(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trans.
House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trans.
Canadian Human Rights ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Geoff Regan
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Report Stage Amendments—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Speaker Geoff Regan
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 6, 2016, by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning the rights of members from unrecognized parties to propose amendments to bills at report stage.
I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised the matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Beloeil—Chambly for their comments.
In raising this question of privilege, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands pointed out that independent members had once had the right to submit motions to amend bills at report stage. She contended that this situation changed when every committee adopted identical motions which required independent members instead to submit their amendments during clause-by-clause consideration of bills in committee. By committees doing so in concert, she surmised that they were no longer masters of their proceedings and had supplanted the role of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has the mandate to review House procedures, including report stage. With different bills at different committees, she characterized the new process as “...impractical, unworkable, and prejudicial to my rights”. She contended that the result of the procedure in question was that members from non-recognized parties were subject to a different category of rights and privileges.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons suggested that, on the contrary, the member’s ability to participate in the process of amending legislation and thus discharge her parliamentary functions, has been facilitated by committees having adopted such motions so as to allow members from non-recognized parties to propose amendments in committee.
The matter raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands calls into question the legitimacy of the manner in which members from non-recognized parties are required to participate in the process of amending legislation. The member is asking the Chair to agree that there is greater legitimacy in allowing such members to propose their amendments at report stage rather than in committee.
As has always been the case, there are two opportunities in the legislative process for members to propose amendments to the actual text of a bill—first, during a committee’s clause-by-clause consideration of a bill and, second, at report stage. That is not to say that both opportunities are the same in all respects. In fact, over time our rules and practices have evolved such that committees are and have been for some time the primary vehicle for amending legislation. Speaker Milliken’s ruling of March 21, 2001, emphasized this reality when he stated at page 1993 of the House of Commons Debates:
...I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done, and to do such further work as it deems necessary to complete detailed consideration of the bill.
In fact, modifications to Standing Order 76.1, adopted in 2001, provided that the Speaker would not normally select at report stage any amendments that were either previously ruled out of order in committee or that could have been proposed during the committee stage.
More recently, in a ruling delivered on June 9, 2015, on page 14830 of the Debates, my predecessor, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, reminded members that report stage:
...is not meant to be another opportunity for detailed consideration of the clauses of the bill. For this reason, the Chair rigorously limits the types of motions that could be considered at report stage. In so doing, the Chair rests on the presumption that a committee's clause-by-clause consideration provides ample opportunity to scrutinize the clauses of the bill and have amendments considered accordingly.
Thus, there can be no mistaking either the will of the House or the role of the Speaker when it comes to the purpose of report stage compared to that of committees with respect to amending legislation.
While the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands may recognize this in principle, she has argued that its practical application for members of non-recognized parties is fraught with difficulties, to the point of impeding her ability to fulfill her parliamentary functions. She has concluded that the adoption of identical motions by all committees constitutes proof that they are no longer masters of their own proceedings.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, explains on page 1047:
The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.
As recently as May 9, 2016, in a report stage ruling, I addressed this very issue. In doing so, it was made clear that, as committees continue using their flexibility as masters of their proceedings to allow all members the opportunity to propose amendments, the Chair expects members, in turn, to avail themselves of that opportunity.
At page 3045 of Debates, I stated:
...the Chair will be stricter in exercising his authority at report stage. Unless truly exceptional circumstances arise, the Chair will not select report stage motions that could have been moved in committee. I encourage all members to make efforts to have amendments dealt with in committee, so that report stage does not become a repetition of the committee clause-by-clause study of a bill.
In being asked to determine the procedural validity of committees’ actions in adopting these motions, the Chair is ever mindful of the longstanding practice that it must refrain from reaching into the internal procedures of committees, except where a committee reports back to the House requesting such intervention.
Thus, in the absence of a report from any of the committees about this matter, the Chair must presume that the correct procedures—including the requisite notice, debate, amendment and decision—were followed and that a majority of the members of each committee supported the adoption of the motions in question.
That committees are left to determine how best to proceed in order to carry out their mandate is an embedded principle. In a ruling delivered on June 6, 2013, on a similar motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance in the previous Parliament, my predecessor noted, on page 17797 of the Debates:
It should come as no surprise to members that the House and its committees frequently resort to procedural motions to facilitate the flow of business. Procedure in committee is particularly fluid and varied, and many committees routinely use a wide array of processes to organize their work.
In fact, committees frequently adopt substantive motions with text that is virtually identical on a variety of subjects. For instance, at an organization meeting, many committees adopt routine motions related to the distribution of documents to committee members, the treatment of in camera transcripts, the presence of staff during in camera meetings, and the reimbursement of witnesses, to name a few. That these motions are often substantially similar or even identical speaks to the development of best practices in committee procedure and to the need for the adaptation of procedure to changing circumstances.
Moreover, the Chair is unable to conclude that the various committees, by way of adopting these motions, have in any way usurped the role of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In fact, the role of that committee remains distinct and intact, as its authority in reviewing procedures and practices continues to stand concurrently with, yet separately from, committees' authority to determine their internal procedures. It is only the House that could decide otherwise.
The role of the Speaker in protecting the rights and privileges of all members is indisputably of the highest importance and one that I take very seriously. In the present circumstances, the Chair believes that the right of members of non-recognized parties to amend legislation has neither been diminished nor removed. Instead, it has been safeguarded, albeit through a process that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands evidently dislikes and finds difficult to manage.
Accordingly, I cannot find that a prima facie question of privilege exists in this case. I thank the House for its attention in this matter.
I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 27 minutes.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related amendments to another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Geoff Regan
There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
MaryAnn Mihychuk Liberal Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders
David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise before the House today to speak to Bill C-13, legislation that would allow Canada to ratify the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade Facilitation, or TFA for short.
I would like to begin by thanking the Standing Committee on International Trade for its prompt and thorough review of Bill C-13 at the committee stage. Business associations appeared before the committee and raised a specific concern regarding a clause of the bill. I understand that the concern was rightfully addressed by the committee members through collaboration among themselves and with the business association in question, and they did this through an amendment, so I congratulate them.
I would also like to thank the hon. members opposite for recognizing the benefits of the TFA, and as a result, supporting this important piece of legislation.
The bill before us needs to be passed in a timely manner to allow Canada to implement our commitments under the TFA. As the first multilateral trade agreement concluded since the creation of the WTO more than two decades ago, the TFA is a monumental achievement for the global trading system. At its core, the agreement is about better, freer, and more open trade.
The world's developing and least-developed countries would particularly benefit from its trade-facilitation provisions, as would small and medium-sized enterprises in Canada and around the world.
Trade facilitation is essential for export competitiveness. The benefits of making it easier for goods to flow across borders are especially important in today's trading landscape, in which global production with value chains requires inputs and materials to clear customs in a timely fashion.
Some 95% of all companies worldwide are SMEs, and they, in particular, would benefit from the opening and easing of these kinds of restrictions.
Similarly, these businesses account for roughly half of the world's GDP and 70% of jobs globally when SMEs in formal and informal sectors are taken into account. However, gaining access to new markets is particularly difficult for SMEs and developing countries, which are disproportionately affected by trade costs.
Small businesses are less equipped and do not have the same resources as their larger competitors for dealing with heavy-handed and complex customs procedures. Related costs can be huge. In fact, a delay of just one day at the border can add 1% to the cost of a shipment.
Expediting release processes and customs clearance operations at international borders is therefore crucial to international trade. That is where the trade facilitation agreement comes in.
The TFA will help boost global trade by implementing measures to expedite the movement, release, and clearance of goods at the border. It also includes provisions to promote closer co-operation among the various border services.
For exporting companies, the TFA will reduce the cost of trade activities on the international scene by ensuring faster, simpler, and more predictable cross-border trade.
For governments, the improvements brought about by the TFA will reduce the potential for corruption and reinforce the process for collecting tariff revenues, particularly in developing economies.
Creating the best conditions for international trade for developing countries is not just a worthy cause. It also comes with tangible economic benefits.
In fact, the WTO estimates that full implementation of the TFA could boost global merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion, including the up to $730 billion in export opportunities it will accrue to developing countries. The TFA should encourage trade between developing countries.
Trade costs for WTO members will decrease by an average of 14%, including an average of nearly 17% for least-developed countries.
Lowering trade costs for developing countries can increase trade, improve economic growth, and reduce poverty.
Here in Canada, less red tape on exports would help Canadian businesses, particularly SMEs, to export products to the fast-growing markets of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The TFA clearly represents a winning situation for Canada and the global trading community. Considering the benefits of the TFA for developed countries and developing countries alike, it is not surprising that the reaction from Canadian and foreign stakeholders has been beyond positive. The Business Council of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, a great number of agriculture and agrifood associations, as well as the B20, a coalition of leaders from 25 countries, all agree that the TFA should be implemented quickly.
Canada is a trading nation with an export economy. Trade currently represents 60% of Canada's annual gross domestic product, and one in five jobs is dependent on exports. We know that trade helps to improve people's standard of living and stimulates prosperity.
Trade helps companies grow, succeed, be innovative, and be competitive. In turn, this creates good paying jobs for the middle class and those working hard to join it. But we want to grow trade the right way. We want to ensure that all segments of society can benefit from global economic opportunities. That is why our government is promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth in Canada and around the world as part of its progressive trade agenda.
Ratifying the TFA is an important part of these efforts. The agreement would cut red tape at the border and help Canadian businesses as well as those in developing nations to take better advantage of global trading opportunities. In addition, through our active participation in WTO initiatives like this one, we underscore our support for stronger and more predictable international trade rules, as well as the multilateral instrument that is the WTO.
The TFA will not enter into force until two-thirds of WTO members have ratified it. As of today, more than 90 WTO members have ratified the agreement, including all of Canada's major trading partners. Only 16 more are needed. Canada is the only G7 country that has not yet ratified the TFA. We are also one of only four G20 countries that have not yet ratified it. Canada committed at last month's G20 leaders summit to ratify the TFA by the end of 2016. Canada should do its part to bring the TFA into force as soon as possible.
The Standing Committee on International Trade has completed its exhaustive review of Bill C-13. In my view, Bill C-13 is ready for consideration by the Senate. I urge my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of the bill today so that work to promptly enact this legislation can continue. Members' support for the bill before the House will allow Canada to ratify the TFA and join our international partners in making trade freer, easier, and more predictable.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that trade is really important for creating jobs, and I am interested in hearing more about the reduction in bureaucracy at the borders. I am in a border community, which is currently struggling with some of the things the federal government has put in place, including difficulties with the pre-notification system.
I would ask the member to comment on the bureaucratic reductions that are coming with the WTO.
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is a wide swath of provisions in this bill. It would take forever to go through all of them.
Basically, it would make it easier for goods to get pre-clearance at customs and would also allow for goods in transit to a third country, through Canada to another nation or through other member nations, to get easier clearance. All of that fits together; hence ,the reason that the implementing legislation touches a number of different pieces of legislation in a variety of areas.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.
Of course, we generally support this trade facilitation agreement, but we very seldom have unanimity in the House. This could be one way to help support SMEs.
The three parties all agreed that another way to help small and medium-sized businesses was to cut their taxes, although they did not agree on how quickly to do it. Some members wanted to cut taxes quickly, while others wanted to implement the cuts more gradually.
Given that most of the agreement's articles and rules are already in place, does the federal government plan to do more?
Is the government trying to do more to really help small and medium-sized businesses to expand and export internationally, for example by putting money back in their pockets?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
We plan on supporting the trade facilitation agreements that we have brought forward in the House and to work with SMEs in order to help them identify export opportunities for their goods and services. That is the role of the Department of International Trade in this file.
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, I happen to be on the trade committee, as the parliamentary secretary knows, and I wonder if he could elaborate somewhat about the process we went through during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and how we were able to engage some stakeholders who had some concerns about some of the technical wording in the initial draft of the legislation.
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the committee.
Through the opposition members of the committee, we received an intervention by a business group at a fairly late stage. There were a couple of interventions. We looked at them carefully and, basically, between the Tuesday and Thursday period, committee members, businesses representatives, and technical people from the ministry succeeded in drafting and redrafting some of the regulations to achieve a result that was sought by all members of the committee. I really commend them. They worked hard with open minds in a very short period of time. I congratulate them.
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are, of course, supportive of the work that was done at committee and will support the bill at this reading stage.
My question really goes to the transportation of goods. There were a lot of conversations at the committee about the transportation of goods to be opened up by this legislation but which are not approved in Canada. Of course, we had concerns for Canadian communities in the areas of public health, public safety, and the environment. I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary could share with us some of the assurances he received from Health Canada and Environment Canada on the fact that Canadian communities will be protected when these goods are being transported.
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work on the committee.
Indeed, I can only repeat the assurances we got from the various ministries involved to say that any products that come into Canada for re-export that are caught under this bill will not put Canadians in danger. They will not put any sector of our environment or any sector of our society in danger.
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Speaker, over and above that dangerous goods that might pass through Canada, I am wondering about goods that we would perhaps not allow into Canada and would rather not see traded, such as ivory, shark fins, and those sorts of things. Has there been any thought given or provisions in this legislation to prevent those types of goods from passing through, even if they are on their way through to a third country?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that those goods are prohibited, period, and they are not caught or saved in any way by this legislation.
Bill Blair LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I also would like to add my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade for his remarks and his very cogent explanation of the benefits of the full implementation of the TFA.
We have certainly come to understand that the implementation of this trade agreement will provide an opportunity to open up new markets for Canadian products, to grow businesses, and create jobs in this country.
Can the parliamentary secretary give us some idea of how these benefits can flow to Canadian businesses and companies so we can continue to grow our economy, create new opportunities for Canadians, and improve the quality of life of all of our people?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will not focus my answer on large enterprises, because they have the means to familiarize themselves with trade rules and to get all the help they need through customs, customs brokers, etc. What I think this bill would really help are the small and medium-sized enterprises who perhaps do not have the means. The bill would facilitate the movement of goods and services and allow them to conceive of the possibility of trade.
Hopefully, we as a government will be able to promote the possibilities that become available under this agreement and take away the fear of trading by removing some of the stickiness involved in moving goods and services across border.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, this may be a bit of a detailed question, but I am curious. When we talk about bringing things through the country, Canada has quite specific labelling requirements for WHMIS, or transportation of dangerous goods. I am wondering, for the safety of the workers who might come into contact with these goods, if those standards would be applied, or other standards.
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not have the answer at the tip of my tongue. We have worked with the various ministries, including the Minister of the Environment, who deal with hazardous goods. Again, they have given us assurances, but I would be happy to look into the question and get back to the hon. member.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about free trade in general and Bill C-13 in particular.
Our caucus is of one mind on this bill. We agree on the importance of free trade in general, and we believe that these agreements benefit Canada in many ways.
This bill ratifies the multilateral agreement on trade facilitation. The agreement on trade facilitation breaks down non-tariff trade barriers and informal barriers. This is of vital importance. If all countries ratify the agreement, it could generate an estimated $1 trillion in new economic activity.
It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-13. I always have to double-check when I find myself agreeing with what members of the government are doing just to ensure I have not missed anything. However, it is a pleasure for me to speak in favour of the bill. I do not know if the government will like everything I have to say in my speech today, because I will be somewhat critical of some of the things the government is doing with respect to trade. However, when it continues with good work that was started under the previous government, it is always worth recognizing that it is not all bad.
Broadly speaking, I want to do two things in my speech today. First, I want to speak specifically to some of the technical issues around the trade facilitation agreement, Bill C-13, and trade more generally. I also want to comment on our strategic situation in terms of trade, such as where it seems the government is going and where we should be going when it comes to our approach to trade.
Let me first speak to the technical side. By way of background, Bill C-13 would implement the trade facilitation agreement. Negotiations on the trade facilitation agreement started back in 2001. The agreement was completed at the WTO ministerial conference in December 2013.
This is the first multilateral agreement since the creation of the World Trade Organization. We deal at times with bilateral trade agreements, which are trade agreements between Canada and one other country, or we deal with multilateral trade agreements that involve regional or perhaps like-minded blocs of nations. This, however, is a truly multilateral agreement that could include the full membership of the WTO if all of the nations involved choose to ratify the agreement. It is an important step forward.
This trade agreement deals with the issue of trade facilitation. We are all familiar with what a formal barrier would look like to trade, for preventing countries from trading, or a tariff barrier, which is a tax on imports that a country might impose. The trade facilitation agreement seeks to deal with non-tariff barriers, or more informal barriers to trade, its regulatory misalignments, perhaps differences in regulations or administrative rules that have the effect of being a trade barrier. Perhaps they are not intended to be trade barriers and certainly are not advertised as such, but they end up preventing international commerce. This is a major issue for many businesses. If a company is seeking to trade with another country and it has to go through a detailed process of learning completely different regulations on relabelling then it becomes much more difficult for that company to do business.
What the committee heard when it studied this issue was something we had heard before. These non-tariff barriers in particular impose an additional and a unique burden on small and medium-sized businesses. A large corporation would have the capacity, the relationships in place, to understand what different regulatory regimes are and the effects of them and would have an easier time navigating these things. I do not want to suggest there is no impact on larger businesses, which employ many Canadians and many people around the world as well, but small and medium-sized businesses often have a much harder time responding to these non-tariff barriers. We know the importance of small business. It is the primary engine of growth and job creation in our country. Therefore, with respect to the impact on small business in particular, it is important we be concerned with non-tariff as well as tariff barriers on trade.
We have some information in terms of estimates from the World Trade Organization about what the impacts of this trade facilitation would be. If all countries ratify, global merchandise exports would be up by $1 trillion, and trade costs for World Trade Organization members would go down about 14%, and 17% for least developed countries. Therefore, we see significant benefits from the trade facilitation agreement. Of course if not every country ratifies, the agreements will be less, so we hope all countries ratify. However, the benefits will still be in place even if the two-thirds threshold that is required to bring this deal into force is met but not all countries involved signed.
I have a couple of other notes on trade facilitation. It provides business with predictability. One of the issues with non-tariff barriers to trade is that even if trade is possible, if trade can occur, non-tariff barriers, or arbitrary different regulatory structures can create uncertainty, which makes it much harder for importers or exporters to manage in the context of international trade. Therefore, it smooths out and aligns these regulations, and also establishes a consistency in place, a predictability for businesses to rely on to facilitate that trade to its full potential.
I also want to identify for members of the House that the requirement is that two-thirds of World Trade Organization members sign on in order for this deal to take effect. That requirement would be 110 members of the World Trade Organization. Currently, we are at 92. Some of our major trading partners, the U.S., China, the EU, Japan, have all ratified the agreement already. Therefore, we are very close to that 110 mark. With Canada taking this important step forward, a step that began in 2001 with negotiations, in 2013 with the signing of the agreement, and now moving forward for ratification, it is a step that will pay substantial dividends for all businesses but especially for our small and medium-sized businesses.
The good news is that most of our laws already comply with the trade facilitation agreement. However, Bill C-13 completes those legislative changes that are required to facilitate the full implementation of it. In particular, it makes two amendments that accord with different provisions of the trade facilitation agreement. One of those provisions is article 10.8.1 of the trade facilitation agreement. The amendment in Bill C-13 would give Canada the authority that we need to deal with goods that are brought into Canada that are non-compliant. This gives us the ability to respond to problems that come up, and opens the door for us to implement this agreement.
The other one is from article 11.8 of the agreement, which gives Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada the legislative authority to exempt certain goods from certain Canadian requirements if those goods are not destined to end up in Canada, but would transit through Canada. Therefore, if Canada is a transit point for certain goods and the requirements we have in Canada for those goods are not exactly met, perhaps from an environmental or health perspective, they can still transit through Canada, but only on the basis of regulations and exceptions made through those departments. At least there is a provision for those carve-outs to be made, but also there are protections in place to ensure that those goods do not end up in Canada.
This provides a good mechanism for complying with the requirements of the trade facilitation agreement for getting the benefits of it for our economy and for our job creators, especially for small business. Also, it does not negatively affect the health and safety of Canadians or the environment. Therefore, the legislation is good, it strikes a good balance, and it is one that I and my colleagues will support.
I want to talk as well about the importance of international trade. This is a positive step as a new international multilateral trade deal. Our support for it underlines our belief on this part of this side of the House that Canada is a trading nation, that we benefit from international trade, and further that there is solid economic science behind the idea of international trade. This is something that most economists agree has clear benefits.
It is not a commitment to trade, it is not a government agreement that governments will trade, but it opens up the freedom for individuals within different countries to freely exchange, to make mutually beneficial exchanges, with people in other countries. We know that the common effect of that is greater degrees of specialization and it allows partnerships to be forged between countries, which can lead to more efficient production, the realization of new markets, and the creation of new wealth.
Our country clearly has seen the benefit of international trade. Of course at the time when it was a Conservative government that pursued free trade with the United States, trade was opposed by both the Liberals and the NDP at that time. However, at least the Liberals have come to recognize the wisdom of that approach. Under the previous Conservative government we were very bullish in recognizing the benefits of international trade and moving forward with trade agreements.
We understood this basic economic science of trade, that giving people the freedom to make mutually beneficial exchanges was good for everyone. It would not make much sense to say that I cannot shop at certain restaurants because of what side of town I live on. Exactly the same principle applies for international trade.
There is that technical basis for international trade that we can prosper together as a global community and that we can draw on the wisdom of economics in terms of understanding those benefits.
On the other hand, there is a strategic dimension of trade. We do not just unilaterally open ourselves up to international trade, but we do proceed in a methodical way with negotiation with other countries to try and open up markets in a reciprocal way, but also to align ourselves as much as possible when it comes to human rights, protection of the environment, and labour. It is worth underlining why we do this. It is because we know trade allows us to prosper nationally and together with other countries, but trade also is an opportunity to build strategic partnerships with specific nations to deepen our friendship, to deepen the sharing of ideas and of commerce between those nations. As such, it is important that we approach trade in a way that reflects our values.
With regard to the trade facilitation agreement, it is very positive from a strategic perspective that we are able to move together as a relatively united global community on this, that this reflects a consensus of different countries. In our other trade dealings, it is important for us to move with this thought out strategic lens on the point of trade as well, and I say this with respect to the trans-Pacific partnership.
To its credit, however, the government has moved this particular issue fairly quickly through the committee. This was an issue that there was an ability to move forward in a thoughtful but time-sensitive way on it.
On the other hand, the trans-Pacific partnership has been sitting on the government's desk for a full year tomorrow, since the election. The government has not even taken a position on that issue. I and other members have spoken before about the economic benefits, we could perhaps say about the technical side in terms of the benefits of the trans-Pacific partnership, but it also has great strategic significance. This was a key part of President Obama's foreign policy in terms of aligning with other democratic nations throughout the Pacific region, nations which share our values, by and large, and establishing a trade agreement that would set the terms of trade in a way that was aligned with our values.
It is Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, among other nations, coming together with an agreement that provides those robust protections that reflect our Canadian values. It is a mechanism, yes, for pursuing economic prosperity, but also for achieving a strategic advantage that reflects our values.
It is no secret, of course, that the kinds of values that are reflected in the trans-Pacific partnership are different from the approach taken by a country like China, which is also seeking dominance in the Asia-Pacific region with a different approach when it comes to human rights, the environment, labour rights. I would passionately say that our approach is more in line with an understanding of universal human values and an appreciation of universal human dignity. It is not a particularly western or exclusive approach. It is not an approach in terms of the human values that we emphasize as particular to one community or one culture. It is a set of values that we have that are worth using the mechanism of trade deals to strategically advance in that region.
I will just say, perhaps pre-empting a question from my friends in the NDP caucus, that they have been right to raise human rights issues in Brunei, which is part of the trans-Pacific partnership. There are human rights issues in some of the countries involved; there is no doubt about it. I think the situation in Brunei very well deserves the attention of members of the House. However, being a relatively small player in the scheme of the overall agreement, the agreement still very much reflects the values that we have here in Canada, the values that nations within our community of partners and allies of like-minded nations share together.
Yes, for economic technical reasons, but also for strategic reasons, it is important that we prioritize the trans-Pacific partnership. It is important that we move forward with that in order to set the terms of trade in the Asia-Pacific region in a way that reflects our values. Of course, we know that the government has a different approach when it comes to this strategic approach to trade. In the last year, it has not stated any kind of position on the trans-Pacific partnership, but it has talked in a very bullish way about moving forward with free trade with China on a bilateral basis.
My view is that we can be stronger in terms of our strategic interests when we work with our allies. When we do not, instead, we put ourselves in a position where we could very well be at a real disadvantage in terms of negotiations with China. It gives China an opportunity to try to set the terms of trade when it comes to human rights, when it comes to the environment, when it comes to labour rights and other kinds of issues.
We can benefit economically from trade at every level; there is no doubt about it. However, from a strategic perspective, would we not be wise to first move forward with the trans-Pacific partnership and continue to pursue trade arrangements with Europe? Hopefully, we will soon see the full ratification of the Canada-EU free trade deal, successfully negotiated as well under the previous government but continued with by the current government, to its credit. We should start by nailing down those trade deals with like-minded nations and then proceed collaboratively with those like-minded nations when we approach countries like China that do not share our fundamental values. We need to approach trade in a strategic way.
I think the trade facilitation agreement reflects our values. It is a positive step that the world is able to come together on, but we need to prioritize the advancement of our values and be strategic. That is why I really hope that at some point at least we will hear an answer from the government on TPP, and hopefully in the not-too-distant future, recognizing as well the technical benefits of trade, the economic benefits that I have spoken about, specifically for the trade facilitation agreement, but also the strategic benefits.
I am pleased to be supporting the bill. Hopefully, we will see its passage very soon and be able to move forward on some of these other trade issues that I have raised as well.