Debates of Dec. 9th, 2016

Question No. 575

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

With regard to a federal carbon tax or price on carbon: (a) what analysis has been conducted in 2015-2016 by the federal government with regard to the impact on family household budgets; (b) what analysis has been conducted in 2015-2016 by Employment and Social Development Canada with regard to the impact on persons and families falling below the low-income cut-off; (c) how much will the annual cost of the basket of goods in the Market Basket Measure (MBM) increase as a result of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon; (d) when fully implemented, how much will the $50-a-tonne price on carbon increase food prices for the average family of four, in each province of Canada; (e) how much will a $50-a-tonne carbon tax increase electricity costs, in percentage terms, in each province of Canada; (f) has the government calculated the average financial impact of the carbon tax on people living below the low-income cut-off line and if so, what is that average monetary impact on the average family of four living below the low-income cut-off line; (g) how many individuals will fall beneath the low-income cut-off line as a result of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon; (h) did the Department of Finance conduct an analysis regarding the impact of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon on low-income families and if so, what were its conclusions; (i) did the Department of Finance conduct an analysis regarding the impact of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon on the distribution of wealth and income in Canada and if so, what were its conclusions; and (j) by how much does the government estimate a $50-a-tonne price on carbon will reduce carbon emissions?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 576

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to the Minister of Democratic Institutions’ national tour on electoral reform: (a) what was the cost, including venue rentals, audio-visual, advertising, accommodations, travel, and per diems for the Minister and staff; (b) how many people attended each event, by location; (c) how many attendees supported adopting a proportional voting system; and (d) how many attendees supported holding a referendum on electoral reform?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 578

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

With regard to interactions between the government and Google Inc.: (a) what are the details of any requests, demands, orders, or directives the government has provided to Google Inc. including, (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number; (b) for each instance referred to in (a), did Google Inc. comply; (c) what are the details of any requests Google Inc. has made to the government, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number; and (d) are any measures in place to ensure that Ministerial Exempt Staff who were previously employed by Google Inc. are not lobbied by, or involved in any decisions concerning Google Inc.?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 579

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

With regard to travel taken by Ministers and their exempt staff to Medicine Hat, Alberta, between September 18, 2016, and October 24, 2016: (a) what are the details of all trips taken, including (i) the dates, (ii) the amount spent, (iii) the breakdown of expenses, (iv) the details of any official meetings or government business conducted on the trips; and (b) what are the details of any briefing documents or dockets prepared in relation to the trips, including the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 580

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

With regard to the government’s participation in the Global Progress 2016 forum held in Montreal on September 14 and 15, 2016: (a) what is the total of all costs associated with the government’s involvement in the forum; and (b) what is the itemized breakdown of all costs associated with the government’s involvement in the forum?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 7 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.

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA, as it is often referred to. This landmark agreement is the result of years of hard work and I welcome the opportunity to help bring into force the deal that we as a government struck.

I congratulate the trade minister for signing and prioritizing this agreement. I do wish she would do the same for the TPP. I wish I could tell her that all the travelling and absences from her family will get easier, but, unfortunately, I cannot. However, I am sure they understand, as I do, that the work being done is to benefit their future and the future of all Canadians.

I also thank her parliamentary secretary for the work he has done on this file and for his participation at trade committee.

CETA was part of the most ambitious trade agenda Canada has ever seen. The Liberals call it the gold standard, which, of course, includes the trans-Pacific partnership. Our previous Conservative government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper; the former Minister of International Trade; and my colleague, the member for Abbotsford, were able to negotiate free trade agreements with 46 different countries.

Of course, none of that would have been possible without the tremendous work done by our country's world-class negotiators, and in the case of CETA, Steve Verheul and his team, who spearheaded negotiations with the European Union. The amazing results they were able to achieve on Canada's behalf, at times in strenuous situations, and the personal sacrifices they made to get the job done deserve a tremendous amount of respect and gratitude.

The truth is, the work they do is never complete. Even when agreements are concluded, the boots are always on the ground, helping exporters here at home, or Canadian businesses that have expanded abroad, to integrate deeper into global supply chains. They are the first to arrive and always the last to depart, carrying and leaving traces of Canada along each stop.

As members of Parliament, we honour their work not just by reading their names into Hansard, but by implementing the agreements they lost sleep over, ensuring that the deals they fought for, at the expense of countless days, weeks, and months away from their families, are realized.

To our negotiators, trade agreements are more than just tariff lines and clauses on a piece of paper. To them these agreements are a living contribution to ensuring that Canada remains prosperous and become a part of their DNA and, in turn, a part of our history and success as a long-time trading nation.

What does that success look like in terms of CETA? It looks like a full elimination of duties on all non-agricultural goods going into a market of over 500 million people. It looks like the elimination of almost 94% of agricultural tariffs when we export our goods into an almost $20 trillion economy.

CETA is projected to bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion annual increase in Canada's economy. Put in another way, this is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. That will almost make up what the Liberal government has lost this past year so far.

The Canada–EU trade agreement is our country's biggest bilateral trade initiative since NAFTA. Let us just hope that our Prime Minister is not as eager to reopen CETA after it has been ratified.

CETA is unique in many ways, but the way that sticks out is how involved the provinces and territories were. Never before have the provinces and territories been part of international trade negotiations at such a grand level. The Europeans were hesitant at first, fearful that aboriginal concerns would slow down negotiations. The fact is, the opposite was true. Because of the level of provincial and territorial involvement, we were able to conclude the agreement back in 2014 as one voice with everyone on board. It turns out that the same could not be said for the EU, as we saw in Belgium with Wallonia. Part of that problem, of course, was the trade minister's incessant need to placate every irritant of every faction she could find, all for the sake of branding the agreement as Liberal and progressive.

In the end, when we do the side-by-side comparison of CETA, between the 2014 version that we concluded as the previous government and the current progressive version, we find that the so-called progressive changes the Liberals made were all rejected out of the gate by the EU Council and its member states. That means the agreement that we have before us, when it comes into effect, will be essentially what we concluded back in 2014, with the glaring exception now of any arbitration process for the ISDS claims. Our party strongly supports the international initiatives that will generate increased economic activity, drive prosperity, and create jobs as well as foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies.

The Canada–EU agreement emphasizes the importance of secure access to international markets through a rules-based trading system. It also would allow us to establish deeper trading relationships beyond North America. The same can be said for the trans-Pacific partnership, or TPP. But why would that be important and why would we look beyond North America? Well, it is important as part of the ambitious trade agenda I mentioned earlier.

As we know, Canadian exports to the U.S. account for about 75% of the total exports. This of course has its benefits, but we have to diversify our trade portfolio the same as anyone would diversify a stock portfolio. If we rely strictly on the U.S. market, as we have done for years, when the U.S. has a problem we face the same problem.

CETA, on the other hand, is a very aged market, a very mature market. The Pacific Rim of the TPP takes into account a growing or emerging middle class that we would have access to. So between the two, we would have access to 80% of the global GDP. It is very important that we have both agreements in place.

Yet, that is exactly what is happening as six nations press ahead with the TPP agreement, leaving Canada behind. At this point, we can and must change our position.

In addition to weakening Canada's position by prematurely putting NAFTA on the table before the new U.S. President has even been sworn in, there is the government's continued indecision and Liberal foot-dragging.

The general provision of the enactment sets out rules of interpretation and specifies that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 14, or any other—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, the time has expired.

I do encourage hon. members, in the course of their remarks, to give a glance in the direction of the Speaker from time to time. We will do our best to give some clues as to the time remaining and so on.

We'll go to questions and comments now.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

This comes up every time we talk about an important trade deal. We understand how significant this agreement is. When the three main parties talk about these things, people always say that the NDP is dogmatic about trade and always takes the same stance.

However, I would like to point out to my colleague and the rest of the House that, as far as I can remember, or at least since the 1980s, the Conservatives and the Liberals have never voted against a trade agreement. We, in contrast, have voted in favour of some trade agreements and against others.

That makes us the only party to take a responsible stance and to actually take a close look at what is in these trade agreements. When it comes right down to it, a trade agreement is a contract.

I would like to know if my colleague agrees that a trade agreement is also a contract and that one must examine its provisions before deciding whether to support or oppose it.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been looking into these things over the years.

This agreement was first concluded back in 2014. Overall, if we look at it, for a trading county, this is a good agreement. As members know, we only have 36 million people living in this country. We have to trade with other countries. CETA is a key position for Canada's economic situation, as 75% of our trade is done with the U.S. alone. We need more trading partners. This is why it is important for us, for all Canadians, to work on this file. We must trade with others. We hope that many other CETAs will come to the table.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what else my colleague has to say. I do not think he said everything he wanted to say, so I would like to hear the rest.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, basically what we are saying in the speech is that at the end of the day, a trade is a trade is a trade. We must trade.

With a smaller population in this country, we have to trade. We have to go as far as we can, in exporting our crude oil from Alberta, our beef, any other goods or farm stuff. We have to take it to the market. We need a free market where we can trade freely, without any tariffs or anything else.

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

Mr. Speaker, when this agreement was negotiated, the United Kingdom was still part of the European Union. Nearly 50% of our trade is with the United Kingdom, so the negotiators had that in mind.

I am wondering whether the member is as worried as we are about the fact that the United Kingdom is no longer part of that agreement.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. When this agreement was negotiated, it was negotiated with the U.K. in the situation. Unfortunately, things happened.

I strongly suggest that the Liberal government negotiate separately with the United Kingdom. Again, we need more and more trading partners. I know where the concerns of the member are coming from, but, on our side, we favour more trade with the entire world, including the United Kingdom.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I took note of your comment just a few minutes ago about time. I must admit that I am not normally someone who backs down from a challenge, but what is being proposed here this morning is utterly impossible. We are supposed to try to summarize, comment on, and analyze a treaty as comprehensive as the one in Bill C-30 in just 10 minutes.

Instead I will try to shed some light on a few aspects of this treaty that I see as particularly important and that will allow everyone listening to this debate, especially the people of Trois-Rivières who have placed their trust in me, to understand the situation I find myself in and my position on this treaty.

All too often, and this is perhaps the first point I want to make, people try to portray the NDP as a party that is reluctant to sign free trade agreements, but that is not the case. What is true, however, is that we never make any decisions about an agreement without reading it. It took quite a while for the texts of the treaty to become available. Even as we speak, not all clauses of the treaty have been finalized.

I commend the Walloons who distinctively said they would go a step further, but reserve the right to go back and say no thank you if at the end of the process their questions and aspirations have not been satisfied.

I wonder why there is such urgency in Quebec and Canada. We have more than a few weeks to ratify this agreement. We are already hearing in Quebec, partly through the leader of the official opposition, that ratifying this agreement is out of the question if it does not include meaningful compensation for Quebec's dairy industry. I will come back to that.

Of course, he is not the Premier of Quebec, but between now and the end of the ratification process, a lot can change, not only in Quebec, but also in many provinces across Canada and in many of the countries directly affected by this free trade agreement.

I heard the Minister of International Trade and many of her colleagues say that they wonder who the NDP might sign a treaty with, if not with the European Union.

In response, I would like to turn the tables and ask this: if we cannot sign the best agreement possible with the European Union, a treaty that will be a building block, a model, and that will pave the way to the signing of all the other agreements that will follow, or that fixes agreements previously signed, with whom can we make the best possible agreement?

That is why we are so insistent that our suggested improvements be heard and advanced by the government to ensure that everyone will benefit.

It will be very evident, in the two or three points that I hope I have the time to develop, what the impact will be for Quebeckers and Canadians. I am talking about monetary implications.

Take Quebec's dairy producers, for example. I am using an example I am very familiar with. That said, the same applies to fisheries, which will or could encounter exactly the same kinds of problems.

Members will recall that during the election campaign, when candidates across Quebec were meeting with the Union des producteurs agricoles or directly with farmers to discuss their problems, everyone was carefully listening. Everyone had committed to a certain number of things.

The Quebec dairy industry is based on the family farm model, a model we would like to keep. Let me be clear. When we talk about the family farm model, we are not talking about a small business. These are multi-million dollar businesses. These people have a lot of responsibility and a significant financial burden. Signing a treaty that does not guarantee reasonable accommodation, at the very least, places a great burden on their shoulders and will cause them a great deal of stress.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservative government, which initiated the negotiation of this free trade agreement, promised to provide approximately $4 billion in compensation for dairy producers, if I remember correctly.

I rarely supported the Conservatives' policies, but if I compare the financial compensation that the Conservative government planned to give the dairy industry to the compensation that is now being proposed by the Liberal government, I have to admit that they are light years away from each other.

The Liberal government is currently proposing to provide dairy producers with $350 million over five years. The promised compensation has gone from $4 billion to $350 million over five years for two programs. The first program is a support and investment program to help modernize dairy operations. The government is now going to invest only $250 million in this program, rather than $350 million. However, as I was saying earlier, each farming operation is worth several million dollars.

What does the government expect to accomplish with such a small purse? Many dairy operations in Quebec have already modernized in order to remain competitive and ensure that their products are sold at competitive prices, so what will this program do to support the industry if the free trade agreement is signed? There are serious concerns in that regard.

With regard to the second program, the remaining $100 million will be invested over four years in dairy processing. That amounts to $25 million per year. Knowing how many dairy operations are out there and how much they are worth, we can see that this amount is clearly insufficient.

That is not even to mention the diafiltered milk issue, which the Liberals have not yet resolved and which makes the agreement in its current form a disaster for all dairy producers. We need to resolve this problem before we think about signing the agreement.

We also need to address the major impact that the substantial increase in the cost of prescription drugs will have on the pocketbooks of every citizen of this country. We have an ageing population, and as a rule, the statistics show that, unfortunately, that does not necessarily mean that the people living longer are always in good health. Consequently, the portion of our collective budget that we have to allocate to prescription drugs, as to hospital care, is a variable we have to take into account.

To the extent that there is a considerable increase in the price of prescription drugs, since we would be protecting drug patents longer through this agreement and it would take two or three years longer before companies could manufacture equivalent generics, each level of government will have to pay more for prescription drugs.

In Quebec, for example, where the entire population has access to pharmacare, there are still some who do not have the means to buy their medications, even if they only have to pay the prescription fee, and who have to consider slashing their grocery budget. That is another problem we will have to resolve.

There is a third problem that I will barely have time to touch upon, given the signal I am getting from the Speaker. Perhaps I will return to it if there are any questions. I am talking about investor-state disputes. To summarize very simply, corporations currently have such great influence on free trade agreements that they can sue governments that have made decisions which they claim would limit their ability to do business. One can well imagine all the problems that ensue.

I will be pleased to respond to questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke of compensation for dairy producers.

The formula proposed by the former Conservative government was $4.3 billion. That figure is higher than what the Liberals are offering at the moment, but on the downside, it was time limited, so not ideal. That was not the best solution either.

The Liberals are offering far less money, $350 million rather than $4.3 billion. What is more, there is a condition attached: the producer has to invest. My colleague was speaking earlier about farms with millions of dollars worth of production. On the other hand, there are also a lot of small family farms, where people are having difficulty making ends meet. They are being asked to make one more investment, one more expenditure, even though their profits are not very high.

What repercussions might this clause have on our small family farms?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her question and for making up for that extra $0.3 billion I had forgotten to tack on to the $4 billion.

During the election campaign, on diafiltered milk alone, we clearly saw that some of these family farms had to sell or go bankrupt, as they could not manage to be cost-effective.

Farms of that size that are faced with such a predicament are obviously not going to be able to make the investments required by the compensation program. The farms that are better off and able to make such investments have already made them, for the most part. Consequently, they too will not benefit from the system.

The Liberals have introduced a very small measure. Let us be clear: $350 million is a paltry sum considering the size of the problem. Worse still, this measure will be of use to almost no one. It will only serve to give the impression that the Liberal government has something to say in response to questions, knowing perfectly well that its compensation program is totally ineffective.