fair, rules-based international trading system. Now, more than ever, it is essential for us to ensure that the trade agreements Canada implements respond not only to the needs of our commercial interests, but also bring tangible benefits to all Canadians. This agreement is about creating economic growth, high-paying jobs, more choices for Canadian consumers, and above all making sure all Canadians benefit, not just a few.

My hon. colleagues will know that the CPTPP represents an opportunity for Canada. Implementing and ratifying the CPTPP will help diversify Canada's trade and investment toward the Asia-Pacific region and solidify Canada's role in the economic landscape of Asia.

The CPTPP will serve as a cornerstone of our government's trade diversification strategy, connecting Canadian and investment to this dynamic and fast-growing region. In a region as deeply integrated and adaptable as Asia, the benefits of the CPTPP extend beyond enhanced market access to new and growing markets. Canadian exporters will also benefit from increased access to diverse and regionally integrated value chains with global reach.

Asia is important to Canada, and we see the CPTPP as a crucial step in our ambitious free trade agenda in the region. To this end, Canada has also engaged with China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, in exploratory discussions toward potential free trade agreement negotiations. We also have ongoing comprehensive economic partnership agreement negotiations with India.

Ambitious and high standard agreements like the CPTPP will help strengthen the rules-based international trading system and create a level playing field for Canadian businesses. It will also help us ensure the benefits of trade could be widely shared across all segments of society.

Diversifying Canada's free trade network will help ensure Canadian exporters could have preferential access to major markets beyond North America. The CPTPP will build on the achievements in our recent free trade agreements like the Canada-EU CETA once it entered into force. Canada will have preferential access to 51 different countries through 14 trade agreements, representing nearly 1.5 billion consumers and over 60% of the global economy.

The 11 CPTPP members represent a total of 495 million consumers and 13.5% of global GDP. Canada's export to our CPTPP partners totalled nearly $27 billion in 2017. The scope and ambition of the agreement means businesses of all sizes in all sectors and regions of our country will find new opportunities to do business in Asia.

The CPTPP is projected to boost Canada's GDP by $4.2 billion over the long term. That growth will be driven by increased exports of goods and services and increases in investments and international partnerships. This means more jobs and more prosperity for Canadians.

Implementing and swiftly ratifying the CPTPP will allow Canada to strengthen our economic ties with 10 key markets in the Asia-Pacific regions, including our current free trade agreement partners in Chile, Mexico and Peru, and seven new FTA partners in Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.

For example, Canadian businesses will begin to enjoy the benefits of new preferential access to Japan, the world's third largest economy and our fourth largest trading partner. In 2017, bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Japan reached $29.3 billion. Japan is also Canada's largest source of foreign direct investment from Asia.

The CPTPP will provide preferential access to Japan, eliminating or reducing tariffs on a number of key Canadian exports ranging from canola, beef, pork and salmon to lobster, lumber, steel and aluminum products. This will level the playing field for Canadian exporters with respect to competitors that already have preferential access to Japan, such as Australia. This will also help Canadian exporters gain a competitive advantage over exporters without preferential access, like the United States, and Canada does not currently have an FTA with Japan.

Canadian service providers will also benefit from enhanced access and greater predictability and transparency in Japan and other markets. The CPTPP will create new opportunities for Canadian service providers in sectors such as professional, research and development, environmental and transportation services.

Canada will also have new access to the rapidly-growing economies of Malaysia and Vietnam. Vietnam has been Canada's largest trading partner within the association of the southeast Asian nations since 2015 and has a forecasted GDP growth of over 6.3% in 2018. The CPTPP will provide preferential access to Vietnam for key Canadian exports in agriculture and seafood, including beef, pork, canola, ice wine and lobster, as well as in other sectors like forestry and industrial products. Financial service providers will also benefit from unprecedented access to the Vietnamese market.

More broadly speaking, Canadian companies will be able to invest with even more confidence in CPTPP markets, benefiting from greater predictability, transparency and protections under the agreement. Securing preferential access to CPTPP markets means that almost all Canadian products can be exported to our CPTPP partners without facing tariffs. Upon full implementation of the agreement, 95% of tariff lines of CPTPP parties will be duty free, covering 99% of Canada's current exports to CPTPP markets.

Preferential access also means a level playing field for Canadian products with respect to their competitors and will provide Canadian companies with a leg up on others that do not have the same level of access to CPTPP markets. This will translate into increased profits and market opportunities for Canadian businesses of all sizes in all sectors and in every part of our country.

As a result, implementing and ratifying the CPTPP will help create high-quality jobs and support Canadian farmers, fishers, miners, manufacturers, engineers, architects, investors and more. It means more opportunities for Canadian agriculture like beef, pork, wheat and canola. It means more opportunities for fish, seafood and forestry. It means more opportunity for Canada's diverse and innovative manufacturing sector, like aerospace, chemicals, cosmetics, industrial machinery, medical devices, metals and minerals, pharmaceuticals and glasses. It will also provide benefits for consumers, with lower prices and more choices at places like the grocery store.

The benefits of the CPTPP do not end at new market access. It also features a comprehensive set of rules that covers barriers beyond tariffs that Canadian businesses face when they trade and invest abroad. These include chapters that address technical barriers to trade and phytosanitary measures, as well as dedicated chapters covering cross-border trade in services, electronic commerce, temporary entry investment and government procurement.

In addition, the CPTPP includes provisions on state-owned enterprises and transparency in anti-corruption, which will help foster a fair and competitive business environment to help ensure that Canadian companies can trade and invest in CPTPP markets on an equal footing with their competitors.

In sum, the CPTPP is a robust trade agreement which rules will provide much-needed certainty for Canada as we look to diversify our trade and investment towards Asia.

I am proud to say that our government paid meticulous attention to the details to ensure that the interests of Canadian workers, businesses and culture are promoted. We made sure that we signed a good deal, not just any deal. The CPTPP also supports our government's commitment to ensuring that the benefits of trade are widely shared and can be enjoyed by Canadians across all regions and all segments of our country.

The CPTPP will help Canada promote labour rights and environmental protection as we enhance our trading relationship with our partners. The agreement's dedicated chapters on labour and environment ensure that CPTPP parties cannot lower their standards in these areas as a way to promote or attract trade and investment. In a first for Canada, both the labour and environment chapters are fully enforceable through the CPTPP dispute settlement mechanism, allowing us to ensure that our trading partners remain true to their commitments.

In other parts of the agreement covering areas like services, investment—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I know we are back after being away for a few weeks and there is great reason for colleagues to get reacquainted. However, I would like to remind the House that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification has the floor. He has been doing his best to power through that, but he has a couple more minutes left to go before we have to interrupt him for statements by members.

I would ask all hon. members to guard their conversations until we get to that point in the next part of our rubric today.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

Our government is committed to helping small and medium-sized enterprises grow and create high-quality, middle-class jobs through trade and innovation. The CPTPP will help Canadian SMEs, which account for nearly 40% of our GDP and employ 10.7 million workers across the country, better tap into international markets and global supply chains.

The CPTPP is also Canada's first agreement with a dedicated chapter for small and medium-sized enterprises. The CPTPP includes commitments that promote the sharing of information online to help facilitate trade, as well as rules aimed at reducing costs and enhancing predictability and fairness so SMEs can gain access to CPTPP markets.

These are just some of the ways in which the CPTPP builds upon its ambitious market access outcomes for businesses so benefits of enhanced trade investment can be dispersed more broadly and support sustainable and inclusive economic development and job growth in Canada.

The CPTPP is the beginning of a new chapter in Canadian trade relations. As we seek new markets and diversify our trade, we can be excited about embarking on this new chapter together as we continue to open new markets and opportunities for Canadian businesses, workers, and consumers, and ensure that the benefits of trade can be felt in all parts of the country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have up to five and a half minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next gets back to debate on the question, and then of course the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification has five and a half minutes remaining in his comments.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I spent the majority of my speech talking about the immediate positive impact that the CPTPP would have on our economy and its potential for economic growth and job creation, as well as giving access to an incredibly large and dynamic market and access to a dynamic and a vibrant region. I talked about access to our small and medium-sized enterprises. I also talked about the ambitious standards that this new agreement set out, the improvements that our government had introduced to the previous version of the TPP and the number of jobs, middle-class jobs that it would create.

Let me spend the last couple of minutes of my speech talking about the potential, beyond the immediate impact, that this agreement will have.

These benefits for Canada are only set to grow further with the potential expansion of the CPTPP after it enters into force. A number of economies across the region have already informed us of their interest in joining the CPTPP by way of accession in the near future. ln fact, any economy that is able to meet the high standards and ambitious market access commitments of the CPTPP will be able to seek accession to the agreement after entry into force. This means even greater opportunities for Canada even after we implement and ratify the CPTPP as its membership continues to grow, which is why Canada welcomes the interest of several economies in acceding to the agreement.

Through the accession process, the CPTPP will become a vehicle for Canada to advance our economic and commercial interests with some of the world's fastest-growing economies, while setting a new standard for trade agreements in the Asia Pacific region. That is to say, the CPTPP is the beginning of a new chapter in Canadian trade relations, as we seek new markets and diversify our trade. We can be excited about embarking on this new chapter together, as we continue to open new markets and opportunities for Canadian businesses, workers, and consumers, and ensure that benefits of trade can be felt in all parts of the country.

lt is clear that this agreement provides the tools for Canadian industries to connect with more economies internationally and expand beyond the shores of the continent. That is why I call on all my colleagues to implement the CPTPP expeditiously.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to ask my hon. colleague a question. At the end of his speech, he talked about passing the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership as quickly as possible, which is a very important aspect of today's debate.

I have attended a number of press conferences and events at which farmers collectively called on the Liberal government to hurry up and ratify the CPTPP. All of our farmers have an interest in Canada being among the first six countries at the CPTPP table. If we are not, the first six countries will be served and Canada will be stuck with the leftovers.

However, this summer, the Liberal government refused our leader's invitation to hold a special sitting to quickly ratify the CPTPP.

Instead of talking and talking about how urgent it is, why did the Liberals not take action this summer to make sure that Canada was among the first six countries to ratify the CPTPP?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his support for the ratification of the CPTPP. We agree that the CPTPP is an important agreement for Canada and for Canadians and we are anxious to get it passed as quickly as possible. He also knows that to expedite any bill beyond normal parliamentary procedure would require unanimous consent in the House and he knows that it is not possible, unfortunately, to get that unanimous consent in the House.

With that having been said, the minister, the Prime Minister and all my colleagues here are committed to working with colleagues in other parties and passing the bill as quickly as possible to ensure Canadians benefit. We remain committed to being one of the first six countries to ratify the CPTPP.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the parliamentary secretary to his new role and look forward to working with him on the international trade file in my role as critic for the NDP.

The trade committee did an exhaustive study, with 400 witnesses and a cross-country tour. I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to read that report, as well as the 60,000 letters Canadians wrote to the trade committee, 95% of which opposed the TPP.

He raised something that was very important, and that is the economic impact. I would also encourage him to read Global Affairs' own impact analysis, which shows conclusively that there is not much economic benefit for Canadians, but there is a risk to jobs. That is acknowledged by Global Affairs.

Economically, there would be a gain of $4.2 billion over a period of 22 years. Ironically, this is about the amount that Canada trades every single day. The economic impact of this agreement has been challenged, not just by the government itself but the Canada West Foundation. It found that the deal would lead to a .082% increase in Canadian GDP by 2035, and this represents a one-time increase after 15 years, not an annual increase. I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to read that.

Could he let us know whether he thinks sacrificing 58,000 jobs is worth this trade agreement?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her welcoming remarks and I too look forward to working with her and my colleagues on the international trade committee.

She referred to the exhaustive consultations that our government embarked on in the previous version of the TPP. Our government listened to all the stakeholders who came forward and offered their input. That is why, after a couple of years of consultation, we are proud that Canada has been the strongest voice among the 11 countries to improve the previous version of the TPP. We have protected a lot of the concerns that stakeholders raised in the previous version of the TPP and we are proud of this new version.

Canadians may not be surprised when they hear that the NDP oppose a trade agreement. It is not uncommon for us to hear the NDP speak with fear about what free trade may cause. However, history has proven that Canada depends on international trade. Our economy continues to grow, and it is clear to us that we need to also diversify our access to markets.

Yes, North America is an important market for us, but we are helping our businesses and consumers access brand new markets that are dynamic, that are growing. This will lead to the creation of new jobs and economic growth for Canadians and Canada.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleague's speech will encourage the ratification of the CPTPP.

I want to ask him a question about the benefits to the middle class and those working hard to join it. I will add to that by talking about what the CETA agreement did for businesses in my riding. Ocean Choice International is a fish processing company that exports almost 100 million pounds of fish to 35 different countries. It told me that the CETA agreement made a big difference to it in accessing those markets and opening doors. That business creates hundreds of middle-class jobs.

Could the member comment on what this agreement will do in creating middle-class jobs and those working hard to join it?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true that we just celebrated the first anniversary of the ratification of CETA and we have already witnessed significant economic growth. CETA has benefited our workers and businesses. Recently in The Globe and Mail there was a report about a 20% increase in traffic at the port of Montreal mainly due to CETA. We have also heard so many stories, like my hon. colleague's, of businesses in our own ridings that have been benefiting from CETA.

I want to assure my hon. colleague that we expect to see similar growth. Asia has the fastest growing middle class. Therefore, it is now to the benefit of our businesses to have access to that fastest growing middle class. It will also help our workers and businesses. That is precisely why we made sure that we protected high standards of employment and high standards for the environment within the CPTPP to benefit everyone.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome the parliamentary secretary to the trade committee. I look forward to working with him as we look at other trade files.

I am happy to see the CPTPP, or I will call it TPP, actually coming forward. This has been a frustrating file for me. It should have come forward three years ago and should have been signed. It would have been approved by Obama, it would have been approved in Mexico and we would not have the issues we face today with NAFTA. The TPP at the time was to replace NAFTA; it was the modernization of NAFTA.

Now companies, farmers and agriculture producers in western Canada are very excited about the TPP moving forward. They are very keen to see this happen. In fact, they wanted to see this happen last spring. They would have preferred to have that come forward versus marijuana legislation so they could take advantage of being the first movers in this agreement. However, we are here today doing what we have to do, and we will get it done. I am happy to say that it looks like it is finally going to get done this fall.

I am also very concerned. As we open up new markets for Canadian manufacturers, we have done nothing at home to make them more competitive to ensure they can actually compete in the markets we are opening for them. All the Liberals have done is taxed and over-regulated them. What is the parliamentary secretary going to do within the Liberal Party to change that?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also look forward to working with my colleague on the committee. I respectfully disagree with him. Our government did the right thing. The previous government left things on the table when it came to the TPP. We heard from so many Canadians that there were problematic clauses within the previous version of the TPP. Our government has made sure that it has improved the previous version of the TPP. Today, we are protecting workers' rights, indigenous rights, environmental rights, intellectual properties and we are protecting investor dispute mechanisms.

I understand why the Conservatives want to capitulate to any deal, but we have been telling Canadians from the beginning that we are eager to sign a deal, but a good deal, not just any deal.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in favour of Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The CPTPP, as this historic trade agreement is now known, would benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast and across all sectors of our economy.

Through the CPTPP, our government is demonstrating our commitment to growing our economy and strengthening the middle class by expanding and diversifying Canada's trade and investment relations. Canada as a nation builds on trade and as a medium-sized economy, trade is fundamental to our continued prosperity and economic growth.

While Asia has more than doubled in importance as a destination for Canadian goods and services since the turn of the century, Canada has lost market share to our competitors that have pursued closer integration with the region's fastest growing economies. The CPTPP will help remedy this. It will be the cornerstone agreement for Canada to diversify our trade and investment toward Asia and enhance our export presence in the region.

The 11 CPTPP members represent a total of 495 million consumers and 13.5% of global GDP. Canada's exports to our CPTPP partners totalled nearly $27 billion in 2017. The CPTPP would provide Canadians with the tremendous opportunity to continue to expand their business in Asia.

Trade has long been a powerful engine that drives the Canadian economy. Canadian jobs and prosperity depend heavily on our connectivity with other countries around the world. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada is related to exports, while Canadian exports amount to nearly one-third of Canada's GDP.

Opening borders to trade and investment and diversifying our trading partners has the potential to boost Canada's wealth and make us less vulnerable to changing conditions in any one market. Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular are looking for our government to open up new markets for potential exports, and the CPTPP will help us deliver on this task.

Implementing and ratifying this trade agreement will strengthen our economic ties with the 10 other CPTPP members, which include seven new free trade agreement partners: Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.

Once the CPTPP enters into force, Canada will have preferential access to 51 different countries through 14 trade agreements, representing nearly 1.5 billion consumers and over 60% of the global economy.

The CPTPP is projected to boost Canada's GDP by $4.2 billion over the long term and that growth will be driven by increased exports of goods and services, and increases in investment. This means more jobs and more prosperity for Canadians.

For trade in goods, the CPTPP would help Canadian businesses increase their sales and profits by virtually eliminating all tariffs, most of which would be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement and establishing mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers to create more predictable and transparent trading conditions.

The CPTPP would allow Canadian companies to level the playing field with competitors that currently enjoy preferential access to key markets like Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam, while gaining a competitive advantage over other countries that currently do not have the same level of access. It would help Canadian companies to establish customer relationships, networks and other joint partnerships and offer Canada the opportunity to further integrate with global supply chains.

Opening up new markets for our products means that Canada would be at an advantage to export more agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, industrial machinery, and everything in between.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, this would mean new markets or reduced tariffs not only for our fish, seafood, metals, minerals and forestry products, but also for the specialized industrial products our industry has pioneered in the offshore.

Opening up new markets for our fish and seafood industry would mean more opportunities for shrimp, salmon, halibut, lobster, clams, mussels and snow crab, supporting close to 76,000 Canadian jobs based mostly in rural and coastal communities like mine, to help expand the over $85 million in regional trade that we have enjoyed over the past two years.

In the case of metals and minerals, it means expanded market share for the petroleum and iron ore products sold from my province to Asia.

Opening up new markets for our manufacturing sector means Newfoundland companies in the aerospace and marine technology sectors like Kraken Robotics, PAL Aerospace, Virtual Marine, SubC Imaging, and others in our oceans supercluster would have new opportunities to compete fairly in the trans-Pacific region.

I have mentioned just a few portions of Canada's vibrant economy. There are many more sectors whose exporters would benefit from the CPTPP. Securing preferential access to CPTPP markets means that almost all Canadian products could be exported to our new partners without facing tariffs. Upon full implementation of this agreement, 99% of tariff lines of CPTPP parties would become duty-free, covering 98% of Canada's current total exports to these markets.

The benefits of the CPTPP do not stop there, however. In addition to addressing traditional trade policy issues like tariffs and technical barriers to trade, the CPTPP also covers trade in services, investment, intellectual property, government procurement and state-owned enterprises. Companies in my riding, and ridings all across the country, would have access to Asia-Pacific countries that would not exist for countries that have not joined the agreement.

These parts of the agreement serve to provide Canadian companies, service providers and investors alike with transparency, predictability and certainty in their access to CPTPP markets.

For example, the national treatment and most favoured nations provisions combined with a ratchet mechanism would mean that Canadian service providers and investors would have access to CPTPP markets, and these would improve over time as they take steps towards greater liberalization, including when these other partners complete free trade agreement negotiations with other countries around the world. It will mean that the CPTPP would not only open up new markets for Canada today but that our access would improve in the future and over time.

This is complemented by the commitments made on government procurement in the CPTPP, which establish fair, open and transparent rules for competitive procurement markets. Canadian businesses would enjoy equal treatment vis-à-vis domestic suppliers when bidding for government contracts in CPTPP markets. As a result, Canadian suppliers would benefit from new opportunities in markets such as Australia, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam, while gaining expanded government procurement access within existing FTA partners like Chile and Peru.

It is now clearer than ever that the CPTPP is a big deal for Canadian businesses and workers. We are making good on our commitment to create opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and generate economic growth that will benefit all Canadians. This agreement tears down barriers and builds a bridge across the Pacific for Canadian exporters of goods and services.

With the CPTPP, Canada would send a clear signal to the world that it stands firm in its support for the free, rules-based international trading system. In the wake of rising protectionism and sentiments like that around the world, the ratification of the CPTPP would not just secure economic benefits for us today, but also solidify our role in the economic architecture of Asia in the future.

When Canadian companies are given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, they win. This agreement would extend our playing field to 60% of the global economy. That is the potential for a lot of wins for companies, innovators, those working in trade-related industries, the service sector supporting those industries, those looking to invest in Canada and Canadian companies looking for capital to expand their businesses.

For these reasons our government is committed to ratifying and bringing the CPTPP into force and it is why I encourage hon. members of the House to support the bill before us today.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am really worried about the impact of this agreement on the riding that I represent.

There are more than 2,000 farms in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Supply management is a pillar of our economy, not just for dairy producers, but also for processors, schools, laboratories, and research centres. The owner of a downtown clothing store even told me that half his customers are people who work in supply-managed sectors. The entire economy of my riding is affected by every percentage point that is given up. With this agreement, more than 3% is being given up by the dairy sector alone. This will have a direct impact.

I have the following question for my colleague: what do I say to the people who will lose their farms or jobs because of these kinds of international agreements?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that my colleague should not tell the people in her riding that they will lose their farms or jobs, because that is not true.

Naturally, issues arise when we sign any deal with other countries. In this specific case, Canadian standards for farm and agricultural products are much higher. I believe that everyone working on farms in Canada will be proud to have the opportunity to sell their products around the world.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to some of the questions from across the way from the NDP. I have to say that I think the only way to get the New Democrats on side with the trade deal is to threaten to rip it up. Then they will go out of their way to protect it. However, until then they are opposed to it. I am wondering if it is not just a perspective we get in Ontario when the New Democrats are adamantly opposed to NAFTA, particularly in the auto sector, and now they all of a sudden think it is the only thing that is going to save the auto sector. Is it a similar response from the part of the country you are from? Are you hearing that CETA and the trade deals with Asia are a threat to a way of life that now need to be protected in order to protect that way of life?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will not let the member know what I am hearing. However, I would ask the member to address the questions to the Speaker and not to the individual member.

The hon. member for St. John's East.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, certainly in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador most companies, as my hon. colleague from Avalon has previously indicated, enjoy the fact of improved access to Europe and the United States for our fisheries products, our petrochemical products and our mining resources. It is important to note that these industries support good-paying, unionized, middle-class jobs, the families of the workers, the support services, and the additional enterprise that has undertaken each of these communities where workers in the fisheries sector, the mining sector or the oil and gas sector work. It is a pillar of our economy now that people would have access to international markets. Therefore, it is just not right to engage in the same type of fearmongering that the New Democrats are engaging in now, as she had mentioned, with respect to farms. People on farms should be excited about an opportunity to sell our farming goods and our agricultural products internationally because Canada has the highest standards in the world for our products. We have a great brand, and it is a great opportunity for Canada to leverage its value. Just as Canadian fishers are learning now that brand Canada means a premium for their products overseas, we will find that the same is true for our farming products.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government tells us that it believes it is important to include chapters on gender equity and indigenous peoples in NAFTA negotiations. However, there are no such chapters in the trans-Pacific agreement that we are currently discussing.

Why is it important in NAFTA negotiations, but not in negotiations on the trans-Pacific agreement?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have also heard the commentary earlier from the parliamentary secretary. There are protections in place either in the agreement itself or in the side letters with each of the individual states that protect indigenous rights and protect women's rights in the labour force. It is a progressive deal. The name of the deal was changed, from the trans-Pacific partnership to the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership, to acknowledge that these changes were made at the negotiating table. I believe that she should be happy and not fearful of the outcome.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back after the summer.

It is with great pleasure I rise today to talk about trade and Bill C-79, which will bring in ratification of the CPTPP.

When we talk about trade, I like to talk about it as real progress for middle-class Canadians. It is a theme our government has mentioned many times and CPTPP, much like CETA, is real progress for middle-class Canadians.

I think about my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the folks back there. I think about the Canadian Pacific intermodal facility, which is the busiest intermodal facility in all of Canada, and all the jobs connected to that facility, all the jobs connected from out west and bringing all the products to Vaughan, Ontario and to my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I think about CN's MacMillan Yard located in the city of Vaughan, the largest such facility CN Rail has in Canada. I think about the FedEx distribution centre located in my riding and the UPS distribution centre located in the city of Vaughan. I think about the Costco facility located in my riding. I think about all those middle-class Canadians who go to work every day and are dependent on what are called trade dependent jobs. It is important that we think about that and contextualize what CPTPP means. It means jobs for middle-class Canadians.

Before moving to Ontario, I grew up in a place called Prince Rupert, British Columbia. It sometimes astounds me that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the entire NDP caucus would be against trade. The first benefit of increased trade volumes is for those folks doing those longshoring jobs, whether in the port of Prince Rupert, port of Vancouver, port of Halifax or the port of Montreal. Those are great jobs, jobs that pay well over $100,000 a year with great benefits. They are unionized, middle-class jobs. It astounds me that in their interventions today, NDP members would talk about the CPTPP and that all trade is bad for the economy. No, Canada is wealthy because of trade. Our linkages to the outside world are dependent on trade and investment flows.

I look at CETA, which has been ratified by the House and some of the European countries are slowly but incrementally following along. The Globe and Mail reported this week that trade through the port of Montreal is up 20%. If we look at international merchandise trade statistics, which came out for July from StatsCan about a week ago, trade volume is at record levels, led by energy and energy exports. Trade to Italy, France and the Netherlands is up for imports and exports. What does that imply? It implies jobs for middle-class Canadians. I always take it back to that because I know when I go back to my riding, the individuals I speak to want to have a good future for themselves and their children.

Economic growth for Canada is very important to me. Economic growth for Canada translating into good middle-class jobs is very important to me. When I visit the Home Depot distribution centre on a tour, I see all those lovely folks working very hard bringing in products from all over the world. I did a tour of the CP intermodal facility with CP's management and saw how it is. I personally worked at a grain elevator growing up. The ships would come in and we would bring in that beautiful western Canadian barley, wheat and canola to be shipped out of the port of Prince Rupert to go to export markets. That is what we are talking about, and those are the issues I am proud to be fighting for here in the House of Commons.

CETA is a progressive trade deal. The first question I ask myself is how CPTPP aligns with Canada's progressive trade agenda. Does it align with our labour rights and environmental regulations? I think the answer is yes. Does it align with social responsibility? I think the answer is yes. Does it grow our $2-trillion economy that many Canadians contribute to day in and day out? The answer is yes.

Now, we know with trade sometimes there are winners and sometimes there are losers. We need to make sure the winners do well and we need to make sure anybody impacted also receives a little help. However, I would argue that trade rises all boats and when done properly, the benefits are enormous. We see that with CETA these days. Over 9,000 products come in tariff-free now to Canada and vice versa, benefits from procurement.

There is another angle that needs to be added: the entrepreneurial spirit that Canadians have from coast to coast to coast. In the city of Vaughan, there are over 13,000 small and medium enterprises. Those companies compete domestically and internationally, and CPTPP opens up new, exciting markets, including in Japan, Australia, and a bunch of other countries. I think there are eight or nine more.

We can look at where our economy is today and how we are making real progress for middle-class Canadians, whether it is through the Canada child benefit or the tax cuts for nine million Canadians. When we think about it holistically, trade fits into the picture, and we need to keep pushing that needle forward.

In today's world where sometimes doors are being closed rather than opened and where countries are maybe too myopic and do not look at the big picture, Canada needs to remain at the forefront of pushing for liberalized trade markets and for a liberalized investment agenda to allow people to invest.

I look at our immigration policy with regard to high-skilled workers. I note that over 10,000 workers came into Canada because our government brought in a change that allows the best and brightest to come here sometimes within two weeks. That is why when we sign the CPTPP, it is so important that we connect with the rest of the world.

When I look at the progressivity of this trade deal with regard to corporate social responsibility, cultural identity and diversity, environmental protection, gender equality, indigenous rights, labour rights, inclusive trade and sustainable development, I ask myself if it does all that. The answer is yes.

I ask myself the same thing when I think about the auto sector. In Ontario, the auto sector is very important. In the city of Vaughan, we are blessed to have the headquarters of Martinrea. In the York region, we have the headquarters of Magna, which is one of the top two largest auto parts providers in the world, with over 50 plants in Ontario and operations in Europe, Asia, the United States and Mexico. This is a trade deal that opens up markets for us and allows companies, such as Martinrea and Magna, to compete to provide those services to tier one OEMs, as we like to call them.

If we look at the revised CPTPP versus the other one, it is clear our government sat down at the negotiating table and negotiated a better agreement. I will read a short comment:

To provide market access for Canadian auto exports to Japan, Canada reached an agreement on auto standards with Japan that brings into effect important commitments on automotive standards and regulations that Japan made to the United States and Canada in the original TPP, but which Canada lost when the United States withdrew from the TPP. Canada also secured a most favoured nation clause on auto standards in a side agreement with Japan to capture future liberalization that Japan would make in this area. The CPTPP would ensure that treatment of Canadian autos are not disadvantaged compared to autos of other countries. Moreover, Canada concluded an autos’ rules-of-origin side letter with Malaysia to allow the Canadian auto sector to benefit from preferential tariff treatment...

Our negotiators, who are the best in the world, negotiated a better agreement, one that I hate to tell the opposition is better than the one that party negotiated. It is the truth.

I always talk about real progress for Canada's middle class, but let us remove the words “middle class”. How about just real progress for Canada's farmers and fishermen? On the east coast, we have seen lobster exports to Europe explode. On a recent family vacation to Boston, I had a conversation with someone who said that their fisherfolks would love to have access to Europe like our Canadian fisherfolks do. I grew up in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, which has canneries. I cleaned fish to pay for university. We have increased access for fisherfolks, loggers, and western Canadian farmers who farm grain, beef and other meats. We need to support them. That is what CPTPP does. They want us there and they want this agreement signed.

I look forward to swift ratification of this agreement.

It is good for our economy, it is good for the middle class, and it is good for Canada's economic growth. In my opinion, it is very good for the future of my children and children across the country.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In closing, he said that it was important to the well-being of his children that Canada have agreements that allow each of our regions to prosper, so that they too can benefit from these agreements and grow. I thank him for presenting that approach. Obviously, leaving our children with major deficits will not do much to help them prosper, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about the importance of signing the CPTPP as quickly as possible.

Could my colleague tell us why his government did not support the initiative of our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, when we invited the Liberal government to take action in July by recalling the House to quickly ratify the CPTPP? It is not enough to repeat that it is urgent. The Liberals need to walk the talk. Unfortunately, when the Liberals had the opportunity to do so, they turned their backs and dismissed the proposal to recall the House in July when we, on this side of the House, were willing to sit.

Could my colleague explain his government's decision in that regard?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from Quebec for his question.

For the CPTPP to enter into force, six countries, six signatories are needed and then it comes into force 60 days after. Even at that time in July there were not six signatories yet. I stand to be corrected, but having looked at it this morning, I believe that is correct.

If one looks at our progress on the trade file with regard to CETA and the negotiations in Latin America and Central America, we are making progress on several fronts with those countries to increase trade volumes here in Canada and create those good middle-class jobs.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my Liberal friend did go over the fact that there are certain sectors in Canada's agriculture area that would benefit, but supply managed sectors will be hurt. As much as the Liberals like to stand in the House time and time again, I have quotes from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, and the Egg Farmers of Canada, who are all unanimously against this deal.

I would like my friend and colleague to explain to the House the discrepancy between what the Liberals say and how their actions match up, especially in light of the fact that the most important stakeholders in supply management are united against the government's plan under the CPTPP.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the CPTPP, if we look at the overall benefits to the Canadian economy, they are quite significant and quite material. As a country, we need to always be pushing forward our trade agenda. We must be opening new markets for stakeholders from coast to coast to coast.

We could look at a trade deal and have five folks screaming that it is great and other folks maybe not. What is important is that we consult with those stakeholders, sit down with them and ensure that the benefits are known to all stakeholders and all Canadians and that we understand a trade agenda like NAFTA, CETA, and CPTPP is important to continue to grow our economy.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made a very impassioned and articulate speech.

In my riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South we have an amazing company called Team Eagle. It is the world's most comprehensive airfield products and services company in the world. It does trade with 100 companies. Ninety per cent of our Canadian canola product is exported to 50 countries. Could the member talk about the importance of the diversification of our trade, going from airfield products to canola and everything in between?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South is a great long-time friend of mine.

I completely agree with you. Seventy-five per cent of our exports are to our great friend and neighbour, the United States. We must continue to ensure we are on the path to further trade diversification. It is a pillar of our economy and a pillar of our government. It is great for our economy and it creates great middle-class jobs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair and not an individual member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in the House to bring forward the views of my constituents. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley East.

First, this trade deal has been extremely important deal for Canadians. It is an extremely important deal for all 11 countries, but I will show throughout my speech how the CPTPP will benefit Canadians.

A simple way to talk about trade is if we trade a car. It would be an even one-for-one trade, with one item traded. There are all kinds of trades in which multiple items are traded and we agree on certain prices for trading back and forth. Then there are large trade deals that affect many industries and many resources.

This trade deal is extremely important to Canadians. It would benefit Canada's middle class, including the people in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, as I will explain as I move forward.

When we talk about trade, it is about the elimination of tariffs and taxes. That can only benefit people, and that is what it is all about. Canada is a country that is rich in resources. If anyone can compete and trade in resources or services, this is the nation that can do it.

We are talking about having access to more products and a more competitive price. In general, half a billion people will be involved in this trade deal. We are opening up our markets to half a billion people, but we will have access to a market of half a billion people as well. It is very positive. We will have access and exports for middle-class Canadians.

That is 11 countries, half a billion people, and this deal affects 13.5% of the GDP for Canada and the 10 countries signing this agreement. This is quite impressive. It is almost 15% of the GDP worldwide, which is extremely impressive. If we take some samples, in 2016, Canada and the 10 countries had about $100 billion in trade. By adding this agreement now, the CPTPP, we are not only going to increase that in many sectors, but for Canada next year it means $4.2 billion in GDP. Think about that. It is $4.2 billion. It is an enormous amount of money to be had.

We are going to talk about many sectors. There is the financial sector, the fish and seafood sector, agriculture and agri-food, and metals and minerals, etc. As I said earlier, if any country can compete, it is Canada, because we are very rich in natural resources.

Because I am from Atlantic Canada, we need to talk about Atlantic Canadians and the fish and seafood industry there. One hundred per cent of the tariffs would be removed. Think about that. Between Canada and the 10 other countries, for half a billion people, the taxes and tariffs will be removed. For frozen snow crab in Japan, 4% of the tariffs will be eliminated. Then there is the lobster industry. In my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, in Eastern Passage we have a great company that is growing. It is called Capital Seafood. This will benefit it as well.

Japan and New Zealand would take a 5% elimination of tax and tariffs. There will be no tariffs. They will drop that 5%. Malaysia will eliminate its 8% tariff. Vietnam, over three years, will eliminate its 34% tariff. This is going to be a major advantage to our seafood industry in Canada, and especially for the lobster industry in Atlantic Canada.

Both the Atlantic and Pacific salmon industries in Canada will benefit. How much are we going to eliminate? Of course, the tariffs will be eliminated. We are going to have 18% elimination in Vietnam, enormous sums. In Japan, tariffs will be reduced 3.5% over the next 10 years. In Vietnam, tariffs on frozen fish will be reduced to zero. The 18% tariff will be eliminated. In Japan it will be 10% over 10 years.

My colleague from Malpeque mentioned the fabulous oysters in P.E.I. We have fabulous oysters in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well. We are going to see the elimination of those tariffs in Japan, which represents 10.5%.

Those are enormous benefits that we will be seeing in not just the seafood industry but in many sectors across our country.

There are big advantages to signing on early. Three countries have ratified the agreement, and Canada hopes to be the fourth. As my colleague said earlier, there is a minimum of six countries, and we want to be among the first six.

When we are among the first to sign, we can do something that others cannot do, and that is to give it what I call a Canadian flavour. That is what we were able to do with the changes in the last two years following our consultations. We were able to bring forward some labour rights, ensuring some improvements in that area. We were also able to bring forward some safety rights and environmental rights, as well as the protection of intellectual property, technology, etc. These are important areas to Canadians, and we also committed to indigenous people and their rights.

We were able to influence because we were early. We were part of creating the CPTPP and what it is all about. That is a big advantage. Being first is also a big advantage for our industries because we get to establish ourselves. We get to put down our footprint. We are able to get our branding in. When other countries follow, they will have to compete with the best, and that is always more challenging. That is why Canadians will benefit greatly. When the Americans choose to join, they will have to compete like the rest of the countries as well.

This is an important deal for Canadians. It continues the work of our Liberal government. Our government signed off on CETA last year, where we saw the elimination of 98% of tariffs, compared to 25% prior to that deal. An enormous amount of money will be saved. Middle-class Canadians will benefit through jobs. They will benefit as consumers, because they will have access to products. It will be a win-win situation.

Canada is the only country to have a free trade agreement with all G7 nations. Canada is the only country to have a free trade agreement with the Americas, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. That is pretty impressive when we think about all of the countries in the world. Canada is not only a major player but a leader as well.

This agreement would also allow us to be less dependent on certain countries, such as the U.S.A., of course. We love Americans and we want to work closely with them. We invite them to sign off on the NAFTA deal as soon as possible and join us here, because together it will be much better.

I have to finish by sharing a quote from Pierre Gratton, the president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada, who said, “We can't afford to be outside of this trading bloc. ... It would put us at a huge disadvantage.”

As I have indicated in my remarks this afternoon, middle-class Canadians will have many opportunities for better-paying jobs through this deal, and they will benefit from having access to products at a good price.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, this summer I had the privilege of having the member for Niagara West, the shadow minister for international trade diversification, in my riding. We held a round table in my riding with a number of small business owners and manufacturers. They had some major concerns around many issues: lack of clarity on tariffs; increased government regulation and red tape; increased taxes and the impending carbon tax. However, one of their main concerns was the TPP.

In June, we had the privilege of encouraging the current government to pass the TPP before we left for the summer. There was nothing.

During the summer we said, “Let's meet and get the TPP passed and implemented so that it will start to benefit our trade with our trading partners.” Again there was silence.

My question is this. Today I heard the quote many times about the government being impassioned about this, being enthusiastic about this TPP, yet here we are, months past when we could have passed it. I would like to ask my colleague why there has been this delay. Is it really the fact that the Liberals are so impassioned, or are they finally recognizing that the Conservatives had it right all along and we should have passed it in June?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, one thing our government is doing that is much different from the former Conservative government is that we consult with Canadians. We consult to make sure that we can put strategies and principles in place to ensure a much more level playing field. That is what this agreement does.

The member must keep in mind that at least six countries must sign on for this to come into effect, and only three have signed on already. We will hopefully be the fourth one, so there has been absolutely no delay. We have been hard at work in our constituencies throughout the summer listening to middle-class Canadians so that we are able to bring forward good decisions for middle-class Canadians.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not even sure where to begin to bust apart the myths and the misinformation we just heard coming from the other side. However, I will attempt it.

First, the member mentioned CETA. Stats Canada came out and said that our trade since signing on to CETA has declined, that Canadian exports are lower than where they were a year ago before signing on to this agreement. Therefore, the benefits for Canadians are not there. The tanker traffic has increased simply because we have so many imports coming into our country from Europe.

A second point is about labour. I want to let the member know that in the original TPP, the U.S. negotiated some advances with respect to labour. There was a 12-page labour reform plan to allow Vietnamese workers to have free and independent collective bargaining. Canada could not even secure this same commitment and let it go.

In terms of labour as well, under President Obama there were labour consistency plans that were struck with Malaysia and Brunei in an effort to have both countries live up to fundamental labour standards. Again, that is gone with Canada sitting at the negotiating table by itself.

Last, there is the progressive piece. There is no gender chapter, no indigenous persons chapter, and no mention of climate change whatsoever.

If the Liberals are sticking up for the middle class, my question to the member—through you, Madam Speaker—is this: What does he say to the 58,000 manufacturing workers and supply-managed farmers who today are very afraid about losing their livelihood?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a very simple formula. When we are able to open up markets with countries and with the business community across the world of half a billion people and we are able to reduce or eliminate tariffs as we see in this agreement, the solution is very simple: The growth will be tremendous. As I said in my speech, we are going to see a $4.2-billion GDP increase in one year. Those are major improvements.

I understand, as my colleague said earlier: The NDP hate it because they did not do it. If they had the opportunity to do it, then of course they would be talking positively about it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Because we would do it right.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, instead of trying to break everything apart, the NDP should be helping us to make it better. That is why we are moving forward and we will get it done. Every middle-class Canadian will benefit from this very shortly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Essex that when someone has the floor, she needs to allow that person to speak without being interrupted.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Don Valley East.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

What would the bill do? Bill C-79 would implement the CPTPP that was signed in San Diego on March 8 and would make all legislative changes required to ratify the CPTPP.

The CPTPP will benefit a wide range of sectors and industries across Canada, from beef and barley to forestry products and seafood. The agreement will enhance the competitiveness of businesses and services, while protecting and preserving our unique culture. Through this agreement, we will improve market access for Canadian businesses and bring economic prosperity to Canadians. We are ensuring real progress.

In my riding of Don Valley East, the many representatives of businesses whom I met over the summer through my meets and greets and coffee meets were thrilled that we were diversifying our markets. They believed it was a long time in coming.

I would like to provide a brief background on the bill.

The CPTPP is one of the largest free trade agreements in the world, comprising 11 countries. The CPTPP was concluded on January 23 and signed on March 8. The parties are now undertaking their respective domestic procedures for ratification and implementation before the agreement can enter into force. The CPTPP represents a trading block of 495 million people and a combined GDP of $13.5 trillion or 13.5% of the global GDP.

In light of all of these positive benefits that would accrue to Canada, our government is committed to the swift ratification and implementation of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership. Why? Because this trade agreement will open up markets of an additional 500 million consumers, approximately 15 times the population of Canada, and this is positive because it also represents a combined GDP of $13.5 trillion or 13.5% of the global GDP.

What would this mean for businesses?

In my riding, business people are keen to see the progress and how it will benefit them and the people they employ. Therefore, to them and all businesses interested in this agreement, the agreement will provide preferential market access for Canadian exporters to key markets in the Asia-Pacific region. It will provide additional market access that Canada has with the existing FTA partners: Chile, Mexico and Peru. It will add valuable new market access opportunities with Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. It will level the playing field for Canadian businesses competing in markets where other countries already have FTAs and in some cases it will create a first-mover advantage over other foreign competitors, especially in the Japanese market.

Through the CPTPP, our government is signalling that it is working hard to diversify trade so the middle class can compete and win on the world stage.

Here are some examples of what the CPTPP will benefit. In the agriculture sector, when the CPTPP enters into force, more than three-quarters of agriculture and agri-food products will benefit from immediate duty-free treatment, with tariffs on many other products to be phased out gradually. This will create new markets for Canadian pork, beef, pulses, fruit and vegetables, malts, grains, cereals, animal feed, maple syrup, wines and spirits, and processed goods. This is a win-win. In my riding, the businesses are very keen on it.

In the fish and seafood area, the CPTPP will eliminate 100% of tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products. The vast majority of tariffs will be eliminated immediately while a small number will be phased-out over periods of up to 15 years. Tariff eliminations will make Canadian exports of a wide range of products such as salmon, snow crab, herring roe, lobster, shrimp, sea urchins, and oysters more competitive. This is real progress for our fishing industry.

In the area of industrial goods, under the CPTPP, 100% of tariffs on industrial goods and consumer products will be eliminated. The majority of Canadian industrial goods exported to CPTPP countries will be duty free immediately upon entry into force of the agreement, with most remaining tariffs on industrial goods to be eliminated within 10 years, which is another win for all Canadians.

In the forestry and value-added wood products area, the CPTPP will eliminate tariffs on all Canadian exports of forestry and value-added wood products. Many tariffs will be eliminated immediately upon entry into force of this agreement, while others will be phased-out over periods of up to 15 years.

The majority of the businesses in my riding are either in the service industry, investment or government procurement. In the service industry, the CPTPP will provide Canadian service suppliers with more secure access through greater transparency and predictability in the dynamic CPTPP regions. This is important because of governance and transparency issues. I have been travelling across Commonwealth countries and these issues prevent our investors from going there. Therefore, this area will be critical for businesses to look at before they go into different countries. I have many innovative firms in my riding that provide excellent, high-paying jobs, and they are looking for assurance that this portion of the agreement for services where it provides transparency and predictability is very strongly adhered to.

In the investment area, Canadian investors in the CPTPP will benefit from a comprehensive set of investment protection provisions, including against expropriation and denial of justice, backed by a robust mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes. This is critical for Canadian companies as well. As we go around the globe, people may be a little reticent to invest when they do not know what the investment climate is or whether there will be nationalization or any such thing.

In the area of government procurement, the CPTPP will create significant commercial opportunities for Canadian companies in the area of government procurement by improving upon existing access for Canadian businesses in Chile and Peru, and creating new opportunities in Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam. This will allow Canadian companies to compete equally with domestic suppliers in these markets for contracts involving covered goods, services, and construction services.

There are also non-tariff measures that will be advantageous to Canadian businesses, such as new rights and obligations regarding sanitary and phytosanitary measures. This is what we faced when we went into the agriculture and agri-food industries in India.

For the SMEs that are job creators in Canada, the CPTPP is good news. The CPTPP will make it easier for Canadian SMEs to explore and navigate the markets.

There are so many reasons for the House to support the passing of this bill.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I represent a very agricultural riding, a riding where agriculture is very diverse. I am well aware that some sectors fare better than others when an agreement is signed. What I am hearing in my riding is that the farmers in sectors that might benefit from the agreement do not want to do so at the expense of other sectors. They are certainly not prepared to benefit at the expense of industries that produce staples such as milk and eggs.

Should we not be asking questions about food security when we sign international trade agreements like this one?

Will this agreement jeopardize some of our industries, making us dependent on other countries for our basic food needs?

To me, food security should be a central consideration in these discussions, but that does not seem to be the case so far.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that we cannot do hypothetical analysis. We have to do a very thorough reading. We have key stakeholders who need to be consulted as well. This is not a fait accompli. This is an agreement that needs due diligence through our various committees. I suggest that be done because we cannot sit back and say that we will not trade with anyone, that we will not assign agreements. That is not our way. The globe is shrinking and we need to be part of it.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and wish her a good parliamentary season.

This is a very important issue to all parliamentarians. This summer, the official opposition asked the government to ratify the CPTPP sooner. We need to do it soon because Canada absolutely needs to be among the first six countries to ratify the CPTPP so it can take full advantage of the markets that the agreement will open up.

The CPTPP will enter into force 60 days after being ratified by the first six countries. If Canada is not among the first six countries, our beef and grain producers and all those who will want access to this market will miss out on getting first pick and will be stuck with whatever is left.

The Liberal government has spoken today about the urgent need to adopt and ratify the CPTPP, but why did it refuse to do so before we adjourned in June? Why did it reject our proposal to recall the House for a special sitting this summer in order to be among the first six countries?

My question is simple, and I would like an answer.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reflect on the marathon sessions we have had. This was where we put a lot into the government agenda. When the opposition does marathon sessions for no rhyme nor reason, or holds up the government's agenda and then comes back and says that we should have done it in June, that is a little too rich for my liking.

In fact, we wanted time to consult. We are not ramming anything through. We are asking for consultation. We have a whole list of stakeholders who would be interested in being consulted on this agreement.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the course of the Trans Pacific partnership agreement is one we should bear in mind. Canada was late to the negotiations. Under the previous Harper administration and the previous government in the U.S., we ran to catch up. We got less than the best deals on offer in the TPP and then the U.S. pulled out. Therefore, we are really talking about new agreements with nine additional economies for much less benefit than was originally advertised.

Would the hon. member for Don Valley East explain why we would want to allow companies from Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Malaysia to bring suits against Canada if we pass laws they do not like?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I look at the bill itself, it says that the agreement provides the protection under various sections and that the act remains in conformity with Canada's obligations, but also that nothing can happen without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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 Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; and the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Justice.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the Chamber today after a lovely summer being back with the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, all the way out on the west coast, and beautiful Vancouver Island. It was a fantastic summer spent in all of my various communities, really getting some great feedback on what they see as their priorities.

It is interesting that the first item on the government's agenda today is the debate on Bill C-79, the bill that is going to implement the CPTPP, which stands for the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership.

Right off the bat, I really want to acknowledge the incredible work that has been done by my colleague, the member for Essex, who stands as our international trade critic, and is one of the vice-chairs on the Standing Committee on International Trade. She and I are both from the class of 2015, and for her to take on such a complex and difficult file and deliver on it with such amazing grace and knowledge, she has served our caucus and, indeed, so many Canadians, very well on this file. I want to acknowledge the work that she is doing.

When we look at this, it is just a revision of the old trans-Pacific partnership, but the Liberals have decided to add two words, or have managed to get a lot of people to add the two words. In the course of the debate in support of this agreement, Liberals are relying heavily on the power of adjectives for this agreement to look good for Canadians.

Let us look at the first word “comprehensive”, which we can define as including nearly all elements of the aspects of something. If we really dig down, I do not think the agreement is quite as comprehensive as the Liberals would like to make it out to be. There are significant shortfalls in labour agreements and in environmental protection. There is no mention whatsoever of indigenous rights. There are significant gaps, despite the Liberals' attempts to paint this as a comprehensive agreement.

The second word is “progressive”. As I will lay out in the course of my speech, this agreement is really going to make a mockery of that word and the Liberals' attempts to really hoodwink us with that particular word.

New Democrats have long been concerned about the secrecy that surrounds both the TPP and the CPTPP negotiations. Despite the promises by the Liberal government to be transparent on trade deals, we have continued to get vague updates and mixed messages. In fact, it was during the 2015 federal election that the Prime Minister stated:

The government has an obligation to be open and honest about the negotiation process, and immediately share all the details of any agreement. Canadians deserve to know what impacts this agreement will have on different industries across our country. The federal government must keep its word and defend Canadian interests during the TPP’s ratification process – which includes defending supply management, our auto sector, and Canadian manufacturers across the country.

As I am going to lay out, it is precisely those sectors that are going to be negatively impacted by this agreement. We see this time and again in this place. As the Liberals come out with their words, their actions always, and sometimes very consistently, fail to meet up with those words.

Just for the benefit of my constituents back home, the CPTPP is a new agreement. It is slightly newer than the older version. It is an agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The negotiations for this agreement began in 2005 and concluded in October 2015. Countries did come in at various stages. Canada, unfortunately, was pretty late to the game, which the member for Essex has correctly identified as something that sort of eroded our ability to be a key player and to get some key provisions into the agreement.

I hear a lot of talk in this chamber about how important free trade is. It is important to note that we already have free trade agreements in place with South Korea, Chile, and Peru, and course with Mexico through the North American Free Trade Agreement. Some of the major players within this agreement are already covered by bilateral free trade agreements with Canada. Those are moot points right there.

The agreement was officially signed by the minister on February 4, 2016. The plans for it were disrupted with the election of United States President Donald Trump, who withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In January of this year, the 11 remaining countries agreed upon a revised TPP and renamed it with the two adjectives I mentioned.

The government has always made much about consultations. The consultations really were kind of downloaded on the Standing Committee on International Trade. That committee held dozens of sessions. It heard from more than 400 witnesses and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians, and I should note that 95% of those were against the agreement. The Liberals had promised that they would consult with the public, but again, those consultations were downloaded on the Standing Committee on International Trade, a body, like all committees, that has very limited resources to hold the kinds of meaningful consultations that we expect in an agreement of this size.

When the committee travelled to a few different locations, translation services were not really up to par and the testimony was not transcribed for the record, which is problematic when a committee needs to look at witness testimony, because it has to rely on written notes. However, it is important to note that in cities like Montreal, 19 out of 19 public presenters were opposed and in Quebec City, there were three out of three. Receiving 8,000 written submissions and struggling to translate them does not add up to meaningful consultation. It would have been better if the executive branch of the government had launched the consultations and used the resources available to its various ministries for meaningful consultations with all of the affected sectors.

The most interesting statistic to me is that with the submissions that were received by Global Affairs Canada, 18,000 Canadians wrote in and only 0.01%, two people out of those 18,000 submissions, were in support of the TPP. That is a pretty abysmal rate of success if we go by these things.

The member for Essex has gone over this, but it is really important to reiterate what New Democrats' major concerns are with this agreement, because it is not simply about trade. These agreements cover so many different areas and chief among them are our concerns with labour standards and human rights. I will start with labour.

If we hold up the provisions that protect labour and help investors, they are really not equal at all. If someone has a complaint with labour practices, the CPTPP obliges the complainant to basically prove that a member country has not enforced its own labour laws, but then it also has to show that the violation has had an impact on trade. Therefore, the burden of proof is so ridiculously unattainable that there has actually not even been one successful labour complaint. This is very troubling, because if we look at some of the member countries that are involved in this, we see that there are labour standards in Vietnam, which we have some serious concerns with and Mexico has been implicated in a number of human rights violations. There are countries with very differing standards compared to what we in Canada or in Australia, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand are used to, and yet we are bringing these countries into an agreement. We are essentially rewarding them with trade with Canada, but not asking them to bring their standards up.

The language on the labour standards is essentially unchanged from the old TPP, which, as I pointed out in my introduction, does make a mockery of the word “progressive”. One case I want to cite is the decision that was made with respect to a dispute between the United States and Guatemala. A panel of arbitrators found that no documented labour violations in Guatemala, including the murder of a union organizer, had occurred in a manner affecting trade. If a union organizer in some of these countries is murdered or tries to implement a strike to get better working conditions for their families, the arbitration most likely will find that it did not have an impact on trade and, therefore, is not covered under this kind of agreement.

As I mentioned there are some serious and systematic violations of labour and human rights that have occurred in Mexico and Vietnam and in some other countries. I just want to point out that in Vietnam in 2011, Human Rights Watch released a pretty shocking report on how drug addicts in that country were basically forced to do labour as a part of their sentences. In some cases, we have had multinational companies who have been soliciting their products from this forced labour. If that kind of a condition were to exist in Canada, we would absolutely be up in arms. It is a practice that rightfully belongs in history, and I believe that most Canadians, if they were to hear of it, would be rightly incensed.

We know of documented testimonies by people in these forced labour camps. When they refused to do the work, they were subject to beatings and all kinds of abuse. These are the kinds of things that Canadians are concerned about. We want to know how other countries practice human and labour rights when we sign free trade deals. They are important to us. They are important to our values and we want to see them reflected in our foreign policy.

The other country I really want to highlight is Brunei, because prior to 2014, homosexuality was illegal and punishable there by up to 10 years of imprisonment. However, the law was changed in that year and homosexuality can now be punishable to death by stoning. Brunei is one of the signatory countries of this agreement and yet we like to stand up here and talk about how progressive the agreement is. However, one of the member countries that we are granting access to our economy, Brunei, still has such a terrible way of dealing with a right that we cherish in this country and that we, as parliamentarians, have stood in this place time and time again to defend.

Canadians want to know if these are the types of countries we want to reward with trade with Canada. I think if another country is going to trade with one like ours and to get access to our economy and the amazing workforce and products that we have, if they want to sell their products here, they have to demonstrate a certain commitment to basic fundamental human values. I think that should be a starting point.

Yes, we in the NDP do have problems with this agreement because it is not just about trade. It is about the behaviours that exist in the countries that we are seeking to build partnerships with.

Let me move on to the other rights, to the indigenous and environmental rights. Climate change is arguably the biggest issue of the 21st century and we do not see a single mention of it in this. It is going to have ramifications for everyone on this earth. We all share the same planet. How are we going to lead our lives? The way we meet the challenge is going to chart the course of the 21st century. For countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Mexico, which have pretty huge impacts on climate change by virtue of their emissions, this would have been a perfect opportunity to hammer that out.

As well, for a government that likes to proclaim time and time again that no relationship is more important to it than first nations, why is there no mention of indigenous rights in this? Each of the member countries has significant indigenous populations. If we are serious about implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this should be a starting point for our international relations. This is something we should be promoting, something we should take seriously, because I can tell my colleagues that first nations, Métis and Inuit across this country are watching the government. Yes, the words are welcome, the commitments are welcome, but these have to be followed up with meaningful action. We are seeing time and time again that they are failing.

Let us look no further than when we were here in the spring. It was fantastic to see the Liberal government join our NDP members to ensure the passage of Bill C-262. However, when it came to the moment when the rubber met the road and we were, via the member for Edmonton Strathcona, to insert language in Bill C-69 that would live up to the aspirations of that bill, the Liberals rejected every single one of those amendments. Again, words are fine, commitments are fine, but at some point Canadians are going to ask, where are the actions that have met up with your commitments?

The Liberals will say a lot about the side letters that covered some of those things, but as the member for Essex rightly pointed out, the side letters are not enforceable unless they are specifically referenced in the text. Furthermore, if the content of the side letters were so important and meaningful, why did we not make the effort to get them included in the main agreement?

I also want to talk about the investor-state dispute settlement process, because it is one of the most egregious things that has remained in this agreement and something we have major problems with. Giving rights to corporations to basically come after rightfully and democratically elected local governments, as well as provincial governments and even the federal government, basically makes this an instrument to rein-in democracy. We believe that our ability to make public health laws and laws on how we want to protect our local environment should not be superceded or challenged by international corporate interests, full stop. I think most Canadians would agree with that statement. It is basically a tool for big businesses to make governments pay when they regulate.

If we look at all of the federal statutes that exist on the books, at all of the areas where the minister is given powers to regulate, regulations that are changed from time to time and put in the Canada Gazette for consultation periods, what is going on behind those closed-door meetings between industry stakeholders, international industry stakeholders and ministers? Are threats being made that if we go ahead with a certain regulation, they are going to sue us? I think there is a lot of evidence on that. We know that with the investor-state dispute mechanisms, we have seen claims against states explode. In the mid-1990s there were a few dozen. Nowadays, we are up to almost 600 known cases. It is one of those graphs that is going to continue to go up, and the more we put this kind of provision into our trade agreements, the more multinational companies will use it and challenge the democratic and sovereign rights of local governments to make laws for their citizens.

I will conclude by talking about agriculture, and specifically supply management. I want to acknowledge that the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canola Council of Canada are going to benefit from this agreement. I am very happy they are. If we survey the votes in this place, we know that the Liberals and Conservatives are going to pass this agreement. However, the problem I have is with the repeated times Liberal ministers stand in this place to talk about defending supply management. I have in my hands quotes from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, and the Egg Farmers of Canada that unanimously condemn the government for the concessions it is making in the supply-managed sectors.

These sectors have good-paying, family farms that are often the cornerstone of small communities like mine in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. The supply-managed system has enabled them to weather the shocks of international pricing or domestic pricing. One of the key components of that system is our import controls. However, when we start carving away these little niches, especially when Canadians have expressed the desire to have local dairy products, eggs, and chicken, we are undermining the basic unit of what goes on in many parts of rural Canada. I take issue with the Liberal government standing up time and time again saying it supports supply management but not following through with actions.

Canadians expect better when their governments are signing these kinds of trade deals. They expect that our values will inform how the government negotiates these agreements, and when the government actually talks about labour standards, human rights, environmental standards, and indigenous rights that it is actually going to follow through, and that it has some kind of an enforcement mechanism. These are all very sadly lacking in this agreement. It makes a mockery of the word “progressive”, and that is why I will stand united with my NDP caucus to voice our concerns and vote against this agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, even before the legislation was talked about and the details of this agreement became known, we all knew that the NDP would be voting against it. It has traditionally, and continues today, not to recognize the value of trade agreements and their benefits for all Canadians, in particular our middle class. It does not recognize how an economy can grow from good, sound trade agreements. That is what this legislation is all about.

When we look at the NDP's position of opposing this, would the member indicate to Canadians that even before this legislation was actually tabled and the agreement was even reached, the NDP was in fact against it or any trade agreement. Is that not the reality?

Perhaps he could share with people what trade agreements among the last 60 the NDP has actually supported. Can he say it has supported more than three agreements?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague was talking about the creation of middle-class jobs and lifestyles. Let me correct him on that. The middle class was not created; it was fought for every step of the way by the hardworking men and women in the labour movement. It was the labour movement that fought hard for the minimum wage, workplace standards, for the eight-hour workday, for the weekend, and for parental leave. It was the labour movement that has been at the forefront of some of the greatest progressive social change in our country. It had to fight every step of the way for those standards. We see the labour movement coming out and saying there is a big problem with this agreement.

He talks about the creation of jobs. I agree that some sectors are going to benefit. However, in the industrial heartland of Ontario, especially in the auto sector, arguably some of the most powerful middle-class jobs that exist in our country, they are going to face some serious downfalls.

In terms of what kind of trade agreements the NDP is prepared to support, I thought I was pretty clear in the course of my 20-minute speech what we would like to see in trade deals. Just because the Conservatives and the Liberals have failed to include those provisions does not make us wrong. We are just trying to apply a standard that certain members of Canadian society expect of their government, and I am proud to stand up in this place and argue for those every single time.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my wonderful colleague, the MP for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, for his wonderful speech here today on the NDP's position on the trans-Pacific partnership, now the CPTPP. I know his portfolio is agriculture. He does a wonderful job as our agriculture critic, and certainly supply management is something that has been bantered about in the House since I was elected in 2015. It is ironic that when we are on the cusp of something potentially better in NAFTA, the Liberals are bringing this trade agreement forward that clearly shows we are willing to throw open the doors on supply management.

I would like to quote a pre-election release from the Liberal Party of Canada. The Prime Minister, who was then the candidate for Papineau, stated:

The government has an obligation to be open and honest about the negotiation process, and immediately share all the details of any agreement. Canadians deserve to know what impacts this agreement will have on different industries across our country. The federal government must keep its word and defend Canadian interests during the TPP’s ratification process—which includes defending supply management, our auto sector, and Canadian manufacturers across the country.

Does the member finds it mind boggling like I do that when the Liberals were running for government, they said they were going to protect these things, and yet today we see the ratification of the CPTPP in which none of these things have been protected by the Liberals?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, we in the NDP have a favourite saying that the Liberals love to campaign from the left and then govern from the right. This happens time and again.

She is so right to point out the concessions that have been made by the Liberal government on our supply-managed sectors are in absolute contradiction to what Liberals have been stating in the House. If we look at the losses, the Dairy Farmers of Canada are looking at losses of $160 million a year. That is $160 million that goes to small family farms, which as I said in my speech are the cornerstone of many rural agricultural communities across our great country.

I will just read quick quote of Pierre Lampron, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. He said:

On the one hand, the Canadian government has repeatedly stated that it wants a vibrant, strong, and growing dairy sector that creates jobs and fosters investments; on the other hand, it continues to carve out pieces of our domestic dairy market, first through CETA, and now through the CPTPP.... The Government must understand that in continuing to make these concessions, they are putting the Canadian dairy sector in jeopardy.

There are similar quotes from the Chicken Farmers of Canada and the Egg Farmers of Canada.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my NDP colleague's speeches as they are well-thought-out.

The Liberals seem to mismanage anything that they touch. I think back to the concerns that took place when the Prime Minister had an opportunity to speak in Vietnam and to be engaged. That created so much confusion not just for the negotiators but for each of the commodity groups because they really have no idea where anything is going to end up.

Right now we are concerned. There seems to be a political play with the discussions on the North American free trade agreement and that really is affecting our producers. Where I come from, the grain industry is really interested in moving this forward so that it can become a part of it.

I wonder if the member could speak to some of the confusion that has been left out there for everyone because of the Liberals' approach to trade.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will return the compliment. I enjoy sitting with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Agriculture. It is a committee where we take a good, measured approach to agricultural policy.

I want to say off the bat for the grain growers of Canada and other agricultural groups that I am very sympathetic. They are pushing for this deal and if I could carve off that one section and support it, I would.

My opposition to this comes from just the whole comprehensive act itself.

The member is right about the confusion. I talked in the opening segment of my speech about the secrecy where the negotiations had been played out with this and the Liberals continued that. It is in direct contrast with what has been going on with the North American free trade agreement. Labour groups, environmental groups and even Canadian businesses themselves have been left in the dark as to which direction the Liberal government is going in. I am sympathetic to that claim. It is bang on, and it is something that we can rightfully criticize with the government's approach to trade.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of positive news happening because of trade in the agricultural sector, and I am going to cite the pork industry that employs thousands of Manitobans. An excellent example is HyLife in Neepawa, which exports 95% and employs hundreds of Manitobans. If it were not for trade, the company would not exist. It provides a lot of good-paying jobs and contributes to the health and well-being of the community.

Would the member across the way not agree that Canada is a trading nation and in order to secure those markets into the future, having well-reasoned trade agreements between different nations is healthy for Canada? That is something our Prime Minister and our government is doing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, if only they were well-reasoned agreements.

I want to take this opportunity to identify that Canada's hog producers are going through a very rough patch right now. In Alberta, they have seen prices drop precipitously over the last few weeks. They are innocent bystanders of a trade war going on between the United States and China. I certainly hope that the Liberal government is there to support them because for any business to suffer price drops of that magnitude is an absolute calamity. I want to ensure that the government is there to support our hog producers.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, our government firmly believes that the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, will make it possible to expand and diversify Canada's trade and investments in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific markets, and it will create greater economic prosperity for Canadians.

The agreement will guarantee that the benefits derived from trade will be widely shared, particularly by allowing small and medium-sized businesses, the SMEs, to easily capitalize on the opportunities created by the agreement.

Exports are vital to the health and vitality of Canadian businesses, and Canadian SMEs play a key role in the growth of Canada's trade and economy. In fact, SMEs are the backbone of the Canadian economy. They represent over 99% of all businesses, 90% of all private sector jobs, and 10.7 million workers. What is more, they generate nearly 40% of Canada's gross domestic product.

However, only 11% of Canadian SMEs take advantage of foreign markets, and our government is determined to foster conditions that will increase that percentage. Exports are vital to Canada's economic growth. Our government will help small businesses expand their operations to new markets abroad by promoting exports through the negotiation and implementation of free trade agreements such as the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and now the CPTPP.

The CPTPP will enable Canadian SMEs to move into the dynamic Asia-Pacific market through agreements that seek to simplify the export process and increase SMEs' participation in global supply chains. This agreement will strengthen our economic ties with some of our existing free trade partners, such as Chile, Mexico, and Peru, while obtaining preferential access to the markets of seven new free trade partners, namely Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Brunei.

In addition, the CPTPP will eliminate tariffs and improve access to all these markets for Canadian businesses, including SMEs. Once it is implemented, 86% of tariffs from signatory counties will be instantly eliminated, which will also apply to Canadian exports to CPTPP countries worth an average of $28.3 billion annually in the years 2015 through 2017. Once the agreement is fully implemented, signatory countries will eliminate 99% of tariffs, which will also include Canadian exports to CPTPP countries worth an average of $32 billion annually between 2015 and 2017.

This enhanced market access will make our SMEs more competitive and position them for success. This will also give Canadian SMEs greater opportunities to diversify their exports at a time when it is of critical importance to do so.

The agreement provides for deals on greater market access for our service sectors and financial services, as well as a comprehensive package of provisions on investment protections built on a strong investment dispute resolution mechanism. Those provisions will greatly benefit our SMEs, since non-tariff barriers have a disproportionate impact on small and medium-sized businesses.

The CPTPP offers a first in Canada when it comes to free trade agreements: it contains a chapter that specifically guarantees that small and medium-sized businesses can benefit from the opportunities the agreement creates. This separate chapter underscores the importance of SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy and a driver of economic growth.

These provisions will also guarantee that our business owners and small businesses have access to the information they need and will help Canadian businesses easily explore and enter into CPTPP markets as they prepare to achieve positive results.

Through a committee and co-operative mechanisms, CPTPP signatories will be able to share best practices on how to support their businesses through seminars, workshops, and other skills enhancement activities in order to help their businesses capitalize on the opportunities provided by this agreement.

The CPTPP will open up new market opportunities for Canadian businesses of all sizes, in all sectors, and in all regions of the country. In the coming months, we will be talking to small and medium-sized businesses across Canada to make sure they have the knowledge and tools they need to benefit from this historic accord.

At the same time, we will be working to help Canadian small businesses grow, expand their operations, boost their productivity, innovate, and explore export opportunities so they can thrive and create good middle-class jobs.

Asia is important to Canada and our small and medium-sized businesses. Asia's contribution to the global economy is growing, and our exports to the region have more than doubled.

The CPTPP is key to fulfilling our government's promise to diversify trade. It will enable Canadian businesses to pursue trade and investment opportunities in what is a dynamic and rapidly growing region.

Because Asia is so highly integrated and adaptable, access to new markets is just one way we will benefit from the CPTPP. The agreement will give Canadian businesses of all sizes a chance to hook into various regionally integrated value chains with global reach.

Ambitious agreements with high standards such as the CPTPP will help strengthen the international system founded on solid rules and institutions that support global supply chains, ensure that the rules are fair and maximize the benefits of trade for all.

By increasing in a responsible manner our economic ties with our Asian partners, we are keeping our promise to create opportunities for economic growth that will benefit Canada's middle class. This agreement will in fact create opportunities that help Canadian entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized companies to grow their operations and prosper, as well as create good jobs for the middle class.

We are here to help Canadians move forward, grow and be successful abroad while creating a good economic climate with durable sustainable growth for everyone.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her speech on the importance of market access for SMEs. There are several SMEs in Mégantic—L'Érable that, just like those in my colleague's riding, would like access to more markets in order to grow. Mine was once a mining region, primarily because of Thetford Mines. We exported to countries around the world, but we only had one product. Now our regions have many SMEs.

Canadian SMEs and large corporations must have the opportunity to enjoy all the benefits of the CPTPP and access to this new market. For that to happen, Canada must be among the first six countries to sign the agreement or it will only get the crumbs left by the first six signatory countries.

Unfortunately, in June, when we asked for a special summer sitting of the House of Commons, the government refused to expedite the ratification of the CPTPP. I do not understand why and I asked several questions about this today. I have a simple question for my colleague: why?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we obviously have a legislative calendar, and extraordinary sittings require extraordinary reasons. I do not think that signing a free trade agreement constitutes an extraordinary reason. We are on schedule, and there is no reason to believe that we will not be among the first six signatory countries. We will do what is necessary. We started debating this bill today, and we want to fast-track it in the coming weeks because we believe it is very important.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that at least two of the countries that are participating in the CPTPP, Brunei and Malaysia, employ a form of sharia law that imposes severe bodily violence on people if they are members of the LGBTQ2 community. In fact, my understanding is that in Brunei members of those communities can be stoned to death simply for practising their sexual orientation.

Given that the Prime Minister has said that feminism and human rights are to be a cornerstone of his approach to foreign policy and trade, I am interested in my hon. colleague's opinion on whether she thinks the Government of Canada should be rewarding countries with preferential economic benefits if they have policies and laws in place that result in stoning members of the LGBTQ2 community to death for simply being who they are.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that trade alone would counter or resolve issues of human rights. The LGBTQ2 community is definitely one that is extremely vulnerable in the countries that the member mentioned.

Canada will always defend their rights. Perhaps providing them with economic outlays would be one form of helping. I am not pretending that it is the solution in any way, shape or form. We will continue to stand for their rights and to defend those rights.

However, I do not think we can exclude the possibility of entering an agreement with them when there are other countries around the table in this region that are targeted by this trade agreement and not just one or two countries.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the part that is most troublesome to many of us within the TPP is also a part that is coming up for negotiations in NAFTA, and that is what is called “investor-state dispute resolution” systems.

Strangely enough, Donald Trump has offered up chapter 11 of NAFTA and said that the U.S. would like to get rid of this. We should grab that with both hands and get rid of it. Instead, we are expanding it now and allowing the countries within the TPP region to have the same abilities to bring cases against Canada, initiated by foreign corporations against decisions made by our domestic governments or courts. We have a history of this now. We know very well that Canada loses and has multi-million dollar fines against it for decisions taken in accordance with our laws, in accordance with the rules of fair trade. I need to stress that. Members are confused on this point.

Investor-state agreements are not about Canada doing something wrong. They are private arbitrations, generally in secret, in the interest of corporate power and global corporate rule against Canadian sovereignty. Why would we want to extend that? Why do we want to protect it in NAFTA? Why should we extend it in the TPP?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am totally unprepared to answer that question. I really have very little knowledge on that particular subject. I would by lying if I gave you an answer that I do not have. My apologies.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that she is to address comments to the Chair and not to individual members.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really want to go back to the issue of supply management. I feel that in trade agreements this has become kind of the favoured way for Canada to make concessions on the table.

The people who are hurting for that are our farmers. We hear, clearly, from farmers from coast to coast to coast that they do not want to give up their family farms. They do not want to give up the supply management that has worked so well for our system, that has kept our milk prices competitive, that has kept our food local, that has kept hormones out of our milk and that has responsible animal treatment on our farms.

There are family farms in my riding that are 100 years old or more. I do not really understand how the Liberals can say on one hand that they will protect something, but that they then continue to give up. In CETA, they gave up on supply management. In CPTPP, they are doing the same. At the same time, something is happening, and there is a lot of speculation as to what is happening, in the NAFTA negotiations.

I wonder if the member could provide us with some insight as to what she thinks about the Liberal government saying that on one hand they will protect it, but then it is death by a thousand cuts to these farmers who are the backbone of our communities in rural Canada.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a member of Parliament from Quebec, where supply management is not only extremely important, but is also entrenched in our vision of agri-food development.

Our government's position is very clear: we firmly believe in supply management, and we are absolutely committed to it. Unfortunately, there is an ongoing misconception that Canada overprotects farmers with supply management, but I disagree. As we have heard many times, this system was designed so that the government would not have to subsidize dairy, egg or poultry producers. This system has served Canada well, and some countries are asking if they can adopt it. Personally, I am very supportive of maintaining supply management. All negotiations require concessions, but this government will absolutely support farmers.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

I rise in the House today to reiterate to farmers that we will always stand by them and that we will continue to fight for them. For years, the Conservative and Liberal governments have conceded significant parts of Canada's dairy market to international partners. We need only look at the agreement with Europe, the TPP, the diafiltered milk file, and so on. Canada always makes concessions on the backs of farmers.

The Producteurs de lait du Québec, the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, and UPA Montérégie put their trust in this government, which keeps telling them that everything will be fine. When the Prime Minister was in Saguenay he told them that he would not make any concessions on supply management. Today, we are hearing a different story. It is not just one industry that is under threat today. Supply management is a pillar of our regional way of life, the safety net of our farms and our entire local and regional economy. Supply management is not just a way of protecting our farmers. It is also something that concerns each and every one of us, including Canadian consumers.

I have said all summer long that in Canada we cannot just open our refrigerators and not find milk, eggs or poultry. Supply management is the guarantee of the quality of our products, the assurance that Canadians consume products that have been tested and inspected and that meet strict standards in order to give our fellow citizens the very best of what we produce. In fact, more than 75% of Canadians support the supply management system. Is the government going to turn its back on three-quarters of the population?

I rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the farmers I met throughout the summer who shared their concerns with me. I held a press conference this summer with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé as part of the Saint-Hyacinthe farm Expo to reiterate our support for farmers, who keep wondering whether they will once again have to pay the price for this government's mismanagement. Dozens of farmers reached out to us to thank us for our tireless work on supply management.

On behalf of everyone in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale, but also on behalf of the 13,000 supply-managed farms across the country, I want to reiterate the NDP's request: Canada cannot make any concessions at the expense of farmers. If supply management falls apart, there will be immediate consequences for them and for thousands of farmers and agricultural producers. Does this government realize that that would shut down thousands of farms in Quebec and Canada, and cause the loss of thousands of direct and indirect jobs on our farms and in the food processing sector?

The government must not cave in to American pressure, for our farmers cannot give any more without putting their farms, their plans, and their families at risk. On their behalf, I call on the government to show real leadership.

In my riding, in Upton, more specifically, Martin Joubert and his wife, Émilie Courchesne, from Ferme de la Carrière, told me how important supply management is to the survival of their farm. If supply management breaks down then they will simply lose their farm. Producers like Martin are worried and rightly so. Everything rides on supply management because it is a system that works. The Prime Minister himself told farmers in 2017 that he would not make any concessions on supply management. It is time for him to put his money where his mouth is.

The NDP is the only party that has always defended supply management in its entirety as a way of ensuring our food sovereignty. It is people like Martin and his family that I stand up for every day in Ottawa, here in the House, and knowing how important supply management is to them I will continue to stand up for them. There are roughly 7,000 people like Martin Joubert and his family in Canada. In Quebec, nearly 4,000 farms need this government to show leadership and this Prime Minister to keep his promises not to make any concessions.

Dairy and agricultural production are key sectors of our economy, and keeping supply management is essential for them. Not only are local production and our ability to feed Canadians at risk, but thousands of jobs and family businesses across Quebec and Canada may well disappear.

Canada's government must vigorously defend supply management during NAFTA negotiations. It is all well and good to talk about another agreement today. We know that these negotiations are part of the bigger picture.

During the last two trade negotiations concerning the European Union agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we are debating today, Canada was already weakened by U.S. demands and gave up some market share of supply-managed sectors.

These concessions of 2% of our dairy market in the Canada-European Union trade agreement and 3.1% in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership translate into total losses of $260 million for dairy producers alone. To date producers have not been adequately compensated.

This summer, agricultural producers in my riding were asking me at what point would the system collapse. We have reached 16%. Will it be 17% or 18%? Was it 15% before the supply and demand system collapsed?

We must not say that it is only 1%, 2%, or 3%. That would cause major breaches that could destroy the system.

The fact is, the Canadian market is already one of the most open markets in the world because of those concessions. Canada imports 10% of its dairy needs, primarily from the United States, while the Americans import only 3% of their needs. I think they know what food security is all about. The same is true in the poultry sector, where Canadian imports surpass production by 16%, while the United States imports less than 1% of its production from Canada. We cannot concede any more without jeopardizing the viability of the sectors in question.

Supply-managed farmers should not have to pay the price for every round of trade negotiations, so I have the following questions. When will the government learn from its past mistakes? When will it finally show some leadership and refuse the Americans' conditions? How many losses and new obstacles do our farmers have to face before the Liberal government will finally take action for them, rather than against them?

As I mentioned, I spent the summer meeting with agricultural producers. In a riding like Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, our summer includes the Saint-Hyacinthe agricultural fair, where I spent five whole days, the corn festival, the Saint-Nazaire d'Acton pork festival, the Expo-champs farm show, and the Salon de l'agriculture trade show in January. Expo-champs is held on the side of the highway, in a field set up to showcase equipment and innovations. This summer, there was a lot of talk about smart agriculture. Farmers told me that given the uncertainty surrounding NAFTA and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, they are holding off on investing in their businesses. The next generation of farmers are very worried and have a lot of questions. Will they want to take over the family business under these conditions?

In Upton, in my riding, there are still two country roads where every lot is a dairy farm, which is extremely rare today in Canada. If we concede too much market share and the supply management system falls apart, the landscape of our regions is going to change. Right now, my riding is full of family farms. If the system falls apart, they would be replaced by farms raising thousands of animals. Is that what we want to see?

At the agricultural fair, people were very concerned about animal health and welfare and the quality of the foods we eat.

I learned from producers that Wisconsin's surplus exceeds Canada's total output. Our job here in the House is to protect the family farms that are emblematic of agriculture in this country. We have to make sure those businesses survive. We are here on their behalf, and we will continue to defend them.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on her excellent work with farmers in her region. We hear about it in Drummond, another place where agriculture plays a very important role.

I have here an article from La Terre de chez nous about how supply management took a hit in TPP negotiations. Now supply management is taking yet another hit. I met with dairy producers this summer too. They told me they are sick of always being the ones to take the hit. Farmers are coping with diafiltered milk, CETA, the TPP, and the demise of family farms, and I think they have just about reached the breaking point.

How can the Liberals justify their actions? They are doing exactly what the Conservatives did. Why are dairy producers and other supply-managed producers always the ones taking the hit? How can the government justify that? How can the government be okay with it?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we built a collective system. The farmers that I represent refer to this as our collective wealth. It is a supply management system that relies on a collective organization and that allows farmers to work together and agree on how to do things.

I can understand that some people might find it tiresome to organize collectively, but we should be proud of this system. It works. In my riding, there are all sorts of farms. Beef, pork, and maple syrup producers would certainly be better off with this agreement in place, but they tell me that they do not want an agreement that would benefit them to the detriment of their colleagues, neighbours, and friends. That is what will happen if we abandon some of our agricultural sectors, and farmers are opposed to that.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we spent over a year doing consultations regarding the CPTPP. One of the things we heard from so many businesses was how important this type of agreement is for them in terms of diversification and not putting all of our eggs in one basket.

The chapter on labour mobility was a really important one and we heard from so many people who testified before the committee across the country. I am wondering if the member opposite, one, supports trade in general for a fair and just agreement and, two, can comment on the importance of labour mobility, so that if someone is working in the finance sector in Canada, that person can also go to a subsidiary or partner in the U.S. for short stays in terms of temporary work, to do management practices there.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not live on another planet. We know that we need agreements. That said, we are not sure how this one will protect Canada's industries. I represent a very agricultural riding, and I believe that this agreement will hurt the people and businesses that I represent, which is unacceptable.

I will continue to say loudly and clearly that we cannot sign an agreement that will kill businesses and sacrifice jobs here in Canada. There are also concerns about food security. We must never forget that we cannot rely on other countries for our basic food needs. That is a fundamental issue that we need to concern ourselves with.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, after a busy summer in Drummond. I had the pleasure of meeting with constituents, advocating various issues, and touring the municipalities I represent to attend events like festivals, barbecues, and celebrations.

Today is our first day back, and on the agenda is the Liberals' TPP 2.0. In reality, this is far from an improved version. It seems like the government figured it needed to diversify, so it decided to basically sign anything. This is essentially what is going on, and I will explain why in a little bit.

Over the summer I met with a number of people, including representatives from small farms, like those in Saint-Félix de Kingsey or Saint-Majorique, for example. More and more Canadians want to know what they are eating and consuming. I am obviously disappointed that the Liberal government refuses to make the labelling of GMOs mandatory. My constituents are also upset. People want to know more about what they are eating and they want to know the producers. Unfortunately, in the last 15 years we have seen a downward trend in the number of family farms. Human-scale farms are becoming rarer. I recently met with Roger Lafond, from Ferme Gerola, in Saint-Germain, Alain Brassard, the vice-chair of Les Producteurs de lait for Centre-du-Québec, and Christian Piau, from Ferme Botti, which is transitioning towards producing organic milk. These men told me that dairy production and the production of other goods under supply management have suffered enough. They have struggled enough in recent years.

I will give some examples. First, there is the free trade agreement with Europe. That agreement contains a concession of 2% of dairy imports in Canada. That is hurting our farmers. We should not forget that the government said it would set up a compensation program. Let us talk about that compensation program. UPA representatives came to see me to tell me what a terrible failure this program was. On February 4, 2018, Radio-Canada, among others, ran an article entitled, “Canada-Europe Agreement: Dairy Farmers Criticize Compensation Program”.

The article said the following:

Short application window, not enough compensation: the program set up by Ottawa [by the Liberal government, it should say] to compensate dairy farmers after the conclusion of the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, is being criticized. Some farmers and the Government of Quebec question the methodology chosen by Ottawa on the eve of signing another free trade agreement, the TPP, which will open the Canadian dairy market even further.

Canadians, the UPA, and farmers have come to see me to tell me that their application had been rejected. Unfortunately, they applied too late because the deadline was far too short. Just a few hours after the program opened, there was no more room. One dairy farmer, Yves van der Tol, added that it takes a lot of time and energy to prepare the submission. He said he did it himself, but some people hired consultants to prepare their file. They paid money only to have their application denied.

It is not a compensation program so much as an investment program. That is not so bad, except that it does not compensate all dairy farmers. Dairy farmers back home in Drummond are still suffering from this failing in the Canada-Europe agreement. Then there is the whole diafiltered milk crisis.

Since 2015, we have risen in the House countless times to talk about the urgent need to deal with the diafiltered milk crisis. It was not exactly rocket science, but the government dragged its feet for so long that dairy producers and processors took the matter into their own hands.

Those producers have a lot to say to the Liberal government, which said it would defend supply management but now says it plans to give up 3% of the market. Good thing the government is defending supply management. Just imagine if it were not. The market would be wide open. Dairy producers in my riding, in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and everywhere else in Canada are not at all pleased with what this government has done.

That is not the end of the story. Things are even worse than that, unfortunately. Contrary to what the Liberals might think, we are not against trade. What we are against are trade agreements that are not good for Canadians or, in this case, for farmers. We have to have trade agreements that combat inequality and climate change. This agreement does neither of those things, and that is another serious problem.

I had the honour of welcoming Iolande Cadrin-Rossignol to Drummondville, Drummond. She is the director of a documentary my colleagues have probably heard of called Earth: Seen from the Heart, which came out a few months ago. It is an adaptation of a book by Hubert Reeves that talks about the environment and features places that are incredibly significant from an environmental and biodiversity perspective, as well as places that are going to disappear unless we act now.

We held a screening of her film, and over 100 people came. In fact, there is still a waiting list, but residents of Drummond are invited to attend an additional screening next Sunday, September 23, at 2:00 p.m. at the Drummondville CEGEP. Registrations are still open, but people should hurry.

Here is what the director said: “I am happy to see the enthusiastic response to this film in Drummondville. It is clear that people are eager to save our beautiful planet, because it is the only one we have.”

The message of the film is a good illustration of why this agreement must not be adopted: it does not do everything necessary to fight climate change and protect the environment and biodiversity. It all goes to show that this government is in too much of a hurry. It is rushing to sign this trans-Pacific agreement, just as it rushed to pay $4.3 billion to buy a pipeline, angering the thousands of Drummond residents who did not want to buy a pipeline. Buying pipelines is not a government's job, least of all when that government claims to be interested in protecting the environment. That makes even less sense than this trans-Pacific agreement.

I have a lot more to say, especially about the notorious dispute settlement mechanism that also does not work. It makes no sense to be sued for opposing shale gas development in Quebec and to have to pay millions of dollars because we want to protect Quebec's water. Unfortunately, this mechanism is staying in the agreement, and that is unacceptable.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, for his comments on bringing family farms into the House of Commons. It is very important. It seems as though the Liberals are in a crisis about supply management. They are saying one thing, but they are doing another. That is becoming quickly exposed by Canadians and by the families in my riding.

I had a meeting late on Friday evening with dairy farmers, Bernard Nelson, Mark Stannard and Vicky Morrison, and our Essex County Federation of Agriculture president Lyle Hall. There is deep disappointment in what the Liberal government is doing.

Under the original TPP, there was an opening of supply management, but there was some money attached under the previous Conservatives that evaporated under the Liberals. We find ourselves in this situation because of the U.S. When it was in the TPP, it wanted access to our dairy market. That is where this came from. When Canadians went back to the table in the CPTPP, the Liberals were not able to get rid of this provision in the CPTPP. They had an opportunity to do it, but they did not stand strong and did not defend supply management and our farm families.

I thank my colleague for bringing forward those stories because these are real people. Talking about food safety and the health of Canadians is a big part of this conversation that cannot be ignored.

Does my colleague agree with the dairy farmers in my riding and has he heard from farmers in Drummond that this opening of our market is just the beginning of death by a thousand cuts to our farm families in Canada?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Essex for his kind words and good work on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

This agreement is far from being progressive. I do not understand why they included that word in the title. It was probably to project a good image. It is sad to say, but we all know how important image is to the Liberal Party. Calling an agreement progressive does not make it so. In fact, this agreement is not progressive. We want supply management to be fully protected. We must stop chipping away at it. Supply management has been eroded by the agreement with the EU, then by the CPTPP, and then some more in the NAFTA renegotiation. That is unacceptable. We cannot continue in this way as the people of Drummond have told me.

That is not all. The dispute resolution mechanism is extremely important. I did not have time to talk about it earlier. There again, it had to be renegotiated and rejigged because it was not working. We are abdicating our sovereignty. We are abdicating our right to protect our environment and enforce our laws. We create laws to protect the environment. Multinationals are taking us to court because they want to foster their unbridled growth whereas Canadians are asking us to protect our environment and our biodiversity. That should be renegotiated. Unfortunately, the Liberals caved when they renegotiated the agreement. The agreement's 5,000 pages are more or less the same as they were under the Conservatives. They are even worse as we have gone backwards.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way wants examples. Truth be known, the NDP does not support trade agreements. That is the reality. The voting record of NDP members clearly demonstrates that.

To recognize the importance of Canada being a trading nation, for example, I made reference to HyLife, which employs hundreds of Manitobans and 95% of what it produces is for export. Last weekend, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg North at Canada Goose where 700 new jobs are coming. Canada Goose exports jackets.

Would the member acknowledge that exportation is critically important to the creation of future jobs and having these trade agreements is one of ways we can secure these markets into the future?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support trade agreements, but not just any trade agreement. This is what we have been saying all day.

Under President Obama, the United States also developed a labour consistency plan with Malaysia and Brunei, to require that these countries respect labour standards. It is not complicated. We are talking about basic labour standards, including freedom of association and collective bargaining. This all disappeared under Liberal rule.

We support agreements that respect workers' rights. At the very least, we are asking that agreements respect the environment, workers' rights, and supply management.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to let the House know I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say once I conclude my remarks.

I am rising today to state my opposition to the trans-Pacific partnership. We could call it the CPTPP, or whatever kind of window dressing the Liberals want to add to pretend it is not just a deal that was negotiated in secret by Conservatives, ultimately to be signed by them with no real meaningful changes. However, I am not going to do that because I have more respect for the intelligence of Canadians than apparently some others in the House. I am going to call it the TPP. I just wanted to say at the outset that is something I am doing on purpose, not by accident.

I, and the NDP, have opposed many trade deals in the past. The reason I oppose this deal is that it is a deal for the few and not the many. That is the problem. There is a concept of trade in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party that is really just about corporations being able to use resources across countries to amass their own wealth but that does not actually allow that wealth to be shared by workers in the countries that are parties to this agreement. That is just as true for Canada as it is for many other countries. Not all trade deals have to be this way, but Liberal and Conservative governments in Canada have chosen to make them this way. That is why that period of corporate globalization happens to coincide with a growing proportion of the wealth produced in those years in these kinds of trade deals. These are the numbers we see over a 25- or 30-year period.

We have seen GDP growth and wealth increase, but the problem is that it is not finding its way into the pockets of the workers who are producing that wealth. A larger and larger percentage of that wealth being generated is going into fewer and fewer hands. It is not the NDP making that claim. We have seen many different organizations track that information and report on it. There is inequity built into these agreements.

What we have been trying to highlight in today's debate are the various mechanisms and what they actually mean for a Canadian worker when we get into the content of the agreement, not just in terms of what the exports at the company they work for are going to be but the wages they are going to be paid once they are in unfair competition with workers in other countries that do not have the same standards and under agreements that do not require some kind of meaningful reciprocity when it comes to labour standards.

Likewise for the environment. What happens to the environment in Canada if we are forced into competition with jurisdictions that do not have the same regulations? What happens to the Canadian worker when the job leaves Canada because we have now given equal access to our markets to products made in countries that do not observe the same standards?

That is why I am quite proud to stand in this place and say that I oppose this deal and the many deals like it.

I look forward to the day when we have a trade deal that actually puts the interests of the Canadian worker first. I look forward to supporting that deal. I do not think we are going to see it negotiated by the Liberals or Conservatives, at least not these iterations. The Liberals had opportunities to fix what was wrong with the TPP. They passed it up. What we are hearing out of the NAFTA negotiation rounds is that they are getting ready to sell out Canadian workers in another international trade deal all over again. The track record over the last 25 years or 30 years just is not there. What the Liberals have done most recently does not show that they have learned any lessons from that past.

We talk about investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, which is a bit of a mouthful, but what does it mean for an ordinary Canadian? What it means is that when one votes for a government that says it wants to institute certain standards for the public good, whether it is an environmental or labour standard, a foreign company could say that a provision, which might be in the public interest, does not matter, as it is going to cost them money. Therefore, one could be taken to court and sued not just for the company's loss of profits, although it gets that too, but also to block the policy change.

To add insult to injury, not only do we not get the policy that is in the public interest, but then we also have to pay money for not getting the policy, which is in the public interest.

This is not available to Canadian companies because Canadian companies do not actually have the same rights under ISDS provisions.

On the world stage, Canada is the biggest sucker for this kind of unfair treatment. I will reserve some of my more inflammatory characterizations of that for a private conversation.

Canada no doubt has been the biggest sucker for this kind of treatment. It has cost us more money than anybody else and now we are lining up another 10 countries that will be able to do that to us again. It does not make sense.

We can look at TPP and ask ourselves questions about how it is going to benefit the Canadian worker. When we look at chapter 12, which is something I have talked about many times in the House and in committee, there is nothing in there for a construction worker who is out of work.

Liberals talk about infrastructure investment and how they are going to put Canadians to work by investing in infrastructure on the one hand, but with the other hand, they are off signing a deal that is going to make it far easier for international contractors to bring in temporary foreign workforces to perform that work when Canadians are out of work. There is no infrastructure to track those workers once they are in the country. There is no infrastructure to find out what they are being paid. There is no infrastructure to figure out whether their training is adequate or if it meets our safety standards.

That is what is wrong with this agreement. On the one hand, Liberals are saying they want to fix the temporary foreign worker program and invest in infrastructure for Canadian workers and on the other hand, they are doing things that are actually going to make it easier for that work to get scooped up by other workers. It does not make sense.

In terms of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, we see it again with respect to the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Even though some of the worst provisions in the TPP have been suspended, we know that they could come back at any time. They are sitting there on the books waiting to drive up the cost of Canadian drugs, even as the government says it wants to bring about some kind of drug insurance plan. We are not exactly sure it is going to be the right kind, but while the Liberals are talking about trying to lower drug costs for Canadians, in their trade file they are off on their merry way making it easier for the international pharmaceutical companies that produce those drugs to raise the price. Once again the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, which is the charitable interpretation, or it could be that the voice of the left hand is being cynically put out there for political reasons, while the real hand of the government remains the right hand.

That is why international corporations get provisions in the main agreement and Canadian workers, if they get anything, get things in side agreements that are not binding and do not mean anything and can be overwritten very easily. That is another measure of how serious the government is.

If some of the language in those side agreements which represent meaningful measures when it comes to labour standards and environmental standards actually made it into the trade agreement, and they are not there currently, then we would have a deal that the NDP could look at seriously to consider whether or not it was going to support it. That would mean the government was actually trying to make a trade agreement that worked for Canadian workers instead of what amounts to a handful, relatively speaking, of Canadian investors and business people who are looking to invest abroad and want to do so on their own terms to get a big return. If they were to bring that money back to Canada and not send it off to Barbados, the Cayman Islands or wherever else they like to put their money, that would show GDP is going up and the Liberals and Conservatives could say they are increasing wealth.

However, if you follow the numbers, that wealth is not going to Canadian workers. That is why they are experiencing the highest levels of household debt in generations. That is why they are finding it hard to find housing. That is why they are struggling to pay the cost of their drugs. It is because of the way the wealth has been created over the last 25 or 30 years under these kinds of trade deals, not trade deals writ large.

The problem is that the Liberals and Conservatives in this place conflate their idea of trade with trade generally speaking. There are different ways to trade. In fact, we trade already with many of the nations that are part of the TPP. In many cases, there are hardly any tariffs on the trade happening between those countries.

That is one way to trade. We have been trading that way. We can expand trade under that model or we could do it under another kind of agreement that actually supports Canadian workers and supports employment for Canadian workers and actually recognizes the environmental impact of trading with certain nations that do not have the right standards. We could do that. That is still trade. In fact, I think it is a better kind of trade and it would be an effective kind of trade.

That is the kind of trade the NDP supports. That is what we are fighting for. It is why we are saying no to this agreement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to come back to the issue of what this trade deal would actually do to communities across the country given the attacks on supply management, which the government has refused to admit is happening within the agreement.

Those of us in the NDP are the worker bees in this Parliament. We have read through the agreement and have actually found its implications. We know that we are looking at losses of up to 60,000 jobs. In terms of supply management, we know what that means for farmers and farming communities in the hon. member's province of Manitoba and what it means in terms of industrial workers, particularly in the auto sector, and those lost jobs.

What does this mean? Why are the Liberals and Conservatives trying to ram this bill through rather than actually looking to fix all of the problems in this trade agreement?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great virtues of supply management is that it has allowed farmers to get a fair price for their product. When we do the comparison between Canadian prices and international prices, in fact, Canadian dairy products are priced competitively. What it means is that we have actually been able to support smaller dairy farms as opposed to just having an expansion of the corporate model. That means a populated rural Canada.

There is a downward trend that we are always trying to fight, but one of the ways we are going to fail in fighting that is by getting rid of supply management which actually allows smaller farmers to be successful and get a fair return for the work they are putting in. The U.S. is encouraging us now to abandon our supply management system. We hear reports of dairy farmers in the United States who are going out of business and in some cases, unfortunately, taking their lives because they are not able to get a fair price for their product. People are willing to pay a fair price for a fair product and we should not be adopting models that in other countries clearly are not working.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his very eloquent speech, my colleague expressed a lot of the frustration that we in the New Democratic Party feel when it comes to trade agreements simply because, as my other colleague pointed out, we do our homework. We look at these agreements from top to bottom. We examine them and make sure that we are representing Canadians and their interests. While members on the other side say the NDP is being anti-trade, do they say the same to the dairy farmers of Canada? Do they say the same to the building trades? Do they say the same to the Girl Guides and librarians? They were some of the 400 witnesses that appeared before the international trade committee.

People expressed their legitimate concerns. They are not anti-trade. They said that with this particular trade agreement, they have serious concerns with the provisions and the impacts they will have on their lives. New Democrats do not deny that and try to gloss it over with some pretty language. We acknowledge the fact that real Canadians feel a real threat to their daily paycheques and their very livelihoods. That is something it seems this Parliament is devoid of on both sides, in the official opposition as well as in the government. There is an absolute refusal to acknowledge how harmful this agreement would be to Canadians, and that does a disservice to trade.

Over the summer we had a conversation about NAFTA that we have never had in this country around trade. It benefits all of us to look at trade agreements in depth, in a way that we have not before, and challenge the way we have been treating the effectiveness of it. My colleague did this very well.

I want to speak to one particular point: the building trades. When representatives of the building trades appeared before the international trade committee as some of the 400 witnesses, they said they were not prepared to be before for us because they had never been part of a trade agreement before, and the government had not even informed them that they would be involved in a chapter in the agreement. The building trades see a direct threat to their livelihoods. I wonder if the member could speak to what he has heard from some key stakeholders in the building trades on the CPTPP.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I am a construction electrician by trade and a proud member of the IBEW. We already know of instances where international contractors are bringing in temporary workforces from outside the country, whether it is Ireland or elsewhere, to perform work when guys down the street are at home waiting for work. It is not fair. It was something that Liberals said they wanted to fix when they were looking at the temporary foreign worker program, but again, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Even as they say they are fixing the abuses of the TFW program, on the other hand, they are writing those very same abuses into the TPP, an internationally binding agreement. It makes no sense and the building trades know that full well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to this very important bill which we are opposing because of the profound negative impact that comes from the botched series of negotiations and the very ineffective way in which this government has implemented it.

I should start by praising the work of the trade critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Essex. She has been extraordinarily eloquent on this issue and she has done her homework. She has actually read through the agreement. She has identified the problems. She was the only member of the trade committee who actually listened to the witnesses, hundreds of whom came forward from a wide variety of backgrounds to talk about the problems with this agreement. She is the only member of the trade committee, having heard that feedback and input, standing up for those Canadians who came forward. We thank the member for Essex for her work on this.

I am in this House in part because of my interest in trade issues. I was interested in trade prior to becoming the CEO of a major social enterprise, WIDHH. That social enterprise was involved in exporting a wide variety of assistive devices for people who are deaf, deafened and hard of hearing. What we did was we opened up our website. We had a wide variety of products that are very unique. What happened when we did that is we found such an interest from the Americans, and even in Europe, that we were starting to receive orders.

I went to the federal government at the time. This was before I was a member of Parliament. I asked what kind of assistance was provided for export support. I was told there was not much and that I could get a loan, the same way I guess one can get a loan to go to a post-secondary institution. One can go into debt. That is about the only way the federal government will help with exports. That is the case today. We are talking 15 years later. We have one of the most deplorable records with respect to providing export promotion support of any major industrialized country. Australia provides about $500 million a year to bolster its export sector. Canada provides only a fraction of that, a few million dollars a year. This is, I think, the foundation stone to what has become a profoundly dysfunctional trade policy.

What we have is a government, first the Conservative government and now the Liberal government, signing agreements but without doing any sort of impact analysis, without understanding the economic ramifications of the agreements that it signs, and then throwing them on the floor of the House of Commons.

As we heard today, the debate has not been on the agreement. It has been from the NDP side, of course, because we have read the agreement. We are bringing forward the objections that were raised at the trade committee by Canadian groups from coast to coast to coast. However, the Conservatives and Liberals speak only in wild theory about trade. Of course we support trade, but there are two different approaches to trade that we see worldwide.

When it comes to Conservative and Liberal governments, there does not seem to be much difference between one party and the other, as we saw earlier today when a Liberal MP joined the Conservatives, and we have seen Conservative MPs join the Liberals. There does not seem to be any distinction between the two parties, aside from colours and some policy. However, regardless of which governments we have, Liberal or Conservative, they all support a very top-down model of trade. They call it free trade, but it is basically top-down. It certainly helps the lobbyists but it does not help regular folks across the country.

We take fair trade as something that we believe could bring the benefits of trade but actually makes sure that those benefits go to regular folks. There is nothing worse than a politician who, having not read an agreement, just gets some talking points and says that this has to be in the interest of everybody because trade is good, and votes to hammer so many sectors in the Canadian economy.

Let us look at the impacts. We have heard from a number of speakers today in this corner of the House talking about what the projected implications are of signing this agreement.

What we are seeing is a significant impact on the supply-managed sector, and not just on the supply-managed farmers in those sectors, whether we are talking about dairy or poultry or egg farmers; the impact is on their whole community when we dissect and rip apart supply management. Liberals may defend that by paying lip service to supply management on the one hand, but on the other hand they are signing agreements and trying to drive bills through the House that would actually devastate the supply-managed sector. However, we on this side actually believe in supply management as an effective approach.

We have been talking all day about the importance of ensuring that those supply-managed agricultural communities stay prosperous. We are going to lose thousands of jobs in the supply-managed sector if we ram this bill through.

Let us look at auto. The member for Essex knows that sector well, and she worked in the industry. We hear from that industry that it is going to lose tens of thousands of jobs. The total job loss that we are talking about when we talk about the auto sector, the supply-managed sector and other sectors is 58,000 jobs, yet we have yet to hear a speaker from the Liberal government address the concerns in this agreement and in the bill. I mean, they talk in highfalutin terms about trade being good, but not all trade is good if we devastate tens of thousands of jobs in our own economy and if we have not done an analysis of the impact on the economy. If we have not done our homework, not necessarily will every agreement be of benefit.

The Liberals have pointed out that there are a few key sectors that, at least at the national level, are supported and that there is potential for growth in a number of areas. However, I come back to my original point about when I was an exporter involved in a social enterprise that had a unique product. The government was not willing to provide export promotion support, and yet every other country does that. In terms of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the beef industry, in the U.S. they spend tens of millions of dollars a year. The United States government provides export promotion support. In Canada, there is nothing—crumbs.

Those sectors, in part, are reacting because of the incompetence of the government when it comes to trade management and providing export promotion support. Those sectors are hoping to provide some benefit or hoping to grow their sectors. However, the problem is not in whether or not we sign an agreement; the problem is a lack of export promotion infrastructure. This is not something the Liberals generated on their own. They inherited it from the former Conservative government.

I have talked to trade commissioners abroad as I have gone around to various countries, formerly as a trade critic, and talked to them about what kind of budgets they have to address these concerns about export promotion support. Many of the trade commissioners have said that they do not even have the budget to buy a cup of coffee for a potential client of Canadian exports. This is why, when we look at what the government had done, as we saw earlier this year, we are now seeing a record trade deficit.

The Conservatives signed a bunch of agreements. Now the Liberals are signing a bunch of agreements. They do not really look at them. They do not do any sort of economic analysis. They just throw them out on the floor of the House of Commons and say that trade is good, hallelujah, and then they leave. However, we see the devastation that results in our communities, because we are on the line with folks who are actually working for a living. What we see is record trade deficits as a result of this incomprehension between bad free trade agreements that these governments sign and the lack of supports for export promotion that could lead to good jobs in Canada.

We have heard today all of the problems that are in this agreement. We have heard the inability of the government to put in front of the House of Commons an agreement that will benefit all Canadians. We know for sure that we are going to lose tens of thousands of jobs. The government hopes that may be compensated for by some growth in some areas, but the reality is that in no way, shape or form can any member stand in this House and say that they have concrete evidence that this agreement is going to be a direct benefit.

When we look at all of the failings of this agreement, including its investor-state provisions, that take away the rights of regular Canadians to put in place public policy to their benefit, members can understand that I, for one, am standing in this House to say that I am going to vote against this bill and against this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was actually fairly well established, even before the NDP saw an agreement dealing with trade and this legislation, that the NDP would oppose it.

New Democrats knew they were going to oppose the legislation and the agreement even before they saw it. I believe that has already been fairly well established. It goes right back to Thomas Mulcair, the former leader of the New Democratic Party.

The legislation comes forward, New Democrats see the agreement and then look for ways to justify their position of voting against it. The reality is that it does not matter, because they vote against trade deals as a general rule.

Out of the 50 or 60 nations that we have trade agreements with, the New Democrats might have been embarrassed into voting for one or two of those agreements. Then they try to create an impression that thousands and thousands of jobs will be lost.

Over the last three years, under this administration, working with Canadians and different stakeholders, we have seen over half a million new jobs in Canada. We believe that by going and securing those markets into the future, we will be able to continue to generate those very important jobs that are so critical to Canada's middle class.

Will the member across the way make it clear that that the NDP's position on this agreement was decided before the New Democrats even saw the details of the agreement itself?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, wow, that's the ultimate conspiracy theory from the conspiracy theorist.

However, the reality is that if the Liberals actually wanted to build a fair trade agreement, they would just listen to what we have been saying for years. We have talked about the components of fair trade. These do not include investor-state provisions. These do does not include eliminating whole sectors that benefit the Canadian economy immensely, like supply management, like our auto sector, through the Auto Pact, a major initiative that we in the NDP supported. Those are the kinds of initiatives we support. We support fair trade.

We do not support the Harper Conservatives' attempt to gut a fair trade agenda. We believed, like a lot of Canadians, that the Liberals would put in place another agenda, but they have not. They have the same agenda as the Harper Conservatives. It is a betrayal of those sincere commitments made in 2015, which Canadians listened to and thought there would be a shift in trade policy as a result of, to a more progressive trade policy, a fair trade policy.

However, what we are seeing today, sadly, three years later, is exactly the same kind of mess that we saw under the Harper Conservatives. That is a shame, because what the member is saying is that Canadians, and almost 60,000 Canadian families, should lose their breadwinner to support the member and the Liberal government's wrongheaded ideology. We reject that completely.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member was listening, as I was, to our colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who was talking about the different narratives and approaches to trade, and how there are different ways to conduct a trade deal.

We need to look at how unfair this is to labour groups in our country and other countries around the world. We can look at the fact that investors in Canada have a quasi-judicial panel to go to, but if a complainant from labour is wronged, they have to prove that the wrongdoing had an impact on trade in order for this agreement to take effect.

If the deck were ever stacked against labour, and if we ever needed a clearer example of a corporate-driven agenda against labour interest, look no further than this agreement and multiple agreements done by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments.

Could my colleague comment on that particular fact?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a strong advocate for agriculture and communities that depend on agriculture right across this country and a strong defender of supply management. I wish we had similar members in the Liberal government caucus standing up for supply management in reality rather than just in form and paying lip service to it.

The reality is fair trade is bottom-up. We think of the benefits of trade to people who are working hard, the middle class and folks wanting to join the middle class, and working-class people as well in manufacturing industries and farmers.

Free trade, the way the Liberals and the Conservatives conceive it, is top-down. It benefits lobbyists. It does not benefit regular Canadians. We stand with regular Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The House resumed from September 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-79—Second Reading

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-79 today, I would like to extend my best wishes to people in Edmonton Centre, who are braving the snow and looking forward to a sunny fall before the snow actually stays for the winter.

I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. We are beginning the debate on Bill C-79.

Our government strongly believes that the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP, is the best deal for Canadians and for our economy. The CPTPP is a historic new agreement between Canada and 10 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, namely Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

Once it comes into effect, the CPTPP will constitute one of the largest trading blocs in the world, representing close to 500 million people and 13.5% of global GDP. The agreement will generate major economic benefits for Canada thanks to trade with countries like Japan, our fourth-largest trading partner and top source of investment from Asia, and with fast-growing economies like Malaysia and Vietnam.

Today, I would like to speak to how the CPTPP will facilitate foreign investment into Canada and provide protections for Canadians looking to invest in CPTPP markets. Investment at home and abroad is vital for the Canadian economy. Foreign investment contributes to job creation across the country. It also promotes trade by facilitating integration into global value chains, improving access to new technologies and enhancing our competitiveness.

According to economic modelling by Global Affairs Canada, the CPTPP will spur an additional 810 million dollars' worth of investment into Canada, and will encourage increased and diversified Canadian investment throughout the Asia-Pacific region. It will achieve this by creating a predictable investment environment to ensure that investors are treated in a fair and equitable manner in all CPTPP markets. If a company is going to invest its capital abroad, it needs to know that capital is safe and secure and is going to provide a return on investment.

The CPTPP will establish a comprehensive and enforceable set of investment protection provisions. It will provide new, more robust obligations on non-discriminatory treatment of CPTPP businesses and investors. These will benefit Canadian businesses through better protection from expropriation or nationalization without compensation, elimination of unfair requirements on foreign investments that favour domestic industries, and easier transfer of capital and profits to and from the host country.

To ensure that these obligations are observed by all member countries, the CPTPP also introduces and includes a fair and impartial mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, is an important component of international trade and investment agreements. With an ISDS mechanism in place, Canadian investors will have greater confidence that they will be treated in a fair and transparent manner in other CPTPP markets. It will also provide an impartial means to resolve any investment-related disputes in the event that specific obligations under the CPTPP are breached by a government. Such protections will help facilitate two-way investment by providing a transparent and predictable investment-friendly environment.

The agreement, once implemented, will encourage Canadian companies to look to fast-growing markets across the CPTPP region to grow their businesses. It will encourage investment in Canada and CPTPP countries. It will also connect Canadians with partner investors and businesses in new markets, and help our businesses further integrate into global supply chains. In doing so, it will create new opportunities and generate jobs for Canada.

It is important to emphasize that while the CPTPP's ISDS rules will help protect Canadian investors abroad and serve to attract foreign investment to Canada, the rules outlined in the CPTPP will also preserve the Government of Canada's right to regulate to achieve legitimate policy objectives. Under the CPTPP, Canada has taken certain exemptions to CPTPP obligations that allow continued policy flexibility to regulate in the public interest in sensitive areas such as health, education, indigenous affairs, culture, fisheries and certain transportation services.

Foreign investors in Canada and all the other CPTPP nations will be required to follow the same laws and regulations as Canadian investors, including laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment and maintaining high workplace health and safety standards.

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, or ISDS, gives investors a way to resolve disputes without resorting to the national justice system of the host nation, but it is not a blank cheque. Damages could only be recovered if specific requirements under the agreement were violated. The ISDS tribunals would never have the power to nullify government decisions or laws. They would only be authorized to grant investors compensation for damages resulting from violations of the treaty.

By suspending certain ISDS provisions that were included in the original TPP, the CPTPP ensures that the ISDS complies with Canada's standard, balanced approach to investment obligations in free trade agreements.

This reflects the concerns that were heard from Canadians through extensive consultations, and I am proud to say that the CPTPP gets ISDS right.

To reiterate, CPTPP will not prevent Canada from protecting the environment or maintaining or enhancing labour, health, and safety standards. In short, it will allow us to continue promoting the values that Canadians cherish, which are the values that make us Canadian.

I would like to highlight for residents of Edmonton Centre, and for all Albertans, that this CPTPP is one of the most comprehensive trade agreements that our country will enter into. It comprises 11 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Once approved, it will open up a market of an additional 500 million consumers, resulting in 40% of the world economy being able to trade with us when we add in CETA, NAFTA and South Korea. This demonstrates our commitment to opening up new markets. It is an important agreement because it will eliminate over 95% of tariff lines, representing over 98% of total trade and over 99% of Canada's exports.

I want to highlight the importance of this for Alberta industry and Edmonton companies. Let us take a look at the agriculture provision.

When CPTPP enters into force, more than three-quarters of agriculture and agri-food products will benefit from immediate duty-free treatment, with tariffs on many other products to be phased out gradually. This means new market access opportunities for Canadian pork, beef, pulses, fruit and vegetables, malt, grains, cereals, animal feeds, maple syrup, wines and spirits, and then processed grain and pulse products as well. All of these products hail from my province of Alberta.

Let us take a look at industrial goods. Under the agreement, 100% of tariffs on industrial goods and consumer products will be eliminated. The majority of Canadian industrial goods exported to CPTPP countries will be duty-free immediately upon the entry into force of the agreement, with most remaining tariffs on industrial goods to be eliminated within 10 years. That is also good for Alberta and Edmonton businesses.

On forestry and value-added wood products, CPTPP will eliminate tariffs on all Canadian exports of forestry and value-added wood products. Many will enter into force immediately, while others will be phased out over 15 years.

With regard to services, our economy is diversifying in Alberta. Many companies in my own city of Edmonton will love the provision in CPTPP that will provide more secure access through greater transparency and predictability in the dynamic CPTPP region.

I would like us to think about professional sectors like engineering, architecture and those related to environment and mining. My riding of Edmonton Centre alone is headquarters to the seventh-largest engineering and design firm in the world, Stantec, and one of the world's largest construction companies, Poole Construction Limited, known as PCL. This is the kind of free trade deal that allows these companies, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises, to continue expanding around the world.

In terms of government procurement, this agreement will provide more transparency and opportunity for companies in my hometown of Morinville, in St. Albert and in Edmonton to compete on the global stage. It is what we promised Canadians during the campaign. It is what our government has been doing. It is what we will continue to do: opening up markets, creating jobs, and growing the Canadian economy.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question about what is not in this deal. This deal looks like it was maybe drafted in the 1990s. There is no mention of climate action and no mention of sustainable development. It contains very dated environmental measures. It completely derogates from the strong measures in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. There is no council of ministers, and no right of the public to petition on a complaint of failed enforcement. It fails to recognize the rights in Canadian law for citizens to file environmental actions.

The member and his government always say the environment can go hand in glove with economic development and trade. Why then is it accepting downgraded measures that were put in place decades ago in the NAFTA agreement?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as our government has said and will continue to say, the environment and the economy go hand in hand. That is why we have worked hard with member nations in this agreement and in others to ensure high environmental standards. In the case of CPTPP, as I mentioned, there are exemptions in Canada for culture, labour and environmental considerations.

As it pertains to this agreement, this is about opening up markets to half a billion of the world's consumers and making sure Canadian businesses can compete on the global stage.

We take our environmental responsibilities very seriously here at home and abroad, and we will continue to do so.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as we settle back into our roles here in the House, I thank my colleague for his pointed and passionate speech, which is reminiscent of the speeches he made over the past three years.

I would like my colleague to expand on the CPTPP. Canada is getting $4.8 billion in GDP per year from it. This is enormous. He knows, as I do, that Canada is one of the richest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources. This is a major agreement that would benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I would like him to share how he sees the different industries in Canada benefiting from the agreement and how the middle class would benefit from jobs, opportunities and access to markets.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passion, which has not diminished over three years. It is an important opportunity to mention that all of the provisions of the CPTPP would benefit small and medium-sized enterprises. We know they represent well over 95% of businesses and job creation in the country.

The fish and seafood provision alone would eliminate 100% of tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products. We know what that means to fishers coast to coast to coast who are trying to export their goods around the world. CPTPP is good for them and middle-class families.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we wanted to have an emergency session in July on Bill C-79, but the government refused our proposal. Why?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: we are debating the CPTPP now. It is good for Canadians, for the middle class, for economic growth and for job creation. We are doing the work today. That is what we promised and what we are going to do.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as the proud member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

The trans-Pacific partnership is a very important agreement. As the member for Edmonton Centre said earlier, Bill C-79 is historically significant. It opens up a new market of 500 million consumers. This will help SMEs and create jobs for the middle class. It is something that is very important to me.

For two and a half years I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where we studied this agreement. We visited this country from coast to coast, meeting people in many towns and cities in every province. We wanted to give everyone a chance to have their say on this very important matter. We also met with many representatives from the labour movement, civil society, business associations and chambers of commerce. We were also the first committee to have open-mike meetings so that everyone would have a chance to speak, and we certainly took their comments into consideration.

Let us think about it: eleven countries, namely Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam managed to come together to reach such an important agreement. We are opening up access to these markets and that is very important. We already have a free trade agreement with Europe, we will have one with Asia-Pacific countries, and we are currently negotiating to open up markets. With all these free trade agreements, Canada will be well positioned to grow the middle class and create good jobs for our SMEs.

I am very pleased to talk about the CPTPP and the positive impact it will have on businesses in Canada's industrial and manufacturing sectors.

My riding is a suburb north of Montreal with a huge number of SMEs and businesses that work in the aerospace, agri-food, and food processing sectors. These sectors produce a wide range of products across the country from cars to medical equipment, metals, chemical products and plastics. They are key components of our country's economy that employ 1.7 million highly qualified Canadians full time and account for nearly 11% of Canada's GDP.

Our government firmly believes that the CPTPP is an ideal agreement for Canadians and for our economy. This is a top-notch trade agreement that will help increase Canadian exports.

As a cornerstone of our government's comprehensive effort to enhance Canada's engagement with the dynamic, fast growing and increasingly influential Asian markets, it is an important part of our commitment to diversify trade, grow our economy and strengthen our country's middle class. Trade and investment flows between Canada and Asian economies have increased significantly since the turn of the century. From 2014 to 2016, Canada's exports of industrial and manufactured goods to CPTPP countries accounted for an annual average of $22.4 billion.

By eliminating nearly 100% of tariffs on manufactured goods, including some tariffs that are as high as 85%, and creating mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers to trade, the CPTPP would create opportunities for world-class Canadian businesses to increase their sales. Once the agreement enters into force, it will enable Canadian exporters to access diverse and internationally integrated value chains. On day one of the agreement's coming into force, there will be no tariffs on over 87% of industrial tariff lines covering Canadian exports to CPTPP markets worth an annual average of $19.5 billion from 2015 to 2017.

What does this mean for our industries? Allow me to provide a few examples.

For Canada's multi-billion dollar chemicals and plastics industry, the CPTPP will provide opportunities for companies, from those in Ontario, the hub of Canada's plastics industry, to cutting-edge chemical facilities in Alberta. With improved market access from the elimination of tariffs of as high as 50%, this industry will increase its annual average of $1.1 billion in exports to CPTPP markets.

With respect to metals and minerals, a sector contributing nearly 600,000 jobs across Canada and exporting $5 billion in goods to CPTPP markets, the agreement will result in the elimination of all tariffs, some as high as 50%. As a result, highly sought-after Canadian aluminum, steel, iron, petroleum products and precious metals will become even more competitive in such markets as Japan, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam.

Canada's information and communication technologies sector, critical to major urban centres across Canada, is also well positioned under the CPTPP to meet growing needs within established and developing markets in the Asia-Pacific. In addition to eliminating tariffs, the agreement will protect companies from having to divulge their proprietary information in order to sell their products in CPTPP markets.

Our government listened to what Canadians had to say about the auto industry and made their concerns a priority. As part of the CPTPP negotiations, Canada obtained bilateral side letters from Australia and Malaysia in order to establish more liberal rules of origin, which would allow our automobile manufacturers to benefit from preferential tariff treatment on those markets without having to change their existing production models. We also reached bilateral agreements with Japan and Malaysia regarding standards and regulations in the automobile industry, a key demand of industry stakeholders.

Those are just a few examples of the industries that could benefit from the CPTPP. By making Canada's industrial and manufacturing exports more competitive and by cutting the red tape that hinders access to dynamic, growing markets, the CPTPP will give Canadian businesses significant opportunities to increase their profits and create new quality jobs for the middle class.

Beyond tariff reduction, another aspect of the CPTPP that stands to benefit Canadian companies in these sectors is in the area of intellectual property. The CPTPP's provisions on intellectual property cover virtually all areas of trade and IP, including copyright, patents, trademarks, geographical indication, industrial designs, domain names, and enforcement. Most importantly, the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights will help protect Canadian innovation and investment as our businesses trade abroad. For many Canadian businesses, one of the most significant barriers to trade in some markets is uncertainty over the protection of intellectual property, including whether their intellectual property rights will be respected and enforced.

As a result, innovative Canadian businesses will be better able to market their products on the established, rapidly expanding Asian markets.

Beyond tariff reduction and intellectual property rules, the CPTPP also addresses the costly non-tariff obstacles preventing Canadian companies from entering foreign markets. All CPTPP members have committed to eliminating restrictive red tape in sectors such as cosmetics, medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and ICTs, and this will give Canadian manufacturing exporters greater certainty and predictability with the competitive advantages they have gained.

The CPTPP marks a very important step in the history of trade in Canada. This agreement will be instrumental in diversifying our markets and promoting economic prosperity here at home. By establishing an effective, transparent, rule-based trade system with one of the most dynamic and fastest growing regions in the world, the CPTPP will open up new possibilities for exporters in our industrial and manufacturing sectors.

I also want to point out that we secured a cultural exception, which is very important for Quebec and for official languages.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, studies show that up to 60,000 jobs could be lost due to the CPTPP.

The economic analysis conducted by the government concludes that the CPTPP would generate economic gains for Canada of about $4.2 billion over 22 years. The $4.2 billion represents the same level of economic output in terms of GDP, gross domestic product, that Canada generates in one day.

Could the member tell us why the government insists on pushing through this deal with such limited gains, a deal that poses grave dangers to labour standards, the environment, manufacturing, and supply-managed sectors?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I was always a bit surprised when I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We often asked the New Democrats if there was any free trade deal they supported. We have created 500,000 jobs since we took office three years ago in 2015. That is a lot. We have not seen this sort of employment situation for 40 years. I am still at a bit of a loss.

Is there any free trade agreement in the world that the NDP supports?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the exciting things about this trade agreement is that it strengthens our relationship with a key partner in the Pacific, Japan.

Japan has a great need for a secure supply of energy. It imports the vast majority of its energy resources, much of it coming from the Middle East through the South China Sea. In particular, strengthening our energy relationship with Japan presents a great opportunity for deepening our economic and other relationship with Japan.

So much of the potential of this trade agreement to increase our commercial ties with Asia depends on our ability to get our resources to market. Specifically, we have seen, over the summer, the failure of the government when it comes to actually proceeding with a pipeline it had promised and that would have allowed us to do better at accessing Asian markets for our energy resources.

Could the member explain to me why the government decided to buy the pipeline with no plan to actually get it built? Given that we are in support of this trade agreement, what is the government's plan to actually proceed with the critical infrastructure for getting our energy resources to the west coast that would allow us to benefit from some of these opportunities?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. He talked about Japan and so I will too.

One thing that often came up when the international trade committee was examining the trans-Pacific partnership was that Japan was so happy to know that we would have an agreement on fish and seafood coming from the Maritimes and the Pacific. The Japanese are pleased to know that they will be able to buy these products without tariffs. There will be an increase in exports of lobster, fish, snow crab and oysters, foods that people in Japan love to eat.

I want to assure my colleagues that we are going to do everything in our power to ensure that our natural resources reach Asia.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Liberal government is very big on consultation. It does consultation and at the end of the process, if the consultation is not in agreement with the government's position, it will just go ahead and do whatever it wants anyway. We saw this with electoral reform.

In this instance, the Liberal government promised it would do consultation. Not only did it not do meaningful consultation, it passed the buck over to the committee. The committee did some work on this and 95% of the submissions to the committee were against this deal. Why is the government pushing ahead, given that the limited consultation done by the committee indicated the public did not support the deal?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were the first committee to travel across Canada and hold open-mike meetings. Yes, we listened to Canadians. Yes, Canadians are happy. We have created 500,000 jobs since 2015. Opening up the market in Asia, which represents 500 million consumers, and the market in Europe as we did is unprecedented. It goes without saying that opening these markets will result in more middle-class jobs. In my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, SMEs will benefit on the export side.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I want to remind everyone that when someone is asking or answering a question, it is their time. I know the summer has gone by. We were wonderful in June when we left, but we seem to have forgotten the rules. Again, I want to remind everyone that when someone is answering or asking a question, it is not appropriate to heckle across the aisle.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has finally seen the light and understands how important it is to quickly ratify the CPTPP.

At long last, Canada may soon ratify the agreement reached in 2015. We hope this will happen quickly. Members will recall that the CPTPP was one of the Prime Minister's first missteps on the international stage. I would like to quote a few articles, including this one:

“Prime Minister a no-show at meeting.”

I would like to give the House a quick reminder of what happened.

“Ten leaders from countries remaining in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were left “red-faced” by Canadian Prime Minister...when he did not turn up at a TPP-11 leaders meeting.”

Here is some of the reaction:

Shinzo Abe announced that “the signing was off” because the Prime Minister would not attend.

Steve Ciobo called it a 'disappointing development'.

Some ministers said that the Prime Minister got “cold feet” because of looming elections in Quebec.

What motivates this party's actions? Not the national economy. The answer is political trends and partisanship. Why do I think that? Because when the other countries reached an agreement last spring, we could have made short work of Bill C-79 here in the House. The government could have introduced Bill C-79 back in May, and we could have started working on it then. Had that been the case, we would already have ratified the agreement, and we would have been one of the first six countries to do so. However, the government sat on the bill until the last week before the break, at which point it was too late to start working on it.

The official opposition moved two motions for the unanimous consent of the House to get on with studying the bill quickly and adopting it as written. Obviously, that did not happen. Now the government says it is going to act fast. I just do not get it. This has all been such a disappointment. Anyway, if the past is any indication, we know that they do not always walk the talk.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I will not have enough time because I am sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. He has a lot to say about Bill C-79 too.

Our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, sent a letter to the Prime Minister this summer, asking him to act more quickly so that we would not miss the opportunity to be among the first six countries to sign the CPTPP.

I would now like to read a few excerpts from the letter our leader sent to the Prime Minister. I think it is important that Canadians know where we stood at the time and why we were asking him to act quickly.

These actions by the United States threaten the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of Canadians. This is even more worrying given the U.S. government's repeated threats to impose 25% tariffs on the auto sector. On this file, Canada's Conservatives' most pressing priority is to protect Canadian jobs and industry by having tariffs removed from Canadian steel and aluminium and by stopping new tariffs from being imposed.

The same is true today. He also wrote:

Conservatives have always supported diversifying our trading relationships around the world, which is why the previous Conservative government had the foresight to conclude free trade negotiations and investment agreements with 53 countries, including the countries of the original trans-Pacific partnership and the 28 countries of CETA, which concluded in 2014.

Our leader continued:

...it is even more urgent that we act to expand and diversify our trading relationships.

That is why he called on the Prime Minister to:

...request that the Speaker recall the House of Commons pursuant to Standing Order 28(3) as soon as possible this summer [exceptionally] to debate and pass Bill C-79, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership implementation act.

The leader cited the Peterson Institute for International Economics which:

...estimated that the original TPP, which was negotiated and concluded by the previous Conservative government, would boost Canadian income by $20 billion over the next decade.

This request was flatly rejected by the government. We do not understand why.

We were ready to get to work and spend part of the summer ensuring that this bill is passed as soon as possible. Why it is so important for us to be among the first six countries? It is simple. It is because after the first six signatures, after six countries enshrine the agreement, the CPTPP comes into effect within 60 days. If we are not there during that time, all the good agreements for exporting and importing with those countries will already have been concluded with the first six signatory countries. Canada will be left with crumbs.

The last one to arrive at the table in a large family gets whatever is left and often that is nothing at all. That is why we think it is absolutely urgent and necessary to ratify the CPTPP quickly.

We will obviously work with the government to adopt the CPTPP as quickly as possible, because it is important to our industry and to farmers. The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance held two press conferences. They held a press conference and send out a press release to explain why we must adopt the CPTPP as quickly as possible. According to research commissioned by the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, this trade pact could increase Canadian agri-food exports by nearly $2 billion annually for a variety of agriculture products including beef, pork, grains, canola, pulses, soybeans, barley, sugar, and processed foods.

That is the reality. We are talking about the economy. Canadian jobs will be in jeopardy if we do not move fast enough. We are deeply disappointed that the government took too long to finally grasp how important it was to sign the CPTPP as quickly as possible.

I hope the government finally gets it, for the sake of the people who produce these agriculture products, including beef, pork, grains, canola, pulses, soybeans, barley, sugar and processed foods.

I would like to move on to another sector covered by the agreement that is raising some serious concerns. I am referring to the supply management sector. The agreement requires Canada to make concessions on supply management. Under the old agreement, the previous Conservative government foresaw that there would be consequences for producers in supply-managed sectors. That was why we instituted a 10-year compensation plan.

The compensation plan provided up to $4 billion for producers in supply-managed sectors. We created it because we felt it was important to recognize that even though we had succeeded in negotiating a global economic agreement that was good for Canada, we had had to sacrifice part of the supply management quota, and producers deserved to be compensated accordingly. We allocated $4 billion, including $450 million for facility upgrades.

The response of the current government has been to offer no compensation program whatsoever. No wonder people are worried today. No announcements have been made on this subject, and no empathy has been shown towards producers in supply-managed sectors, even though they have willingly sacrificed part of their quotas for the good of the Canadian economy.

The government created a little $350-million program to modernize farms and support processors. The Conservatives' plan allocated $450 million, in addition to more than $3 billion to protect quotas and offset the losses that supply-managed farmers could experience once the TPP is implemented.

In short, the official opposition will support ratifying the CPTPP as quickly as possible, because this agreement is important to our economy. Once again, I hope that the Liberal government will not screw this up come signing time, and I hope that everyone will be there. I hope that we do not end up being a laughingstock on the world stage.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is always very enthusiastic, and I appreciate that. I want to welcome him back. This is so important.

I do want to point out that just three countries have ratified the agreement so far. Six countries must do so before the agreement can come into force. We are moving quickly right now, so Canada should make the list and not end up seventh among the four, five, or six major countries. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on the middle class and small businesses.

Does he think that Canadians, across the country, small businesses, and the middle class will benefit from this agreement that will bring in $4.2 billion in its first year?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we hope that this agreement is ratified as quickly as possible. We hope that the other countries do not move more quickly than we do, but there are no guarantees of that. Who can guarantee that three other countries will not sign and ratify the CPTPP next week. That is the problem. We had the opportunity to beat them to the punch. Canada has the second-largest economy of the CPTPP countries. Does it seem right that we are among the last of the first group of six to ratify it? We are going to benefit a lot more from this agreement than many other countries, and yet the Liberals waited until the last minute. They put our economy at risk for purely political reasons.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the CPTPP which is being moved forward by the government would result in some 60,000 Canadian jobs being lost. Given that this is the case, why would the Conservative members support this deal going forward?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not how the member is getting those numbers from an injection of over $4 billion dollars into the Canadian economy. I think the government must be looking at international trade agreements in a very partisan way to be saying things and coming up with numbers like that. I think that exports will help to stabilize our agricultural industry. Right now, there are a lot of problems on the global agricultural market. This will help to maintain jobs and create new ones. I can guarantee that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his speech. I know how hard the member for Mégantic—L'Érable has worked in the agriculture sector as the shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food.

I would like the member to explain what he thinks makes the CPTPP so imperative right now as the Liberal government has bungled and failed in our relationships with other countries which have been trusted trading partners in the past. India, Japan and Italy are now pulling back from accessing the Canadian market which is costing us some very vital export markets for our producers. Now, because of how the Liberals have bungled NAFTA, our main trading partner, the United States, is also at risk. Losing that market could be costly to the Canadian agriculture sector.

With everything that is going around and how mismanaged our relationships have been with our trusted trading partners, why is CPTPP that much more important right now?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. The CPTPP is very important, and the Liberal government must take our international trade relations with all of our partners seriously.

Just look at the Prime Minister's trip to India back at the beginning of the year. Shortly after that trip to India, we got hit with harsh tariffs. The Prime Minister was there, but he did not broach the subject with the Indian prime minister. They did not talk about it at all, and as a result, our pulse exports to India are down $300 million this year. When he was there, the Prime Minister could have tried to deal with the situation before it got this bad. The fact that the Prime Minister skips out on signing ceremonies and visits countries but does not talk about major agricultural issues with our partners is causing problems, like the one we are having with India right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to debate Bill C-79, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership implementation act. I would like to thank the member for Abbotsford for the excellent work he did on this agreement during his tenure as the international trade minister under the previous Conservative government.

I would like to begin by underscoring how important this bill is to our farming communities. According to the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, passing this legislation could boost the value of Canada's agri-food exports by $1.84 billion. This agreement will open up a whole new market where Canadian farmers will be able to sell their products.

In addition, given the uncertainty over NAFTA negotiations, it is even more crucial that we pass this bill so that we can further diversify our trade. When the United States starts imposing tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, Canada needs to find new markets for its products. When Canada loses access to a market and to thousands of jobs, it just makes sense to find a new market where we can sell the same products.

Furthermore, the countries that Canada will get access to through this agreement have a combined GDP of about $13 billion. These countries include Japan, which has the third-largest economy after the United States and China. This represents a market worth about three-quarters of the U.S. market. The CPTPP is an incredible opportunity to diversify Canada's trade and improve Canadians' economic well-being.

When we look at all the benefits that the CPTPP will have for Canada once we pass this bill, it is hard to understand why the Liberals chose to ignore the opposition leader's request to recall the House of Commons to pass Bill C-79. The Conservative Party leader made that request because the agreement will only come into force once it has been fully ratified by six different countries. Mexico, Japan and Singapore had already ratified it by the time the request was made, so only three other countries needed to sign on for the agreement to come into force.

If the Liberals had recalled the House to pass this bill during the summer, as we requested, Canada could have secured the earliest possible access to the new markets. Instead, they decided to take a chance that three other countries would ratify the agreement, costing Canada thousands of jobs. With NAFTA, the government sat on its hands while the other countries negotiated a free trade agreement, and it almost let the same thing happen with the CPTPP.

The Liberals had no reason not to recall the House to pass this bill. The fact that they ignored this request shows that they do not take Canadians' economic well-being seriously. In fact, this Liberal government seems almost determined to make life harder and harder for Canadians.

First, the Liberals are imposing a carbon tax, but they do not want to say how much it will cost Canadians.

This tax will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will only make Canadians' lives more difficult by encouraging investors to invest outside Canada, in countries with different environmental regulations.

Second, the Liberals are incapable of building pipelines like Trans Mountain and energy east. These pipelines would have brought new jobs to Canada and benefited all Canadians.

Finally, the Liberals refused to recall the House to guarantee that Canadians in every sector would have access to a larger market.

These three examples show that the Liberals are not fighting for the middle class and those seeking to join it. Instead, they show that the Liberals do not take Canadian jobs seriously. It seems that every time the Liberals announce a new policy, it discourages investment in Canada and stifles the creation of new jobs.

In closing, I would like to explain why I support the bill and free trade.

In general, free trade is a good thing. It certainly has played a role in major changes around the world. For example, free trade has resulted in the rate of extreme poverty dropping from 44% to less than 10% since the early 1980s. Free trade has increased the life expectancy at birth from 53 years in 1960 to 70 today. There are fewer wars around the world because of free trade. When countries trade, they become more dependent on one another economically. When countries trade, it is no longer profitable to be at war. It is much more advantageous to keep the peace so that we can reap the mutual benefits of trade between countries.

These are the many reasons why the previous Conservative government signed free trade agreements with many countries. It did so with Panama, South Korea, Honduras and many others. That is why the Conservative government negotiated the TPP and the free trade agreement with the European Union. On this side of the House, we support free trade for practical reasons and on principle.

Free trade also helps promote freedom. I have always advocated for human rights and freedom in my work here and elsewhere. Free trade is an essential form of freedom. Free trade implies that people have the right to buy and sell across borders as they see fit.

For all these reasons, I will vote in favour of this bill. Once again, I want to point out that my Conservative colleagues, like the member for Abbotsford and the former prime minister, worked hard to ensure Canada's prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague across the way for his ability to communicate in French. It was done quite well.

I appreciate the fact that the Conservative Party has recognized the value in supporting the legislation and has assisted us in moving forward by supporting the time allocation motion. The whole trade file has been a very important for this government, virtually from day one. We saw a lot of the work from the previous administration that was finalized and signed off by this government at the economic union. That was very helpful.

We recognize that trade negotiations and discussions evolve. However, it is really important for us to recognize that the biggest benefactor of this is the middle class, the economy and those aspiring to become a part of the middle class as we try to expand the markets. These trade agreements are all about that, providing opportunities and a potential for ongoing expansion of our economy.

Could my colleague across the way provide his thoughts on how important it is that we pass the legislation relatively quickly, given we would like to be one of the first six countries to sign on, which is an important aspect of the legislation in itself?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great that my Liberal colleagues agree with the Conservative Party and that they support the work we did as a government. I agree that it would be ideal if we could move this bill forward. However, it was not good when the government decided to deny our leader's request to hold a special sitting in the summer. We could have gotten started on this bill before September. Unfortunately, the government chose not to. Now, we must certainly move this bill forward very quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, the CPTPP includes investor-state provisions that will allow investors to sue Canada for regulating in the public interest on issues like health and the environment. Why does the member support an agreement with such harmful provisions? Maybe he could elaborate on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the provisions the hon. member refers to is quite clear. If we have a free trade agreement, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that measures are followed. That is why, for example, in the NAFTA negotiations, we are calling for the same thing from the United States, namely to protect the impartial mechanisms that are used to assess requests from companies, individuals and governments. I do not understand what makes the NDP think we can have free trade agreements without a mechanism to ensure that measures are followed. In the meantime, it is clear that the NDP does not support any free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech in French, 100% French. This is a good inspiration for all of us.

I have a simple question: what made the hon. member decide to deliver his speech in French?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I spent four weeks in Quebec this summer to improve my French. I am glad to have francophone colleagues who can help me practice my French. I think it is important for all members to be able to present their arguments in both official languages and to speak in such a way that we can all understand each other.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, our government strongly believes that the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership agreement, or CPTPP, will help increase and diversify Canada's trade and investment in the rapidly growing Asia-Pacific markets and improve Canadians' economic prosperity. At the same time, the agreement will ensure that the benefits of trade are widely shared, in particular by making it easy for small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, to take advantage of the opportunities it offers.

Exports are essential for the health and vitality of Canadian businesses and Canadian SMEs play a key role in increasing trade and economic growth in Canada. Indeed, SMEs are the backbone of the Canadian economy. They represent more than 99% of all businesses, 90% of all private sector jobs and 10.7 million workers and they generate nearly 40% of Canada's gross domestic product.

I forgot to mention, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

Only 11% of Canadian SMEs benefit from foreign markets, however, and our government is committed to helping increase that. Exports are vital to the growth of Canada's economy. That is why our government will help small businesses expand into new markets abroad by promoting exports through the negotiation and implementation of the free trade agreements, such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between Canada and EU; and now the CPTPP.

The CPTPP will enable Canadian SMEs to enter the dynamic Asia-Pacific market through agreements that simplify the export process and increase SME participation in global supply chains. This agreement will strengthen our economic ties with some of our current free trade partners, such as Chile, Mexico, and Peru, while providing preferential market access to seven new free trade partners: Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei.

In addition, the CPTPP will eliminate tariffs and improve market access for Canadian companies, including SMEs. Upon implementation, 86% of signatory countries' tariffs will be instantly eliminated. This will apply to Canadian exports to CPTPP countries, with an average value of $28.3 billion per year between 2015 and 2017. Once the agreement is fully implemented, signatory countries would eliminate 99% of their tariffs. This will apply to exports to CPTPP countries that average $32 billion per year between 2015 and 2017. This increased market access will make our SMEs more competitive and position them for success. It will also create opportunities for Canadian SMEs to diversify their exports at a time when this is extremely important.

The agreement provides for enhanced market access agreements for our financial services and service sectors and a comprehensive set of investment protection provisions based on a strong dispute resolution mechanism for investments. These provisions will greatly benefit SMEs as they are disproportionately impacted by non-tariff barriers.

In addition, the CPTPP will be a first in Canada in terms of free trade agreements in that it contains a chapter that specifically guarantees that small and medium-sized enterprises will be able to take advantage of the opportunities it creates. This separate chapter highlights the importance of SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy and an engine of economic growth.

These provisions will ensure that our entrepreneurs and small businesses have access to information tailored to their needs, making it easy for Canadian companies to explore and navigate their way around CPTPP markets and prepare for their successful business ventures.

Through the efforts of the committee, as well as collaborative mechanisms, CPTPP signatories will be able to share best practices on how to support their businesses and to co-operate through seminars, workshops, and other capacity-building activities aimed at helping their businesses seize the opportunities created by the agreement.

The CPTPP will increase market opportunities for Canadian companies of all sizes and in all sectors and regions of the country. In the coming months, we will reach out to small and medium-sized enterprises across the country to ensure they have the knowledge and tools they need to take advantage of this historic agreement. At the same time, we will work to help Canadian SMEs to grow, expand their activities, increase their productivity and be innovative and export oriented so they can prosper and create good jobs for the middle class.

Asia is important to Canada and to our small and medium-sized enterprises. Indeed, that region's contribution to the global economy continues to grow and Asia's importance as a destination for Canadian exports has more than doubled.

The CPTPP is a cornerstone of our government's commitment to trade diversification. It will enable Canadian businesses to trade and invest in this dynamic and rapidly-growing region. Since Asia is a highly integrated and adaptable region, the benefits of CPTPP go well beyond access to new markets. This agreement will provide Canadian companies of all sizes with opportunities to enter into various regionally integrated value chains that are global in scope.

Ambitious agreements with high standards, such as the CPTPP, will help to strengthen the rules-based international system and its solid institutions, promoting global value chains and ensuring a level playing field that maximizes the benefits of trade for everyone.

By responsibly expanding our economic ties with our Asian partners, we are delivering on our promise to create economic growth opportunities that will benefit Canada's middle class. This agreement will create opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises to expand their activities, prosper and create good jobs for the middle class. We are here to help Canadians, to help them move forward, to grow and succeed abroad, while creating an environment conducive to sustainable and lasting growth for all.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like ask the hon. member the same question I previously asked the member for Edmonton Centre.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals deeply supported the NAFTA agreement. One of the remarkable things about the NAFTA agreement were the two side agreements, one on labour and one on the environment. The side agreement on the environment, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, had very strong provisions. It established a council of environment ministers of all the parties to the agreement and extended a lot of rights and opportunities to the public of all of the signatory parties to be engaged, including filing petitions for action on failed enforcement.

Could the member respond to this? Why has her government decided to significantly downgrade environmental protections, yet claims to put environment on par with economic development and trade?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is worth underscoring that in our consultations with Canadians, a strong dispute mechanism was seen to be very important, and that is in place. However, lifting off NAFTA, there has never been a more important time to diversify our markets. Certainly, we and the opposition are in major agreement on that. It is the member opposite who does not seem to fully appreciate the importance of the CPTPP and this opportunity to diversify our markets.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question. In my riding, in the town of Creston and area, dairy farming is a very important part of the agriculture industry and the economy. It seems like with every trade deal that gets signed dairy is sacrificed. I would like to hear from my colleague across the floor why it is okay to continually sacrifice our dairy farmers in these trade agreements.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the party of supply management. We firmly support and will continue to defend supply management.

With regard to the CETA agreement, I was part of the cheese quotas and the compensation out of regard for supply management. There is no doubt in my mind we will continue to defend it strongly.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the parliamentary secretary's speech about the CPTPP, an incredible agreement that will open a market of 500 million people.

I would like my hon. colleague to talk about the spinoffs that this agreement will have in her riding, particularly for SMEs, but also for women entrepreneurs. That is a very important aspect.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for women entrepreneurs is a key aspect of the CPTPP. While I had the honour of serving as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade, I spent quite a bit of time in countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Singapore, convening round tables of women entrepreneurs. That has been very well received. Canada is seen as a leader in supporting women in small business, and certainly the CPTPP is evidence of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has not talked about first nations and how they are affected by the CPTPP.

The member's party recently indicated its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, yet the government has failed to consult indigenous peoples on the CPTPP.

Does the member not believe that consultation with, and consent by, indigenous peoples is critical for reconciliation, and that there should be a chapter and provision in this deal that ensures that is reflected?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship that is more important to the government than with indigenous peoples, Métis, and Inuit, first nations.

This is an opportunity to discuss the new position of the ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility, because it takes into account the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly in the countries of the CPTPP and globally. Furthermore, with regard to culture, it is very important to our country to defend our unique and inclusive culture.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree]

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about the significant benefits of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP. I want to talk specifically about the Canadian fish and seafood sector.

This agreement is extremely important not only for Canada, but also for Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It is also important for us to have access to those markets.

The Canadian fish and seafood sector is vital to our economy and essential to maintaining a solid employment base in a diverse economy. We are fortunate to have a very prosperous fish and seafood sector. It contributes more than $2 billion to Canada's GDP annually and provides more than 76,000 jobs for Canadians.

Regionally, this sector offers economic opportunities to countless communities both on the coasts and even in Canada's interior.

In the west, employment in British Columbia's fish and seafood industry accounts for approximately 12% of all jobs in this sector across Canada. In the Maritimes, more than two-thirds of the entire Canadian fish and seafood sector is employed across the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Fishing is also important in Quebec and our northern communities in Yukon and Nunavut, while freshwater fishing is notably important for Manitoba.

Commercial fishing is a valued industry in Manitoba. For over 100 years, Manitobans have been commercially fishing and harvesting fish. The majority of production comes from Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba, but seven smaller lakes in the south and northern Manitoba are also fished. The resource is managed through the use of quotas, the mesh size of gillnets, by season, and by regulation of the number of licensed fishers. The management tools allow fish populations and the industry to remain viable. They also ensure that resources are shared equitably on all the lakes with not only non-indigenous people but also treaty indigenous people and Métis people. Since almost all of the commercial production is sold out of the country, the $30 million in annual sales represents a significant and important contribution to the livelihoods of Manitoba fishing families.

In Manitoba, it is also important to maintain high quality. Manitoba is the only jurisdiction in the western hemisphere with an eco certified freshwater market. We have achieved a Marine Stewardship Council certification and are very proud of that. Now, 85% of the total fish harvested in Manitoba is exported to other markets. There are 3,155 licenced fishermen in Manitoba and 83% of these are of indigenous descent. They help support many indigenous communities and help provide a good livelihood and support for many families. There are 46 communities and first nations who are involved in this fishery and 294 resulting direct jobs that have improved people's quality of life from their involvement in the fishery. Many Canadians' jobs and livelihood depend on this sector, which is the economic mainstay of approximately 1,500 communities in rural and coastal Canada.

I will now focus on why free trade agreements and the CPTPP in particular are necessary to sustain and develop Canada's fish and seafood industry.

Simply put, Canada's fisheries and aquaculture industries produce high-quality, sustainably sourced fish and seafood that help feed the world. The Canadian fish and seafood industry is export-oriented and depends on international markets. In Asia, increased demand from the region's growing middle class represents enormous potential for Canadian exporters of high-quality fish and seafood products.

Once the CPTPP enters into force, it will provide Canadian fish and seafood exporters with preferential access to one of the largest trading blocs in the world, representing close to 500 million people and 13.5% of global GDP. Altogether, Canadians exported an annual average of $732 million in fish and seafood products to CPTPP markets from 2015 to 2017.

Japan is one CPTPP market where Canadian companies can expect huge growth opportunities. Japan is the third-largest economy in the world and imports more than 60% of its food on a caloric basis, so its demand for imported foods is high.

Right now, Canada's ability to compete in the CPTPP markets is hindered by the high tariffs imposed on fish and seafood products like frozen snow crab, lobster, salmon, fish fillets, and oysters. These tariffs can range from 3.5% to 34% in CPTPP countries like Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and New Zealand.

When the agreement enters into force, more than 90% of the fish and seafood tariff lines will immediately become duty-free for Canadian exports, which had an average annual value of $647 million between 2015 and 2017. The remaining 10% will be phased out within 15 years.

For example, close to 66% of Japan's fish and seafood tariff lines will be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement, providing preferential market access for Canada's premium fish and seafood products, such as lobster, crab, shrimp, salmon, herring roe, sea urchins and halibut. Eighty-three per cent of Vietnam's fish and seafood tariff lines will become duty free upon entry into force, while all Canadian fish and seafood exports to Malaysia will become duty free on day one. Enhanced market access for Canadian companies through the CPTPP will create the conditions for increased exports and will contribute to the vitality of the sector and its greater long-term prosperity.

Additional rules for streamlined customs and administration procedures, as well as enhanced regulatory co-operation, will also help Canadian exporters and suppliers save time and money at the borders of CPTPP countries. With increased access and less red tape, these products will gain an advantage over those of competitors from countries that do not have preferential access to CPTPP markets. At the same time, each CPTPP party will maintain the right to take measures necessary for food safety and to protect against risks to animal or plant life or health while helping to ensure that market access gains are not undermined by unnecessary trade restrictions.

The CPTPP's clear rules on developing, adopting and implementing measures for food safety and the protection of animals, plant life and health ensure that any measures will be science based, risk based and transparent. Ultimately, these provisions will create a predictable training environment for CPTPP members, giving manufacturers and exporters a leg up in prospective markets. Consultations with the fish and seafood industry have been overwhelmingly positive. The feedback from Canadians making a living in this sector is that the fish and seafood industry stands to benefit from the elimination of tariffs, and they are excited about this agreement.

The CPTPP also includes an environment chapter that addresses a number of important global environmental challenges with binding commitments from CPTPP members to, among other things, combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and promote sustainable fisheries management, including through obligations to prohibit subsidies that negatively affect fish stocks. The environment chapter also establishes a framework for co-operation in areas of mutual interest. This includes, for example, working together to mitigate the impacts of climate change, promote and conserve biodiversity, address the illegal wildlife trade, combat invasive alien species and promote sustainable fisheries practices. By maintaining policy flexibility in areas, including fisheries and aquaculture, Canada will ensure the sustainability of our valuable fish resources now and into the future.

By increasing and diversifying Canada's presence in major seafood markets in the Asia-Pacific region, this trade agreement has the potential to provide significant benefits to thousands of Canadians. By providing duty-free access to this huge market, CPTPP will help put more of our country's world-class fish and seafood products on more dinner plates and tables around the world. The fish and seafood sector contributes greatly to Canada's economic prosperity and standard of living, especially our coastal regions, but also to indigenous communities in the interior like Manitoba, and is vital to long-term growth.

I am fully committed to supporting this sector and to ensuring that it remains a vibrant and integral part of Canada's culture and economy. That is why I encourage all members of the House to vote in support of this bill, to allow us to implement the CPTPP in order for Canadians, including indigenous fishermen and all fishermen in Manitoba, to reap its benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canada has lost billions of dollars in legal fees and payouts due to the investor-state provisions in NAFTA, so I wonder why the government is continuing to push trade deals that entrench these provisions that will continue to undermine our sovereignty and ability to regulate in the best public interest.

We know that indigenous communities have raised these concerns repeatedly. The member's party recently indicated its support for UNDRIP and the government still has failed to consult indigenous peoples on the CPTPP. Why is the member supportive of this trade agreement when the government has not consulted indigenous peoples? We know how critical consultation is for reconciliation and building trust with those communities, as well as ensuring that they have the sovereignty to protect themselves.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in many consultations working with first nations communities in Manitoba talking about the importance of the fisheries. For instance, with respect to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, the Conservative government in Manitoba actually removed Manitoba from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act and essentially caused a bit of chaos in the freshwater lake fisheries in Manitoba, which impacts indigenous fishers. Eighty-three per cent of the fishers in Manitoba are indigenous.

I spent a long time talking to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and other groups, like the Manitoba Metis Federation, as well as other colleagues in the Manitoba caucus. We discussed how these fishers could eventually buy the corporation so they could be the owners not only of this resource but of how they market the fish and where that fish eventually goes. They could be real true partners in what actually happens. This is part and parcel of the things I am working on in Manitoba.

Obviously, there are a few other questions and ideas the member raised related to chapter 19 of NAFTA, as well as other things, like how we resolve disputes. These are very important considerations. However, if we do not have those agreements and someone puts tariffs on our products, how do we then resolve that question? Do we start a trade war or do we have a mechanism where we could actually have an agreement and come to some sort of conclusion about unfair trade practices which may be on both sides?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech on this second day of our return to Parliament. His support for this very important deal is clear.

We are looking at GDP increasing by $4.2 billion in the first year. We are talking about Canadians having access to half a billion people who can purchase products. We are also talking about the Canadian economy and the small business community and the middle-class being able to import various products tariff-free. I would like my colleague to share his opinion on small business and the middle class and how his community and surrounding areas would benefit from this very important deal that would improve access to products and markets for our products, because we are the richest country in the world in natural resources.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his question.

I heard a Conservative MP from Edmonton speak French for the first time. He gave a big speech in French. I also want to mention that I am a French-speaking indigenous Canadian. Yes, we do exist in Canada. I am very proud to be able to speak the language of Molière.

It is important to really grow our GDP. Manitoba's fisheries are suffering because some fish are not considered economically viable in certain markets. There may be a solution to this problem. For example, there is a Vietnamese dish called fish floss that is popular in Asia. The fish being thrown back into the lakes in Manitoba could be used to produce a food that Asians would enjoy. We could even develop our markets and sell products that people want in Asia, Vietnam, or elsewhere.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in the House, to see my colleagues again, and particularly to participate in the debate on Bill C-79. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Yesterday, we began the debate about the ratification of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Yesterday, we spent five and a half hours debating this important bill. This morning, a time allocation motion was moved. The Liberal Party, the government, worked with the Conservative Party, the official opposition, to fast-track Bill C-79.

It is disappointing not to have time to rise to express the concerns of the people we represent concerning an important bill like the ratification of this agreement. It is frustrating and disappointing. I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to express Canadians' fears and concerns about this bill.

I would first like to set the stage by providing a bit of context. The Prime Minister made a statement during the election campaign. On October 5, 2015, he said:

The government has an obligation to be open and honest about the negotiation process, and immediately share all the details of any agreement. Canadians deserve to know what impacts this agreement will have on different industries across our country. The federal government must keep its word and defend Canadian interests during the TPP’s ratification process—which includes defending supply management, our auto sector, and Canadian manufacturers across the country.

That was in 2015. It is now 2018, and it is clear that the Prime Minister has kept neither his word, nor his promise.

The Standing Committee on International Trade held consultations, and I want to thank our critic who worked very hard in committee. We are proud of what she has been able to accomplish. These consultations were not very accessible to members of the public wanting to participate. The public did not get much warning that consultations on the TPP were being held. People did not have much time to prepare, get to, and participate in the consultations. Members of the public had one hour to make submissions and give testimony. In Montreal, 19 members of the public opposed the agreement. Three individuals in Quebec City opposed the agreement. The committee received more than 8,000 submissions from Canadians.

We had a very hard time getting them translated and reviewing all of the submissions properly. There was no comprehensive consultation like the one the Prime Minister promised in 2015. The committee is supposed to be independent, but its consultations were strongly influenced by the government.

I remind members that the Standing Committee on International Trade held dozens of meetings, heard from more than 400 witnesses, and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians, 95% of whom opposed the bill and the ratification of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, whom I am proud to represent. I had the honour of sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food since 2012. In January I took on new responsibilities, but I follow the committee's work closely.

All of the agreements that the government has signed since I entered politics in 2011 have chipped away at our supply management system. Every agreement signed gives greater access to our dairy, poultry, turkey or egg markets.

Every agreement we sign opens up more of our market. The Conservative government said it would support and defend our supply management system, but what it actually did was negotiate agreements that allowed greater access to our market. The Liberal Party, with its majority, is doing the same thing. Despite the Liberals' insistence that they support our supply management system, they are continuing to poke holes in it.

Canadians are entitled to a government that respects the will of the people and does not negotiate agreements behind closed doors. Experts tell us that ratifying the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership will cost between 60,000 and 80,000 jobs in Canada because of concessions affecting the auto sector. How disturbing that the government is so willing to jeopardize those jobs.

Concessions in the CPTPP are keeping dairy, egg and poultry producers up at night and could cost 26,000 jobs in Quebec alone. Dairy producers say that giving up 3.25% of the Canadian market will likely cost them about $250 million in annual income. Should our supply management system disappear entirely, the poultry sector would lose 60,000 to 80,000 jobs. That does not even take into account concessions in the Canada-EU agreement.

All the agreements Canada has signed recently represent a 15% increase in access to our supply-managed markets. The government kept saying that it would protect our supply management system, but it has never said that it will fully protect it, so naturally, farmers have some fears and concerns.

We also have to think about timing. Right now we are debating ratifying the trans-Pacific partnership, and yet Canada is still negotiating with the United States. Several experts and groups have urged us to be cautious.

By going ahead with this and supporting the trans-Pacific partnership, we will be giving other countries greater access to our supply-managed market. This could send Mr. Trump and our American friends a clear message: we are prepared to grant them even more access to our market.

These market losses will cause Canada's GDP to drop by between $4.6 billion and $6.3 billion. The study also found that dismantling our supply management system would provide no real benefit to Canadian consumers.

According to the Éleveurs de volailles du Québec, across the poultry industry the implementation of the trans-Pacific partnership will result in the loss of more than 2,200 jobs and cut $150 billion from Canada's GDP.

It is true that our supply management system was created by the Liberals, but here it is being greatly weakened once more. We are witnessing its death by a thousand cuts. We are weakening our system to the point that it will no longer be worthwhile to keep it in place.

The government is telling us that there is nothing to worry about and that there will be a compensation plan for producers, but producers are not interested. They do not want to hear about compensation. Canadian producers want the federal government to do its job. Promises need to be kept. We hope the government will hold its own in the NAFTA renegotiation. That said, up to now, it has not been able to stand up for producers.

We could talk about other problems with the trans-Pacific partnership. For example, there is the auto sector. Many people work in the auto and parts sector.

These people and a number of unions are strongly opposed to the CPTPP because it will not do much to help them. It is still causing a lot of uncertainty. Less stringent rules of origin expose Canada to competition with Japanese vehicles that have a lot more components from countries that are not members of the TPP, such as China, Thailand, and Indonesia. However, Canada is maintaining its commitment to gradually eliminate its tariffs in the auto sector over a short period of five years.

There are a number of reasons why we do not support the TPP. It jeopardizes jobs. The government is telling us that it is protecting jobs and will create jobs for the middle class, but it is putting these jobs and these workers in jeopardy.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech.

She talked about her colleague who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I had the opportunity to serve with that member on the committee. We also went to Asia to meet with people in Malaysia and Singapore who are part of the TPP. These people are thrilled with the agreement. The member mentioned job losses. Since 2015, we have created 500,000 jobs. The member talked about the consultations that we held. There were open-mike consultations across Canada. We heard from representatives of unions, civil society, and the business community. The Canada brand is seen in a very positive light everywhere we went. I hope that the member's colleague told her about what we heard.

One thing that was mentioned that will have a particular impact on the member since her riding is in Quebec is that we managed to get a letter containing the cultural exemption under the TPP. It is very important for the economies of Quebec and Canada to be able to promote culture.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The Standing Committee on International Trade held consultations across Canada. From what I understand, public notices were issued and there was not much time to announce the consultations. It took some time, and not everyone was able to attend in person. The committee received about 8,000 briefs. They had not been translated, so we did not necessarily get to read every single brief that was submitted to the committee.

With regard to culture, many experts expressed concerns about the trans-Pacific partnership because the cultural exemption it contained was the weakest such provision to have been negotiated in a free trade agreement. It was not something Canada could be proud of. It was not worth bragging about, because it was not a step forward.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for her speech.

I would like to remind her of the motion that was unanimously adopted by the House on February 7, 2018:

That this House calls on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management as part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Bill C-79 proposes 3.25% for the dairy market, 2.3% for eggs, and 2.1% for poultry, which would supposedly be protected. I would like to point out that we, the legislators, the elected officials, are the bosses. We are the ones giving orders to the government. We adopted a unanimous motion. I recall that the two ministers of trade were present in the House and supported the motion. Now we get a bill that contains a major breach in supply management. In my view, the government is acting like a poor student with a bad attitude.

I would like to hear my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's thoughts on this.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Joliette for his question.

The House voted unanimously in favour of the motion to ensure that any agreements we sign do not open a breach in our supply management system. Unfortunately, unanimous motions do not force the government to take action. That is sad because each new agreement we sign chips away at supply management.

In 2014, I even moved a similar motion calling for financial support and demanding that the government fully protect supply management in the Canada-Europe agreement, but we all know how that turned out.

Benoit Legault represents dairy farmers in the Outaouais-Laurentides region. This is what he had to say:

All countries subsidize their agricultural sectors to ensure food sovereignty. However, our dairy farmers have never needed subsidies because production is tightly controlled. There is no surplus, prices do not go down, and there is no need to subsidize our dairy farmers. Then the government came along with compensation...

He was talking about the investment plan, which never materialized. These farmers do not want subsidies. They do not want money. They just want the government to do its job, keep its promises, and protect our borders like it said it would.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in the House and speak to this very important issue. I had the privilege of being the New Democratic Party official opposition critic on international trade for four years in the last Parliament.

Of course, the agreement that is the subject of discussion today that was known then as the TPP or trans-Pacific partnership, now renamed the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership, was very much in the public domain at that time. I followed the details as that agreement was being negotiated fairly carefully at that time. Essentially, my concern comes down to a number of basic points.

First of all, New Democrats have long been concerned by the secrecy surrounding the TPP and the CPTPP negotiations. Despite direct promises by the Prime Minister during the last election to be transparent on trade deals, the Liberals continue to give Canadians vague updates and mixed messages. Today we faced the shameful action by the government that brought in time allocation to limit debate on this very important subject. The previous government did this almost 100 times and the present Liberal government seems to be trying to match it. That shuts down democratic debate. It prevents us from speaking our minds and representing our constituents, which we were elected to come here to do. I think it is deplorable and it ought to be condemned.

Second, we have to recall that the trade committee held dozens of sessions, heard from more than 400 witnesses and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians. The overwhelming consensus was that 95% of those people, those good people who took the time to make their views known, were against this deal. Experts also point out that Canada under the CPTPP would lose 58,000 jobs due to concessions that would damage our automobile industry and our supply management system. I will explore that in a few minutes.

This deal also contains troubling provisions on foreign control of Canadian businesses, rights to privacy and intellectual property. This agreement contains extremely weak labour and environment standards. I would say they are virtually absent. The so-called side letters are almost toothless, not only because they are not in the main agreement but because of the language contained in them.

The New Democrats have, for decades now, been strong proponents of fair trade and fair trade deals that seek to raise the labour standards, improve environmental protection, protect our public services and culture, and increase jobs in the Canadian economy.

I want to stop for a moment because I have heard, unfortunately, from the Liberal side of the House, some words that I think typify a very unfortunate approach to politics. We saw this in the last Conservative government under then Prime Minister Harper where if one was not in agreement with the government, then one was subject to a very simplified wedge politics approach that completely misrepresented one's position. It was repeated endlessly, so for instance if one did not stand with the Conservatives' tough-on-crime legislation, somehow one was on the side of child molesters. That approach to politics is deplorable in this House. I think Canadians reject it. We reject it. It does not do anything to advance informed political debate.

I am hearing the same thing from Liberals in this debate that, because we are not in favour of this agreement or are doing our job as opposition by critiquing this agreement, we are opposed to trade. That is absurd and it is nonsense, yet the Liberals keep saying that. Every Canadian understands the importance of trade. Every Canadian wants Canada to be a positive trading nation. That does not mean that we will sign any piece of paper put in front of us. That does not mean that we will be in favour of any agreement, no matter how many jobs it costs Canada or how harmful it is to the Canadian economy.

I want to state for the record that New Democrats are proud supporters of trade. We are strong supporters of Canadian champions and we want to build a strong trading nation in Canada that protects our environment, that supports labour and human rights and that also supports Canadian champions on the world scene.

The only major change that appears to be positive about this whole deal is that the Liberals put the word “progressive” in the title. This is a cynical and very transparent ploy that progressive Canadians will not accept. There is nothing progressive about this deal.

I want to talk for a few minutes about why this agreement is troubling and will start with the auto sector.

The auto sector in this country is extremely important. Canada is the 10th largest vehicle producer in the world. The auto sector is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada. Over 120,000 employees are directly employed in the auto and auto parts sector and it is responsible for about $100 billion in factory sales and related economic activity.

What will the CPTPP do? Industry and labour groups in the auto and auto parts sectors that will be most affected by this and have been carefully monitoring this agreement over the last number of years are strongly opposed to it.

The auto industry is already in the crosshairs of the NAFTA negotiation and facing punitive U.S. tariffs. The industry does not believe the Liberals' claims that the CPTPP will open up markets in the Asia-Pacific, particularly Japan. In fact, anybody who watches auto industry patterns and trends will realize that by reducing tariffs in this country, we are going to see a flood of automobiles and automotive parts coming in from jurisdictions, and not the other way around. It will only increase the auto trade imbalance and further de-harmonize the Canada-U.S. auto industry. Why? Let us look at the rules of origin.

Under the CPTPP, in order for a vehicle made in a TPP country to come into Canada tariff-free, 35% to 45% of it has to be made within a TPP country. Imagine that. If a car manufacturer sets up, say, in Vietnam or Malaysia, in order for one of its cars to come in tariff-free, only 35% to 45% of it has to be made in Vietnam or Malaysia. The rest of the car can be made outside of either of those countries in low wage jurisdictions like Bangladesh or India, or any other low wage jurisdiction that has no environmental standards and very poor labour and employment standards. Even if 35% to 45% is made in the low wage jurisdictions of Malaysia or Vietnam, 55% to 65% of that vehicle, the rest of it, will be made in an even lower wage jurisdiction.

How on earth are major vehicle manufacturers centred in Canada that pay good wages, that pay workers' compensation benefits, that pay for health and welfare benefits, and that pay good taxes or support social programs in this country supposed to compete with that? Yet the Liberals expect us to believe that under this deal we are going to be making vehicles here and will be sending them to Malaysia. If anyone believes that, we have a bridge for sale.

I want to talk about supply management. Supply management is made up of three pillars: price controls, production controls, and import controls. The Liberals continually say that they stand up for supply management in every trade deal, but what they do not tell Canadians is that in every trade deal they have signed, from CETA to the CPTPP, and probably with NAFTA today, they are chipping away at the import controls and letting each one of those great deals let more and more dairy products come in, 3% for Europe, and another 3.5% for the TPP countries. Who knows what we are going to give Donald Trump?

That means that as they sit here and pretend to support supply management, the Liberals are eroding or sawing off that third pillar of supply management. Eventually it will be 15%, 20%, 25%, 40%, 50% of import controls and by that time supply management will have been killed from within.

We saw what happened with Brexit in England. We saw the election of Donald Trump. What happened? Workers around the world have perceived that over the last 30 or 40 years under so-called globalization business has achieved everything it wanted, such as lower labour costs, deregulation, and liberalized trade so that global capital could move around the world. What has happened? The benefits of that have not been shared equally.

That is why the British and American working class have rebelled against neo-Liberal trade deals, all of which have only done one thing: increased GDP for the top 1% to 10%, while 90% of the rest of us end up having poor jobs while we watch our manufacturing sector get hollowed out and good middle-class, family sustaining jobs sent to low wage jurisdictions.

That is what has happened under the Liberals, it is what happened under the Conservatives, and the New Democrats are the only ones who will stand in the House and fight for Canadian jobs and a strong Canadian economy here at home for everybody. We will stand against these lousy trade deals every time they are put before us in the House. That is what the CPTPP is, a lousy deal, and we will continue to fight against it until we can stop this agreement.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague.

Whenever the New Democrats talk about free trade agreements, the same question always comes to mind: has there ever been one they supported? For two and a half years, I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, and they never supported a single one. Some 500,000 jobs have been created for the middle class in Canada since 2015.

Earlier the member mentioned auto parts. Consultations on the trans-Pacific partnership were held in every town and city in the country. We met with representatives of automakers and auto parts manufacturers associations, not only from the U.S., but also from Japan and Korea. Our government also listened to what Canadian auto sector workers had to say, and we made their concerns a priority. As part of the negotiations, Canada signed bilateral side letters with Australia and Malaysia, but there is also Japan.

What do all these jobs mean for the middle class in my colleague's riding? I hope he knows what this means.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard this the other day in the House and I am going to repeat it, that the only thing consistent about the Liberals on trade is their inconsistency. I was carefully following the debate in 1988 when the Liberal Party opposed the free trade agreement with the United States. In 1993, I saw the Liberal Party campaign against NAFTA and say that it would pull out of it if it were elected. It was elected, but what happened? As is often the case with the Liberals, they campaigned from the left and governed from the right. They suddenly forgot that promise. Then they were for NAFTA. In terms of inconsistency, for the Liberals I guess it just depends which way the wind is blowing, and then they will determine their trade policy.

I forgive my hon. colleague for not knowing this as I do not think she was present in the last parliament, but the NDP has supported two agreements. We supported an agreement with South Korea and an agreement with Jordan. We supported those agreements because we analyzed them and determined that the countries we would be trading with would be of benefit to Canada. We read the agreements and made sure that overall they would be of benefit to this country. The Liberals should try to do that sometime.

Finally, on auto and auto parts, if we go back and look at the facts, ever since we signed NAFTA, the auto plants in Canada have gone down and the auto plants in Mexico have gone up almost exactly in proportion. We have lost manufacturing jobs. Everybody who watches knows; it is common sense. If one signs an agreement with a country that pays one-third the wages we do and does not have any of the social programs we do, capital will likely go to that jurisdiction for it to operate its manufacturing plants there and then just ship the goods back to us. That is exactly what was done, and that is what this deal would do too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have seen New Democrats perform inside the House of Commons for many years at the provincial level, and one of the things that really strikes me is the fact that they are somewhat consistent. When the member talks about trade and trade agreements, for all intents and purposes they do not support trade agreements, period. They might cite one or two, but when it comes to actually doing the assessment, we know that they do not do one. This very piece of legislation is a good example of it. They opposed this agreement before the details of it were even known. Once they received the actual agreement, then they justified their position. Their position was known before the agreement. Everyone knew that. Thomas Mulcair was going around saying that they opposed the agreement, yet he had no idea what was in it.

The NDP does not support trade or trade agreements, yet Canada's economy and middle class are very dependent on these. Trade realizes real tangible jobs, jobs that Canadians want. When will the NDP take a position in support of Canadian jobs? I was at a Canada Goose factory last week, which is exporting and creating hundreds of jobs. There are over 500,000 jobs—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to me how the member always confuses volume with logic. I cannot compete with logic like that.

He said that the NDP does not support trade agreements, but that we might support a couple. Of course we support trade agreements. I have cited two that we support. Once again he has repeated that old canard that the NDP does not support trade. I have defied him to find one comment ever made by any New Democrat in the history of our party that indicates we do not support trade, yet he repeats his claim here. That is just misleading Canadians.

Here is an interesting thing. Speaking of suppositions, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, when she was the critic for international trade, said this when the CETA text finally came out. Members can read it in the newspapers. She said she was looking forward to finally seeing the deal that she has been supporting all along. That is what the Liberals said about CETA. They supported CETA before they actually knew what was in it. Maybe that is why my hon. colleague has such projection on this issue, because what he is accusing the NDP of is really what the Liberals are guilty of.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I should advise the House that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round. Consequently, all subsequent interventions shall be limited to ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-79, a bill to implement the new incarnation of the TPP without the United States.

The Bloc Québécois is sincerely and seriously concerned about supply management and the breaches that are included in this new version of the agreement. The government gave up 3.25% of the dairy market, 2.3% of the egg market, and 2.1% of the poultry market.

The Liberals and Conservatives, who boast about being the great defenders of our farmers and supply management, just voted in favour of time allocation in order to pass this bill quickly. Last spring, they tried to have a motion adopted unanimously to pass the bill immediately. Obviously, we were there and voted against the motion.

There is quite a disconnect between what they say and what they do. They say they want to defend supply management in its entirety, without any breaches. Now that there is a tangible case in front of them, they are changing their tune and cannot pass this new version of the TPP, with all its breaches, soon enough. That does not add up. There is a major lack of credibility here.

On that note, I would remind the House that whenever there is a by-election, big promises are made. During the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean, the Prime Minister said, "We will not make any concessions when it comes to supply management."

He said this about the TPP on October 19, 2017, in Saint-Félicien, as reported by the Journal de Montréal. I was there too, and I heard it. We were happy at the time, but we now know how much his word is worth.

Just before the last election, on October 4, 2015, the Prime Minister gave an interview to Radio-Canada, which is still available online, in which he said that the Liberal government would not make any concessions on supply management in the TPP. There was even a unanimous motion passed on February 7, 2018. The motion stated:

That the House call on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management as part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.

My colleague from Mirabel moved this motion, which passed unanimously. The two Liberal international trade ministers were in the House, and they agreed.

I remind members that we, as legislators and elected officials, are the government's boss. We asked the government, including all of the Liberals and all of the Conservatives, to ensure that there was no breach in supply management in the new version of the trans-Pacific partnership. We ended up with a significant breach nonetheless. I repeat that his word and his promise are worthless in my eyes.

I would remind members that we are talking about 3.25% for milk, 2.3% for eggs, and 2.1% for poultry. These are all supposedly protected by a quota system that is very costly for farmers. In total, to have a protected market, we are talking about approximately $33 billion in quotas, including $20 billion just for the dairy sector. That is not peanuts. We should respect that.

This is the current explanation for the breach. The Americans wanted concessions with respect to supply management. As they no longer want to be part of the new TPP, they are being enticed with concessions to come back to the table. So what do President Donald Trump and the Americans do? They say they do not want the new TPP, but they want these types of concessions in NAFTA renegotiations. Since we made them in the TPP, we can make them to the Americans, as well. That makes a breach in two agreements for our farmers, who are paying for absolutely nothing.

I will draw a parallel to NAFTA. On June 7, the Prime Minister stated in a Radio-Canada article that if Donald Trump wants to attack supply management, there would be no NAFTA, that they would not sign NAFTA. Given that the government's credibility and the worth of its word have been seriously tainted, there may be some doubt about that.

On September 26 of last year, we were proactive and passed a unanimous motion:

That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.

There is an election campaign underway in Quebec. All party leaders are asking that supply management remain intact in NAFTA. However, it seems that this is not as important given the comments made by Simon Beauchemin, the Prime Minister's advisor in NAFTA renegotiations, who wrote an open letter in La Presse calling for the abolition of supply management.

On that topic, last winter I asked him if he wanted to abolish supply management and how he planned to reimburse the $33 billion worth of quota once supply management is abolished. Farmers are borrowing from financial institutions to cover that. All he did was chortle at me before taking off.

I would remind the House that back when the majority of seats in Quebec were held by Bloc Québécois members, supply management was respected, and those sectors were automatically excluded from the 10 trade agreements signed by Canada, including NAFTA.

At the time, Quebec had more of a voice and Canada listened. Since 2011, that has no longer been the case. Consider the Canada-EU agreement. The bargaining chip that Canada gave up was a new breach for the dairy and cheese sector.

The Harper government had not only promised but even budgeted $4.3 billion in compensation for our dairy producers. The Liberals came to power and tore up that agreement, and instead created a mini program worth $250 million. The first part was gone in a matter of minutes. It was heavily criticized and not suited to our farmers. That is unacceptable. Our farmers were used as a bargaining chip in the Canada-EU agreement. The same thing happened with the TPP and now the CPTPP.

The government has not announced any compensation for our farmers. Once again, farmers are being used as bargaining chips. We are worried about the NAFTA renegotiation because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have changed their tune. We get silence, or they talk around the issue. We have real concerns that there could be another breach in supply management.

This is in addition to all of the tricks, which I consider illegal, that American producers use to try to break into our market and that take an awful lot of time to address. I am talking about milk proteins, diafiltered milk, and misuse of the duty deferral program. There is also the spent fowl scandal, or the distributors that throw in a couple packets of sauce to bring in chicken wings and bypass supply management. Another example is how pizza kits are used bring in grated cheese, and I could go on.

Up until 2011, the government made its position clear to other countries. If they wanted us to make changes to supply management, they would have to eliminate their subsidies and other protectionist mechanisms. That used to be a prerequisite for negotiation, but not anymore. The government gave an inch, and now it is open season.

A C.D. Howe Institute study showed that, in its first year, the TPP's impact on the GDP would be 0.01%. That is negligible. Any benefit will go mainly to Ontario and the west. Quebec is too far from the Pacific nations to benefit much at all. Nevertheless, the things Canada gave up in order to join the partnership are things that matter to Quebec. That is deplorable and unacceptable.

The supply management system works. The United States has a number of protected sectors such as cotton and sugar, but also dairy, eggs and poultry, same as here. All of the agreements that have been signed include very high tariffs to protect domestic markets. Most, if not all, industrialized nations have mechanisms to protect agriculture. Agriculture is an important sector, one vital to any country's national security and to feeding its people.

Apparently Canada's government is the only one prepared to sell out its farmers time after time. That is unacceptable.

We do not want to see the kinds of megafarms that have been popping up in the United States in recent years. Some of those farms have 10,000 cows. Megafarms account for 30% of milk production. Here, farms typically have about 50 cows. I am talking about a family farm land use model. If we did things here like they do in the United States, my entire riding would have a single producer. That is unacceptable, and we want nothing to do with it. An American magazine called Quartz reported that the suicide rate on American family farms is one a week.

That is not what we want, so we will vote against this agreement because of the major breach it creates in supply management.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. He represents a riding in Quebec. My riding is also in Quebec, in a suburb north of Montreal.

As far as the TPP is concerned, I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade for two and a half years and we held consultations across the country. We heard from labour unions, civil society, auto parts manufacturers and automakers.

My colleague did not touch on the cultural exemption. There are side letters and that is very important for Quebec's cultural industry, but he did not mention that. I did not hear him talk about the increased number of job opportunities for the middle class in his riding. I would like him to say a few words about that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I hope nothing will happen to the cultural exemption. I would remind the hon. member that we already had trade agreements that included a cultural exemption with 80% of the signatory countries of the TPP. Before the TPP, there was talk of negotiating an agreement with Japan. If we add that to the list of countries with which we already had an agreement, we would not be far from 100%. Every agreement already included a cultural exemption, so I hope that the government is not going back on that. That would be the last straw, because the government is already going back on supply management.

What is more, since we already had agreements, this one does not really benefit the middle class and Quebec businesses. So says the C.D. Howe Institute. Instead, this is a major setback for our farmers and our land use model, a system that works. It is a clear setback for Quebec since our farmers are being sacrificed for next to nothing in return.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech. We are all familiar with this government's tendency to get involved in conflicts of interest, much like its predecessor. That is why I suspect it has other reasons for wanting the ratify the TPP quickly. I have a two-part question for my colleague.

First, does he really think that adding the word “progressive” to the name of the agreement is a sign of social progress?

Second, who does he think stands to benefit financially when the Liberals rush passage of this agreement, as they did with cannabis legalization?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer my colleague's questions, I have more to say to the member opposite. The U.S. is the cultural threat here. Vietnam is not a threat to Quebec's culture and identity. The Americans are the reason for the cultural exemption.

Who is lining their pockets? Not us. The C.D. Howe Institute says we will not benefit much. Ontario and the western provinces will, but not us. Once again, English Canada's interests take precedence in the House of Commons. The two big parties think this is a good deal for their gang, so they are running with it. Too bad for Quebeckers and what they want. That is what happens when we let our neighbours make decisions for us: we keep losing ground. That needs to change now.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing concerns from indigenous peoples around the lack of consultation on the CPTPP. I just received a message from Brenda Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island. She says:

It is disheartening that the CPTPP is being fast-tracked without consideration for, or consultation with First Nations whose rights will be grossly undermined under several different chapters of the trade agreement. The Liberal government has promised reconciliation with First Nations and yet when presented with real opportunities, they have not only failed to follow through on this promise, but having given hope to a people whose only request is justice and fair treatment; they have made a mockery of a long broken relationship.

Maybe my friend could speak about his feelings on whether the government has really taken a path to reconciliation in this trade agreement.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague.

My colleague from Mirabel will support the amendment. I am sure of it.

I would like to propose the following amendment to the amendment, which I am sure will be seconded by my colleague from Mirabel: That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “jobs in Canada” the following: especially in the agricultural sector, as this agreement creates a significant breach in supply management by offering 3.25% of the dairy market to foreign producers, despite the unanimous motion adopted in the House on February 7, 2018, that this House call on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management in the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.

That is my amendment to the amendment.

I fully agree with my colleague's comments on our relationship and reconciliation with first nations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I see that the hon. member for Joliette has proposed an amendment to an amendment during the period for questions and comments. Unfortunately, that is not permissible. Hon. members are to propose amendments or amendments to amendments during their speeches.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House. I start by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.

The trans-Pacific partnership agreement has had a convoluted and somewhat rocky road. I think we would all admit that. I would like to take a bit of time to go through its history and then take as much time as possible, given that it is abbreviated now that we are down to only 10-minute speaking segments and time allocation has already been applied, on why it is completely anti-democratic to have investor-state provisions included in agreements, particularly the one currently before us.

I would like to adopt and support the submissions of the hon. member for Essex. The trade critic for the New Democratic Party has put forward clear arguments. So has the MP for Vancouver Kingsway. I agree with all I have heard from them. This allows me to concentrate on investor-state provisions rather than delve into the different sector-by-sector problems with the TPP.

Going back to where it started, the TPP was well under way in negotiation under the previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper. It knew the TPP was under way and Canada did not have a seat at the table. Therefore, there are a number of reasons the agreement is lopsided against certain Canadian sectors. It has to do with the fact we joined late. We were aggressive with trying to be in. Some will remember that even during the 2015 election, when a government is supposed to have no more than a caretaker role, the former minister of trade was working hard to try to get this deal done. That was inappropriate, given that the writ had already dropped, but he certainly did work hard to achieve the TPP.

We know that the incoming U.S. president pulled out. That had a very substantial impact on the economic reach of the agreement. With the U.S. out, it looked like the TPP was dead. However, bad trade deals never die, they rise again, and this one came back without the United States and now with 11 countries in the trade pact.

It is important for Canadians to know that we already have trade agreements, within NAFTA, with Mexico. Therefore, that means we are agreeing to new agreements with nine new nations. When we talk about the Pacific region, I think a lot of Canadians would assume this includes the big economic players. When we hear TPP, the trans-Pacific partnership, or now as it is styled, the comprehensive and progressive TPP, or CPTPP, one would assume it would include China and Indonesia. However, large economic players in Asia are out of the agreement, other than the big one, which are Japan, as well as Malaysia, and of course Australia and New Zealand. There are smaller economic countries, such as Peru and Vietnam, as well as Singapore, which is significant but relatively small in terms of trade.

We have a cobbled together agreement that we now are rushing to pass. We were promised that we would not rush through trade deals in this place, that we would have full debate. I gather the committee has been told that it has to rush as well. Therefore, this trade agreement will not be adequately debated. That is now a foregone conclusion because of time allocation.

In the six and a half minutes remaining to me, let me explain why I submit to the House that investor-state dispute resolution sections do not belong in any agreement. They do not belong in trade agreements. They in fact have nothing to do with trade. They are often conflated and confused with trade dispute resolution agreements. Therefore, in the case of NAFTA, which, by the way, was the source of these investor dispute resolution systems, chapter 11 in NAFTA had never been requested before. They were not understood. They were not even understood by the people who negotiated NAFTA.

What we have under NAFTA is chapter 19, which deals with how one sorts out disputes over tariffs and unfair trade decision. We are used to those. That is appropriately a trade dispute resolution provision. One needs those if one has a trade deal. What we do not need is this bogus, anti-democratic investor-state provision, which arose in chapter 11 of NAFTA. What does it mean? On paper, when people first read NAFTA, including in all the fights over adopting NAFTA, none of the anti-NAFTA groups ever noticed chapter 11. No one talked about it; it was a sleeper.

What chapter 11 seemed to say was common sense. If someone had invested in a country and the asset that was built was expropriated, such as when Fidel Castro took over Cuba, the expropriation of assets would require compensation, which is the international norm already. It looked like chapter 11 was about that. We found out that was not what the chapter was capable of doing in the Ethyl Corporation case, when Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia brought the first chapter 11 case against Canada.

It should be noted that as of now, Canada is the most sued industrialized country under these investor-state agreements and we have lost repeatedly. We have lost, but it was not as if we did something that was a subversion of our trade, not as if we treated some country that we promised we would give it friendly treatment and it was a duplicitous action in pursuit of a trade benefit. No, we have lost when we were trying to protect public health and the environment.

Let us look at Ethyl Corporation. In that instance, the former minister of environment, Sheila Copps, heard of the efforts of groups like the one I was executive director of, Sierra Club Canada. We worked hard to get rid of a toxic gasoline additive called MMT, which is manganese based. We were joined in that effort, believe it or not, by the car makers. The car makers said that MMT gunked up the engines and compromised the catalytic converters. In other words, it increased pollution in a way that could void their warranties.

Therefore, the auto manufacturers, the environmental groups and a number of health groups, with evidence from neurotoxicologist Dr. Donna Mergler of the University of Quebec in Montreal, said that this stuff increased manganism in the human population, in other words tremors that looked a lot like Parkinson's, and at the same time threatened to void the warranties of cars. The minister of the environment brought forward a law which was passed in Parliament. The law said that we would get rid of MMT in gasoline.

It is important to know that at this point the United States Environmental Protection Agency had refused to register MMT, because its advice was that this stuff was bad for the environment, bad for human health and we should not use it. Therefore, Canada banned it.

Ethyl Corporation said that it was going to chapter 11 of NAFTA. However, before that chapter 11 case was through, the government of the day decided to settle, and we cannot say “out of court” because there are no courts involved here. These are private arbitration matters generally heard in hotel rooms. Therefore, if we are going to call a chapter 11 arbitration “out of court”, we have to insert the word “kangaroo” before the word “court” so the whole thing makes sense.

However, Ethyl Corporation got out of Canada an award of $13 million U.S., which was taken out of the A-base budget of Environment Canada. If members do not think that had a chilling affect on Environment Canada's willingness to ban dangerous chemicals that were made in the United States, then they are not looking at the facts of what has happened since then. That was the first one. By the way, what was Ethyl Corporation's investment in Canada? Did it have a plant here? No. Did it create jobs here? No. It was selling the toxic gasoline additive here, and that was enough to make it an investor. The same thing happened with S.D. Myers, which was the next case.

S.D. Myers is an Ohio-based company that runs incinerators for PCB contaminated waste. Sheila Copps, former minister of environment, banned the export of PCB contaminated waste from Canada consistent with the Basel Convention to which Canada was a signatory, but S.D. Myers sued. Guess what. It was suddenly an investor. It had expected profit from taking Canadian PCB waste and burning it in Ohio.

However, when we banned the export of PCB contaminated waste from Canada, the import of PCB contaminated waste into the U.S. was illegal under U.S. law. On that set of facts, we could not imagine that we would lose, but we lost. Canada appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which said that it was not significant enough of an egregious error under the rules of arbitration for us to win, and so we had to pay S.D. Myers money.

We are now awaiting Bilcon, which has asked for $580 million in damages. Canada has lost in Federal Court in our efforts to defend the good decision of a very ethical, thorough, independent, thoroughly evidence-based finding of the environmental assessment panel on Bilcon's efforts to do an open-pit quarry in Digby, Nova Scotia.

Ethyl Corporation did not go to the courts in Canada, which it could have done. By the way, that decision led to the Progressive Conservative government of Nova Scotia turning down the permit and the previous Conservative Government of Canada environment minister John Baird turning down the permit. However, Bilcon, in New Jersey, went to a secret hearing under chapter 11 of NAFTA and it won.

TPP does not have such egregious secrecy; that is the one area in which this is different. However, we pass this and we will regret it. We will have chapter 9 suits under TPP, again from Malaysia and from Japan, and we will lose because Canada generally loses. This is corrosive to democracy, and I urge us to take investor state out of the bill in front of us.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I felt like I had come into a university lecture. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' intervention was very well researched and really ad lib for the most part, which is always good to see in the House.

I was trying to find the thread to the World Trade Organization. When we are a trading nation, having investor-state dispute mechanisms in place, either at the world trade level or in trade agreements, I understand the member to say that those should not be included in trade agreements. However, as a trading nation, what protections would she suggest we have in order to protect jobs in Canada?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I submit for my hon. friend from Guelph that there is nothing about giving foreign corporations superior rights to domestic corporations that protect jobs in Canada; it is quite the opposite. I would also suggest that the World Trade Organization does not insist on investor-state dispute resolution agreements; the protection of foreign corporations to protect their expectation of profits is outside the WTO. There was an attempt to put it inside in the multilateral agreement on investment, which was rejected within the OECD. Therefore, these are independent of WTO rules.

We should never accept them unthinkingly. I suggest for all of us, with the deepest respect for my colleagues, that they are accepting investor-state dispute resolutions in trade agreements without thinking, because we have never debated them in this place properly. We should rethink them, renegotiate them and ensure that only in the case of a foreign government's seizing actual assets would we have the reason to be able to say it owes us money. We should never owe a foreign corporation money for protecting the environment in Canada, protecting jobs in Canada and protecting labour rights in Canada.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a regular line by the left and the Green Party in Canada, to suggest that these international dispute mechanisms are somehow sinister. As a lawyer in Ontario I know, and as the hon. member is a lawyer as well she would know, that a lot of regimes have mandatory mediation processes and a number of elements to take disputes out of a long-winded laborious litigation process. Therefore, in a lot of these agreements, there are agreements for disputes to be settled in a specific way. That is what contracts are for: certainty, particularly when countries have different legal standards, whether civil code or common law, and some countries do not respect the rule of law. That type of certainty is what investors expect. That is what companies expect. That is what states expect.

I would love the hon. member to suggest for this House that it is somehow sinister in an agreement premised upon certainty to not allow parties to have choice of forum, choice of law. These are fundamental aspects of contract law. I hate how this sort of spectre of ISDS or mandatory disputes or the disputes mechanism we set up with China is somehow sinister, when it is actually meant to overcome uncertainty and incompatibility of legal systems. Does the hon. member not suggest that companies, governments and people have the ability to forge these decisions, whether it is ISDS or other mechanisms?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. colleague from Durham fails to see that what his government did in passing the Canada—China investment treaty in secret, in cabinet, binding our country until the year 2045 to allow the People's Republic of China to bring secret arbitration cases against us with no transparency whatsoever is not sinister, or that he does not think there are some problems with that.

I am very grateful to my hon. colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for referencing the concerns of Brenda Sayers from the Hupacasath First Nation. That small first nation went all the way to court to say it was not consulted and this is dangerous to it. The first nations of this country have deep concerns because investor-state disputes can be launched based on decisions of first nations governments as well as municipal and provincial governments.

The reality of this is the hon. member for Durham is conflating once again. In the certainty of a trade deal, yes, we need to have a dispute resolution, but there is uncertainty created by saying foreign corporations have a right to challenge things that were never in the contemplation of the negotiators, to say after the fact they expected to make a big profit from this, and that now they have stopped them and that now they owe them money.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back, to be able to speak on Bill C-79 and, in particular, to be able to speak to trade.

I believe trade is part of Canada's DNA, from our beginnings with the fur trade to today, where we are a leader globally when it comes to mining, minerals and exploration. We can look at all the other sectors, be it agriculture, manufacturing, innovation and tech, and Canada is a leader.

I want to leave a statistic with the Chamber that really highlights how important trade is to Canada and how great a job we do at trade globally. We are 0.5% of Canada's population, but we do 2.5% of all global trade, five times our population. That just shows, globally, that we are a trading nation.

We look at CETA, where we were able to sign that agreement and open up another market of over 500 million people and over $20 trillion GDP in that market. Now, we look at the CPTPP and we look to Asia as another opportunity for Canada to be able to trade our great goods and services, a market of about 500 million people and $13.5 trillion GDP.

We are able to now talk about some of the benefits we will be able to experience from CPTPP if we were to sign on. Looking at our industrial and manufacturing sectors, located right in Mississauga East—Cooksville, we have Maple Leaf, a great company. They do a great deal of export. Having these tariffs stripped away from many of the countries in Asia that are part of the CPTPP that they work with will mean more jobs here in Canada and will give us greater market access.

I have heard from my constituents and the businesses in my area that this is the way forward.

Mississauga is Canada's sixth-largest city and we continue to grow, mostly through companies that are export oriented. Those export-oriented companies are producing the best jobs. Whether it be automobiles or medical devices, metals, chemicals or plastics, they are all essential components to our national economy, employing 1.7 million full-time and highly skilled Canadians, and contributing close to 11% of Canada's GDP.

Our government firmly believes that the CPTPP is the ideal agreement for Canadians and our economy. This is a high-level trade agreement that will increase Canadian exports and help us to succeed in foreign markets as a cornerstone of our government's comprehensive efforts to enhance Canada's engagement with dynamic, fast-growing and increasingly influential Asian markets. It is an important part of our commitment to diversify trade, grow our economy and strengthen our country's middle class.

Trade and investment flows between Canada and Asian economies have increased significantly since the turn of the century. From 2014 to 2016, Canada's exports of industrial and manufactured goods to the CPTPP countries accounted for an annual average of $22.4 billion. By eliminating now nearly 100% tariffs on manufactured goods, including some tariffs that are as high as 85%, a high barrier, and creating mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers to trade, the CPTPP will create opportunities for world-class Canadian businesses to increase their sales.

Once the agreement enters into force, it will enable Canadian exporters to access diverse and internationally integrated value chains. On day one of the agreement coming into force, there will be no tariffs on over 87% of industrial tariff lines, covering Canada's exports to CPTPP markets, worth an annual average of close to $20 billion over a two-year period.

What will this mean for individual industries? Allow me to provide just a few examples for Canada's multi-billion dollar chemicals and plastics industry.

The CPTPP will provide opportunities for companies in Ontario, the hub of Canada's plastics industry, to cutting-edge mechanical facilities in Alberta with improved market access. This industry will improve its annual average of $1.1 billion in exports to the CPTPP countries by eliminating tariffs that are as high as 50%. What a difference that will make in our exports of plastics.

With respect to metals and minerals, a sector contributing nearly 600,000 jobs here in Canada and exporting $5 billion in goods to CPTPP markets, the agreement would result in the elimination of all tariffs, again some as high as 50%. As a result, highly sought-after Canadian aluminum, steel, iron, petroleum products and precious metals will become even more competitive in such markets as Japan, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam.

Canada's information and communication technologies sector, critical to major urban centres across Canada, is also well positioned under this agreement to meet growing needs within established and developed markets in the Asia-Pacific. In addition to eliminating tariffs, the agreement will protect companies from having to divulge their proprietary information in order to sell their products in these markets.

In the auto sector, our government listened, and listened a lot, to what Canadians had to say and made their concerns a priority. As part of the negotiations, Canada has obtained bilateral cover letters from Australia and Malaysia to establish more liberal rules of origin, which will allow our automotive manufacturers to take advantage of the preferential tariff treatment in these markets without having to adjust their current production models.

We also achieved bilateral results with Japan and Malaysia on standards and regulations in the automotive sector, a key demand from industry stakeholders as these non-tariff barriers were impeding our export abilities.

These are just a few examples of areas that could benefit from the CPTPP. By making Canadian industrial and manufacturing exports more competitive, reducing the red tape that impedes access to dynamic and growing markets, this agreement would provide Canadian businesses with significant opportunities to increase profits and create new jobs.

Beyond tariff reduction, another aspect of the CPTPP that stands to benefit Canadian companies in these sectors is the area of intellectual property. The agreement's provisions on intellectual property cover virtually all areas regarding trade and IP, including copyright, patents, trademarks, geographical indication, industrial designs, domain names and enforcement. Most importantly, the protection and enforcement of IP rights will help protect Canadian innovation and investment as our businesses trade abroad. For Canadian businesses, one of the most significant barriers to trade in some markets is uncertainty over the protection of intellectual property, including whether their intellectual property rights will be respected and enforced.

Intellectual property is valuable property and this agreement establishes a clear and predictable standard on IP rights and enforcement in the Asia-Pacific region. This will allow Canadian creators, innovators and investors to conduct trade with our new CPTPP partners with the assurance that their products will be protected while benefiting from the same rules as other parties within this agreement. In turn, this will encourage investment in innovative technologies in Canada and allow Canadians to develop and market their brands in the region.

As a result, innovative Canadian companies will be better positioned to commercialize their products in both established and fast-growing Asian markets. In addition to tariff reduction and IP rules, the agreement also addresses costly and time-consuming non-tariff barriers that make it difficult for Canadian companies to enter these foreign markets. Commitments by CPTPP members to cut away that burdensome and restrictive regulatory red tape in such sectors as cosmetics, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and ICT will provide Canadian manufacturing exporters with greater certainty and predictability that the competitive benefits their products receive from tariff elimination will be fully realized.

By establishing an effective and transparent rules-based trade system in one of the world's most dynamic and growing regions, the CPTPP will lay the groundwork for exporters in our industrial and manufacturing sectors to take advantage of these opportunities. This is why I am encouraging all of my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-79 and allow for the swift implementation of this important agreement.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House because this summer I personally met with many farmers, including the younger generation of farmers. Specifically, I met Eric and Jennifer Simpson, a couple my age who have a dairy farm in Rockburn. They told me that they have lost 15% of their revenue in the last few years because of concessions in the trade agreements Canada has signed with other countries. They said that the TPP could cause further losses because an even greater concession is being negotiated and will be passed under this legislation.

This is putting the next generation of farmers in a precarious position. As we know, one in eight jobs in Canada is in the agriculture and agri-food sector. We also know that our rural regions are vibrant and have strong economies thanks to agriculture. Those businesses are keeping kids in our rural schools and supporting local restaurants and other businesses that, in turn, keep people in the regions and preserve our agricultural heritage. This is just one thing that is being attacked in yet another economic agreement the Liberals are pursuing.

How can the Liberals promote a bill that will be harmful to an industry that is so crucial to our country and our rural regions?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are so proud of our agriculture and agri-food industries and sectors. Our party is the party of supply management. It is something we have always defended and will always continue to defend.

At the international trade committee, through our consultations from coast to coast to coast, we had the opportunity to hear from many farmers and all those in the supply chain in agriculture. We were able to do a deeper dive and gain a better understanding of how we can be at the table defending agriculture and defending our farmers. We will always stand with supply management.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech today, my colleague from Mississauga did a very good job of reiterating why Liberals believe so firmly in free trade. I am wondering if he can take it back a bit, more specifically to his riding. He comes from a part of the country that has experienced a lot of growth over the last number of years. It has expanded tremendously and no doubt has benefited from these relationships and trade agreements.

Can he talk a little about how he sees the impacts of trade positively impacting his riding specifically?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question pertains to my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville and the many great businesses that do a great deal of trade right around the world. As we have heard, we punch way above our weight when it comes to trade in Canada. We have companies like Maple Leaf, which deal with agriculture and selling many of their products to many of the CPTPP countries, and also those in the manufacturing supply chain.

I know many manufacturers in my riding produce some of the products and machinery that help with mining. Many of those machines are then exported around the world to be able to do the work in various countries. This means jobs for my riding and for the ridings of all the members in this chamber. These are good, well-paying jobs. We know that export-oriented companies have some of the highest-paying jobs in our country, and that is why we have to double down on exporting and looking at diversifying our markets. This is a very important agreement in terms of enabling us to do that, to be able to reach into some emerging economies and also to have a better agreement with some very established countries like Japan, where we have a tremendous opportunity to do a great deal more business.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note my hon. colleague extolled the virtues of this agreement to expand trade. I wonder if he has any comments on the issues I presented of the deep concern of many Canadians that we are expanding the right of Malaysian, Japanese, and other corporations within this agreement to bring cases against Canada and take public funds to compensate foreign companies for things domestic companies would never have a right to claim.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, through our consultations from coast to coast to coast, we heard from many sectors. Yes, there are some sectors that had very serious concerns about ISDS. However, there were also other sectors, like financial services, the minerals industry and mining, which need to have these provisions in place to be 100% able with certainty, stability and assurances to invest in these countries and provide great-paying jobs here in Canada. These countries needed to have those assurances through an ISDS system that would work for them so those investments could be made. We want to ensure those precious Canadian dollars being invested in other parts of the world will be secure.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a deep privilege for me to represent Durham. At this the start of the fall session, it is great to be able to speak on the subject of trade, something I worked on as parliamentary secretary to the great member for Abbotsford, probably our best international trade minister in the history of this country.

It is also great giving my first speech after our caucus having grown yesterday. I am very proud that the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill brings perspective on trade to our caucus that was lost in the government's side, not realizing that trade and security go deeply together. I will keep that in mind in the context of remarks on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership, really the TPP-11.

In large part, most of the heavy lifting done on the trans-Pacific partnership deal was done by the Conservative government. Members may realize that during the 2015 election, all the parties, and there were 12 at that time, and the United States had come to an agreement. It was quite unusual for that to happen. However, unlike what the leader of the Green Party suggested, when there is an international agreement like that, we cannot ask them to wait until our election is over. We got the deal done in a way that did not pit one industry over another, in a way that Canada was at the table for jobs, not for posturing, not for virtue signalling, not for domestic politics. The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party actually use trade to advance their social agenda for their electorate in Canada while putting hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line. Of the many failures of the government highlighted in its #SummerOfFailure, perhaps the biggest risk it is playing with our economy is what it is doing on our trade agreements.

In the last few years, we have seen countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, India—of course the whole world knows about that trip—China, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and the United States all frustrated with Canada.

[An hon. member]

Italy.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

There is Italy as well. Members are welcome to heckle by yelling out more countries because they are hard to keep track of.

However, we are here to talk about the trans-Pacific partnership, TPP-11, because this represents Canada's reassertion of our role as a Pacific nation and the fact that in the last 50 years the Pacific has generated as much wealth than in the previous 100 years.

I had the honour as parliamentary secretary to go on the ground along with Senator Yonah Martin and Barry Devolin, the former MP for Kawartha Lakes, to help secure the final stages of our free trade agreement with South Korea. Now, it is not part of the TPP, but that was our first free trade agreement in Asia. It recognizes that Canada is a Pacific nation.

As the middle class grows in Asia, it is demanding the world's best agricultural products from our country: beef, pork, grain and oil seeds. We are world leaders and Canada is trusted for our high-quality product. My riding's name is Durham, but when world agriculture thinks of durum, it does not think of my riding. It thinks of the wheat developed in Canada. We have been innovators, and our farming families are some of our most committed Canadians to our economy. These trade deals from South Korea to TPP recognize that.

The trans-Pacific partnership with the 11 countries represents almost 500 million consumers. Let us see the wealth that is developed there. China has gone from a country that was considered impoverished 40 years or 50 years ago to being a world-leading economy, the number two economy. I was shocked by the fact that following the Korean War, in which over 500 Canadians died serving and which forged our relationship with that important Asian friend and country, South Korea was one of the largest recipients of food aid. The actions of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and our allies has led to prosperity in that country through security and trade and today it is one of the largest net donors to food aid around the world. In 50 years to 60 years, it is remarkable to go from one of the most impoverished to one of the most successful countries, as well as an ally we can count on.

That is what trade can do. That is what working on trade and security together can do. That is why the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, after three years of banging her head against the wall in a government that is about platitudes and photographs of its leader, of neglecting our trade relationships or insulting our foreign allies and friends, and of withering away the prosperity that Canada enjoys, is sitting on this side.

With TPP we have the ability to access a combined GDP in these countries of almost $14 trillion. As I said at the outset, under the Harper government, many of our trade deals were centred around the importance of our agricultural sectors and industries. This is going to be part of the case. As I said, this will have us accessing markets that are growing, the prosperity that is growing in Vietnam, for example, one of the countries, and in Japan, the world's third-largest economy. They have a high demand for our pork, beef and grains. They are going to see tariff rates reduced. In 10 to 15 years, all tariffs will be reduced off of pork and beef, for instance.

If members go to Seoul, like I did, they will try Korean barbecue. Koreans love pork and beef, and they prefer that it be Canadian. By getting in there when we did, we were able to compete on an even playing ground with Australia and the United States. Our product always wins. We just need fair access.

Wheat and barley will see tariff reductions almost immediately, and canola will see reductions within five years. There will be huge wins for our agricultural sectors.

Representing part of Oshawa, and being the son of someone who worked more than 33 years at General Motors, there have been some concerns on auto. I would refer some of the people who have these concerns to the fact that we have a global supply chain for the auto industry. In fact, the globalization of the auto industry started with Canada and the U.S., with the Auto Pact in 1965, where a vehicle rolling off the line in Oshawa was treated as domestic and tariff-free if sold in the United States.

Since then, since the 1960s, 80% of the vehicles we have assembled in Canada have been sold in the United States, yet the minister did not even mention the auto industry in the NAFTA priority speeches. In fact, the Liberals took six months to put proposals forward on auto. That was a huge failure, and six months were squandered.

Diversification and the trans-Pacific partnership are making sure that our auto parts suppliers and auto companies are competitive and have access to those markets. If there is going to be capital investment and Mexico, our NAFTA partner, is part of the trans-Pacific partnership and we are not, where do members think more investment from global automakers, from auto parts companies will go? It will go to the country that has the best access tariff-free around the world.

We need to be at the table. Forty-five per cent of the vehicles made within the TPP countries, the 11 countries, need to be assembled by the member countries, one of those 11 countries. We need to be part of that.

Who supports that? One of our leading executives, the CEO of Linamar, one of our biggest auto parts companies supports TPP. I will quote what she said:

Perhaps those opposing TPP are afraid of global competition; I am not. I don't agree that it will be a negative for the auto sector.

On the parts side folks are worried about competition from Asia, but I say we have to be competitive on a global basis and will do so based on efficiency, innovation and great products.

Linda Hasenfratz is one of our leading executives. There are companies like hers and companies like Magna. There are some of our global automakers, like Toyota and others, that are assembling in Canada. Toyota has its Canadian parts distribution plant in Clarington in my riding. This is a global industry.

I am glad to see the Liberal Party has signed on to our approach on TPP. I am still a bit confused by the NDP's approach. Conservatives will always stand up and fight for access for our world-class manufacturers, our world-class auto industry and our world-class farmers.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sat through the debate yesterday and today on this particular issue. I heard the member for Essex specifically point to me as the member for Whitby and express her chagrin about the CPTPP and what will happen to the auto sector.

Yesterday as well as today, the member for Durham spoke about the confidence he has, much like our government has, in the auto sector, in its competitiveness and ability to compete in a global market. I wonder if the member opposite could talk about Durham region, GM being in our neck of the woods, and how with this particular trade deal we can continue to be competitive and do well for Canadians and particularly residents in Durham region.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Whitby for bringing the debate home to Durham. We are neighbour ridings.

She knows the former member for her riding, the late Jim Flaherty, worked closely with Stephen Harper to save the auto industry in Canada. It was a tough time, and for Conservatives it was a tough decision, but it was a temporary measure to make sure that GM and Chrysler survived, because the hundreds of thousands of jobs that trickle out to the auto parts industry are critical. These are important jobs, whether it is auto plant workers or GM retirees in Whitby, in Oshawa, or in Durham.

As I said at the outset, since 1965, we have always produced export, mainly to the United States, but we started a very serious diversification effort under the last Conservative government. It is very good that was done now that we have President Trump in the United States, who is protectionist. We will continue to do that.

Linamar, Martinrea and Magna are world-class auto parts and auto companies. We can compete; we have competed and we will compete.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to hear Liberals and Conservatives talking today about the importance of auto jobs. However, unfortunately in the field they are not listening to the auto sector itself, which is saying not to sign the CPTPP because it will harm jobs in Canada. This is not me as the member for Essex or the NDP who are asking this; it is actually the people they are claiming to represent. If they are not listening to those in the exact sector they represent, to those whose jobs will be lost in their community, then I do not know how they have the nerve to stand in the House and talk about auto in a way that says they are representing it.

Auto is in the crosshairs in NAFTA and in the potential 25% tariffs. I ask the member, why are you not standing up for auto workers and standing against the CPTPP?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, I just want to remind the member she is to address the chair and not the individuals themselves.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would turn that around. Is the member for Essex somehow discounting the auto workers that work in Woodstock, or Cambridge at Toyota? Is she somehow discounting the jobs in Alliston? Is she somehow suggesting that the auto parts and auto assembly business worldwide is not global when some of the largest investments in recent years in Ontario, many of them unionized jobs, have been from global automakers?

The NDP briefly in the last Parliament supported the South Korean trade deal. I think it was the first time in history. The light shone through the stained glass here. It was remarkable. Now it seems the NDP has gone back to suggesting that the jobs for Toyota workers or Honda workers do not count. I will fight for workers in Windsor and Essex, in Oshawa, in Oakville, in Cambridge. We are world class. We will win, and we need access to those markets.

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

Madam Speaker, what a privilege and pleasure it is to rise on such an important issue as international trade. I have been listening to the debate, both yesterday and today, without too many surprises. I recognize and appreciate very much the Conservative Party's position with respect to supporting the government and recognizing the importance of passing this legislation by supporting the time allocation motion that was brought forward.

I am not surprised that the NDP have continued to fight anything to do with trade agreements, and I will try to provide some further comment on that. However, as we have heard a lot about details, numbers, and so forth, I would first like to highlight what I believe is important for this House, the viewers, and the people who might be following the debate to recognize.

Since day one, it has been this Prime Minister's number one goal and objective to fight for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. I would suggest that looking at the world markets and the potential they have for Canada with respect to increasing our quality of life and number of jobs is something we cannot work hard enough to achieve, because of the type of potential that is there.

I believe we could do so much more, and we have a government that is committed to doing more. Since day one, ministers have put the trade file front and centre as we try to ensure we are creating opportunities while working with Canadians, business, stakeholders, labour and so forth to enhance the opportunities abroad. The bottom line is that it is working.

Throughout these discussions and debates over the last two and a half years, we have seen a lot of agreements signed. Many Canadians might not be aware of how many countries are involved with the EU trade agreement in particular. There are some 25 plus countries, plus Ukraine, plus legislation dealing with the World Trade Organization. All those agreements and all those sign-offs that have occurred during this administration, along with the support from many other initiatives, have led to the generation of over a half million additional jobs in the Canadian economy today.

We are very fortunate and blessed to have such a skilled workforce. As has been pointed out by some in this House, whether it is the automobile industry or the agriculture industry, we have the best workers in the world. I believe the CPTPP is an agreement that will secure markets into the future.

Whenever I have the opportunity to talk trade with constituents, I try to explain how I see trade from my perspective. I see it as something that is absolutely critical to Canada's middle class, and I will attempt to try to explain it in the best way I know. At the end of the day, trade provides employment in a very tangible way, and I would like to give a couple of examples.

About 18 months ago I had an opportunity to go out to Neepawa, Manitoba. HyLife Foods LP is there, which produces pork. At that time, at least 95% of all the pork leaving the plant was going abroad, to Asia. That is a significant amount of pork. To put it in terms of jobs, we are talking about hundreds, not dozens, of direct jobs in the relatively small but beautiful community of Neepawa. That's just the direct jobs, those individuals who show up on the plant floor every day, and it is a market that is growing.

After we look at those direct jobs, we have to think about the indirect jobs. Those hundreds of employees are consumers of automobiles, housing and food. They are engaged in the communities. They are adding to the social fibre of that particular community.

Let us think about it in the sense that if not for those workers and their contribution to Manitoba's or Neepawa's or indeed Canada's economy, we would have lost a significant portion of Canada's overall GDP.

The example I am giving of Neepawa is taking place all over our country. These jobs are critically important. If not for trade, we would not have those jobs. Canada is a trading nation. We need to have markets abroad. This is a significant agreement; we are talking about over 500 million additional consumers. We are talking about a significant number of people.

When we can assist, by securing markets and by having something on paper, that is a positive thing for communities like Neepawa, and for businesses like HyLife that want to be able to continue to expand and employ more individuals. There are not only those direct jobs, but also those indirect jobs.

That was around 18 months ago, and I might be off by a month or two. I would think all members of Parliament would be familiar with a company called Canada Goose. Canada Goose is a world-class business that exports winter apparel, the best in the world. I think they now have three factories established. I am very glad that the latest addition to the Canada Goose family is in the heart of Winnipeg North, the area I represent. There will be hundreds of additional jobs as a direct result of that expansion. I think it is around 700, but I am not 100% sure on the actual numbers.

Here we have a first-class, world-quality product that is being manufactured in Canada and is employing hundreds of people. They too need those export markets. Those export markets are what allow companies such as HyLife and Canada Goose to look to the future and see ongoing growth. To me, that is what world trade is really all about.

As legislators, we should not be fearful of trade. This is where we differ from New Democrats. I listen. I have listened to many speeches from New Democrats on trade. They do not support trade. If it was up to the NDP, we would still have hundreds of horse-drawn buggies being manufactured in Canada. They just do not want to advance the economy. They do not seem to understand that the world is changing. Technology causes change. There are jobs that will be generated.

The proof is in the pudding. We have a Prime Minister, a cabinet, and Liberal government members who are saying we believe in Canadians and we want to invest in Canada, whether it is through infrastructure or social programming.

At the end of the day, we understand that if strength is added to Canada's middle class, we are really allowing the economy to be healthier and stronger. When we have a healthy, educated citizenship, and as we move and strive to improve upon that, we will see that our companies here in Canada are the best in the world. All we have to do is ensure that we get them the markets, and we will continue to prosper well into the future.

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to have my colleague back. I sure missed him over the last three months, and I know I am going to miss him even more after 2019 when I will not be able to see him in this place again. All in good fun. I hope he will be campaigning in my riding as well.

In the context of the trans-Pacific partnership, when we talk about the opportunities that exist for increasing trade in the Asia-Pacific area, one of those opportunities involves strengthening exports of our energy resources to our partners in the Asia-Pacific area. However, the government has shown time and time again an inability to make progress when it comes to proceeding with pipelines.

When will we finally see the Liberals' plan to actually get pipelines built in this country?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing to what degree the current Conservative opposition members seem to worship the ground Stephen Harper walks on. Even at the mention of his name, they will often clap because they believe that Stephen Harper was the best prime minister and the one they want to emulate. We see that in their current leadership. There is no difference. When we look at what Stephen Harper did in terms of pipelines, it was not a positive thing for Canada, in particular the province of Alberta.

The Conservatives did not get one inch of pipeline to the Pacific market in over 10 years. We finally have a government that is prepared to ensure we will get that. When it came time for us to acquire the assets, members opposed it. If it were Stephen Harper or their current leader, we know that the pipeline would never happen, but Albertans and all Canadians know we have a Prime Minister who is committed to expanding the market to Asia also.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, did I really hear my colleague opposite say that if there were only New Democrats, we would still be going around doing business with horse-drawn carts? Is that really how you understand our concerns? That is abysmal. Allow me to officially insult you and to call you a blowhard and a moron. I will apologize later, but I am telling you what I think. I am happy that the Speaker was not listening at that precise moment.

It is pathetic to see you depicting yourselves as heroes by stating that you negotiated perfectly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The member must address his comments or questions to the Chair and not the parties or individuals.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

How many times have we decried the fact that the public was kept in the dark about these negotiations? I had to learn, because I am not an expert. The purpose of debate is to learn and move forward. We are in Parliament.

How is it that in the United States the two main parties are represented in the negotiations? This helps us better understand the complicated issues surrounding this agreement.

How come you never allowed anyone outside your sacrosanct government to be there?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Once again, I remind the member, who has been in Parliament for a number of years, that he must address his questions and comments through the Chair and not to parties or individuals.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the New Democrats do not support trade agreements. The NDP members opposed the CPTPP before there were any details. They did not know anything about the trade agreement and they opposed it. They have absolutely no credibility in terms of what is good or bad within it, for the simple reason that they opposed it before the details was known.

No matter what would have been put into the legislation, they had full intentions to oppose it. That is consistent with what they have done in the past. They do not realize that by having trade agreements we provide the opportunity for businesses and other stakeholders to secure markets into the future.

Whether the member wants to agree or not, we live in a world that goes beyond Canada's borders. If we want to enhance and give strength to Canada's economy in the future, trade has to be included. If trade is not included, it is at a huge cost to Canadians. We would encourage the NDP to recognize that trade is a good thing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before I announce the next speaker, I just want to remind individuals that this is a very passionate debate that is affecting us quite a bit and that people are putting a lot into their comments, but when someone else has the floor, we do expect members to respect that person and not to yell across the floor.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to debate this important legislation. Conservatives support free trade and expanding our markets. The Conservative record speaks for itself.

During our time in office we negotiated trade deals with 53 countries, including Peru, Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, South Korea, Ukraine, as well as the original signatories of the trans-Pacific partnership and the 28 countries of the Canada-Europe trade deal.

Conservatives support trade because we know how important it is for our constituents, for our industries, for our agricultural industry and for our Canadian farmers.

I am glad that we are finally debating Bill C-79, but I have to wonder why it has taken so long for the government to finally act on the CPTPP. After all, back in June it was the Conservatives who offered to have the bill fast-tracked at all stages so that Canada could be one of the first countries to ratify the CPTPP.

Back in July, it was our leader, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, who wrote to the Prime Minister strongly encouraging him to bring back Parliament during the summer so that we could work here to get the bill passed so that all Canadians could enjoy the benefits of this important trade deal. After all, this trade deal was originally negotiated by our government. We have to give credit to those who have done the hard work, the heavy lifting, to get the TPP to the finish line.

[An hon. member]

The member for Abbotsford.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

That is right. It was the member for Abbotsford. He worked during an election campaign to ensure that all Canadians would enjoy the benefits of the trans-Pacific partnership.

The very first statement I made in the House, the very first issue I raised in the House in response to the Speech from the Throne, was to encourage the government to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership at the absolute earliest convenience. The government did not do it at the time.

Why is the trans-Pacific partnership important now? We are currently living in an uncertain trading situation. We as Canadians have enjoyed a long and important trading relationship with our friends south of the border. Twenty per cent of our GDP is linked to our trading relationship with our friends in the United States. This year alone, from January to July, $252 billion of our exports went to the United States, representing approximately 75% of our nation's outputs.

Over the summer, like many of my Conservative colleagues, I spoke to many local businesses in my and neighbouring ridings to hear their concerns. The businesses and the people I spoke with are concerned. They are concerned about what tariffs are doing to their businesses. They are concerned about how the costs of the tariffs on steel and aluminum are affecting how they do business. They are concerned about how those costs are being passed on to their consumers and the challenges they are having in negotiating with their suppliers and the terms they are getting with their suppliers.

It is a concern that I hear from small businesses, from farmers and from farm families. I hear it from those in the supply managed sector and those in non-supply managed commodities. My constituents and Canadians across this country are concerned about the uncertainty in the Canada-U.S. relationship and with NAFTA. This is why more than ever we need to be diversifying our markets, which is why when our Conservative government was in office those 53 countries were essential to that progress and why it is now important that we must ratify the CPTPP.

The 11 countries that make up the CPTPP account for a $10 trillion contribution to the global economy, or approximately 13% of the global economy.

As a country, Canada must be one of the first six to ratify this deal so that we can enjoy the benefits of the first-mover countries. We need those benefits. Our farmers, our farm families, our manufacturers, our exporters, our small businesses need to be able to enjoy the benefits associated with the trans-Pacific partnership.

What are some of those benefits? One example is that Australia will eliminate all of its tariffs on agriculture and agri-food products upon the agreement's coming into force, except for one tariff line, which will be eliminated within four years. Some have asked me what that one tariff line is. It is bamboo shoots. For those Canadians who are currently growing bamboo shoots, they will have to wait four years for that to come into force, but I am sure that Canada will have a strong bamboo economy within four years for exports to Australia.

In Perth—Wellington, there is a strong pork industry, a strong beef industry and certainly a strong grains and oil seeds industry. Japan's tariffs are currently up to 20% on pork products, including sausages, and will be eliminated within 10 years. Vietnam has tariffs of up to 27%, which will be eliminated within nine years. For beef, Japanese tariffs of up to 38.5% will be reduced to 9% within 15 years. In Vietnam, tariffs of up to 31% on fresh and chilled frozen beef will be eliminated within two years and tariffs of up to 34% on all other beef products will be eliminated within seven years.

For wheat and barley, Japan will have a specific quota for food wheat of approximately 40,000 tonnes, growing to 53,000 tonnes within six years. We will also have access to CPTPP-wide quota for food barley, which starts at 25,000 tonnes and grows to 65,000 tonnes within eight years. These are the kinds of benefits that Canadian farmers, farm families and exporters can enjoy with an implemented trans-Pacific partnership.

It is not just Conservatives singing the praises of the trans-Pacific partnership and the work that was done by the former Conservative government, but industry leaders within the agriculture industry as well. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said:

Joining the CPTPP will open unprecedented new markets for Canadian farmers producing export-oriented goods, such as red meats, grains and oil seeds.

When I think of my riding, one of the biggest industries from an agriculture standpoint is the pork industry. The Canadian Pork Council chair stated:

This deal will provide our industry stability in vital markets like Japan and opportunities in emerging markets like Vietnam. Canadian pork producers can rest easy knowing that their livelihood and that of thousands other Canadians in rural and urban communities who work in the pork industry is supported by this newest trade deal.

When the original trans-Pacific partnership was signed, Mark Brock, a constituent of mine, then chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario, said:

Japan is our largest market for food-grade soybeans, and countries like Malaysia and Vietnam have fast-growing GDPs and are major markets for both food-grade and crush soybeans. With market development a key pillar of our organization, improved access to these important export countries is a great success for our farmer-members.

This is the focus of us in the opposition. This is our focus on the need to expand our markets to ensure that Canadians have access to a growing global market. We need to have access not just for Canadian industries but also for the advancement of all Canadians to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of up to $20 billion in the next 10 years from the original TPP deal, and yet we see delay after delay in finally getting this deal ratified.

As I mentioned earlier, we offered to have this fast-tracked in June. That was denied. We offered to come back to the House in July to debate this bill during the summer to ensure that we were one of the first six countries to ratify it. That did not happen. We as Conservatives will support trade, we will support good trade deals, and now, more than ever, with the uncertainty south of the border, we need to continue to work hard to diversify our trading relationships to ensure that we access the Asia-Pacific markets for our pork industry, our beef industry, our grains industry, for those farmers, farm families and industry leaders who need that access.

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the trans-Pacific partnership. I hope we will see this pass at second reading quickly, go to committee and return to the House for third reading in the near future.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, it is with great interest that I hear the Conservatives suddenly interested in efficiency in the House and moving forward on critical issues that are important to Canada's economy.

I wonder where that efficiency, that desire to get legislation through the House, was last June when there was procedural game after procedural game, 24-hour voting marathons, and all kinds of procedural delays, including adjournment motions. Everything but the order of the country was being dealt with. All we were doing was playing into some sort of dramatic presentation of frustration by a party that has never quite understood that it lost an election. It reminds me of the provincial legislature right now in Ontario that had to be called back to immediately deal with something, only then to sit aside for two days for them to go to a plowing match instead of dealing with the issue the Conservatives thought was so important they had to override the charter.

Is the party opposite turning over a new leaf? Is it now going to start supporting our government's agenda in a coherent way, in a mature way, and start participating in building a stronger country, or is this just another charade?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud of the International Plowing Match. I am proud of our strong rural economy. I will have that member know that over 100,000 people attend the International Plowing Match annually. I know the millions of dollars that the IPM has brought into my riding when we hosted it near Harrison a couple of years ago. I know that 100,000 people attended the IPM in my neighbouring riding of Huron—Bruce last year. I know of the importance of our strong rural economy and how much the agricultural sector contributes to that economy.

I will have the member for Spadina—Fort York know that our farmers are the best in the world. They quite literally feed the world, and to hear the condescending attitude of that member towards the agricultural industry, towards the International Plowing Match and all that our farmers and farm families contribute to this world is disgraceful. That member should be ashamed of himself.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to hear my colleague speak with such passion about farmers, because I also have a passion for the farmers not only in my riding but across Canada. I actually was the winner of the Essex County Ploughing Match this year and I am quite proud of that.

I spent Friday night with families from the supply-managed sector until very late at night in my riding office. They feel betrayed by the CPTPP, by what is on the table in NAFTA, and by what happened with CETA. They see themselves constantly being put on the table. They have a government that continues to bafflegab about protecting them while giving up portions of farm families' market left, right and centre, as though those families cannot see what the government is doing.

Unfortunately, it was the Conservative government that negotiated this deal before, which gives up percentages of supply management. Therefore, while I appreciate that the member speaks passionately about farm families, I would ask him why the farmers in the supply-managed sector are once again under attack in the CPTPP and how he can defend farmers when he will vote for this deal that will harm farm families in Canada.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Essex for her first place finish in the plowing match. I, unfortunately, got second place this year in the Perth County Plowing Match and so I do have room for improvement next year.

Perth—Wellington has more dairy farmers than any other electoral district in this country, and so I am well aware of the concerns of our dairy industry. In fact, if the member reads the comments of Wally Smith when he was president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada following the original TPP negotiation, he was concerned. He did offer his concerns that there was a market access, but he was supportive of the Conservative government's efforts of the day to defend supply management for a generation. There was a comprehensive package available for farmers, for the industry, to transition.

Going forward, we do have the uncertainty with NAFTA, we do have the uncertainty in the negotiations with President Trump, but in this Conservative Party we have defended supply management since our founding. It is in our policy declaration, and I, as a Canadian, I, as a son-in-law of retired dairy farmers, will stand up for our dairy industry and for those in supply-managed commodities and non-supply-managed commodities because it is in the best interests of our Canadian economy.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be talking about trade and TPP, or CPTPP. I call it TPP because it is just easier. Actually, that is really what it is: an agreement that we, the Conservatives, developed, worked on and prepared a letter of intent. We gave it to the Liberals with a bow tied around it, and three years later we are actually going through the process of ratifying it.

I want to give a little history on TPP, exactly how it came about and what the intent was behind it.

If we go back a few years to 2014 and 2015, like-minded countries came together and said that rules needed to be created in the Asia-Pacific region that all countries would follow. It was a way to ensure proper rules were in place so countries like China and India would not bully other smaller economies in that region. This was a chance to do that.

The other thing that was happening was the chance to modernize NAFTA. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico were all part of the original TPP. They were saying that we could take this, add clients in North America, and this would replace and modernize NAFTA. In fact, if we would have done that, we would not be in this quagmire we are today and we would not have this insecurity in our business community. If the Liberals would have taken the TPP in 2015 when they were elected, instead of stalling and delaying, had embraced it with Obama and put it through, we would not be sitting here today talking about NAFTA and the concerns around it. It is frustrating for farmers, forestry workers and people in the mining and manufacturing sectors because it is three years later. They have been through a lot of stress and hardship in those three years.

This deal is great for Saskatchewan. It is great for our agriculture producers. They are the first to tell us that. They will have preferential access to markets in Japan. The fact that the U.S. is no longer involved makes it even better. Our beef producers can go into Japan with lower tariffs than our American competitors. Our grain growers can go into Japan and Asian markets with a competitive advantage over the Americans. The American farmers are fuming about this. They want to be part of this agreement also. However, because of their choices and their leadership, they are not part of this agreement. We are, so it is very important we are part of the first movers in this agreement to take full advantage of this opportunity.

I was in Japan last January and had a chance to sit down with some of our trade commissioners there. They are great people. Whenever I travelled, I tried to ensure I had a day to talk to different trade commissioners and embassies about the challenges and opportunities Canadian businesses had in that part of the world.

The people in Japan are excited. They talk about forestry products, for example. Our forestry sector is doing relatively okay, but, again, it has this cloud of tariffs and lack of market access into the U.S. The Asian market is something new to these people of which they can really take advantage. Our trade commissioner is saying that there is a huge opportunity for them to sell lumber and lumber products into Japan. Again, having that tariff-free access into the market is going to benefit that sector and help pivot away from the U.S. It will provide more security and stability in those communities with lumber as their main occupation.

When we look at the beef producers, Japan has huge trading houses. They do not just trade in Japan; they trade all over Asia. When producers are selling to these trading houses, their product becomes part of the mix in components put out for sale in different areas in Asia. For example, if one is selling beef steaks to go into TV dinners, it will be Canadian beef going across Asia, through these Japanese trading houses, feeding people across Asia. That is an advantage our beef producers will have that our American producers across the line will not.

When we talk about the Japanese business community, it is very loyal. Once someone is involved with the Japanese, once a proper relationship has been established with them, it is almost for life. They want to deal with those people over and over again. All of a sudden price is not the biggest issue anymore. They want quality. They want things we can deliver out of Canada. That is the advantage of having that tariff-free access and being the first mover.

That was why we needed to have this agreement come forward three years ago. It was why we should have had this agreement last spring. It is really disappointing that the Liberals would have rather done marijuana legislation than legislation that would have such a positive impact on our economy across Canada. At least we are here today. I give the government credit for making it the top priority, because we have to provide some stability for our business community and some new markets for them to sell into.

We have to remember that the Liberal government has not been very successful when it comes to trade files, when it comes to foreign policy. When the Liberals said that Canada was back, the reality is that years later we are not back. In fact, we are viewed as something other than what we were in the previous Harper government. This is a chance for us to go back into the marketplace, exert our great products and compete on a level playing field.

When I had round tables this summer, I talked to many manufacturers and agricultural producers. One of the things they talked about was competitiveness. We need to have a debate in the House about competitiveness. We need to really understand what has happened to our sectors and the impact that regulations and taxation like carbon taxes has had on them and their ability to compete, not only in North America but around the world.

When we start imposing taxes and regulations in Canada that shut down our industries, those products are being replaced by products in other parts of the world that do not have the same regulations and taxes. Those products will not have the same environmental benefits we have in Canada. We should be selling more goods, building more things because our environmental standards are so high compared to other regions in the world. We should be exporting like crazy because it is better for the global environment if we do it here than in a third world country.

However, the government wants to penalize our manufacturers and the different sectors. It views them as something bad, but they are our global strength. We should be embracing and working with them to ensure they have all the opportunities to sell their products and goods around the world, not beat them up. The government is doing nothing but beating them up, calling them tax cheats and all different kinds of names, undermining them through tax code changes and lack of consultations. Those things have to stop. Our business community cannot afford it.

When I talk to the business community, I am very scared. Businesses are not talking about expanding in Canada. Any thought of expansion in Canada is on hold. If they are going to expand, it is going to be in Tennessee or elsewhere in the U.S. where there are all sorts of incentives and tax breaks, an environment that actually wants their business, that wants them to grow there. We do not have that atmosphere in Canada anymore. We have an atmosphere where business is viewed as something that is evil. That is wrong and it has to change.

Hopefully the government will understand that by getting a trade agreement it opens up market access. That is really good. However, if we do not give our businesses, companies and farmers a level playing field through taxation and regulation, what good is it? They cannot compete because we have made them uncompetitive. Those are the issues we have to address. The Liberals cannot say that they passed the trade agreement, everything is good and go back and eat Cheerios. The trade agreement is just the first step.

The Liberals need to go to work and help people open up markets. They need to use our trade commissioners and trade services to ensure they understand what markets are available to them. We have to ensure we have EDC and BDC in place to help them expand their operations in Canada to grow the market. We need to help them with business plans in areas where they do not understand how business is done. We have those professionals within the bureaucracy. We need to leverage those professionals and ensure they have the tools to do what they need to do. We have to ensure the business community understands that those tools are there and are available.

This is a good agreement. It has some flaws. One of the biggest flaws is it should have been done three years ago. Having said that, at least we are doing it now.

I want to compliment the Liberal government for at least doing it now. This is the right thing to do. I am glad it is doing it and I look forward to being part of the trade committee to see this move forward. I look forward to going back to my farmers and forestry workers and telling them that we do not know what is going on the in the U.S., that we are not sure what is happening with NAFTA because Liberals will not tell us, that they are secretive, but at least we have fair and good market access into Asia. They can put resources that pivot toward that market to stabilize their businesses and continue to grow in Canada.

I look forward to seeing the vote on this and seeing this passed. I look forward to going back to farmers and forestry workers and telling them that we have given them another tool in their toolbox to be successful.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for agreeing to vote favourably for the bill. He spoke about it being a rough three years for businesses and how this government needed to level the playing field for businesses.

We reduced the tax rate for small business down to 9%. The Canadian small businesses under our government have created over 500,000 good middle-class jobs that have allowed Canadians to succeed. We have created conditions where there is the lowest unemployment in over forty years. We are investing in families. We have invested $350 million in the dairy industry, which he brought up in his speech, $250 million for technology and equipment and $100 million for modernization.

We are making investments that help create a playing field for businesses to do well, but are also creating the conditions to allow them to expand to other markets and grow their businesses successfully.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the stats sound very impressive. However, when we get into the weeds of those stats and how they actually operate and function, they do not mean anything.

When the businesses come to us saying that they are being taxed more and regulated harder than if they were located in the U.S., that is an issue. Businesses see the huge U.S. tax changes last year. When the government says they are not a problem, but the business community says that it is a huge problem, then we have an issue.

When the government starts calling our business owners tax cheats, we have a problem. When it changes the structure in which business owners operate their businesses so they cannot save for that rainy day or that period of time when there is a downturn in the economy, we have a problem. When it has taken the tools they need to succeed out of their toolbox and then hides them behind some stats and numbers, you have not helped them. You have done more harm than good. That is what you have done as a Liberal government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address his questions and comments to the Chair. Maybe if he would not use the word “you”, it would be so much easier.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is on the trade committee. We have sat there since the election and I have enjoyed our time there. He, like I, spent a very long time travelling with the trade committee across Canada. We heard from over 400 witnesses on the original TPP. There is very little difference between the CPTPP and what was the original TPP. That is certainly true for the Dairy Farmers of Canada, which when it heard the news that we had signed on to the CPTPP, called it “a sombre day” for the 221,000 Canadians who depended on the dairy sector for their livelihood.

The president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, Pierre Lampron, stated:

On the one hand, the Canadian government has repeatedly stated that it wants a vibrant, strong, and growing dairy sector that creates jobs and fosters investments; on the other hand, it continues to carve out pieces of our domestic dairy market, first through CETA, and now through the CPTPP.

It is interested in another thing, and I will ask of my colleague today. I think we all recognize that the dairy sector is present in a majority of our ridings. This is a huge political conversation we are having. Therefore, the Dairy Farmers of Canada is interesting in hearing how MPs will explain these concessions to the dairy community in Canada. That is my question to the member.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hard work of the member on the trade committee. We may not agree on some things, but there are quite a few things on which we do agree. It is actually surprising.

When it comes to the dairy sector, it is a tough problem. Basically, supply management is a problem. In every trade negotiation it comes up.

I give the dairy farmers credit. For example, in CETA, basically for the benefit of the country as a whole, they allowed some market access. They agreed to that providing they had appropriate compensation for it. In TPP it was the same thing. They said that they wanted our beef, grain producers and manufacturers to do well, so if that meant they had to give up a bit of market access, providing they were properly compensated and the pillars that were required for supply management were maintained, they would live with it. They did not like it, but they would live with it.

What happened when the Liberals took control? They lost the compensation part of the equation. Now the dairy farmers do not know what that scenario looks like. If the Liberals are saying that they will be there for them, they should tell them what that means, because they do not know. They do not understand. That is a fair question and the Liberals owe them an answer to that question.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. I really do support this piece of legislation, particularly because where I come from in Whitby we have a lot of small businesses. We have a lot of middle-class families that depend on the growth and success of their businesses to be able to provide for their children and to be able to provide for themselves for years to come.

The fact is that the CPTPP allows access to Asia-Pacific markets. It is something that will really benefit not just the people of Whitby or the people of Durham region, but people right across the country.

This particular agreement will open a market to an additional 500 million customers, resulting in 40% of the world economy. This allows us to not be solely reliant on the bulk of our trade going to the United States but opens up those markets and allows our businesses to be able to thrive in other jurisdictions. It is one of the largest free trade agreements in the world with access to a trading bloc of 495 million people, with a combined GDP of over $13.5 trillion. Canadian businesses will get preferential access, market access for our exporters to key markets in the Asia-Pacific region. I think that is critically important.

One of the things that Canadians need to understand about this agreement and one of the things that we want to ensure that Canadians know and Canadian business owners know is that we have full confidence in their ability to grow their businesses and to do well by their customers, and to put forward business plans that allow them to grow. We have seen that over the last three years. We have seen the Canadian economy being the fastest growing in the G7.

Our small businesses have created 500,000 jobs since we have taken office. They are the engine that drives our economy and we are creating even better conditions for them to get their goods and services to market.

We have the lowest unemployment in 40 years. Our middle-class families are seeing and feeling the positive effects of our policies. A family of four right now here in Canada will be receiving $2,000 more in their pockets, so we are seeing the economy doing well. How do we make that better for businesses?

I am going to go back to the previous speaker, who said that it was a tough three years and then he spoke about creating a level playing field for businesses. This government has done that. We reduced the small business tax rate for our businesses down to 9%. We are making sure that there is a level playing field. However, we can and we will do more. We are actively diversifying our trade, which is something that Canadians, when I go to the door in Whitby, are concerned about. They are concerned about NAFTA. They are concerned about steel and aluminum. They want to ensure that this government is taking the steps to not only make things better here on the ground but to also look forward and think how can we make things better. How can we allow our businesses to have access?

I want to talk about a couple of businesses in Whitby specifically. Whitby has a company called Greenwood Mushroom Farm. Not a lot of my riding is rural, but we have a few farms on the north end of the riding and they are really sophisticated, innovative enterprises. Greenwood Mushroom Farm is state-of-the-art facility in north Whitby.

Windmill Farms is the sales, distribution and marketing division of Greenwood Mushroom Farm, one of the largest mushroom-producing companies in Canada. It was built in the early 1960s. It has grown. They have made massive investments, ensuring that they are innovative and staying top-of-the-line. Going through the facility, there is no smell. They have a state-of-the-art compost facility. It is actually remarkable, and I would invite anybody to come to Whitby to tour this fantastic farm.

The reason that I bring up the Greenwood Mushroom Farm, and I could bring up any number of farms in Whitby, is because of the benefits we see for agriculture and agri-food products through the CPTPP. They will benefit from immediate, duty-free treatment of tariffs on many products, to be phased out gradually. This will create, of course, new market opportunities, not just for vegetables and fruits but for other Canadian agriculture and agri-food products, beef and pork, cereals, maple syrup, spirits and a wide range of goods.

I know the owners and people who work at Greenwood Mushroom Farms would appreciate the fact that we are looking at different ways for them to sell their products globally in a competitive way.

Again, this goes back to who is within these organizations. This is not some arbitrary company that is trying to grow. These are Canadian families. These are middle-class families that are trying to do the best they can to work at an organization, to stay competitive, to be able to expand and grow, and do what they need to do for their families.

I would also like to talk about the technology industry. I think many people will be surprised to hear this. In Whitby, we have a number of thriving businesses in our downtown core. We are having an immense revitalization of our downtown. It is becoming a place where people want to hang out. We no longer go to Toronto; we stay in Whitby. There are things to eat and drink, and activities for families. People like to be downtown.

It has the ability to be a place where people live, work and play. There is no longer the need, or we are creating what is no longer the need, for people to go to Toronto to go to work. We have companies like geekspeak that do global work, and companies like 360insights that work in international markets.

Our tech industries are really supportive of the CPTPP, more than the TPP, because of the provisions we negotiated in intellectual property. These are companies of middle-class families. I actually knocked on the doors of the owners of geekspeak. I have seen their children. I know who they are. They want to be able to provide the services that they have taken from a little idea in a basement to a thriving enterprise within downtown Whitby, and to then take it to beyond the global enterprise that they currently have.

It is critically important to understand that our companies want to be able to grow and succeed, and we are giving them the access to do that. We are creating the conditions by which they will be able to grow and succeed.

I would be remiss if I did not speak about the auto sector in Durham region. We have heard from many colleagues in here about the auto sector, and the challenges with NAFTA, with steel, with aluminum. The diversification of our products, goods and services to Asia-Pacific markets will help.

Right now most of our trade goes to the United States. The opportunity to have that go to a market of close to 500 million people will really impact our businesses in a positive way. We have confidence in our businesses. We have confidence in our small businesses. We have created the conditions domestically for them to succeed. We are now creating the conditions for them to succeed internationally.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member opposite, but I am very disappointed in her today to not even mention auto, to not talk about the vibrant auto community in Whitby or Oshawa. Unifor Local 222 president Colin James represents 21,000 members. I am talking about the harm to auto, the loss of jobs to auto, how many people will be out of work who will not be able to enjoy Whitby in the way that she described it because of the CPTPP.

The member spoke about the tech industry. I will read a quote from committee, which heard from Jim Balsillie, the former CEO of the Canadian company Research In Motion. He said, “there's nothing in TPP that is specifically advancing any Canadian companies.” Canada would be a “colossal loser” under the TPP.

I want to go back to auto. I hope the member has done the work on this, representing auto workers. I would like her to explain to the House the interpretation of the CPTPP rules of origin and the connection to auto jobs being threatened in her riding of Whitby. I will note that the automotive parts manufacturers are predicting 20,000 jobs lost across our supply chain in Ontario.

I would ask her to explain to the House her interpretation of the rules of origin and why she thinks the CPTPP is good for auto.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite started by saying that I did not mention auto. I did mention auto. I said I would be remiss if I did not mention auto at the end of my speech. I do not expect that the member opposite would agree. We have heard from New Democrats for most of today and yesterday that they do not agree with this particular trade agreement. In fact, they do not agree with many trade agreements.

I will talk about tech for a minute. We have made it very clear that we want to negotiate very good deals for Canadians. Our government has been very clear on ensuring that we are making investments in innovation, investments in ensuring that tech companies and other companies have a level playing field to be able to do well and succeed. We have made the necessary provisions within the CPTPP with intellectual property to ensure that they are succeeding.

When it comes to auto, again we need to be clear that our auto manufacturers within Whitby, within Cambridge and across the country, especially in Ontario, are facing challenges with NAFTA, with steel and aluminum. The ability to diversify our markets, to allow them to get their goods and services and auto parts to different markets is necessary. If the New Democrats cannot get on board with that, then I am not sure what they will be able to get on board with.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate throughout the day and I cannot help but revert back to this idea that the NDP wants nothing to do with trade whatsoever. The reality of the situation is, unfortunately, I guess, for its position, that the world is changing. As we see more globalization and opportunities for businesses to connect to other parts of the world, the reality is that trade is becoming a norm that we have to accept. I really hope that the NDP can, at one point, accept the fact that it is a reality.

I have a question for the member for Whitby. In her comments, she talked quite a bit about what she was seeing in her own community. Could she explain how trade and the trade opportunities that come with an agreement like this will benefit companies and operations within her riding and how they can start to expand into other markets?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we put the CPTPP first on the docket is because we realize the importance of trade. We are a trading nation. When I knocked on doors this summer, many constituents in Whitby were concerned about what is happening with NAFTA, with steel and aluminum. We are demonstrating to the people of Whitby that we are looking at new opportunities to grow their businesses, to give them preferential and duty-free access to an area with over 500 million individuals. Access to those markets is a commitment of this government. This government is demonstrating that we believe strongly in small businesses, we believe in their capacity to expand, and we have confidence in their ability to grow and thrive within the Canadian market and beyond.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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 Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always good to be back in the House. It is good to see all of my colleagues here. I had a wonderful time in my riding of North Island—Powell River spending time with constituents and hearing their concerns. I am sure that most of the members here did the same in their ridings.

I am here today to debate at second reading Bill C-79, which is an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership between Canada and 10 other countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It is very important that we have an opportunity to debate this implementing legislation as the CPTPP is a huge agreement with far-reaching implications for Canadians.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, there are several businesses that trade internationally. They are good businesses that provide jobs that support people meaningfully. I want to see trade that benefits people, businesses and communities in this wonderful country of Canada.

The other part of living in my riding is the fact that my communities and I have lived through very hard times. I currently am seeing some of those hard times in some of the communities in my riding. An example in the past is when the mill shut down in Campbell River. I saw a lot of people lose their incomes. Soon afterward, some lost their homes. Many had to have one partner travel to another community to work while the remaining family members stayed at home and did their very best to survive. It was really hard as people lost their savings, and in many cases lost their physical and/or mental health.

Losing one's job is absolutely terrifying. It is the very thing that puts food on the table and puts a roof over one's head. When people lose their job and cannot find meaningful employment, it can break so much in their life. I think of a community right now in my riding, Port Alice, which has been waiting several years for the mill to reopen after years of being closed. It is getting to the point that the mayor and council are having to make some very hard decisions about what resources they can have available to the people in their community and what resources they are going to have to shut down. No one wants to be in that position.

I think about Catalyst Paper in Powell River and how the community came together to work so hard. The community, the unions, the mayor and council, the local representative from the province and I fought hard to overturn the countervailing duties. It was a lot of hard work. I really appreciate how hard the community and the business worked together. It was a big relief when those countervailing duties were overturned. However, during that time when so many in the community were unsure of what was going to happen and the community was worried that the mill would be shut down, I got a lot of emails and letters about that and their stress. They shared with me their concern. They wanted to know what it would mean for workers and the community at large. I want to thank everyone again for their amazing work in addressing this issue. It is a very scary situation to be in.

These are but a few of the realities that the people I represent face and are currently facing. With the CPTPP, this is what too many Canadians are facing. Those occupying the 58,000 jobs under threat are facing this type of experience going forward. As parliamentarians, we must take very seriously that the CPTPP threatens to kill thousands of good Canadian jobs. Once these jobs are gone, they are not easily replaced, and when they are replaced, it is often precarious, part-time, and low-wage work, or community members have to leave their community and families behind.

It is the government's job to make sure that when we make opportunities for trade we open more doors rather than close them. Therefore, I hope that as we debate this issue, all parliamentarians keep in mind that the economic analysis conducted by Global Affairs Canada concluded that the CPTPP would generate economic gains for Canada of $4.2 billion. That sounds good, until we realize that this is over a period of 22 years. This is minimal. The sum of $4.2 billion represents the same level of economic output measured as gross domestic product Canada generates in one day. When we hold on one hand 58,000 family-supporting jobs and on the other $4.2 billion over 22 years, I am always going to vote to keep people working.

Some of my constituents have asked what the difference is between the TPP and the CPTPP. Well, besides more letters, I have to point out that there are not many differences. I am very sad to say that it contains the same harmful provisions on auto, dairy, temporary foreign workers, labour mobility, and investor-state dispute settlement. The idea that the TPP was somehow transformed into something progressive is simply not the reality of the text. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to mislead Canadians.

In the communities I represent there are concerns about keeping people in our communities working. This trade agreement would allow companies to bring in temporary foreign workers without a permit process or a study on labour market impacts. Many of my constituents agree with me when I say that if someone comes to Canada as a temporary worker, he or she should be allowed to stay when filling in a long-term job. I am shocked when long-term work is filled in again and again with changing temporary foreign workers. That is simply not temporary work.

When I look at our small communities and the challenges we face to attract and retain people, and as a parent who hopes that her children will settle close to home once their education is done, the ability of businesses to not connect with the local labour market and provide meaningful employment to the people in our communities concerns me deeply. The CPTPP expands these loopholes for companies to do this.

What is also missing from this trade agreement is the complete lack of safeguards in place to guarantee that foreign workers are getting paid what is in their contract with the employer. I spent over eight years working as the executive director of the Immigrant Welcome Centre serving all of north Vancouver Island. It was my job to support newcomers as they came to Canada, and they came in many different ways. Many migrant workers who came to our communities in the region had very positive experiences. There were a rare few who did not. The lack of support for these folks was just appalling. It is very hard to speak up against injustice when the risk to do so is so high. How can this be called a progressive trade agreement when this fundamental right has absolutely no safeguards for implementation? This is a severe gap and something that should be addressed seriously. That this is not being addressed is shameful in a country as great as Canada.

The response by the government to address many of these serious issues is to refer to the side letters. In fact, this is where the Liberals will point to in addressing all of the concerns that the New Democrats have. However, the reality is that these side letters are created with aspirational language that has absolutely zero enforceability. This is a serious problem. This is also where the Liberals point to the so-called progressive elements which carry very little weight compared to the text of the main agreement. Side letters simply cannot supersede the text of the main agreement, and a side letter is not enforceable through the agreement's dispute settlement mechanisms unless it is explicitly mentioned. This is a reality.

I would really like to hear the Liberals address this in a reasonable way. It is time for a meaningful conversation about these issues. Quite frankly, I am tired of simply being accused of being a person who does not support trade at all. What we are asking for is the basic rights of people in this country to be appreciated. We are asking for the meaningful work that supplies families with jobs, that helps them put food on the table, that helps them put their children into school, be respected, and that if something is going to happen, we do not abandon those communities or those sectors but we stand with them and make sure that the outcome is not as terrifying as this trade agreement is setting them up for.

In closing, I look forward to meaningful questions that really talk about this trade agreement. I have a lot of concerns, but my concerns are reflective of so many Canadians out there. What they want to hear are reasonable answers to those concerns.

I look forward to the debate. I know that this is not going to go the way I want it to go, but I want the government to understand that we will bring up the voices of these people every single time, because the workers deserve to be supported and this country could do so much better.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for taking the opportunity to talk about her constituents and in particular those who are experiencing job losses. That can never be an easy thing for somebody to go through and for her to come here and articulate that is extremely important.

She talked a bit about statistics with respect to trade and how she saw it impacting jobs within her community and throughout the country. I am wondering if she has any statistics on the other hand that talk about what the impact would be on Canada should Canada not be part of this particular trade agreement, if Canada chose an approach that the NDP seems to favour more, that of removing itself from trade deals. What would the impact be on Canada in terms of how that would affect us in our relationships and our ability to continue to create jobs, including good jobs in her riding?

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

Madam Speaker, it is always appropriate for us to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the people we represent and the challenges that they face.

I think about my granny who used to always tell me that if I make a choice that would make other people suffer, then I had better think twice about making that decision. My success would not erase the suffering of others, she told me.

I would first remind the member that it is actually the government's job to make sure that we have the research before us that tells us about the opportunities. The people who are going to potentially lose their jobs, the 58,000 individuals and their families, definitely need to see where their opportunities will come from. They need to see what the benefits will be to them if they lose their positions. I just cannot believe that government members would ever stand in their place and say it is okay if those jobs are lost because maybe an opportunity will be found over here.

The stats are clear: $4.2 billion over 22 years. Tell me how that is going to assure 58,000 people who do not have a job.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sense through the speech of the hon. member that there was a list of benefits versus disadvantages in the CPTPP agreement. Could she list at least two items that would be of benefit to Canada by signing and going forward with this agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, it is really important that when we look at trade agreements, we understand that they are opportunities for us to have meaningful conversations with other countries about how we can invigorate all of our economies in a positive way.

There are definitely some positive things to be said about beef and grain for sure but at the same time, like I said earlier, when we are asking one sector to give up everything so that another sector may get a bit more, it is important as a governing body that we remember our responsibilities, that we remember we have taken an oath to make sure that we support families.

The Liberal government has said again and again that it wants to support middle-class families and those that are willing and ready to join the middle class. I want to see those middle-class families get stronger. I want to see those families that are working so hard to join the middle class get stronger, because the more successful people we have in our country, the better it is for all of us. I just do not believe in any way that this trade agreement is going to provide that opportunity.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about losing jobs and the risk of the unemployment statistics. The unemployment rate in my home province is 16%.

Ocean Choice International is a company located in my riding that employs hundreds of middle-class workers. This company sees the trade agreement as a good thing. It exports some 100 million pounds of product to 35 different countries. CETA enabled it to increase its volume to that point.

I wonder if the member could comment on why this company should be held back from increasing its volume through this agreement as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I am in no way saying that we should create trade agreements or not create trade agreements that would block people from opportunities. What I am saying is that one person's or one sector's opportunity is not more important than another. If a person has more but others have a lot less, we have to talk seriously about that. This is the place where we are supposed to do that work and I honour that respectfully.

I am happy for the people in the member's riding, but at the same time I am concerned about the auto sector that is facing a crisis. We cannot ever minimize its experience.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to talk about Bill C-79, which is finally coming to fruition later this afternoon, to ratify the comprehensive and progressive agreement on the trans-Pacific partnership. Unfortunately it is disappointing that it has taken the Liberal government this long to get to this point.

Throughout the parliamentary session, the Conservative Party of Canada has given the Liberals ample opportunities to get this agreement ratified as quickly as possible. I recall earlier this winter, we outlined a process for them to expedite the approval of the CPTPP. Later in the spring, we tabled a motion to ratify the CPTPP immediately. Earlier this summer, the leader of the official opposition put forward a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to ask the Speaker to recall Parliament as quickly possible so we could ratify this agreement. Every single step of the way, the Liberal government and the NDP blocked these opportunities.

I want to emphasize what we potentially could have risked. We may not have been one of the first signatories to this unprecedented trade agreement that would bring Canadian industries, including agriculture and energy, more than 500 million new customers. This is what was at risk. We had to be one of the first six countries to ratify this agreement. Once the first six countries ratify the TPP, it is enacted within 60 days.

Let us put this into perspective. Had we not been, or we may not be yet, one of those first six countries, that is like going to the prom without a date, then asking for a dance once the music has started and everyone's dance card is already full. We would be sitting on the sidelines. It is very difficult to break into those markets once the trade agreements and side agreements are already made.

I have to emphasize through history just how important trade agreements have been. The previous Conservative government realized how important free trade agreements were. Prior to coming to office, Canada had free trade agreements with four countries. Over the 10 years under the previous Conservative government, we signed free trade agreements with more than 50 countries. The Canadian economy has felt the benefits of those free trade agreements in every level of the economy.

The Pacific region continues to experience among the fastest growth in the world. This is an incredible opportunity for Canadian industries, agriculture and energy to be part of the gem of this agreement, Japan, as well as fast and growing lucrative markets like Malaysia and Vietnam. The CPTPP will reduce tariffs in countries that represent 13% of the global economy. That is $10 trillion in GDP. This will create new opportunities and benefits for Canadian businesses, workers and consumers.

The CPTPP has the potential to boost Canadian income by more than $20 billion over the next decade. If we wait, Canadian firms risk losing jobs, opportunities, advantages and certainly will impact their supply lines. We cannot delay this any further. The risk to the Canadian economy is simply too great. We must be among the first countries to ratify this agreement so we can be part of those first opportunities.

That was why we urged the Liberals to table this legislation as soon as possible. That was why earlier this year we outlined a process to expedite the approval process, why we tabled the unanimous motion last spring to ratify the CPTPP and why we asked the Prime Minister to bring this back this summer.

The new and preferential access under the CPTPP is projected to provide Canadian exporters with tariff savings of $428 million a year, with the bulk of those exports coming to Japan at a total of $338 million.

I cannot stress enough how important this agreement is to Canada's agriculture sector and certainly to the farmers, ranchers and food processors in my riding of Foothills. The stakes for Canadian producers are high. They are high because of the damage the Liberal government has done with our foreign affairs and irritating our trusted trading partners.

Our agriculture sector has lost vital trading markets like India for our lentils and pulses and Italy for our durum wheat. Certainly now with NAFTA hanging by a thread, we are at risk of losing the United States, our number one trading partner. At every opportunity, the Liberal government has antagonized the United States administration by constantly tabling progressive social value domestic issues that have nothing to do with an economic agreement.

That is why we are in an incredibly weak negotiating position when it comes to NAFTA, which makes the CPTPP that much more important. We need to ratify this agreement so we would not only have those additional 800 million customers, but also have important leverage in the negotiations with the United States on NAFTA. I cannot express that enough. For example, Japan is Canada's third-largest export market for agri-food products. That amounted to almost $4 billion in trade in 2016 alone. Tariff cuts by Japan and Vietnam over five years could increase our annual exports of canola by $780 million and our beef exports by $380 million and our pork exports by $639 million. That the United States is out of the CPTPP makes those markets that much more lucrative. The opportunities for Canadian agriculture are incredible. With the tariff-free savings, our wheat and barley exports to Japan could go up by $167 million; our pork products by $51 million, our beef by $21 million, and our wood products $32 million.

These products are essential pillars of the economy in my riding of Foothills. The tariff-free access to the markets like Japan would be felt throughout my riding. It would be felt at Cargill meats in High River, which employs 4,000 people; by the farmer in Claresholm; by the farm-implement dealer in Pincher Creek, and certainly by the ranchers in the municipal district of Ranchland. This would be felt in every single corner of my riding.

According to research commissioned by the Canadian Agri-food Trade Alliance, the TPP would increase agri-food exports by $1.84 billion. Not being part of the TPP could cost Canadian agriculture almost $3 billion. There is simply no choice; we have to be part of this agreement. The agri-food sector is the biggest job creator in Canada, creating more than $2.1 million jobs and contributing 6.7% to Canada's GDP. To put that more simply, one in five jobs in Canada and 60% of our country's GDP are directly linked to exports.

As Conservatives, we understand the profound benefits of these free trade agreements. In fact, the TPP was negotiated by the previous Conservative government and very little of the language in the previous agreement has changed compared with what we are seeing here. What has changed is the delay after delay to achieve very minimal wording changes in the title. That has put our Canadian economy at risk for almost nothing.

There are incredible opportunities in the TPP, but unfortunately other opportunities would go unrealized. Not only is Japan looking for a secure supply of agri-food and agricultural products, but also for a secure supply of Canadian energy. It looks to Canada as a place of political stability, a place where it could have a reliable supply. While the trans-Pacific partnership would give us those opportunities, unfortunately the Liberal government has failed to provide the critical infrastructure to ensure that we can get our energy products to market and access those Asian opportunities.

The most critical piece of infrastructure was already approved and ready to go, with the northern gateway pipeline, but the Liberals made a political decision to cancel that pipeline, and now we have seen them bungle a second opportunity with the Trans Mountain expansion. Not only have they bungled that opportunity, but Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for that pipeline at $4.8 billion and counting.

On the one hand, we have incredible opportunities when it comes to agriculture and agri-food producers across the country, and certainly in my riding of Foothills. On the other hand, I am concerned about those incredible missed opportunities that would help people in our energy sector in Alberta and across the country. Because of mismanagement by the Liberal government, we will not be able to take advantage of those opportunities that would put thousands of people back to work.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague of the facts. I know he did not intend to mislead the House or Canadians but he tried to say that the new agreement did not have many changes from the previous agreement. I want to set the record straight.

The agreement has been dramatically changed from the previously signed agreement by the Conservative Party. We consulted with Canadians for two years on the previous agreement. There has been so many concerns about the previous agreement and I am proud to say that there have been significant changes.

Does the member not agree with the protections this new agreement has for intellectual property which the previous agreement did not have? Does he not agree with the new upgraded and reformed dispute settlement mechanisms that we have implemented? Does he not agree that we need to protect Canadian culture from foreign takeover?

I look forward to his response.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague knows that every expert, including most of the people in this House who have read the new CPTPP, understand that the language is almost identical to what was there before. The labour clause and all of those clauses that he spoke about, the vast majority of those clauses were in there. If he is talking about side letters, side letters are not part of the TPP agreement that is going to be ratified and signed. Those are going to be negotiated and discussed later.

What is here and what is in the TPP was negotiated, the vast majority by the previous Conservative government which understood how important free trade agreements are to the Canadian economy and certainly to build those relationships with our trusted trade partners around the world, which unfortunately the Liberal government is tearing apart piece by piece.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The NDP has a lot of concerns about the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are especially concerned about job losses in auto manufacturing, agriculture and the poultry industry.

We are also very worried about what the future holds for labour standards and protections enjoyed by workers in a number of countries that are party to this agreement. If those protections are downgraded, forget about progress because it will become extremely difficult to compete with those countries. The labour standards set out in this agreement will not apply unless it can be proven that any violation affecting a worker is in conflict with international trade and has an impact on trade between nations.

How can we sign on to an agreement that blatantly violates the rights of workers in other countries and jeopardizes jobs here at home?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am really glad that my colleague from the NDP brought up that question, because I did not have time to address it in my speech. I would like to remind him that the labour chapter in the CPTPP was negotiated by the previous Conservative government and it includes some of the strongest protections for workers of any trade agreement and requires all signatories to adopt and maintain in law and in practice the fundamental labour rights as recognized by the International Labour Organization, including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, elimination of forced labour, abolition of child labour and the elimination of employment discrimination. Those were all negotiated as part of the previous TPP agreement by the Conservative government.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Foothills and I are both Albertans. We are both very much cognizant of how much trade matters to our province. Going back to last spring, the headline in the Financial Post is “Foreign direct investment in Canada plunges to its lowest level in years".

Is there any hope in the TPP agreement that resources from western Canada can get to these markets should the federal government find its way to actually get one of the three pipeline tidewater projects that it inherited built?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are opportunities for our energy products from western Canada to be part of the TPP, but unfortunately, our problem is that the infrastructure is not in place because the Liberals have done such a poor job of this. They like to say that we built no pipelines at tidewater but that is not the case. We built four major pipelines including part of the line 9 reversal, which includes additional capacity to tidewater.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on the subject of trade again. In the 21 years I have been in Parliament I have spoken on numerous occasions on our country's trade agenda. It is critically important, we all know. We are a small population with large natural resources, so foreign trade is extremely important for us.

In the early days, our trade with the U.S.A. was very high. We had a great trade relationship with the U.S.A. with our integrated economies. At that time we were in the opposition and we had a Liberal government in power. The Liberals talk about their trade agenda today, but they moved very slowly. At the time of prime ministers Chrétien and Martin, they did not sign too many trade agreements. They talked a lot about it, but they did not sign any meaningful trade agreements.

Also, during that period of time the NDP was expressing some concern. Let us be very clear. The NDP has always opposed any trade agreement.

Then we recognized the fact that Canada needed to open up its markets and not rely on one market. Henceforth, our government's efforts were directed toward that, with the help of the department of foreign trade and foreign affairs. We have some very excellent public service officers who have had extreme experience in negotiating trade deals. They are non-partisan, and look after the interests of Canada. I want to make that point very clearly, because this government is trying to put their work down as if the public servants in the departments do not know what is good for Canada. The fact of the matter is, when our Conservative government came into power it realized that we needed to push this agenda very strongly. As my colleague has stated about the number of trade agreements we signed, let us not forget how many FIP agreements we signed around the world as well, because FIPA is the first step in going into international trade. The member for Abbotsford, who led the file, worked extremely hard to ensure the groundwork was laid. Let us make it very clear that the groundwork was laid by the Conservatives.

The groundwork for CETA was laid by our government. The groundwork for TPP was laid by our government. NAFTA was, again, the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney. As we go forward, the groundwork for all trade agreements was done by the Conservatives.

Sure enough, when we changed government, the Liberals now recognize that these trade agreements are important. However, as usual, trying to please everyone, they do not look at the bigger picture and were more concerned with other agendas, and less for trade. It was only after the president of the U.S.A. started saying he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, and with so many conditions, that we now face a situation where we need new markets. Suddenly, the Liberals have woken up. We cannot forget the Prime Minister leaving the other leaders waiting in Vietnam for them to talk about TPP. All the other leaders were there.

We get an idea of what the Liberals are talking about in changing the TPP. We had been negotiating with the same governments for a long period of time. Do they think they have suddenly changed and have started accepting what the Liberal government is trying to say, and that the markets have changed in the TPP? That is nonsense. They have their position. Even though they are tinkering to make it look like it is a Liberal agenda, it was our government that laid the groundwork, and as far as it is concerned, it is delayed again.

With the Trans Mountain pipeline now dropped, getting our resources to tidewater has been delayed and the impact on the economy is very strong. Now we see no pipeline to tidewater, no oil going out, and NAFTA now under challenge.

Now, suddenly, the Liberals have woken up and are saying they need TPP. Before that, if these things had not happened, the government's lacklustre agenda on trade would have been moving very slowly. Therefore, today I will say very clearly that I am very glad to have spoken in the House for 21 years on trade promotion for Canada, and to be the last speaker on this so that we can get this thing going very quickly. We need it implemented so we can get Canadian businesses working.

Indeed, the NDP will always voice concerns about it and talk about job losses. However, the great part of the whole thing is that when the economy moves forward collectively, everybody gains. Even though there might be a slight change in a sector, they will gain over the long term. If we contract our market, then the loss of jobs is far higher than we can anticipate.

Talking about farmers, my colleague sitting next to me is a successful farmer in Alberta, and he is also looking for markets to sell his crop. Therefore, when the NDP members say that the farmers are very worried, I can say that my colleague sitting next to me who is a farmer is not worried. He is looking for the opportunity that will allow him to sell his grain on the world market. This is what Canadian businesses are looking for. Therefore, let us look at the larger picture of what is important for this country. It is important for this country to have good trade agreements, so that Canadian businesses have a level playing field with other countries.

Trade agreements make level playing fields. As we see with China, we have an unlevel playing field. China has its own rules, which are not compatible with ours, and this is why the Chinese are not very keen. Neither were we, as the Conservative government, keen on opening free trade with China, because we have different regulations and systems. However, with other countries, and now with the opening market of Japan and all of these countries, we are looking at the growing economies of the world. We should be part of this growth, so that Canadians can benefit with jobs, jobs, jobs. Therefore, we need a collective approach from the government so that we can move forward.

I have to say one thing. I want to tell you guys here to wake up and smell the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member that he needs to address his comments and questions to the chair. He has been in the House a lot longer than I have, so he should know the rules by now.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I agree, Madam Speaker, and sometimes I get carried away. Nevertheless, let us get this moving forward fast, because this is good for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, this government has been moving quite quickly on the whole trade file. Within months, we had the signing of the agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Do members remember the Canada-European Union agreement, the one that was off the tracks? It was this government that got it back on track, and with those 25 plus nations we actually got it signed off. Do members remember the World Trade Organization legislation that we had that enhanced and enabled additional trade? Liberals understand the importance of trade and the impact it has on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. That is why it is such a high priority for this government.

Here we are talking about the Pacific trade. Once again, Liberals are out front, driving it forward.

We appreciate the Conservatives' support for the proposed legislation, but I wonder if the member across the way can explain why he believes that the NDP members want to oppose it. In fact, they oppose all trade legislation.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman that he needs to behave. I know that it is a very passionate issue, but the hon. parliamentary secretary had the floor and should have had the respect of the House.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I remember when my colleague on the other side was sitting over here. The Conservatives were in government. We were talking about the trade agenda. It was the Conservative government that was proposing the agenda very strongly. When the member was sitting over here, I remember him opposing all of those things and saying to go slow. Today, he is standing up blustering about what the Liberals are doing. I can say that when he was in opposition, he never supported the trade agenda that he is now talking about and that he is going to fight for.

It is great that we are here today. My party is supporting it. I am glad the member's party is supporting it. I say to my friends in the NDP, the TPP is good for Canada.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member from Quebec, I really miss the loud fanfare that rang out whenever the Montreal Canadiens won the Stanley Cup. However, when I hear the member for Winnipeg North, it takes me back to those days and I appreciate his loud trumpeting.

Today, however, I find it somewhat disturbing to see how proud the Conservatives are of negotiating such a terrible agreement. Schedule II of the consolidated TPP text states, and I quote:

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.

If I produced Canadian content and if I were in Quebec and producing a series like Fugueuse, which has been life-changing for some people, I would be worried.

Is the member for Calgary Forest Lawn reassured by these ridiculous schedules, which are essentially worthless, as demonstrated in the case of Guatemala?

These schedules are supposed to guarantee that we will maintain control of Canadian content on Quebec productions. I hope he can tell me who is to blame, the Conservatives or the Liberals. It makes no difference.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has raised some concerns. He can have a chat with the parliamentary secretary and the Liberals about whatever his concerns are, but here, right now, our party is willing to proceed very quickly, because we know that the TPP is good for Canada. That is why all of us are supporting the agreement.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the TPP was started by the Conservative Party of Canada years back. We did a lot of work on it. I have a simple question for the hon. member. Has the Conservative Party's position changed on the CPTPP and are we still speaking the same language?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again very clearly that the Conservatives support the TPP, period.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #882

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #883

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 6:05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.