Debates of May 12th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific Partnership

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we need to focus on is the Liberals continued consultation, their continued raising of these concerns that do not exist.

I have consulted with farmers and ranchers in my riding, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian dairy farmers association, Alberta beef, Alberta dairy, and these groups are in support.

The Liberals say they are going around the country consulting with groups that are not in favour, but they need to show some leadership here. If they are trying to get consensus on something, they will be consulting from now until the end of time. It will not happen.

They need to say that there was an extensive consultation with the previous government as they negotiated this agreement and now they have consulted again. They have to show leadership and say they will never get consensus, but this is good for Canada and they should approve it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, just prior to the election the previous prime minister announced that if Canada ratified TPP, he would offer $4.3 billion of compensation to Canada's agricultural sector. Also, the Conservative cabinet announced that if TPP were signed, it would make a further $1 billion available in compensation to the auto sector.

Taking those things together, it is quite obvious that his own Conservative Party recognized that over $5.3 billion of economic harm would be done to those two industries in Canada, unless the government was just giving money away, but I presume the reason it was giving compensation to the industries was to compensate them for the inevitable harm that would come to those industries as a result of TPP.

Perhaps the hon. member could enlighten us and tell us why the former Conservative prime minister wanted to spend $5.3 billion of taxpayer money on those two sectors once we signed TPP.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is being a little bit dramatic. This was not funding that said we knew this would have an impact. This was a safety net if anything were to happen, as a transition period as we go from the rules and regulations and the tariffs that are in place now to having those free trade agreements in place.

As I said in my speech, the information we have from very reputable think tanks and economists is that this could mean $15.9 billion to Canada's economy.

Certainly there will be some situations in there with which we have to take some care, and that includes supply management. Representatives from the supply management industry came to us after this agreement was negotiated and said it was much better than anything they could have anticipated. They were very concerned about what sacrifices they would have to make as an industry.

Not only did we have that compensation package in place, but we now have a Liberal government that has removed that compensation package and has raised a great deal of fear within the supply management industry.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to split my time with the fabulous, hard-working member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

When we talk trade in the House it always strikes me that we have two solitudes. One wants to approach trade from a position of jingoism and simplification and attack anybody who may want to question a particular trade deal as being “not interested” in trade, versus another approach to trade that values the concepts of consultation, of taking care in signing these large major agreements, and in making sure that there is a net benefit to Canada.

I would like to start my remarks today by assessing what the real state of affairs is around the impact of TPP today. There are a lot of exaggerated claims about what these trade agreements would do or would not do and there are some numbers, of course, that get generated.

The previous Conservative government liked to produce an economic impact assessment, keep it to itself, base it on completely wild assumptions like full employment and 100% capital reinvestment of all of the tariff savings back into the economy and all sorts of things that every reputable economist would tell us is just simply nonsense, and then just repeat those numbers.

Let us look at what the most recent numbers are, by sources that study these agreements, on the impact of TPP on Canada.

First of all I would like to point out that there is often confusion, particularly on the Conservative side of the House, when they talk about the size of the market of TPP. They often portray it as if signing this agreement would give us access to a market of so many billions of dollars and so many hundreds of millions of people, when in fact Canada already has access to those markets. The TPP would not give us new access. We already have access to these markets and we are already trading with them.

Similarly, what is not pointed out enough is that of the 12 countries participating in the TPP, five of them already have free trade agreements, including Canada. We already trade with the United States on a free trade basis and with Mexico, Chile, and Peru. Those five countries make up over 80% of the GDP of this region already. What often is not said as well about the TPP is that 97% of Canadian exports entering TPP countries enter those markets tariff free today.

When we start assessing the impact of TPP, we have to put it in perspective but let us see what some reputable groups outside the House have to say.

The C.D. Howe Institute, no left-wing group here, has assessed the impact of TPP 10 years out as having a 0.6% boost to Canada's GDP. The World Bank has estimated that 10 years after TPP is signed it would have a 0.8% boost to Canada's GDP. The most recent study done by Tufts University's centre for global studies estimates it would be 0.28% boost to Canada's GDP 10 years out. If we average these three numbers, the consensus boost to the Canadian economy as a result of signing the TPP would be 0.56%.

In a $1.8 trillion economy, we will call it $2 trillion, that is $10 billion of GDP 10 years out. That is not nothing. That is important. However, clearly, on any rational assessment of the true state of affairs now and what the impact of TPP would be on GDP, it would not have the blockbuster impact touted by its most fervent boosters.

As a matter of fact, economists looking at the TPP also point out that the benefits of TPP would not flow uniformly among the 12 countries. They find that there would be negligible to negative impact on the United States and Canada as a result of this deal, when we look at a number of macroeconomic factors. Maybe that is why the two leading contenders for the U.S. president, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are on record as opposing the TPP in the United States.

They are joined by other people, and again, no left-wingers here. Jim Balsillie, one of Canada's premier entrepreneurs has called TPP an innovation killer for Canada. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, as well, has said the TPP represents the worst trade deal negotiated in the globe today.

Let us talk about jobs. I was fortunate enough to be trade critic for the New Democratic Party for three years and I had the privilege of meeting and talking to many economists about their positions on trade. What I was told repeatedly is that the consensus in economics is that trade deals do not necessarily create jobs. There are many reasons, perhaps, to enter trade agreements, but job creation is not considered one of them by classical economics.

Generally, the consensus is that a trade deal may have a plus or minus 1% impact on jobs, depending on who the parties are and the terms of the deal. What trade deals do, however, is create job dislocation. In other words, some sectors benefit from the trade agreement and employment growth may go up and other sectors suffer damages by the trade agreement and lose employment. Therefore, we have to measure not only the quantitative aspect of job creation or loss but the types of jobs, because good jobs may be lost in one sector and lower-paying jobs may be increased in another sector.

What is the assessment of TPP? It is that TPP is estimated to cost the Canadian economy 58,000 jobs. As I have been pointing out in the debate all day today, that is well known and acknowledged by the Conservatives, whose motion lies before the House, because they themselves told the Canadian public that if they signed the TPP, Canadian taxpayers would have to pay $5.3 billion, and that is not contingent upon losses like they said in other agreements. They would pay $5.3 billion to the agriculture and auto sectors in Canada to compensate them for the damage that even they acknowledged would happen to those two sectors. There is proof of that here.

I now want to talk about the auto sector. If we look at the actual provisions of the TPP, in the auto industry, as has been pointed out by my colleague from Windsor West today, this agreement was poorly negotiated in terms of protecting the Canadian auto sector, because the phase-out of tariffs among Canada and Malaysia and the United States differ.

The United States got a 25-year phase-out period for its auto tariffs. Malaysia got 12 years. Canada got five. Not only that, but the damage to the rules of origin provisions are even worse. Currently, for a car manufactured in North America to qualify for tariff removal between NAFTA countries, 65% of that car and the parts in it have to be made within that jurisdiction. What does the TPP say? It says 35%. That means a car made 65% in Malaysia or China can come into Canada tariff free. If anybody in the House thinks that cars coming into Canada tariff free are not going to damage auto production in Canada, then I want them to stand in the House and say so today, and we will see what happens in five years if this agreement is signed.

I will talk, as well, about agriculture. We all know that Australia and New Zealand were attacking Canada's supply-managed sector relentlessly throughout these negotiations. I will give credit, actually, to the Conservative government for holding firm on the supply-managed sector. However, again, the fact that $4.3 billion would have to be allocated to Canada's agricultural sector, including the supply-managed sector, tells us all we need to know about the impact of the TPP on the agriculture sector.

I want to talk about human rights, because that has not been mentioned enough in the House. Two of the countries that are partners in the TPP are Brunei and Vietnam. Brunei, last year, passed a form of sharia law that makes homosexuality and adultery crimes punishable by stoning to death. Vietnam today uses child labour, prison labour, and in some people's view, virtual slave labour, in addition to being a country that has no respect for democratic traditions whatsoever. Those are not the kinds of countries New Democrats say should be rewarded with economic preferences.

Conservatives have said in the House that they want sanctions on Iran. As recently as last week, they were criticizing the Liberal government for warming relations with Iran. They say we should have sanctions, which is the opposite of preferential economic benefits. They want to punish Iran economically. Why? It is because the Conservatives do not like the politics of Iran. Why do they not say the same thing about the politics of Brunei? Let the Conservatives stand in the House and tell the GLBTQ community in this country that they should be sending economic privileges to a country where people will be put to death for their sexual preference.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a strong advocate for free trade and a solid international economic presence.

Given that approximately one in five jobs in Canada is export dependent, and that the NDP strongly supports the preservation and sustainability of Canadian jobs, I would like to ask the hon. member if he believes that Canada is a trading nation, and if so, whether he also agrees that we have a duty incumbent upon us to expand economic opportunities both domestically as well as internationally.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course the New Democrats believe in trade. Every single Canadian of every political persuasion believes in trade. It was only part of the chicanery, the demagoguery, over-simplification and, frankly, ideological simplification of the previous Conservative government when it wanted to turn the complex discussion of trade into one where either members supported the agreement the Conservatives signed or they were against trade. Canadians know that is nonsense, and that is why they booted them out of office.

For instance, the hon. member is a member of the Liberal Party, but the Liberals opposed the free trade agreement with the United States. They then said that they opposed NAFTA and said that if they won the election, they would rip up NAFTA, but they did not do that.

I would ask the member, does their opposition to those agreements mean that they were opposed to trade? Well, of course not. It meant that when there are complex agreements that are thousands of pages long, that have profound implications for our economy, we have to study them carefully and determine if they are of a net comprehensive value to Canada. Reasonable people can come to the conclusion that they do not, and the New Democrats believe that is the case with the TPP.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend. I did enjoy time with him on the trade committee. I complimented him on having the NDP sign on to their first trade agreement in its history, the one with South Korea, and I know that was his influence.

There is something the member neglects to tell the House and Canadians when talking about trade. He quoted some modest GDP improvement numbers and said 0.5% GDP growth is not a blockbuster, and that sort of thing, and so I will pose the question I raised in my remarks.

What would happen if Canada did not sign on and our NAFTA partners were there? That would kill the auto sector. There would not be another dollar invested by North American or global manufacturers, because suddenly, our two NAFTA partners would have access to 800 million consumers, and Canadian operations would not. The member never talks about how our GDP would go down if suddenly Canada did not have preferred trade access with these countries.

It is about getting a good deal, which I think the last government did. I would like the member to talk about whether it is an economic strategy to engage in navel-gazing and avoid trade with the rest of the world.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, my hon. colleague is incorrect. The NDP supported two trade agreements in the last Parliament, one with Jordan and one with South Korea.

I will grant that the member has a fair point. There is an argument to be made that if our NAFTA partners do sign the TPP and get preferential access to, say, the Japanese market, Canada, for purely defensive reasons, would be wise to join the TPP for that reason. It is one reason in the argument in favour of the TPP.

To counter that, I will repeat that if this agreement was good for the Canadian auto sector, why did the former prime minister in the last Parliament promise the auto sector $1 billion in compensation?

Also, as I said before, the different tariff phase-out periods, having the U.S. with 25 years and Canada with five years, may result in Canadian car manufacturers shifting their production to the U.S. to take advantage of those slower phase-out tariffs. It could be that the TPP does damage as well.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his comments. There is a lot of history there and knowledge as well.

I would like to the ask the member, as the health critic, what some of the concerns are that he may have with respect to the TPP on health implications, particularly with respect to pharmacare.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are two considerations.

First, the new intellectual property rules, everybody acknowledges, will delay the introduction of generics to market, which will no doubt have an impact on rising health care costs in Canada. Second, and this goes to my question earlier about the ISDS procedure, but ISDS under the TPP may result in companies being able to sue Canada for bringing in national programs, including perhaps a national pharmacare program.

The Minister of International Trade says that CETA represents the gold standard in ISDS, which means the TPP represents the bronze standard. I do not think Canada should settle for bronze when it comes to a trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House in the debate on the opposition day motion brought forward by the Conservative Party on the trans-Pacific partnership and whether Canada should be engaging in it, whether we need to sign the agreement early, and so on and so forth.

We know when the Conservatives were in government they did hold highly secretive consultations which, for the most part, were hidden from the eyes of Canadians. These consultations, while they included many people from the corporate world, did exclude labour groups, environmental groups, and other members of civil society, the very same people upon whom the TPP is going to have a profound impact.

We know that the member for Abbotsford, who was the former international trade minister, was the one who started the negotiations in this regard and really was pushing it, trying to get the deal signed right during the middle of the election. Therefore, it is not a surprise that we are dealing with this motion today.

It is, however, unfortunate because at this very moment, the Standing Committee on International Trade is holding public consultation hearings across the country to hear what Canadians are saying. This motion is putting the cart before the horse. The committee is in Windsor today, listening to how the deal would negatively impact jobs in southwestern Ontario. Earlier this week, the committee was in Montreal, where it met with 19 witnesses, 19 of whom were opposed to the TPP.

Part (b) of the motion says:

the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the best opportunity to strengthen the multilateral trading system and develop rules that protect Canada’s economic interests;

That last part about protecting Canada's economic interests is what I take issue with, because I think we, on this side of the House, have a differing opinion on that. The real fact of the matter is that this deal is estimated to cost about 60,000 Canadian jobs and it will give more rights to corporations through investor-state clauses.

I know this will shock some of my Conservative colleagues in the House but we in the NDP are in favour of trade deals, just not the ones that Conservatives and Liberals sign. We are in favour of fair trade, not free trade, and not in deals that are created just as corporate rights deals.

As my friend the member for Vancouver Kingsway mentioned, 97% of Canadian exports that go to TPP countries are already tariff-free anyway. It gives rise to the question as to why the Conservatives are insisting upon this motion today.

I want to talk a bit about human rights, because much has been made about some of the countries that these deals have been signed with. This deal is going to link us with countries that have known poor labour rights records, like Brunei, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

Signing deals like this with countries with those kinds of records gives them a legitimacy that they should not have. It has been done in the past. The Conservatives did it before.

For example, Honduras has a terrible human rights record and not a very large economy, but the Conservatives signed the free trade deal anyway. When it comes to organized labour, Colombia has a shocking record of using militias and paid groups to brutally suppress any form of demonstration that goes against the corporate mantra the country operates under. We have seen examples of it. There have been examples of Canadian companies being complicit in South America in fomenting that kind of organization against labour.

I do not think we should just legitimize these countries in the name of giving corporations more power.

Some of the issues that have been brought to me by my constituents make it very clear that I cannot, as the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, speak favourably about a trade deal that would be so destructive to working people.

I want to speak a bit about the investor-state dispute resolution settlement.

The investor-state dispute settlement allows corporations to sue governments in secretive tribunals and tie the hands of governments that try to improve health care or environmental laws.

Governments trying to protect the environment or the health of Canadians are simply doing the job they were sent there to do by their constituents. These have been brought down by global trade rules and they have allowed corporations to sue, based on the complaints that they will lose profit.

I remember one particular example. The green energy plan of Ontario was designed to create local jobs by moving to a greener future. The Government of Ontario tried to source local solar panels and to create an economy while at the same time moving to alternative energy. That is a noble pursuit that any government in Canada should be doing. However, it was smacked down by the World Trade Organization because the Government of Ontario was found to be discriminating against foreign suppliers. Is that really the kind of deal we want, where local Canadian technology companies are being smacked down, when local citizens, through their elected representatives, want to support local industry? Is that really the kind of deal we want? I do not think so.

My province of British Columbia was sued in 1998 over its water protection legislation that Sun Belt Water Incorporated felt harmed its profits.

The TPP would also lock in intellectual property policies like patent term extensions which were recently set by the Conservatives. This would ensure that Canada continues to have one of the highest per capita drug costs in the OECD. That is something that flies in the face of our trying to get a national pharmacare plan up and running.

Raw logs is an explosive issue in my riding. Under the current provincial laws, export of raw logs requires an exemption licence from the B.C. government, although the B.C. government has not been very good at doing that. One example shows that in 1997 we were exporting 200,000 cubic metres of raw logs. Nowadays it is 5.5 million cubic metres. With the TPP, we have already heard that Japan wants to ease the restrictions on raw log exports so that it gets the raw product, gets to make it into something, and perhaps sells the finished product back to us. If Canada and Japan ever disagreed on the interpretation of the rules, it would again go to a secret trial with no input from the elected representatives.

The Broadbent Institute said:

Beyond the narrow calculus of likely winners and losers from changes to the trade rules, the TPP reinforces policy rules which prevent Canada from pursuing more active economic development strategies to diversify our economy.

The TPP will likely limit our ability to require higher value added processing of our resource exports to Asia, such as restrictions on the export of logs rather than lumber, or on unprocessed fish rather than fish products.

If we really want to get past our image as the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, we need to critically examine deals like this and ask whether they are really serving the national interest. Are we really encouraging that value-added industry?

Supply management is another big issue. My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway already went over the large compensation package that was offered to farmers, and it begs the question, if this is really so good for supply management, why it is that dairy farmers are being offered such a big package. Really, I think it will be the beginning of the end for our supply management system, a system that promotes a great way of living for farmers. I know many farmers in my riding have talked to me about how they depend on it for their local families.

One of our greatest tests in this day and age is how we react to climate change and protect our environment. We need to really be active in measures like that. As I mentioned earlier, we need to support local technology and alternative energy, specifically developing homegrown industries that develop solar panels, wind turbines, tidal power, and so on. We need to have the ability to invest in local jobs that make those products and not be under fear of persecution under a trade deal like the TPP just because we are deciding to support local industry.

In closing, I will just say that the wording of this motion is putting the cart before the horse, especially in light of the fact that the trade committee is doing important work, listening to witnesses and hearing a lot of negative reactions.

I am proud to stand with the New Democratic caucus in that we believe in fair trade and not just free trade. I hope all hon. colleagues will stand with me on that note.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member's discussion about the idea of human rights. For instance, the OECD and other organizations have identified a lack of demand as being the central problem facing our economy. In simple terms, lack of demand means that ordinary citizens like my constituents in Winnipeg Centre and elsewhere across the country do not have money to spend. They are saddled with record personal debt. Their wages are stagnant. They need steady jobs and they need decent wages.

The OECD has said that what is required most is to put money into the hands of people who need it the most to create jobs through infrastructure. There are far greater threats to our global economy and the Canadian economy that cannot be solved by simply rushing to sign a trade deal with an artificial deadline. What does the hon. member think about that artificial deadline?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the aisle on putting this artificial deadline in place. The legislatures of all 12 countries now have two years in which to consider this. To suddenly say that June 29 is when the government must declare support for this is simply an arbitrary number. It is does not matter if it is going to be the three amigos summit.

However, I agree with him on the local infrastructure. I am worried that when local governments are putting out tenders for procurement, trade deals like this will interrupt their ability to support local companies.

I agree that international trade is not the most pressing issue of our time. We need to look at examples like his community and communities across Canada to identify the great amount of income inequality that exists in Canada and take some firm actions to address it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for sharing his thoughts on trade with the House today. To follow up on my questions for his colleague from Vancouver Kingsway earlier, over the last two generations, the New Democratic Party has missed the boat on trade and has allowed itself to be stuck in its ideology that does not support its members.

I refer him to the auto pact in 1965, which the NDP opposed, but actually benefited and built the Canadian auto industry we enjoy today, including Windsor and Oshawa. Had we taken the position the New Democrats then, we would not have had the jobs and production when tariffs were reduced because the supply chain had gone from being based in just one country to being North American. Now that supply chain, particularly for parts, is global. If Canada is not part of the global trade relationships, we will have fewer jobs in the global auto and auto parts industry. I would like his comment on what could be Canada missing the boat.

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

Madam Speaker, our job in the NDP is to bring a voice to Parliament which so often goes unheard by government. My job here is to speak on behalf of my constituents and a larger group of people, whether they are environment or labour groups. People have raised legitimate concerns about this trade agreement and we are presenting those voices to Parliament because so often they are shut out from negotiations. Therefore, I unapologetically stand here on their behalf to give voice to their concerns because it needs to be heard in this chamber.

With respect to the auto pact, yes, as my friend from Vancouver Kingsway said, there is a danger with the auto industry that we could miss the boat. However, it still means we need to give a critical look to this deal to decide ultimately, holistically if it is in the best interests of our country going forward.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend from Bow River. I would also like to thank my colleague from Abbotsford for leading our official opposition on this very important file.

I rise today to speak on the opposition motion regarding the trans-Pacific partnership, or the TPP. However, before I start, I would like to begin with a little quote from January 2014, when a member said that she supported “a...more ambitious, wider reaching...which fully and ambitiously integrates Canada into the global economy.” Who said that? The Minister of International Trade in her maiden speech in the House of Commons when she was a member of the third party.

That sounds a lot like the trans-Pacific partnership to me. It is a multinational trade agreement, which we all know represents 35% or more of the global economy, and this agreement will open up markets across the Asia-Pacific region to Canadians, including markets in Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

As a member of the Conservative caucus, I strongly support the TPP and this motion. It has the potential to unlock massive and growing markets for Canadian exports across all industrial sectors. I, too, hope my colleagues will support this motion to ensure the ratification of the TPP and the protection of Canadian jobs.

The TPP represents a market of almost 800 million new consumers with a combined GDP of $29 trillion and represents 35% of the global GDP. However, without ratification of this agreement, Canada stands to lose billions of dollars worth of trade opportunities. The importance of this agreement and the ratification cannot be overstated.

In 2014, Canada's exports to TPP countries accounted for 81% of the total value of Canadian exports, worth about $759 billion. This agreement would set the rules for trade in the Asia-Pacific region for generations.

The government has an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of this agreement and help shape it moving forward, to ensure Canadian businesses and workers are on a level playing field with their competitors in the Asia-Pacific region. As a mid-sized economy, Canada and Canadians prosper when there are multilateral rules to protect its economic interest.

In the most recent budget, the Liberals are planning to run multi-billion dollar deficits, as we all know, but through the trade opportunities in the TPP, we can grow our economy without spending billions of taxpayer dollars that we do not have. That is why we are calling on the Liberal government to make a decision on the TPP agreement by June 29 for the North American leaders summit in Ottawa.

Endorsing the TPP will send a clear signal to Canadian businesses, allowing exporters to have the opportunity to prepare and take advantage of this market access, with lower tariffs and further integration of global supply chains.

Canada cannot afford to be protectionist. We are a trading nation, and many jobs rely on that trade. We cannot afford to turn our backs on the opportunities available through the TPP. We need to only look back over the last few years during the global economic slowdown to see how damaging a protectionist mentality could be to the economy.

Some of the world's biggest economies, the biggest traders became sworn enemies of trade. Buy American was our biggest trading partner's plan, then France first, even China started to implement their own domestic-only plan.

What is clear is that growing our access to major economies and emerging markets clearly demonstrates long-term gains for Canada and the rest of the world. Instead of appearing in shows in Hollywood, the Minister of International Trade needs to demonstrate leadership on this file. While many believe it is important to showcase herself to Americans, Canadians are worried about their jobs and need a government that will work to create opportunities to protect their livelihood.

I was pleased to see in budget 2016 that the government had committed to swift ratification of CETA, “so citizens can quickly reap the benefits of this high quality agreement“.

The European market is vast with more than 500 million potential new customers, and I would hope that the government would also commit to helping our citizens benefit to more than 800 million more new customers that could be accessible by ratification of the TPP.

We have an opportunity to contribute in a significant way to the increase of business channels and embrace the realities of being a player on the world stage. It is time for the Liberal government to be open with Canadians as well as our allies and tell them whether we support the biggest trade agreement in over 20 years.

I would like to quote from budget 2016. It states:

The trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) would offer opportunities to grow Canadian trade with Asia-Pacific countries, enhance North American production and improve job quality in Canada.

If the government agrees with our side about the many merits and benefits of this deal, why does it continue to stall ratification?

A recent study by the Fraser Institute told us that the TPP could boost Canadian exports by $15 billion and could increase Canada's GDP by over $9 billion.

While many sectors and industries would benefit from the TPP, I would like to speak about some of the benefits for the agricultural sector.

The agriculture and the agri-food sector employ close to 2.3 million people and account for 6.6% of Canada's GDP. We are also the fifth largest exporter of agriculture and agricultural food products globally. From 2012 to 2014, those exports to the TPP countries were worth $31.2 billion annually. Exports included canola, wheat, live swine, baked goods, beef, and processed potatoes, and that is just naming a few. These are products are grown right across Canada.

In my riding, agriculture is significant. It is an economic driver that supports many communities. This agreement offers many of those constituents a chance to grow their businesses and prosper. Whether it is beef, pork, wheat, barley, canola oil, processed food, vegetables, wine and spirits, and again just naming a few, producers and exporters all stand to benefit from the TPP.

I have spoken to many of my constituents about this deal. It was a big issue during the recent election campaign. They have expressed the benefits it would have for them and their families. Agricultural and agri-food exporters across the country would see the benefit, again, to having access to 800 million more potential customers.

The TPP would also ensure that Canadian businesses and exporters would have a competitive advantage over competitors from nations outside the TPP.

All of the above statements have shown the many benefits for Canadians from coast to coast to coast if the government ratifies the TPP. From Global Affairs Canada, in Ontario alone:

The TPP will eliminate tariffs on almost all of Ontario’s key exports and provide access to new opportunities in the Asia-Pacific. The TPP also creates strong and enforceable rules that will help Canadians do business in TPP countries–with provisions that will reduce regulatory barriers, increase transparency and reinforce intellectual property rights.

Our previous Conservative government made Canada a global leader in trade liberalization and in the fight against protectionism. Ratifying the TPP at this time gives the Liberals the chance to prove they are really serious about trade. Ratifying the TPP will make Canada the only G-7 nation with free trade access to the United States, the Americas, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. That is a huge advantage. It is an important deal. I really hope the Liberals will support our motion.

With the TPP, Canada would have free trade agreements with 51 nations, giving Canadian businesses access to 60% of the global economy, with a significant number of benefits for Canadians. I am really hoping the Liberal government hears our message and supports this motion. If not, I hope the Liberals are ready to explain to Canadians why a government that is allegedly all about supporting the middle class refuses to take action to give Canadians a more competitive chance to compete on the world stage.

Not signing this agreement means we will watch from the sidelines while some of our allies take massive advantage over our products. The cost to the economy will be significant. Domestic layoffs could reveal that protectionist ideology is very short-sighted and extremely damaging.

As I said earlier, with one in five jobs in Canada and 60% of our nation's GDP being directly linked to trade, Canadians cannot afford to be left out of this deal.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Carlton Trail-Eagle Creek, Air Transportation; the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, Natural Resources.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock for his comments and his sincere and articulate defence of the TPP. We are getting equally sincere and articulate critiques of the TPP from members at the far side of the House. I would ask him this. What would he say to an hon. member who makes reference to a study out there that states that we will lose 60,000 jobs or 20,000 jobs in the manufacturing industry in southwestern Ontario not far from his home riding? How do we answer that?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, the TPP gives us access to 800 million potential more customers. In my riding, agriculture is enormous. The spin-off jobs that result from the benefits of agriculture are huge. I have spoken with beef and dairy farmers, and anyone in supply management. They are wholeheartedly for this trade agreement. The reasons are very clear. We have sectors of this economy that benefit from trade, and that is growing. I do not think we should have protectionist ideology at a time when emerging markets are growing. We need to be a part of that. What would the alternative be if we are on the outside of this agreement? We would be locked out of trading with our biggest trading partners, which are some of the world's largest and growing economies. That would put us at a huge disadvantage. That would be more disruptive to jobs and the economy in my riding and throughout Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and neighbour for his speech in defence of trade. I will follow up on the question he was asked by the parliamentary secretary for international trade, who sometimes takes a position in favour of the TPP and sometimes quotes studies against. This is in a similar fashion to the minister, who will not defend a trade deal like this as being in Canada's national interest. If Canada is not at the table, we will have no interest in those markets and what will be 50% of the global economy by 2050.

My question to my colleague is this. The Conservative government made trade, and the jobs created from it, a clear economic priority, whereas the new Liberal government, as with most issues, prefers committee studies and avoiding decisions. Does the member think that being part of this 11-member deal is in Canada's economic long-term interest?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, that it is a great question. As I mentioned, 800 million new customers is a combined GDP of $29 trillion. It represents 35% of the global GDP. Without ratification of this agreement, we could lose billions of dollars worth of trade opportunities. The importance of this agreement cannot be overstated. If we look at how the world is growing, we have potential access to emerging markets with a growing middle class who want some of the best products in the world. We have those products, especially when it comes to agriculture. Therefore, we should be taking advantage of that.

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

Madam Speaker, let us just look at the facts. In 2005, we had a trade surplus of $46.1 billion per year. By 2015, that was down to $10.9 billion per year. The previous government and its “let us just get a deal” approach did not get us anywhere. Even after the recession, we continued to go down. On the other hand, we have the NDP who are saying that we should reject the deal without even looking at it. The Liberals' position is to look at it, analyze it, and negotiate it from a position that can be to our advantage. My question to the member opposite is this. Why would you be so persistent on accepting this deal without first having a look at it?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I want to remind the member that he is to address his question through the Chair as opposed to saying “you”.

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, a very brief answer.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, we did have consultations with the public. It was published in the Canada Gazette when there was news of the negotiations coming through. I should mention that protectionist measures, as we saw during the global economic slowdown, resulted in the “buy American” or “buy France first” slogans, which resulted in massive job layoffs. However, by increasing trade, we are increasing access to the global marketplace. By the end of our term in government, we had the best job creation record in the G7, and that is despite—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bow River.