House of Commons Hansard #54 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tpp.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech in the House.

The Liberal government often likes to talk about transparency and the importance of consulting Canadians.

It says it will do things better and do things right, which is good, but when looking at trade deals, it is important to look at the economic impact. Has there been a study? No, there has not. Is this public to Canadians? No, it is not.

What certain countries have done, like New Zealand, is release economic impact studies to parliamentarians so that they can easily evaluate the impacts, positive and negative, on the economy. I was wondering if the hon. member would comment on why the government has failed to produce an economic impact study on this important trade deal.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for her question.

I have to say that I am a little confused. If I remember correctly, during the 2015 election campaign, the hon. member adopted a stance that was in line with her party's, a stance that may not have been entirely logical. The New Democrats opposed the trans-Pacific partnership without ever having read the agreement.

How interesting that they are in this situation now, asking me questions. As the government, we signed it, and we are going to give the information and the text—

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order.

The hon. member for Guelph. Please keep the question brief.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to expand on that. I thank the hon. member for his commitment to this, as well as the file on innovation.

The Conservatives want us to sign it right away and not discuss it, and New Democrats want us not to sign it because we do not need to discuss it. I would ask the hon. member to expand further on the value of discussion and conversation with Canadians on this file.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with hon. member. It is important for Canadians to make an informed choice, and in order to make an informed choice, they have to have information in front of them; at the very least, the text. They are being given that opportunity, and that is why we are having this debate in the House.

I am very glad to listen to all members who giving speeches and I look forward to carrying on this discussion.

Votes on Opposition MotionsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Opposition motion in the name of the Member for Abbotsford, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions,

That at the conclusion of tomorrow's debate on the Opposition motion in the name of the Member for Peace River—Westlock, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Votes on Opposition MotionsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Votes on Opposition MotionsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Votes on Opposition MotionsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Votes on Opposition MotionsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Votes on Opposition MotionsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University.

I am pleased to stand today and talk about the trans-Pacific partnership agreement.

I think we heard very clearly from the member for Abbotsford, as he opened the debate today, why this deal is important, what the motion actually said, and the tremendous amount of work that has gone into the deal in terms of creating the agreement among the 12 nations.

First of all, I want to make a couple of general comments. I do not think I need to repeat some of those important facts that the member stated, but I will make some general comments, and then I want to focus in on British Columbia and some of the important elements of this particular free trade agreement for British Columbians.

I was not elected until 2008, and of course, the previous government was elected in 2006. Over the years, I came to appreciate that the Conservatives had a plan that was elegant, comprehensive, and well executed. This is not just a plan about free trade agreements, and I can give members a very specific example.

In 2006, we announced the Asia-Pacific gateway initiative, and we have spent over $1 billion. The Asia-Pacific gateway initiative was a recognition of how important our trade was for western Canada, and somewhat for the east, but most importantly for western Canada. It was recognizing the importance of the supply chains and how we moved our goods and products in both directions.

What did this $1 billion-plus do? It did so many important things. It was a system of transportation. It included roads in the lower mainland, to make sure that there were no bottlenecks. It included ports, such as in Prince Rupert and in Vancouver. It included rail connections that reached across western Canada. In particular, there were a number of inland ports that were created. It also involved things such as major airports and border crossings. Of course, there was a lot of work done with the U.S. in terms of having a fluid border. This was one component of what was a comprehensive plan to make Canada prosperous.

At the same time as we were creating the ability for our supply chain to work effectively and efficiently, we embarked on a very comprehensive free trade agreement, and we are part of the trans-Pacific partnership.

I have to take a minute and contrast that to the Liberal approach to economic opportunity. What we were doing was trying to create opportunities for trade, and trying to reduce barriers to ensure the flow. However, the Liberal response that I can see to date is to say that we have a sluggish economy and that we need to spend taxpayers' dollars to help the economy. However, I would argue, that is exactly what we do not need to do.

What we need to be doing is moving forward with the tax decrease for our small and medium-sized businesses to continue the work of ensuring the free flow of our goods and services. I think members can see that we came to government with a comprehensive plan to ensure that Canada had a prosperous and robust future.

Having sort of talked about the comprehensive plan, it will be important to dig in to exactly what is happening in British Columbia and how important this deal is to British Columbia.

Between 2012 and 2016, there was $20.6 billion in exports to the Asia-Pacific region. As members can imagine, that is a huge piece of the economy of British Columbia.

Members will see a smile on my face, because I was looking through the products and the opportunities that are going to benefit. This is so much for the province that I am proud of in terms of how it is going to be able to exercise this opportunity.

There are things like duty-free market access to industrial goods, aluminum products, and iron and steel products. When we think of British Columbia, we have the iconic salmon and the beautiful oceans and, of course, the very healthy seafood that comes from our oceans . I think we can all appreciate the ability to have duty-free access to fish and seafood products, which include salmon and shrimp.

In the Lower Mainland, we can see the beautiful cranberry fields which provide us all with the cranberries we use at Christmastime and other times of the year. The Fraser Valley is a very critical supplier and exporter of cranberries. We have blueberries, a very healthy fruit. The beautiful, large blueberries of the Fraser Valley will now have increased market access.

There will be duty-free access for wood and other forestry products, including lumber, plywood, and veneer panels. I am going to use a local example. To be frank, I am not sure if this company currently exports its products, but it makes amazing doorframes and windows. The quality is superb. The company is Century Glass in Kamloops. It is a medium-sized business that sometimes has 50 or 60 workers. There is enormous opportunity within this agreement if the company decides to expand its market. Not only is it going to have tariff-free access, but there is a whole chapter for small and medium-sized enterprises that could take advantage of those opportunities. A company which might have 50 employees now will have access to a market of 800 million people predominantly tariff-free. These are quality products. We could then compete with the best of the world.

When the Liberals, hopefully, finally ratify this agreement, I will be delighted to bring the opportunities to our community of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

This is another important example. Sometimes we underestimate the importance of this particular issue. There is a company in Kamloops that had very highly technological medical equipment which came from overseas. There was no one in Canada who had the ability to service the equipment or the expertise to repair it. I received a phone call from this particular company. It was very concerned because there were so many constraints with respect to temporary entry to bring the skilled workers into Canada so that they could actually fix this piece of equipment. There was so much red tape and so many barriers that it took a number of weeks. That was a number of weeks during which a critical piece of medical equipment was unable to be serviced because of barriers which go both ways.

Not only will skilled Canadian workers have the opportunity for temporary access into countries where we might export some devices, but it will go both ways. In this case, we can imagine it would have made an enormous difference for this particular company to have had the ability to get its equipment fixed without involving an enormous amount of paperwork.

I could go on and on in terms of the specifics, but one thing that is important for ridings in British Columbia, Alberta, and throughout Canada, is our cattle industry, our beef industry. I would like to quote the general manager of the BC Cattlemen's Association:

For the beef industry, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a must. It's opening up that door to Japan and putting us on an even playing field with the 12 other countries involved.

It will help our industry by quite a bit, possibly tripling some of our markets into those areas, so any time we have a market open up, it gives us opportunity to sell not only more animals but get a higher cut-out value for them.

I hope the Liberal government has been listening and will recognize that this is critically important for Canada, and critically important for British Columbia. It would be very advantageous to move forward with this particular agreement.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the issue has been raised before. Let us do a bit of contrasting. On the one hand, the NDP's official position is that the agreement does not matter: who cares; just do not sign it as it is not in the interest of Canadians. The NDP wants nothing to do with the TPP. Then there is the Conservative approach which is that we do not need to consult with Canadians, and we should just go ahead and sign it.

There are 12 countries that have participated in this. We have plenty of time to actually consult with Canadians, work with the different stakeholders, and do exactly what it is the government is doing. We can follow the lead of the Minister of International Trade and actually work with Canadians to get a better sense of whether or not this is good for Canada. Then we can look at the possibility of ratifying it.

What does the member have against working with and consulting with Canadians? Why the sudden rush?

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, the member has perfectly articulated the problem with the Liberal government. It wanders down the mushy middle and never gets anything done. It does not take definitive positions. It does not get things done. I would ask the member to look at the last time the Liberals were in power. How many free trade agreements did it get done? Was it zero? There might have been one small one.

That question perfectly articulates the Liberal government's reluctance to move Canada forward. The Liberals would rather spend taxpayers' money to support an economy we do not have and to put debt on our grandchildren than do things that will create a future for tomorrow.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I find it really rich, the comments coming from across the way, when it is that very government that will not consult Canadians on physician-assisted dying. It will not consult Canadians on one of the biggest decisions we are going to make here in Parliament, which is electoral reform. It is refusing to do that.

Our government did consult Canadians. It did consult industry.

Would the hon. colleague talk about some of the other comments in support of TPP that we got from other industries along the way?

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, whether it is our agriculture, forestry, or mining industry, they will all enormously benefit.

I do think it is important to go back, and I will use the electoral reform issue. The member talks about consulting Canadians, and consulting and consulting.

The most important consultation the government could do, which would be a referendum on electoral reform, the Liberals have actually refused to do. The Liberals indicate they put a high priority on consultation, but when the metal hits the road, there is nothing.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to have a discussion like the one we are having today, where we can see the disagreements and then work on behalf of our constituents to try to get information forward that will help with decision-making.

I have heard some numbers from the Conservatives today showing that our exports and imports both went up after the recession. Is it not true that we look at whether we are winning in that game? Are there more exports than imports? Does the balance of trade not make a difference in this discussion?

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the member's comment about consultations.

The TPP has been on the books for years. Members of Parliament in the Liberal Party of Canada had the option of consulting at every step of the way with constituents and industry, and they failed to do any proactive work. Now they are being reactive, and they are going to spend however much time repeating some of the work that, quite frankly, we have already done.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting to engage in debates on trade in the House, because whenever I listen to people talk about it, I feel that many members of the House need to have a basic primer in economics, a basic one plus one equals two. When I hear people talk about needing more exports, fewer imports, and vice versa, those are really two sides of the same equation: exports equal imports. The reason we export is to get imports.

The example that is always given is someone's basic labour. I export my labour to my employer so I can import and consume things. When we talk about trade, sometimes the basics of economics get left out, so let me bring the basic argument for free trade.

I understand no trade agreement, the TPP included, is a perfect free trade agreement, but it is rules-based trade and it brings down tariffs and it brings down barriers. While it is not the academic perfect argument for free trade, all the trade agreements that Canada has signed going back to the FTA with the United States, is an improvement and something that moves us along the way to the ideal which is basically free trade.

The basics of trade agreements are that the fewer barriers, the fewer inefficiencies we have in the way, the more we can trade back and forth, the better off everyone is. This is not a zero sum game. We all win. If I can figure out some way to produce something better and more efficiently, I have more of it and I can therefore trade and give it to everyone else.

We see this in our individual lives. We see this when businesses engage in it at a very basic level. We understand it and no one argues the facts, even if in practice they do not follow it when it comes to interprovincial trade, but for some reason, we lose sight of this basic fact when it comes to international trade.

Just because someone is in another country does not mean he or she cannot add to our wealth by trading with us the same way that I trade with my employer. This is something that while not unanimous in economic circles, is as close to unanimous as one can get when it comes to any issues involving economics. It is that basic principle of free trade that I am standing here to argue for today. I want to emphasize that because it is not just our exporters that win.

Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have ably discussed the specifics in their ridings, in their parts of the country, what specific exporter wins. I am from Saskatchewan. Everyone knows Saskatchewan for its agriculture. Particularly for an area involving the TPP, with the growing populations in both Latin America and Asia, anything that opens up agriculture export markets is marvellous. With the rising populations, the rising incomes in this area, the demand for high quality food, food that raises health standards and raises standards of living is extraordinary.

For Saskatchewan, this is a winner. No one can grow wheat quite like we can. As countries shift to healthier cooking oils, canola oil—or Canadian oil which is the root of the term—is a great winner. All these individual products do win. However, it is not just the exporters. We have to remember consumers win, too, because each and every one of us exports, produces something so that we can import. We go to work, receive a paycheque and we go out and buy a new vehicle, a house, a meal at a restaurant, clothing and things for the family. Those are the imports into my household.

The same thing is Canada will gain as it imports from these countries. As countries in the TPP produce goods in a more efficient way, we in Canada can buy them less expensively. We can import them. That is one of the basics that we need to understand about any of these deals.

Another thing I would like to explain to the people watching today and those who will read Hansard later is to understand why we are actually having this debate. The various parties are laying out their positions. It has been six or seven months. The TPP was negotiated over a long period, and yes, the absolute details of the agreement were not known, but the general ideas behind it have been known literally for years.

It basically boils down to this: the internal and external politics of the Liberal Party.

As has been pointed out, in the past the Liberals have had a habit of saying one thing on the campaign trail, while campaigning to get votes from New Democrats by arguing positions to labour unions, environmental groups, and other areas of the left that they would like to poach votes from, and then, once in government, reality sinks in and they want GDP and economic growth so that they can deliver and spend as they want to do. They did this with NAFTA. They denounced it and then adopted it.

Here is the difficulty. The Liberals understand that the TPP is good for Canada's growth. Most economists agree. There is a handful who do not, and we can dispute their data. Free trade works and this is a positive for the country. They know that. The problem is that they do not want to alienate certain voter groups on the left who they wish to appeal to and who often would vote for New Democrats. Therefore, they are looking to bide their time until they know whether or not the TPP will go through. Right now, the U.S. Congress does not look favourably disposed to it. If the U.S. vetoes this deal, it will probably fail. What the Liberals need to do is to find a way to back out of it if it does not go forward, but to adopt it if it does go forward because Canada has to be a part of it. They know that from the macroeconomics. Therefore, they have come up with this farce that they are passing off as democratic consultation. This is what is going on.

As has been noted, the Liberals are trying to rush through changes to our voting system, a quasi-constitutional item, but at the same time, a trade agreement, which is significant in and of itself, they are delaying, buying time, and talking about consultations when the parties who are interested, which unfortunately does not mean most Canadians, have firm views on it. That is what is going on today. We are trying to force the Liberals to make a definitive decision and state whether they will support something that is for the good of the country or continue to talk this issue away, hoping they do not have to make a decision.

It is important that Canada make a decision. It has to do with the strategic understanding of where this treaty is going. Canada and the other countries that are involved in it need to make a decision to put pressure on the U.S. Congress and the U.S. government to understand the importance of this. We need to do that to force it to go forward because this is an agreement that will tie the broader Pacific regions together. It will provide economic benefits greater than we could supply through aid to some of the poorer countries in it. It will tie countries together across the Pacific Ocean in a positive way, to support one another and to bring them into our circle of influence, and by “our” I do not just mean Canada but the more advanced democratic nations, and therefore, have a positive influence.

That is one point I wish to make, because while it has been made clear today that this will benefit Canadian exporters and consumers, there is also the geopolitical strategic necessity of getting involved in this. For that, Canada should be a leader. We should not sit around and have a foreign policy that does nothing but contain beautiful words without any activity. This is something where Canada could take leadership and go forward.

With that, it looks like my time is close to winding up. Therefore, I look forward to any questions. However, I reiterate that I believe in this agreement because of what it does for Canada's strategic interests, for Canada's exporters, for Canada's workers, and for Canada's consumers.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, at the very least, I wonder if the member would acknowledge that in every region of the country there has been an expression of concern with respect to the TPP. As a direct result of the government not doing its homework a year ago, we now have a situation where there is grave concern all over Canada with regard to the TPP. The government is doing the right thing. After all, it was an election commitment to consult with stakeholders to find out whether or not there is a net value benefit for Canadians by moving forward on the TPP.

Would the member not recognize that Canadians also deserve to have a role in this?

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Madam Speaker, of course I believe that Canadians have a role. However, when we look at who presents, what the NGOs are, and what their positions are, I think we will find they are entirely predictable. Therefore, this is not something that is particularly new. The groups that tend to be opposed to trade agreements tend to be opposed to this one. Those who tend to be in favour of trade agreements tend to be in favour of this one. I am not getting nearly as much written correspondence or people coming into my office with respect to the TPP as I am on other issues, particularly the government's assisted dying-euthanasia legislation, which the government has not provided nearly as much time for consultation on as they have with respect to the TPP.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear my colleague's speech because he really laid out economics 101 and the importance of opening up new markets.

I am wondering if the member could comment on this strategic opportunity for Canada. The European free trade agreement offers the potential of 500 million new customers for Canada and the TPP would provide 800 million. I am wondering if he could comment on the historic opportunity this would present.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it strategically puts us in a good position to trade with both blocs, particularly with the auto industry, because most of our automotive products are specialized. The few lines that we export, if my memory serves me correctly, is 80% to 85% of our auto products. This would put us in a good strategic position.

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific PartnershipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

There will be two minutes and 20 seconds left for the member's questions and comments following question period, if he is available for that.