Debates of May 12th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House calls for the government to send a strong signal to Canadian businesses and Canada's closest allies that it supports international commerce. The economic well-being of Canada's middle class has to be assured through a full suite of programming, none of which can be effectively designed and delivered without due consideration of Canada's long-standing reality as an economy that has benefited through international trade.

We have made this clear in our platform, in the Speech from the Throne and the budget speech, and most explicitly in the mandate letter the Prime Minister sent to the Minister of International Trade. The mandate letter, for the first time ever, was made public. What clearer signal could we ask for than this instruction, which I quote in full:

As Minister of International Trade, your overarching goal will be to increase Canada’s trade and attract job-creating investment to Canada, focusing on expanding trade with large fast-growing markets, including China and India, and deepening our trade links with traditional partners.

The mandate letter tasks the minister with developing a new trade investment strategy covering, among other matters, strengthening our investment attraction capacity, helping Canadian businesses take advantage of our free trade agreements, promoting trade and investment with emerging markets, and directly helping exporters and communities seeking international investment. It is important to conclude free trade agreements, but it is also important to ensure that our businesses are ready to take advantage of them.

As many of my colleagues mentioned earlier, Canada is a trading nation. Our government recognizes that Canada is part of several important free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, but we are also negotiating several other bilateral and regional free trade agreements. These free trade agreements generally follow a format based on WTO principles and common structures. General objectives are found in the preamble and the initial provisions, while the substantive rules are then set out in distinct chapters.

The scope of Canada's free trade agreements is varied. For example, some agreements only cover the goods trade, such as that with Jordan. However, most are more comprehensive, covering all aspects of trade, such as the NAFTA. These agreements address trade in goods and rules of origin, which are the rules that determine whether a particular product can benefit from the tariff reduction. Other parts cover investment, government procurement, trade in services, regulatory matters, electronic commerce, dispute settlement, and a variety of other topics covering key aspects of trade.

Since the NAFTA came into force in 1994, Canada has also included environmental provisions in our free trade agreements. These rules include commitments to parties to maintain high levels of environmental protection; to enforce domestic environmental laws and not to relax or derogate from such laws to encourage trade or investment; to ensure access to domestic procedures and remedies for violations of environmental laws; and to promote public participation and transparency. Similarly, Canada includes labour provisions in trade agreements, which seek to ensure that all parties respect internationally recognized core labour rights and principles.

More than 70% of total Canadian merchandise trade is covered by these existing agreements. Negotiated agreements that are not yet in force could cover 85%.

CETA's rapid implementation is also a core priority for our government. Canada has also recently modernized our free trade agreements with Chile and Israel, and the timely implementation of these is also a priority for our Minister of International Trade. In addition, the government is exploring ways we can expand our commercial relations with China and India. Regarding the TPP, as members know, the government is engaged in a full and open consultation, including in Parliament.

Let me talk a bit more on the TPP.

I am on the international trade committee. Our committee decided on February 4 to study the TPP and hold a national public consultation, as we committed to during our election campaign. So far we have heard from various stakeholders, including from the auto industry, unions, business leaders, and many academics.

The committee travelled to Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg in April. It is conducting more hearings this week in Quebec City, Montreal, and Toronto. As we speak, the committee is in Windsor to hear the views of Canadians on the TPP, and more consultations need to be done. The committee will have more hearings in Ottawa and must travel to other regions, including Atlantic Canada, to ensure that all views of Canadians are heard from different regions and backgrounds.

We will not cut short our consultations. The previous government did not negotiate the TPP in a transparent way and failed at consulting with Canadians. We are fixing that. The previous government did not only fail at consulting Canadians on this major deal, but it failed at engaging constructively with our biggest trading partner on several trade issues.

When we assumed office, the damage the previous government had inflicted on Canada's standing in the world was glaring. It failed to promote Canada's interest abroad, especially with the United States. The prime example of this damage was the country of origin labelling, COOL. For many years our beef and pork farmers and exporters suffered from this unfair provision. In only eight weeks in office, the new Minister of International Trade was able to resolve that issue.

However, it does not end there. Examples of mismanaging our relations with our most important trading partners includes the former prime minister cancelling the three amigos summit and Keystone XL.

Let me come back to what our government is doing to ensure that our businesses can export and repair the damages from the previous government.

As I said at the beginning, ensuring that Canadian businesses can take advantage of these free trade agreements is key. The Minister of International Trade is developing a new export strategy, and there are many public signals to our business community and to our economic partners and allies that demonstrate our commitment to international commerce is strong in unequivocal terms.

Let me start with the messages to partners and allies. Within weeks of assuming office, the minister was reminding the 162 members of the World Trade Organization that we needed an ambitious agreement and to get it we needed to build a domestic political consensus and a global political consensus around the absolute importance of further trade liberalization.

The minister has also met with many counterparts from from our closest allies, including U.S. Trade Representative Froman and EU Trade Commissioner Malmström. Like her, they recognize that the globalized economy creates stresses as well as opportunities. Like her, they embraced the chance to leverage global business to grow domestic jobs and growth. Like her, they know how important and how difficult it is to seek a domestic political consensus.

To get there, Canadians, like their competitors and collaborators abroad, have to see the benefits of international trade beyond the benefits they see as consumers of a wider variety of products. All orders of government are actively promoting these.

Although we compete vigorously with many countries, the realities of the global value chains means that we are also finding more and more ways of growing together, not at the expense of our trading partners.

Let me briefly speak to what is already on the table, without prejudice to what may be developed. In the process of elaborating a new trade and investment strategy, first, Canada has a good toolkit. We have a framework of trade and investment agreements that constitute a sound basis for stable, predictable, international business.

The government has built vigorously upon that basis, notably through the progressive provisions on investor-state dispute settlement that it negotiated into CETA, provisions that we believe will allow this extremely important agreement to be ratified and implemented.

Second, opening doors is only part of the story. Our businesses often need help getting through those doors. For that, we have the government's trade commissioner service, present in over 160 points of service around the world. They are an unbeatable resource for reducing the knowledge risks around commerce, finding business leads and investors, advising on business cultures, warning about pitfalls, troubleshooting problems, running technology accelerators, etc.

Third, we have specific programs to help attract investment, to support business associations as they help their members internationally, and to financially assist early-stage international business development. On the latter, the Minister of International Trade launched the Canexport program in January. It will be an important part of the government's export approach.

It aims to help Canadian small and medium-sized companies to take advantage of opportunities abroad, such as those arising from new trade agreements, like CETA, as a result increasing their competitiveness while creating jobs and growth at home.

I am pleased to report that Canexport has received strong interest from our small and medium-sized enterprise community. Since its launch, Global Affairs Canada has approved contributions to support more than 200 SMEs-led export development projects worth over $6.4 million.

Funding is available to those companies on a cost-sharing basis, and we are asking recipients, as part of the agreement, to demonstrate how the program has led directly to their sales.

One-quarter of the projects approved so far are targeting the CETA markets, showing the importance of and level of interest in this group of countries for Canada's small and medium-sized exporters.

Finally, this is a whole-of-government effort. Every department and agency, every provincial, territorial, and municipal government is operating in the same global economic reality. All seek to leverage the potential of international commerce, to build sustainable and inclusive growth for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The strong support of the government for international commerce can be in no doubt.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, most of the Liberal speakers today have come down firmly on both sides of the fence. Since they are all about consultation today, let me ask the hon. member this. In his opinion, what would be a reasonable timeline for the consultation to be finished and for the government to give a decisive answer? When does he think, with his expertise, being on the trade committee, that consultation will have been sufficient? When does he think the government will be able to have an answer? Will it take more time than for the electoral reform consultations, or less time?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to travel with the committee and to hear from the witnesses who have come forward. When we ask the witnesses whether they were consulted before by the previous government, many have said no, that they are just now having an opportunity to discuss the TPP. Some are in favour and some have some serious concerns. We committed to Canadians during the election that we would consult openly on the TPP.

As the member may have heard in my remarks, we have been to Vancouver, Saskatoon, Calgary, and Winnipeg. Today the committee is in Windsor. Tomorrow we will be in Toronto. We have to travel to the Atlantic provinces. We will meet with all Canadians from all sectors and ensure their voices are heard.

The previous government pushed the TPP through really in a cloak of darkness and in secret. We have heard many stakeholders—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. Maybe the member will be able to continue after the next question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is exactly correct when he criticizes the previous government for an utter lack of consultation. There was zero consultation with labour, with environmentalists, with first nations, with academics, and with many industrial players as well. They were not part of the inside track that had the ear of the previous government. I congratulate the government on pursuing consultations. That is wise.

My question, though, is about compensation. The previous government announced and acknowledged that the TPP would do significant damage to key industries in Canada. That was why it announced $4.3 billion in compensation to Canada's agricultural sector if we signed the TPP, and $1 billion to Canada's auto sector if we signed the TPP.

I have not heard anything from the current government about whether it would honour that $5.3 billion in compensation to those industries if it does in fact choose to ratify TPP. Could my hon. colleague enlighten us and all Canadians about his government's intention in that regard?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we continue to travel the country and hear from so many witnesses, and many are in the sectors that the member cited, be it the auto sector or in the supply managed sector. The minister has been quite clear that those who have been adversely affected will be addressed in terms of compensation.

However, first we have to do a deep dive into finding out exactly what is within the TPP. This is a huge trade agreement. It is 6,000 pages, but we are doing that due diligence at this time.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech, and for his excellent relations with managers of SMEs in Mississauga-East—Cooksville.

I wonder if my colleague could take a few moments just to describe the diversity of views on the TPP from corporate and business stakeholders in his riding, and also the importance of consultations through such entities and organizations like the Mississauga Board of Trade.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, through our consultations, we have heard from a wide variety of sectors, especially from the small and medium-sized enterprises. They really wanted to look at diversifying their opportunities. Through the TPP, CETA and some other trade agreements, they see this as a tremendous opportunity.

The Mississauga Board of Trade has been able to deliver some of that information to them. Now, through the ministry of international trade, to have those supports and to look at an export market is terrific for those many companies. We want our SMEs to be successful and we are there to support them through a number of programs to ensure they are successful and they are able to reap the fruits of international trade.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to turn to the investor state provisions. We know that in CETA, one of the major final blockages of that deal was concern raised on both sides of the Atlantic about allowing an investor state provision that would allow corporations to sue governments that are legislating and regulating the public interests. We know, of course, that recent changes to the legal scrub of CETA greatly improved the ISDS provisions in CETA.

Could my honourable colleague assure us that the TPP's ISDS provisions will mirror the provisions of ISDS in CETA, so that Canadians can be assured that their democratically elected government could actually legislate without fear of being sued by corporations?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, around the ISDS, the dispute settlement provisions, the witnesses at committee were often asked for the comparable between the ISDS within the TPP and the ISDS within CETA. CETA was always trumped as a better model.

It is something that we would like to see and that we are pushing for. We see it as the gold standard. It is something that I am sure the Minister of International Trade has spoken with her counterparts about. The way to make it a better agreement would be to push toward the standard they have set under CETA.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the nice things about doing consultations is that one can travel across the country, as well as in one's constituency, and learn about other places. I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the committee, but I would also like to ask him about stakeholders in his riding and what he has heard for and against in his own constituency, or even knowledge of his own riding.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for all the knowledge and experience that he has brought to the table, and all of his tremendous work.

Within my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, I have heard that many in business and industry, be it SMEs or larger companies, are chomping at the bit to take advantage of what they find in CETA, the Canada-European trade agreement. They see this as an agreement that is very beneficial to them, and they see it as a tremendous opportunity. To get into a market of 500 million people and $20 trillion of trade is something that they want to get going on.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his presentation. However, I do have cause for concern.

We continue to hear from the government about consultations, as opposed to action. For the people in my riding, at Honda, we saw action taken when our government was in place with the Canadian-European agreement, and the opportunity for 600 new jobs.

My question is, when is the Liberal government taking action to close the deal on the TPP, so we actually see the jobs?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is taking action.

It was a Liberal government that took action when it came to NAFTA, to get us past the goal line. It is a Liberal government that took action when it came to COOL, to get that job done. It was a Liberal government that took action when it came to CETA, to get that moving and ratified. It is a Liberal government, with open consultation, that will get TPP done.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hard-working MP for Foothills.

I have to respond to the previous speaker's final soliloquy, when he was desperately trying to paint a rosy picture of the Liberal government's past support for trade. In fact, that entire soliloquy was incorrect. All of those deals that the member talked about were negotiated and confirmed by Conservative governments, whether it was the Mulroney government or the previous Conservative government that was in power until last October.

I would invite the member and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade to look into that. In fact, 98% of the trade access that Canadian exporters enjoy was secured by Conservative governments.

There is an irony that is worth pointing out to the House and the small collection of people who may be watching at home. The iconic Liberal leader, Laurier, was defeated on the issue of free trade, but two generations later, Conservatives became champions for free trade. If we look at the time from former prime minister Mulroney through to the previous Conservative government, well governed by the MP for Calgary Heritage, trade was a priority. Market access was a priority.

For a brief period of time, I had the privilege of serving as the parliamentary secretary for international trade, at a time when Canada probably had the most ambitious trade agenda in its history. There was the CETA agreement, reaching the final stages of negotiation; the final stage negotiation and conclusion of the free trade agreement with the Republic of South Korea; and the final few rounds of meetings that led to the agreement last summer with the trans-Pacific partnership. Conservatives also ensured that old agreements, like the stand-alone free trade agreement with Israel brought in by the Chrétien government, were improved and made broader with that important ally. There were even smaller countries like Honduras that we were signing trade agreements with, trying to allow more people in that country to have access to good job opportunities and turn away from the narco-trafficking and some of the challenges that country was facing.

It was a key priority for the previous government, and that has to be put on the record at the outset. Some members may like to think that NAFTA is a Chrétien achievement, and it is certainly not. The U.S. FTA, which then led to NAFTA, was entirely the work of former prime minister Mulroney. In fact, he had the vision of taking that question to the Canadian people, and it was the 1988 federal election that affirmed Canada as a nation of free traders.

We should be free traders, because in the global economy today, we cannot survive by just selling our goods to 35 million consumers. We have some of the most sophisticated and best consumers in Canada, and products, from agricultural products to wines, to spirits, to manufactured goods, to services, but we will not remain competitive if we just sell to ourselves. Former prime minister Mulroney saw that, and the last prime minister, now the member for Calgary Heritage, saw that. It was a critical element of the economic strategy of Conservative governments.

We are speaking today on the trans-Pacific partnership, and that was a key part of the agenda in the previous Parliament. Why? There are really two reasons why Canada needed to be a strong voice at the table in the 11-nation deal that the trans-Pacific partnership represents. The first reason is the tremendous economic opportunity that 800-million consumers means for Canada's exporters. By 2050, the 11-member nations of the trans-Pacific partnership will represent 50% of the global economy.

I speak sometimes with folks from Unifor, even folks in my riding and some of the unions that are very opposed to trade, and I say this. With regard to automobiles, could anyone imagine if Canada was not at the table, but the United States and Mexico, our NAFTA trading partners, were at the table on TPP? That would be terrible for our auto sector.

In fact, there would be zero new capital investment by both North American or global manufacturers and assemblers in Canada, because we would be less competitive. Why build a plant in Canada when one could build or expand in the U.S. and Mexico and have access on tariff preference to the 800-million consumers of the TPP? Actually, the TPP is a no-brainer. If we were not at the table, it would be bad economic leadership for our country.

What is ironic, and I will remind most of the Liberal caucus, including the parliamentary secretary who was not part of the 41st Parliament, that the Minister of International Trade, my friend, the MP for University—Rosedale, in her maiden speech in January 2014, accused the previous government of lacking ambition on trade. Yet, even today in question period, we could not get a clear confirmation from the current government if it thinks that TPP is in our national interest. That is crazy.

In opposition, as a third-party member, the minister was saying Honduras, South Korea, TPP, CETA, but that the government was lacking ambition. Now the Liberals will not even show steadfast support for the largest trade agreement that Canada has been a part of negotiating over the last five years.

It is ironic, but it is also troubling, because this is our economic future. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada across our entire economy, coast to coast to coast, is attributable to trade.

Trade represents 60% of our GDP, and it is not just the vehicles made in Oshawa, which have always been exported. We have always exported over 80% of our vehicles, because our country is smaller. Efficiency means that those production facilities needed to make more products than just for our market. However, it is not just the vehicles, not just Bombardier aircraft in Montreal, not just beef, pork, grain, and oilseeds; it is also services.

In fact, over half of our economy is in services, whether we are looking at architectural design, accountancy, consulting, legal services, or educational consulting. Our economy and our information economy is incredible. When we combine that with IT and communications, the ICT sector, with companies like OpenText, BlackBerry, and our legacy with Nortel Networks, Canada has always been a leader.

From timber and minerals in our early days, through to the top-of-the-heap consulting services from global executives today, Canada has never been an inward-looking country. We have always forged relationships and sold our goods and services abroad. Therefore, it troubles me greatly that the minister, who said we lacked ambition in the last Parliament, will not even affirm her position that TPP is a critical part of our economic success.

The second reason that TPP is so critical and strategic is the geopolitical counterbalance that the TPP nations will provide for China. The impact of the growing Chinese economy has allowed it to create a sort of gravity well in global trade. The 11-member countries of the TPP will be able to counterbalance that large impact by lowering tariffs and working together.

I was planning on speaking on other elements, but I wanted to make sure that many of the new members of the 42nd Parliament understood what brought us to agreements like this. It is that Canadians are free traders. We sell the best-in-the-world products around the world. We must forge forward on this deal, the TPP, because it is critical to our economic success to have preferential access to well over 50% of the global GDP economy.

When we look at CETA, once it is in effect, NAFTA, South Korea, ultimately the TPP with, as I said, billions of consumers, they all started with an ambitious Conservative government behind it. I am worried now that this same ambition that the trade minister once called for is lacking in the current government, and I certainly hope that changes in the coming weeks and months.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that this government supports Canadian businesses and recognizes the importance of international trade. Everyone in the House recognizes that some form of trade is essential to our economy. However, just as we recognize that it is essential for people to drink water, it does not follow that, because we all need water to live, we should drink it no matter what is in it.

The same goes for a trade deal. What is in it matters, and this is an agreement that is 6,000 pages long. I must challenge the premises of the opposition motion. First, the motion states in its first clause that “growing protectionism threatens the global economy” and then the next sentence talks about developing rules that protect Canada's economy interests. There are serious threats to our economy, but of all the possible threats, is protectionism really the most serious?

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

Madam Speaker, it is one of the serious threats, absolutely. In fact, in the U.S. presidential race that all of us as political nerds in this place follow and watch intently, the troubling rise of protectionist language in both the Democratic and Republican races should trouble Canadians because we have lived and thrived on the border of the world's most voracious economy. That is why we have had our tremendous success as a large supplier of vehicles, oil, gas, timber, and softwood lumber. If that economy closes up on us, where will Canadian exporters go?

Fortunately, the previous government negotiated the CETA deal and the ones with South Korea and other countries. The TPP with 10 other nations represents 800 million consumers. We need to diversify our interests and our markets. That is what the deal would do.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address my question to my hon. colleague who was a member of cabinet when the deal was made and was negotiated.

Let me first remind the House that a few moments ago a Liberal MP said that the Liberal Party was always for international treaties, which is all wrong. Let me remind the House that the first big, huge treaty was a free trade agreement signed under the oath of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative leader I am very proud of. Let me remind members that in the next general election, in 1988, the Liberal Party under the oath of the Right Hon. John Turner fought hard against this deal.

How good will it be for the Canadian economy if the government signs that deal?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend the MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his interjections in the House, his question, and particularly the breadth of knowledge and experience he brings to this place. It is a very welcome addition.

I agree. I think we all remember the famous Liberal ad from 1988 where the Liberal Party showed Canadians that a free trade with the U.S. was going to erase the 49th parallel, erase that border, and John Turner said we were selling out Canada. No, because we know our producers, from the farms, to the forests, to Waterloo, to Oshawa, are among the best in the world. If we sell, that secures more jobs, and if we produce more jobs, more economic activity, we also see lower prices for Canadians at the same time. Trade is a win-win on jobs; it is a win for our economy. It is about time the new Liberal government started standing up for it.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not remember that advertisement from 1988. I was 13 years old and was not paying attention to what was going on in here.

I respect the fact that the opposition members are suggesting that the NAFTA came from Brian Mulroney; however, that was a Progressive Conservative time, a much different time of the Conservative Party, I would argue. So to take credit for that is a little unjust.

I am wondering if the member opposite thinks that Brian Mulroney would sign an agreement that was 6,000 pages long without reviewing it first.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Kingston and the Islands, one of my favourite places in the country. He is the son of a politician, and his father would remember that ad very well.

I am proud to call prime minister Mulroney a friend, and I know that he took the vision and took the popularity hit to do what was right in the long-term issues of the economy. The last Conservative government did that. That is why it troubles me that, even though the trade minister knows TPP is important, she will not stand in the House and defend it, and other members are saying there has not been consultation when they sat on the trade committee on this very deal.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak in support of the trans-Pacific partnership.

Our former Conservative government was committed to continuing to defend our system of supply management in the trans-Pacific partnership, just as we did in all previous trade agreements.

We also wanted to ensure that the Canadian agriculture sector, businesses, and our economy gained from the benefits that are part of the trans-Pacific partnership, one of the largest free trade agreements in the world's history.

As we pursued this goal, the then prime minister, the member for Calgary Heritage, was always clear that we would only participate in an agreement that served Canada's best interests. The former Conservative government consulted extensively with stakeholders, provinces, and territories in areas of specific interest and jurisdiction in the TPP.

Our former trade minister, the member for Abbotsford, who gave a great speech this morning, consulted every one of his provincial and territorial partners, and together they understood the importance of the TPP, which is why they have supported it.

Since 2006, the previous Conservative government signed free trade agreements with 46 countries, compared to only five by the previous Liberal government. This included South Korea, Ukraine, and the European Union. The TPP countries represent a market of almost 800 million new customers, with a combined GDP of $29 trillion, more than 35% of global GDP.

The TPP also includes some of the fastest growing markets in the world, as well as two of the largest economies, the United States and Japan. Canada has the potential to be one of the only major economies in the world with a free trade access to Europe, our NAFTA partners, and the Asia-Pacific region. That would represent more than 60% of the world's economy.

The TPP region would also be a source of some of the world's fastest growing economies over the next generation.

Canadian workers and businesses in every region of our country, working with fish, seafood, forestry and wood products, industrial goods, agriculture and agrifood, just to name a few, would benefit from increased access to high-value markets through the TPP agreement.

This agreement would protect and create jobs, economic opportunities, and financial security for workers and businesses in all regions of Canada. For example, recent studies by the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Fraser Institute have said the TPP could boost Canadian exports to $15.7 billion and could increase Canada's GDP by $9.9 billion annually.

With one in five jobs in Canada and 60% of our nation's wealth directly linked to exports, Canada is and must remain a trading nation. Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises make up the vast majority of Canadian businesses and employ 7.5 million Canadians, or 70% of our private sector labour force. For the first time in any Canadian free trade agreement, the TPP includes a dedicated chapter with specific measures to assist our small and medium-size businesses to help them take full advantage of the opportunities in this free trade agreement. This illustrates the former Conservative government's commitment to significantly increase the number of Canadian small and medium-size businesses that have an opportunity to take advantage of these emerging export markets, setting them up to succeed.

Ratifying the TPP would send a clear message to Canadian businesses, and would allow exporters the opportunity to prepare and take advantage of this preferential market access, with lower tariffs and further integration into global supply chains.

We are the party that is standing up for small businesses. We are not the party that reneged on our promise to cut small business taxes. We are not the party that is actually increasing taxes on small businesses by $2.2 billion.

This is our opportunity to sign this free trade agreement to ensure that there are opportunities for small businesses across Canada and to give them access to these new emerging markets.

My riding of Foothills is a largely agricultural riding in southern Alberta. In fact, Foothills is in the heart of Canada's cattle country. However, it also has a healthy mix of grain and dairy farms. Producers in southern Alberta are global suppliers of some of the highest quality agricultural products around the world. Through the TPP, Foothills farmers and ranchers would have access to 800 million new customers. This would give them outstanding opportunities in new and emerging markets.

Alberta's farmers and ranchers would have duty-free market access for most agricultural and agrifood products, such as canola oil, feed wheat and barley, beef, and pork, just to name a few. They would have an enhanced market. The TPP would eliminate tariffs on canola oil in Japan and Vietnam within five years, and on canola seed upon entry into force.

Feed wheat and barley would be duty free and quota free in Japan upon the entry into force of this agreement, while markups would be reduced by 45% within eight years.

Canadian farmers would gain access to a TPP-wide quota for food barley, which starts at 25,000 tonnes and grows to 65,000 tonnes within eight years.

Canadian farmers and ranchers would have new markets for Canadian beef and pork. For example, tariffs on beef exported to Japan would be reduced, from 38.5% on fresh/chilled and frozen beef and 50% on certain offal, down to 9% within 15 years.

In Viet Nam, the tariffs are 31% on fresh/chilled and frozen beef, and these would be completely eliminated within two years.

All of this means exciting new markets and opportunities for Canadian agriculture and agrifood producers and processors. We cannot underestimate the impact free trade has on our Canadian agricultural producers and processors.

I just want to take a walk down memory lane. For example, prior to reaching a free trade agreement with South Korea, Canadian beef exports to South Korea totalled about $9 million a year. They accounted for less than 10% of South Korea's beef imports, which were about $1.3 billion annually. The reason for that is that we could not compete with the United States and the European Union who had free trade agreements already with South Korea.

Since that free trade agreement has been signed and South Korea started bringing Canadian beef back into its country, as of 2014, beef exports from Canada into South Korea have increased to $25.8 million, triple what they were prior to our signing a free trade agreement with South Korea.

There would be the same sort of results with the TPP. Let us take a look at the potential. Japan is the jewel of the trans-Pacific partnership when it comes to Canadian agriculture products. As of right now, Canadian beef exports into Japan are about $100 million a year. It is anticipated that, once the TPP is ratified, that number would triple to $300 million a year for Canadian beef being exported into the Japanese market.

Our ranchers and farmers know how important this agreement is. For example, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association president, Dave Solverson, called the agreement a game-changer for Canada's beef industry and Canadian agriculture as a whole, saying, “This is fantastic news for Canada's beef producers”.

Patti Miller, president of the Canola Council of Canada said:

Leadership shown by the Government of Canada to make sure that Canada benefits from this landmark agreement will help the canola industry to continue growing and supporting communities. We...hope all parties will recognize the importance of implementing this agreement as quickly as possible so that the benefits can be realized.

The former Conservative government also adamantly protected Canada's supply management system. We announced a series of new programs and initiatives for supply-managed producers and processors to support them throughout the implementation of the TPP and the Canada-EU trade agreements.

Through programs such as the income guarantee program, the quota value guarantee program, the processor modernization program, and the market development initiative, Canada has defended the three pillars of supply management and ensured that they would remain protected.

Wally Smith, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada said:

...we recognize that our government fought hard against other countries' demands, and [has] lessened the burden by announcing mitigation measures and what seems to be a fair compensation package, to minimize the impact on Canadian dairy farmers and make up for cutting growth in the domestic market.... We have come a long way from the threat of eliminating supply management.

However, the new Liberal government has been very mum on the compensation package in the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, raising fears among the industry that this compensation package may no longer be on the table.

Why is the government not doing whatever it can to facilitate further growth by supporting the trans-Pacific partnership? There was nothing in the Liberal budget about agriculture, and in fact there was no funding for the compensation package negotiated and supported by the supply management industry.

Ranchers and farmers throughout my riding have said that the markets they have domestically have stagnated. If they are going to grow, they need access to new markets. Their message is very clear. On a level playing field, they can compete with anyone in the world. We have the best products anywhere in the world.

What they are asking for is a chance to compete, and for the government to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Foothills as well as the hon. member for Durham, who spoke before and just left, for their work on this file.

One of the problems with the other side of the House is that while they did consult on the TPP, they only consulted with people who actually agreed with them. When they cite studies, they tend to cite the Peterson Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute, which generally tend to favour, whereas our other friends at the other end of the House tend to cite Tufts and Jim Stanford. Therefore, we are consulting to figure out what is happening.

I would like to raise with the hon. member something that came from his predecessor's speech, the hon. member for Durham, who is back. We realize that it is part of the TPP. Data flows and services—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that he cannot say if another member is or is not in the House.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, data flows are an important part of the service industry, which our honoured friend has cited as an important part of the TPP. However, do our friends not have privacy concerns when this data flows out into other countries, which may or may not have privacy regimes that are as strong as ours in Canada?