Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2016

Jobs Crisis in Alberta's Energy Sector

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for raising this question and for an excellent intervention. While I do not find that it meets the very strict requirements of the Standing Order, I am aware that his party has an opposition day coming up. He is obviously very persuasive. Perhaps he will be able to persuade the party to choose that topic for the opposition day.

Now I have a point of order. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Bill C-243--Employment Insurance Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute arguments as to why my private member's bill, Bill C-243, would not infringe upon the financial initiative of the crown and therefore would not require a royal recommendation.

I appreciate the time of this House to present these arguments. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is the only opportunity I have to do it, and I have to do it orally to get it on the record, so I apologize in advance for the time it will take to do that.

I want to begin by outlining exactly what my bill would do.

The first part would provide for the development of a national maternity assistance program, and the second part would amend section 22 of the Employment Insurance Act to expand the window of time in which existing maternity benefits could be taken if a woman worked in a hazardous job that posed a risk to her maternal health. Specifically, it would allow women to begin taking their 15 weeks of maternity benefits 15 weeks prior to the due date, rather than just eight weeks prior, as the current rules allow.

The argument I am putting forward today will focus on addressing the amendments to the Employment Insurance Act under part 2 of the bill. I will show that Bill C-243 would not increase or change the total benefits an individual is entitled to and therefore would not constitute a new and distinct expenditure.

My argument has two parts, and I will be citing both academic literature, in particular by Lukyniuk and Keyes in the Canadian Parliamentary Review, as well as relevant parliamentary precedent.

First, I will briefly show that Bill C-243 would not increase or change the total benefits an individual is entitled to and therefore would not constitute a new and distinct expenditure.

Second, I will show that these changes would not substantively alter the objects or purposes of maternity benefits. In other words, I will be arguing that it would not create or envision a new function.

The first thing to note is that there is a general authorization for EI expenditures that is sufficiently broad to encompass the provisions of the bill. To illustrate this, consider the comment on royal recommendations from Keyes, 1999, on page 19:

...an amending bill that merely re-enacts or consolidates existing expenditure provisions does not require the recommendation.

The provisions contained in Bill C-243 would simply reallocate or shift existing maternity benefits, which are already authorized under the Employment Insurance Act. As such, the changes would fall within the purview of a royal recommendation, which provides for the general authorization of EI expenditures.

Allow me to further explain, with reference to specific examples, why this modest shifting of benefits would not introduce new and distinct expenditures. There are four elements that must be considered to substantiate this claim.

The first obvious point is that the bill would not increase the amount of benefits paid to an individual. Since the amount an individual is entitled to per week would not change, there is no concern that it would affect estimates or payments from the consolidated revenue fund.

This differentiates Bill C-243 from other private members' bills that were deemed to require a royal recommendation, such as past bills C-278 and C-279.

Second, Bill C-243 would not increase the benefit period or the number of weeks an individual is entitled to claim. Eligible recipients would still only be entitled to 15 weeks of maternity benefits. The only difference would relate to the window of time in which these benefits could be taken. I want to be very clear that this would be the only change.

In this way, Bill C-243 could be differentiated from several other bills, such as Bill C-278, which sought to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks.

Third, Bill C-243 would not change the eligibility requirements such that more individuals would become eligible for EI.

Whereas bills C-279, C-265, and C-280 would have changed the qualification requirements, and thus expanded how many people could access benefits, Bill C-243 would not do this.

For example, in the case of Bill C-279, the Speaker explained that:

...more individuals would be eligible to receive EI benefits and those currently eligible would receive increased benefits.

Fourth, since Bill C-243 would simply shift existing entitlements, the only costs associated with this legislation would be administrative, and it has been well established in previous rulings that these administrative costs would not require spending for a new function. Instead, they would be operational costs that are part of the department's ongoing mandate. As such, they have constantly been ruled as not requiring a new royal recommendation.

To summarize my argument that spending under this bill is not new and distinct, I want to quote Keyes, 1997, who argued on page 20 that royal recommendation is not for “Provisions authorizing charges that are already or were previously authorized by Parliament, for example, a bill consolidating or revising existing legislation or authorizing spending for a particular group of people already covered under general legislation”.

In fact, that is exactly what this bill does. It authorizes spending for a particular group of people, women working in hazardous jobs, who are already covered under general legislation, in this case, the Employment Insurance Act. While Bill C-243 does shift the window of time for when an individual can receive maternity benefits, it must be understood that these are benefits that many women are already entitled to. They are not new and distinct.

I will now concentrate on the second reason why my bill might require royal recommendation, which is whether or not it fundamentally changes the objects or purposes of the spending. In other words, does the bill envision a new function for maternity benefits? The central question on which you will have to rule, Mr. Speaker, is whether El maternity benefits are currently intended to protect the health of the mother and her unborn child. If this function exists under the current spending regime, my bill would not require royal recommendation, as it simply shifts existing benefits in a manner consistent with the existing purpose.

I will present several arguments to show that maternal health is one of the functions, if not the primary function, of maternity benefits. I will begin by noting that while we are tasked with determining the purpose of El maternity benefits, the actual enabling legislation, the Employment Insurance Act, says nothing explicitly on this issue. As such, to make this determination we will be required to make reasonable inferences based on other factors, including the eligibility criteria, their practical usage, and indeed a common sense understanding.

Let us consider the purpose and eligibility criteria of maternity benefits, according to the departmental website. It states, “A maximum of 15 weeks of El maternity benefits is available. The 15 weeks can start as early as eight weeks before the expected date of birth, and can end as late as 17 weeks after the actual date of birth.”

My central argument is that protecting maternal health is a function of maternity benefits under the existing legislation and usage. That is why my bill, which touches directly on this function through existing entitlements, cannot be considered to be creating a new function. The function already exists.

The fact that applicants are already permitted to take benefits during their pregnancy, up to eight weeks prior to their due date, is strong evidence that maternal health and maintaining a safe pregnancy are existing purposes of maternity benefits. The legislation may not explicitly recognize this, or any purposes of maternity benefits, but I believe the interpretation and the spirit of the law confirm this understanding.

Legal analysis of the existing provisions is valuable, but should be complemented by a practical understanding of the benefits. In other words, it is not just my opinion that maternity benefits can be interpreted as having a maternal health function, but this is exactly how the benefits are being used.

Melodie Ballard, a constituent from my riding, is one of the many Canadians who chose to access their maternity benefits early because their job posed a risk to their health and that of their unborn child. This is not only allowed under the current rules, but in fact, it is one of the main reasons why benefits can be taken eight weeks before the birth. All Bill C-243 does is emphasize one of the existing purposes and practical usages of maternity benefits. That is it.

To be clear, I do not mean to suggest that this is the only function of maternity benefits, or the only reason that the legislation permits pre-confinement access. Indeed, maternity benefits can be taken after the birth, and in that sense they are also intended to provide a recovery period for the mother after childbirth. The key point is that maternity benefits should not be so narrowly interpreted as to exclude the function of maternal health, given the structure of the benefits and how they are practically used.

I will now present statements as to why my argument that employment insurance, and in particular maternity benefits, do serve the purpose of supporting a healthy pregnancy. To begin, consider this statement from the director general of El who, when she appeared before the HUMA committee on May 8, 2014 said, “Maternity benefits provide income support for a 15-week period surrounding childbirth to allow recovery from physical or emotional effects of the pregnancy and childbirth.”

It is clear from this statement that maternity benefits are used to support maternal health during pregnancy. Perhaps more specifically, Mr. Speaker, you will have to answer whether maternity benefits serve the purpose of protecting the mother when her job poses a risk to her health, or to that of her unborn child.

In other words, do El maternity benefits serve a similar purpose to the preventative withdrawal program that exists in Quebec? This is a topic that has actually been discussed during debates in this House, in particular on past private members' bills, Bill C-380 and Bill C-307.

I would refer to a contribution from the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame on May 3, 2012, “provinces outside of Quebec have been relying for numerous years on the Employment Insurance Act for compensation for pregnant and nursing women in the circumstances of a preventive withdrawal from work.”

That sort of statement makes my argument quite succinctly and coherently.

A similar explanation for how employment insurance benefits are used for the purpose of protecting the mother and unborn child were put forward in this House on October 17, 2005, by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing at the time, “women under federal jurisdiction, if they must take leave, have access to employment insurance”.

The understanding that maternity benefits are an income support during a period of preventative withdrawal was corroborated by multiple members during debate proceedings on both Bill C-307 and Bill C-380.

In addition to members of Parliament, this understanding of El has been affirmed by departmental officials as well. When asked during the HUMA committee on October 22, 2003, about whether Canada had a system of preventative withdrawal, the Director of Labour Standards and Workplace Equity responded:

Where the job has been determined to be dangerous, the employer has an obligation to attempt to reassign her to work that is not unsafe for either the unborn child or the nursing child. If it's not possible or not reasonably practicable for the employer to reassign that individual, then she is entitled to leave without pay. What would happen under those circumstances is that she would take advantage of the employment insurance program...

It is clear that the employment insurance system, in particular the eight weeks of pre-birth maternity benefits, are an integral part to supporting women who choose to leave their job due to hazardous conditions.

Even though some statements do not mention maternity benefits explicitly, it is clear that this is the main form of El that would apply in these cases.

The final point I will make is to clarify that this bill does not affect any other type of El benefits, in particular parental or sickness benefits. Parental benefits would still only be able to be taken after confinement, which is in keeping with their purpose.

One might also think that protection of the expectant mother better falls under the category of sickness benefits. In fact, this is a very common misconception of sickness benefits. The reality is that sickness benefits can only be accessed if the individual is sick, not if there is a risk to their maternal health. Unlike maternity benefits, they cannot be taken for the purpose of protecting the health of the mother and the unborn child from the risks of a hazardous work environment.

Let me be clear, eight of the 15 weeks of maternity benefits can and are frequently being used for that purpose. As this function and purpose is well-established, my bill cannot be said to be creating a new function.

To conclude, the intent of my bill is simply to emphasize an existing function of maternity benefits, maternal health, for those who need it most, women working in hazardous jobs.

There is a royal recommendation that exists for spending on maternity benefits. There is no doubt that this bill would affect the manner in which that spending is done.

The central question is, does my bill shift spending in a manner that departs from the original purpose of maternity benefits? Put another way, does protection of the women's maternal health fall outside of the purpose of maternity benefits? I submit to you that it does not.

In closing, I will draw your attention to Keyes 1997 who argued on page 20 that royal recommendation is not required for cases where the bill authorizes spending for similar functions where “Provisions imposing additional functions on publicly funded bodies if the functions are of the same nature as their existing functions or are conferred for similar purposes.”

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I spoke in support of my colleague's Bill C-243 at second reading, where I stated that this bill is an important first step in addressing the needs of pregnant women who work in potentially hazardous environments.

I believe this bill should move forward to the committee stage. Frankly, I was surprised to see the sponsor's own party and Prime Minister opposing this bill. They say they need to consult more before they can support the initiative. That sounds ridiculous.

Feminist agendas include expectant women. By allowing women working in dangerous jobs to begin using their maternity benefits earlier and by implementing a national maternity assistance program strategy, this bill will provide women with greater flexibility in the decision-making, and hopefully lead to implementation of a pan-Canadian strategy.

It is also important to note that employers carry the obligation of accommodation if that reflects the needs of the women who are expecting in their workplace.

I also spoke about my own experience with a high-risk pregnancy while working on an auto assembly line, and the challenges—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The hon. member is addressing the pros and cons of the bill, but this of course is not debate. We are examining here the question of whether there ought to be a royal recommendation. I would ask the member to address herself to that issue.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to my own experience in this particular situation in the workplace, I support the comments made by the hon. colleague and echo his position that the bill should not require a royal recommendation. Women already have the ability to begin using their maternity leave benefits while pregnant. This bill would allow them to begin using these benefits even earlier. Therefore, I do not see how this would create any new function.

While the bill may not be the ideal solution for women and their families, they need the flexibility to make the best choices for their health and well-being. They already have some flexibility, so again I do not see how granting them more flexibility would change the purpose of the maternity leave benefits.

I thank my hon. colleague for rightfully pointing out that the question before you, Mr. Speaker, is whether Bill C-243 would change the purpose of or create a new function for maternity benefits. Clearly the function already exists.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Essex for her intervention, and I will return to the House in due course with a ruling.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Joliette has two minutes to finish his speech.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was told that there were two minutes remaining for questions and comments on the previous speaker's remarks and that I would then have 10 minutes for my speech.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Sorry. My mistake.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the context surrounding the debate on the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Europe is unique. People everywhere are starting to be skeptical about free trade agreements, when they are not downright angry about them. We saw it last summer with the Brexit vote, and we saw it more recently still with the U.S. election.

Working-class America, rust belt America, the America hit hard by outsourcing, that is the America that expressed its anger by voting for Donald Trump. It is easy to condemn populism. It is easy to be condescending and say that the people do not understand, but those who claim to represent the people are failing in their duty if they refuse to listen to those people.

There is a reason why people react with skepticism when they are told how great more open markets are. They are expressing their dashed hopes. For 30 years now, governments have been swearing that deregulation internally and liberalization externally will result in everlasting prosperity. We know that was no more true then than it is now.

Making our workers compete with men and women who are being exploited in developing countries puts downward pressure on wages here in Canada. Manufacturing a product in violation of international agreements on labour rights and environmental protections is a form of unfair competition.

This is all to say nothing of tax havens. By allowing multinationals to avoid paying their taxes, the government is placing the burden on the rest of the population. That is also part of the dark side of globalization.

Although elite businesspeople and the politicians who serve them have been insisting for 30 years now that the opposite is true, this kind of liberalization is harmful. It increases inequality. It rewards countries with no environmental laws, and it makes it harder for states to act for the common good.

Given the neo-liberals' failed promises, reality is imposing itself, and it is not always pretty. That is what happened in the U.S. That is what happens when you refuse to face reality, out of ideology, and when you do not keep your promises.

The government keeps saying that it understands people's concerns, but it does nothing to address the problems. In 1988, it said it understood those who were concerned about the free trade agreement with the U.S. The implementation bill even included the provision of an adjustment fund. As we know, that fund never came to fruition. The government did not contribute a single penny to it.

The same thing happened in 2002, when China joined the World Trade Organization, the WTO. The government said that it understood the concerns and that it would help the sectors that might be threatened by the Chinese competition. Again, nothing was done.

At the time, Montreal was the North American capital of fashion. Textiles and clothing accounted for more than 40,000 jobs in the Montreal area. Three years after China joined the WTO, all 40,000 jobs were lost. These were not high-tech jobs, but they were often the first jobs of newcomers, their gateway to economic integration. That all collapsed overnight. With Ottawa cutting access to employment insurance, many of these newcomers fell into a trap of misery and despair.

Today, Ottawa strikes again. Today, it is our cheese and dairy producers who are footing the bill for this agreement. The compensation that was announced is woefully inadequate.

Every trade agreement should have a compensation fund and, above all, an adjustment fund for sectors affected by these agreements. The government is required not only to announce it, but also to fund it.

Therefore, yes, skepticism is understandable, and I, too, am skeptical. However, I do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Jacques Parizeau understood this very well when he wrote that we should not descend into “a sort of general condemnation of free trade.”

Quebec is the high-tech heart of Canada and it accounts for almost half of Canada's technology exports. Developing a leading-edge product is a long and expensive process. In order to make a profit, you have to be able to sell it abroad because our small domestic market is not enough. We must have access to global markets to remain a developed nation, period. Quebec is a trading nation. We export 56% of what we produce.

In spite of the devastating consequences of previous agreements, I cannot systematically condemn all free trade agreements. Quebec needs good free trade agreements. This leads us to today's debate on the agreement with Europe.

As this trade partner consists of many countries with standards that are similar to ours, the fears are less pronounced. Europe will not put downward pressure on our wages, as its wages are often higher than ours. We are not talking about China.

Europe will not exert downward pressure on our regulations because its own are often stronger than ours. Europe is not the United States. Europe is not a threat to our culture or our public services. Europe is facing the same challenges as we are. Let us be serious. We are talking about Europe here.

CETA is a broad agreement with a very wide scope. Obviously, it contains some measures that we are less pleased about. For example, I do not like the chapter on investment protection. Although the mechanism it sets out is much better than the one provided in chapter 11 of NAFTA or those in other international agreements that Canada has already signed, we did not need it.

Our Civil Code protects property rights. We have clear rules governing expropriations. Our courts are independent. It is the same in Europe. However, despite these irritants, we support the principle of the bill at this stage.

Europe and Quebec have a lot of commonalities. Today, even before the agreement is concluded, 40% of the trade between Canada and Europe is done with Quebec. It is the same thing when it comes to investments. A total of 40% of European investments in Canada are made in my province of Quebec.

The Quebec model is not all that popular among business people in the United States and English Canada. There is a reason why we attract less than 15% of American investment in Canada. Our society is somewhat unusual on this side of the Atlantic.

The opposite is true in the European business community. They are not afraid of high unionization. Germany is much more unionized than we are, and it is doing very well. For them, unionization ensures a peaceful society and civilized labour relations. Similar thinking governs state intervention in the economy. They tend to see state participation in business as a guarantee of financial security. Yes, Quebec and Europe have what it takes to get along. Quebec is a bridge between America and Europe, and the role suits us. The conditions are right for us to play this role.

The agreement Europe was negotiating with the United States is probably doomed. There is every reason to believe it will be scrapped once Donald Trump takes office in January.

That makes it more interesting for European companies to set up shop here as an entry point into the American market. We are ideally suited to serve as the bridgehead for European companies in North America. This is an unprecedented opportunity for our people, as long as it is done properly.

I would like to close with a nod to René Lévesque. In his farewell speech upon leaving politics, he urged us to take a good look at Quebec on a map and to observe how it resembles an open hand, the palm resting firmly on the United States and the fingers open to the Atlantic, stretching toward Europe.

Perhaps that way lies our cultural, social, economic, and geographic future as a nation. That is why, at this stage and despite its flaws, we will support the principle of the bill before us today.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He is right in saying that Quebec and Europe already have strong ties. This is worth pointing out. Just think of our ties to our French cousins, for instance.

That being said, another important aspect of the agreement affects Quebec in particular. Of course I am referring to its impact on our dairy farmers.

In the previous Parliament, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé moved a motion that passed unanimously. The motion was to the effect that if Canada accepted this agreement, dairy farmers would have to be financially compensated. The Conservative government promised $4.3 billion in compensation. Now, that amount has been reduced to $300 million. As my colleague's party put it so well, that is nothing but peanuts for the industry.

I am wondering whether they plan to support the bill at second reading. How can they reconcile that support with the considerable harm this is going to cause our farmers in our regions?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very important speech.

Clearly, it is Quebec's cheese and dairy farmers who are being sacrificed in this agreement. We were given assurances that they would not be forgotten. The announcements that were made in the past few weeks do not really cover the consequences for these producers.

Let us not forget that the fine cheese makers, who work specifically in Quebec, will be in competition with highly subsidized European producers. They are therefore not on a level playing field.

Over the past few decades, cheese makers have developed a top-notch industry that we can be proud of. It is in jeopardy because of unfair rules. Measures need to be taken. I am sure that my NDP colleagues and I will continue to pressure the government to improve the compensation.

Let us not forget that in Quebec, the Union des producteurs agricoles is in favour of the agreement. We agree with the Union des producteurs on the need to ensure adequate compensation for our cheese and dairy farmers. We are certainly not going to give up the fight.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and true understanding of what Quebeckers think of this trade agreement.

I would remind members that all political parties in the National Assembly, whether it is the CAQ, the Parti Québécois, or the Quebec Liberal Party, support the agreement. Consequently, as Quebec MPs, we must be the spokespersons for the National Assembly.

In his speech, the member referred to chapter 11 of NAFTA. Could he expand on the questions he has about this chapter?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his question.

We are getting into fairly technical details. The sections dealing with investor rights are usually one of the problems with international agreements.

For example, chapter 11 of NAFTA indicates that if a multinational operates in a country and that country adopts new rules that could reduce future profits, the multinational could sue the government and be fully compensated for all profits, even those not realized but forecast. That is the case for NAFTA and for almost every other international agreement that Canada has signed to date.

That is not the issue with the Canada-Europe agreement. Compensation would be provided on the basis of fair market value, which is already recognized by the Civil Code and related rules in effect in Quebec.

I mentioned in my speech that since we already have these mechanisms in place, as do European countries, we do not need this type of provision. Nevertheless, the provision that was negotiated and announced will have much less of an impact than what is in NAFTA, for example.

I hope my explanation has not been too boring and was sufficiently clear for my colleague.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have said this before in other speeches and others have said it during debate on this bill, but it bears repeating. Canada was built on trade. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada today depends directly on exports.

Trade between the colonies of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia provided the impetus for Confederation, and debates among the Fathers of Confederation demonstrate that an internal free trade zone in British North America rivalled mutual defence as their top priority.

Canada's history as a trading nation does not stop within our own borders. Following divisive debates about free trade over a century ago, recent decades have seen a concerted push to broaden our horizons and establish free trade agreements with other countries. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Canada, the United States, and later Mexico formed a lucrative free trade zone, which tripled trilateral trade, tripled investment in Canada by Mexican and American companies, and contributed more than 4.5 million Canadian jobs over the years.

The debate over free trade has at times been fierce, and trade has been a significant ballot question over many federal elections. The 1911 election was a virtual single-issue election over reciprocity with the United States. More recently, but still some time ago, many will recall the bitter election campaign over free trade with the United States in 1988. Brian Mulroney was the prime minister of the day, and he had successfully negotiated a monumental free trade agreement with the United States.

During that campaign, outrageous claims were made by opponents of free trade. They argued that Canada's social safety net would not survive free trade with the United States. They claimed that public health care would disappear. They claimed that trade would threaten Canada's culture, and that even our sovereignty was at stake. It was all complete nonsense.

I was a 17-year-old high school student during that election, and even then I could see through the rhetoric and recognized the fearmongering for what it was. Although I was not old enough to vote in that election, I was old enough to take a stand and choose a side in a debate that would profoundly affect the future of my country.

I took my first concrete step into political activism; I joined the Conservative Party. I could not understand those who thought it was in the interest of a trade dependent country like Canada to make imported goods more expensive and to make our exports less competitive. Instead, I knew that the free trade debate was about freedom. Under the visionary leadership of Brian Mulroney, the original free trade agreement was expanded to include Mexico, and became the agreement we now know as NAFTA.

Opposition to free trade began to wane. Eventually the Chrétien government grasped what was at stake and ratified NAFTA. Successive governments launched a flurry of free trade negotiations with many other countries. Ultimately, the previous government concluded an agreement with the European Union representing 28 member states, which we are discussing today, as well as concluding negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership representing 12 countries.

Now it falls to the current government to carry on where the previous government left off, to conclude the agreements it started, to bring into force the ones it concluded, and to launch new ones to continue growing Canada's economy through access to markets for our goods and services. I am pleased that Liberals and Conservatives can debate how to achieve free trade rather than whether there ought to be free trade.

We have before us today a bill to ratify the Canada–European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, commonly called CETA. The history of this agreement highlights one of the best points of Canada's political order and electoral system, which is the possibility of the smooth transitions between governing parties without interruption to important national projects which are clearly in Canada's best interests.

The process began with Canadian and European counterparts looking into the merits of a closer trade union in 2007. By August 2014, trade officials succeeded in working out the full text of an agreement, a fact which the previous government rightly celebrated as an important milestone.

However, the treaty still needed to go through extensive legal review for compatibility with numerous different legal systems and to be translated into many languages. By October 2016, it was ready to sign. As my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, pointed out, this was a very difficult process, translating and getting this agreement into a form compatible with and understood in all of the languages and legal systems of the European Union.

As of today, the vast majority of the agreement is ready to implement, and the few outstanding issues that remain can be ironed out and implemented in short order.

Colleagues on both sides of the House have spoken already about the merits which CETA will bring to Canada, such as the prospect of creating 80,000 new jobs, adding $12 billion to our GDP, and boosting bilateral trade by 20%.

I will not belabour these points further, since they have already received much attention by those better versed in the details. Instead, I would like to address concerns that have been raised, although many of these concerns are the same tired, old, unfounded, knee-jerk clichés that have circulated in some circles since the FTA with the United States was negotiated 30 years ago.

Opponents of free trade claim, for example, that trade agreements allow business elites to engage in a race to the bottom in terms of workers' wages, labour standards, and environmental regulation. Although I do not accept that premise, I will point out the following to those who do.

The European Union represents Canada's peer countries. The European Union is not bursting with sweat shops with barely paid workers. It has strong labour laws and comparable costs and standards of living. The European Union does not play dirty through currency manipulation. It can be expected to bargain honestly and in good faith. The European Union enforces human rights and environmental standards comparable to our own. In short, CETA is a good deal with a good trading partner, which will produce good outcomes for Canadians and Europeans alike.

To those who rightly value Canadian sovereignty and examine all agreements for possible infringements, allow me to point out that CETA does not interfere with Canada's right to regulate our own affairs, such as on the economy and environment. The agreement does not touch public services like education and health care, which will remain under exclusive Canadian control. Additionally, the agreement does not interfere with financial measures like debt restructuring.

As a brief aside, I should mention that at the rate the government is piling on debt and threatening social structural deficits not seen in the country since the time of Trudeau senior, that latter point about financial measures may be more important than one would hope.

However, moving from a discussion of concerns about CETA back to one on the benefits it will bring to Canada, ratification of this bill comes at a critical moment in Canada's relations with our largest trading partner, the United States.

As I had mentioned earlier, NAFTA has spurred much economic growth and generated much prosperity in Canada over the last few decades. However, the incoming American president has expressed concerns with NAFTA and may want to renegotiate parts of it. Since over 70% of Canada's exports currently go to the United States, the current government must make maintaining or increasing the benefits of NAFTA a top priority in the coming years. It must also continue the previous government's drive to diversify Canada's export markets through new agreements like CETA and also the trans-Pacific partnership.

I hope the Prime Minister will not make any more blunders like the one he has already made by making an unsolicited offer to renegotiate NAFTA. As a trained boxer, the Prime Minister ought to know better than to lead with his chin.

Other steps which the government must take to facilitate trade include approving construction of oil and gas pipelines to get our exports to market and building transportation infrastructure into the north to make it more accessible.

There is also much to be done on internal free trade. I was disappointed when the government voted down my colleague's motion to free the beer and seek legal clarity from the Supreme Court as to the constitutional limits on implements to internal trade, but that will be another day.

The Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement is a good deal for Canada. I look forward to jobs created for my constituents by gaining access to new markets. I also look forward to better choice for consumers in my riding as well.

I pay tribute to Canada's expert, professional negotiators and their years of hard work. I acknowledge the tireless efforts of the members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster when they were in government, and the visionary leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper. I also thank the current Minister of International Trade and the current Prime Minister for their willingness to finish the job and for their acknowledgement of the role members from both parties have played in getting us to where we are today.

After years of rising expectations, a bill to implement this historic agreement is finally before the House, and I for one plan to vote for it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech today on this historic deal.

I agree that trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. Many things have changed throughout this agreement, things that have happened in this very year that have changed the context of this agreement.

One of those things is Brexit; 42% of Canadian exports to the EU are to the U.K. Canadian concessions in CETA were based on the premise that the U.K. would be part of CETA. After Brexit, the Liberal government has failed to re-evaluate the net benefit of a CETA without the U.K.

If the U.K. triggers its exit from the EU, and also leaves CETA, is the member comfortable with the concessions Canada has made in CETA, given that the U.K. represents nearly half of Canada's export market to the EU?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it almost sounds like a bit of a sign of some hesitant support from members of that party, that they might actually be on board with a trade agreement, which is refreshing.

Going to the question about the fact of the Brexit vote and the effect on this agreement, I do not see any reason to take our foot off the gas in getting this agreement approved. I see every incentive and every reason why the government must engage with the United Kingdom, no matter what it does, so we may not also lose an opportunity for free trade with the United Kingdom, whether it leaves the European Union or not.

It is unfortunate that this has happened in the midst of the CETA process, but I do not see any reason for the government not to continue to press forward and approve CETA, and be engaged with the United Kingdom so we do not lose opportunities in the event that it leaves the European Union.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the importance of promoting free trade with partners like Europe that have similar laws on human rights, environmental regulation, and more specifically labour rights. I would like to draw his attention to the matter of environmental regulation and the investor-state provisions.

Let us look at a specific example of the use of chapter 11 of NAFTA. In 2011, Quebec refused to issue a fracking permit to Lone Pine Resources, a Calgary-based company with subsidiaries in the United States. That company took advantage of the loophole to take the Government of Canada to court and seek $230 million in restitution.

Under the investor-state provisions, a European company could do the same, so although I believe that the European countries are acting in good faith when it comes to their relationship with Canada, unfortunately, I do not have the same trust in their corporations.

Is my colleague not worried about this type of provision and that fact that it puts the federal government and other levels of government in Canada at risk?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not entirely familiar with the details of the case that the member makes specific reference to under NAFTA.

However, in the broadest terms, we cannot lose the opportunity to ratify this agreement. If we want to seek out reasons why we should not do an agreement, because in an agreement of this size there is a portion of it that is unacceptable, we could talk ourselves out of just any agreement.

We need to seize the opportunity we have before us, take advantage of the work that has happened, and get this agreement approved.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada, the European Union, and its member states.

A trade agreement of this nature is long overdue and has long been fought for.

Before I speak to the merits of this agreement, I want to join my colleagues in thanking the members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster for their long years of work to negotiate this agreement, as well as all of the members of the previous and current governments who had a hand in establishing, negotiating, and concluding this agreement.

I also want to thank the Right Honourable Stephen Harper for his leadership on this and many other trade files. Under his leadership, we signed more trade agreements than any other Canadian government.

Members could probably take it as a given, by virtue of my membership in this party, that I am a strong proponent of free trade. With the recent waves of protectionist sentiment sweeping the globe, it is important to once again reiterate the benefits of freer trade, and why a country like Canada must continue to reach new markets for our products, investment, and labour.

I want to talk about four points today: the objective benefits of free trade; the benefits of free trade to Canada, and the specific components of CETA that benefit Canada; the specific benefits of CETA to my home province of Alberta; and the benefits of CETA for accessing EU government procurement business.

Trade is good for Canada. We have an enormous amount of products, resources, and skills that require access to other markets in order to reach a meaningful potential. The EU represents roughly 500 million people and almost $20 trillion in economic activity. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than our entire GDP. These are customers and businesses that Canada needs to access in order to maximize our economic growth.

We strongly support international trade initiatives which strengthen the bonds with friendly countries, increase economic productivity, and drive prosperity and job creation. When we complete trade deals, Canadian job prospects increase substantially as we access larger markets. Prices for goods decrease as we eliminate tariffs on goods entering our country. The benefits to Canadian consumers, Canadian workers, and Canadian businesses are enormous, and CETA helps us realize these benefits on a bigger, global scale.

Specifically, CETA is projected to lead to a $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy, which is equivalent to adding $1,000 dollars to the average family income every year, or almost 80,000 new jobs. Nearly 100% of all EU tariffs on non-agricultural products will be duty-free, and nearly 94% of EU tariffs on agricultural products will be duty-free. This is an offer we cannot refuse.

More importantly, for my constituents in Edmonton West, and those of my colleagues across Alberta, CETA will increase Alberta's economic potential to a substantial extent. The European Union is already Alberta's fourth largest export destination, and is our third-largest trading partner. For the past five years, on average Alberta has had exports of $1.4 billion to the European Union, driven by the agricultural, metals and minerals, and advanced manufacturing sectors.

Once in force, CETA will eliminate tariffs on almost all of Alberta's exports, and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. CETA includes provisions that ease regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights, and ensure more transparent rules for market access. CETA will provide Alberta exporters with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU.

On the day CETA's provisions enter into force, 98% of EU tariffs on Canadian goods will be duty-free, including those on key Alberta exports, such as metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, and chemicals and plastics. For agricultural and agri-food products, almost 94% of EU tariffs on Canadian goods will be duty-free, which rises up to 95% once all phase-outs are complete, seven years after CETA enters into force. This duty-free access will give Canadian agricultural goods, such as beef, pork, and bison, preferential access to the EU market.

I do not think I need to tell the House how important beef is to the Alberta economy, but I do want to mention some specific potential benefits to industries affected by the tariff reductions listed in CETA.

According to the CBC, with CETA, Canada is poised to supply about 1% of the European Union's beef needs under the new pact, which could mean almost $600 million in revenue.

In addition to beef and agriculture products, CETA would also provide for increases in eligible trade for products with high sugar content. I want to talk about a small business in Edmonton that started in a basement in Sherwood Park. It is a much-renowned startup company called Jacek Chocolate Couture. It has expanded from Sherwood Park to downtown Edmonton and now to Canmore, Alberta. The company sells its famous chocolates across our entire country, and now could reach a massive new customer base, growing its revenues and creating new jobs.

We know how things are tough in Alberta right now. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we approve this trade agreement which would have demonstrable benefits to Alberta's industries. This agreement would create jobs by opening the European Union's market to more Alberta goods and would lower prices for importing EU products. Lower prices and more customers for business are exactly what Alberta needs right now.

Specific to oil and gas, CETA would increase market access for Alberta products. This comes at an ideal time, as supplier diversification is one of EU's top energy priorities. Currently, Russia holds over 30% of the EU's oil and gas market share, placing it first. Canada comes in 26th, with just 1%.

It is well known that Russian President Putin uses his country's oil and gas reserves as a weapon and, given that Russia supplies almost a third of the European Union's oil and gas, his position is strong. The EU needs to diversify and wants to diversify, and Alberta has plenty to offer. As CETA would eliminate tariffs on oil and gas products, Canada and Alberta are well poised to fill this gap and become a crucial energy ally. This is an opportunity that we should not and, frankly, cannot pass up.

The elimination of tariffs and barriers would also have advantages to procurement opportunities. Under CETA, Canadian firms could bid on contracts to supply their goods and services to the three main EU-level institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council. Canadian firms would also be able to bid on EU member-state government contracts and those of thousands of regional and local government entities.

The EU procurement market is worth $3.3 trillion annually, and holds significant potential for Canadian suppliers. This kind of preferential market access would benefit Alberta-based multinational firms such as PCL and Stantec, who both have their headquarters in Edmonton. Indeed, by virtue of the fact that Alberta has long been the entrepreneurial province, there are hundreds if not thousands of businesses in Edmonton, Calgary, and throughout Alberta that would benefit from access to this $3.3 trillion procurement market.

Trade is good. Trade lowers prices and enables competitive and valued Canadian businesses to expand, hire new employees, and prosper in a globalized world. Free trade would allow billions of dollars in Canadian exports to reach new markets, and ensure that European goods flow in at competitive prices for Canadian consumers. Free trade would help Alberta's businesses grow and prosper at a time when Alberta needs it most.

I am proud to support this agreement that would help Alberta's small and large businesses, Albertan consumers, Canadian industry, and Canadian producers, and that would also deepen the long-standing ties between Canada and Europe.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out something. The previous Conservative government promised a compensation package that would be attached to the losses that dairy would incur in CETA and across TPP. The previous Conservative government negotiated that CETA would see an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production, and farmers say this would cost them $116 million a year in perpetual lost revenues.

Yet, the Liberals are only providing this compensation package, worth $250 million, over five years. Does the member agree with the NDP that this math simply does not add up to the losses that dairy farms and supply-managed sectors would see in our country?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and bears looking into. This plan would provide compensation to farmers. It may not be at the level previously done by the Conservative Party, but this plan would also open up a vast new market for our farmers, our beef producers, for Alberta and Quebec farmers.

In the long-term, it will be a benefit to all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciate that the member referenced Jacek Chocolate Couture, which is a phenomenal business in my constituency. I had an opportunity to go on a tour there recently.

I do want to ask the member an important question about NAFTA. We have had the current government, right out of the gate with the new president-elect, basically not show confidence in the importance of this trade deal; basically throw it under the bus and say, “Sure we would be happy to negotiate it”.

We should all appreciate the benefits that come from NAFTA, a trade deal that has been in place for a very long time. The protectionist talk that we are hearing from the United States is not about trading more. It is about tightening that deal, not expanding it.

Could the member comment on the importance of international trade, and why we actually need to have a government that understands the benefits that come with NAFTA, and these other trade deals, and that is actually going to stand up and defend them?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important, now more than ever, with what is happening in the U.S., and also in various countries around the world as they start talking about throwing up protective walls. We know that it is going to do the exact opposite. We saw during the Great Depression that protectionist barriers made the economy across the entire world worse.

It is very important that we continue the great work of Prime Minister Harper and the previous government in expanding our trade markets across the world, not only to find new markets but also to counter the effects of protectionism that we see growing down in the United States and in other countries.