Debates of May 12th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the House understands the member's orientation on trade and investment. She is opposed to it. She always has been and always will be.

With respect to the member's comments on investment treaties, the reason we signed an investment treaty with China was to protect Canadian companies when they invested in China. I have a clear example of where a Canadian company has invested in China. A mining company invested a lot of money in prospecting and exploring, and it finally hit a motherlode. It was a gold find. After it had done that, it applied for a production permit. Guess what happened to that Canadian company? The local and state governments said that they preferred to have local Chinese companies and would not issue it a production licence. They are still working on that. That is exactly the kind of case we want to protect Canadians against. If there is a dispute like that, it is lifted into the international context where there is an international arbitration by arbitrators who are fair and impartial and who will make a decision that is fair and protects the interests of Canadians when billions and billions of dollars are invested in a foreign marketplace.

Sadly, that member does not get it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that with the number of trade deals the hon. member has mentioned, our trade balance went from a $54 billion surplus under the Liberals to a $13 billion deficit under the trade deals that have been signed. Perhaps the hon. member could comment on the importance of international relationships between countries and businesses to actually promote trade versus having photo ops to sign trade deals.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the Prime Minister would know all about photo ops.

What is the bottom line when we open up new markets around the world for Canadian exports, trade and investments? What is the measure we are looking for? It is job creation. Who led the G7 in job creation over the 10 years this Conservative government was in power? We did because trade creates jobs, and the more we open up opportunities for Canada to trade, the more jobs we will create.

Earlier I quoted in my comments the appalling record on exports under the Liberal government. Over six months there has been a precipitous decline in Canadian exports abroad. What is the trade minister doing? She is spending time appearing on the Bill Maher show and embarrassing Canadians. That is not the way to do it. A lot of work was done under our Conservative government. We work all around the world, and our record proves that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important topic.

Canada is a trading nation and our government understands the importance of trade for economic growth for a strong and prosperous middle class. In fact, our country depends on global trade. Trade opens markets for Canadian goods and services, helps Canadian businesses expand, fosters innovation, strengthens our economy and provides Canadians with opportunities in markets around the world.

When we assumed office, the damage that the Conservatives had inflicted on Canada's standing in the world was glaring. They had failed to promote Canada's interests abroad, especially with our most important trading partner, the United States.

COOL, country of original labelling, is a prime example of the damage the Conservatives did to our relationship with the U.S. For years our beef and pork farmers suffered from punitive, unfair U.S. country of origin labelling provisions, while the previous government stood by and did nothing. The Minister of International Trade resolved the issue in her first eight weeks in office.

The former prime minister even cancelled the three amigos summit, an important forum for advancing key files of Canadian interest. We cannot advance issues if we do not have the meetings, and we have corrected that. We will have a three amigos summit soon.

Keystone XL is yet another example of the Conservative failure to promote Canadian interests with our southern neighbours. On the thinning border with the United States, it was our government that finally made substantial progress during the state visit in Washington D.C. on March 10.

It is the same story with Europe. Despite all the fancy parties and the champagne photo ops, the previous government failed to have CETA signed and implemented. When we assumed office, the deal was completely stalled. However, yet again the new Minister of International Trade's progressive approach to free trade is what allowed us to build support for CETA on both sides of the Atlantic and to get the deal back on track and signed.

In short, in the 10 years in office, the previous Conservative government displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of geopolitics and of the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship in particular.

Trade agreements are an important means by which the Government of Canada can open new markets and level the playing field for Canadian business, while providing predictable and transparent international rules for exporters and investors. However, we need to ensure that our trade agreements are in Canada's best interest.

With respect to the TPP, the government is committed to being fully transparent and open with Canadians, and to hearing what Canadians have to say on the merits of the TPP. We are conducting extensive consultations to provide Canadians the opportunity to have their views heard. The Minister of International Trade, myself, cabinet colleagues and government officials have met with Canadians across Canada. Unlike the previous government, we are meeting with people who disagree with the accord, and we will continue to do so before the government considers whether to ratify the agreement.

To date, we have learned that some Canadians feel the TPP represent significant opportunities. Others have serious concerns with aspects of the agreement, and many have simply not yet made up their minds. These different perspectives speak to the importance of ongoing consultations.

The government signed the TPP this past February to ensure that Canada would remain at the table to give the government the opportunity to continue consulting Canadians. Signing the TPP was only a first step that did not amount to ratification by our government.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade is also holding its own consultations on the TPP and has been travelling across the country as part of its outreach. The committee has already held hearing in eight cities across the country. Today it is in Windsor, Ontario, meeting with representatives of labour, automotive, agriculture and business sectors. In addition, that committee is accepting written submissions from anyone who wishes to share his or her views.

We promised to hold consultations, and we are keeping that promise. Since November, we have organized over 250 consultations with more than 400 different stakeholders. In addition, the government has received over 20,000 letters and emails as part of the consultation process. The Minister of International Trade and I have visited over a dozen cities across Canada to hear what Canadians think about the TPP. Consultations were held in Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Oakville, Windsor, Regina, Winnipeg, Quebec City, St. John's, Fredericton, Charlottetown, and Guelph.

During our visits, we held meetings, round tables, site visits, and town halls. Hundreds of Canadians shared their opinions with us during this process.

Canadians from all kinds of backgrounds participated in the consultations. We heard from provincial representatives, business women, innovation companies, farmers, think tanks, the forestry and lumber sector, the fish and seafood sector, environmental groups, small and medium-sized businesses, unions, auto workers, auto parts manufacturers, port authorities, academics, students, and business leaders.

Over the coming weeks, the Minister of International Trade will be organizing a public meeting in Toronto for May 25 and another in Montreal for June 6. We invite everyone to take part and share their points of view on the TPP. We will do everything we can to give Canadians an opportunity to study the agreement, ask questions, and tell us whether they think it will be good for the people of this country.

Let me summarize some of the comments we received. As I mentioned earlier, although some people said they support the TPP, other people expressed some concerns. For instance, civil society organizations and unions are concerned about the impact the agreement will have on jobs in Canada, the scope of application of the investor state dispute settlement mechanism and certain provisions regarding intellectual property. Some people are saying that Canada should call off the signing of the agreement altogether.

Still, other stakeholders are urging Canada to ratify the agreement as quickly as possible. More specifically, Canadian companies that are export oriented and some industry associations support the agreement. Those players see the TPP as an essential tool that will allow Canadian businesses to compete in Asia-Pacific countries, a region that is going through a period of strong economic growth, and to access priority markets or increase their presence in those markets.

The impact of TPP rules on intellectual property and innovation in Canada is another subject that people cannot seem to agree on. Some people believe that these rules will stifle innovation. Others have talked about potential benefits, including a more predictable rules-based system to protect the intellectual property of Canadians who are engaged in trade in the region.

We have heard that the TPP could cause significant job losses in the auto sector. However, we have also heard some say that the TPP provides the sector with an opportunity to penetrate new markets in the Asia-Pacific region.

When it comes to labour and services, the government has heard from representatives who are certain that the TPP would create opportunities for Canadian service providers seeking to expand their activities in the Asia-Pacific region. Other stakeholders are concerned that the TPP would make foreign workers more competitive.

The government has held consultations with the agriculture and agri-food sector with a focus on exports and Canada's supply management system. We also heard about the opportunities that the TPP would create for Canada's beef, pork, canola, and pulse industries. However, we have also heard concerns over the repercussions that the TPP might have on supply managed sectors.

Each of these consultations has contributed to an important pan-Canadian dialogue on the spinoffs from the TPP, and will continue to do so. The purpose of the consultations is to understand the point of view of Canadians and Parliament, and to conduct an exhaustive assessment of the benefits of the TPP and its possible spinoffs.

So far, these consultations have been quite instructive. They will continue. No timeline has been set yet for the consultation process.

I want to point out that signing the TPP was just the official start of the government's review of the agreement. The government will weigh the results of the consultations before deciding whether to ratify the TPP or not.

This is a complex agreement and it takes time to conduct a thorough review. It is important and encouraging that Canadians are pressing us for more information about the repercussions that this agreement will have on Canadians in every region and every sector.

I will now talk about some next steps.

According to the terms of the TPP agreement itself, countries have two years to complete their domestic ratification process. Following that two-year period, a smaller group of at least six countries could bring the agreement into force, provided that they together account for at least 85% of the combined GDP of the TPP countries. This requires the U.S. and Japan to bring the agreement into force. As of today, no TPP country has ratified the agreement.

When the Minister of International Trade met with all TPP ministers on the margins of the TPP signature event in New Zealand in February, she relayed the importance that the Canadian government places on transparency and public consultations for the TPP. When the minister meets again with her counterparts next week on the margins of the APEC trade ministers meeting in Peru, she will convey the same message.

As part of our objective to consult with Canadians, the Global Affairs Canada website for the TPP is currently under review, and updates will be available over the coming weeks. However, the website remains active, and I would encourage all Canadians to submit any public inquiries through the consultation portal on the website. They will also find the full TPP text, which is available in both English and French. I would also encourage Canadians to follow our continued consultations over the coming months.

As a trading nation, Canada's economic growth is directly linked to international trade. The government strongly supports free trade as a way to open markets to Canadian goods and services, grow Canadian businesses, and create good-paying middle-class jobs.

The government has committed to bringing forward the TPP to a debate and discussion here in this House, so that we can hear from parliamentarians. The fact is, we have committed to open consultations with all groups, whether they are opposed to the TPP or for the TPP, and that marks a significant departure from the previous government. It is a promise we made during the election campaign, and it is one that we are seeing through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his remarks, but I think we are hearing some selective history. It is a bit interesting to hear a member of the Liberal caucus criticize someone else for an overemphasis on photo ops. I wonder what his leader would think of those comments.

Over the course of our Conservative government, we negotiated trade deals with countries representing over 60% of the world's GDP, in the context of both CETA and now the TPP. That is a big change in terms of the kind of trade access that Canada will have. That is a very important shift, and it was undertaken through active negotiations with the government. These are Canadian accomplishments. It is a bit rich for the government that has just taken over to immediately try to claim credit for all of these things.

Will the government agree about the importance of this trade agenda, and help us move forward by pushing forward the TPP as quickly as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the government agrees with a trade agenda that moves Canada forward, but it has to be a trade agenda that is based on consultations with all sectors, including sectors that do not necessarily agree with that agenda. That is what the previous government failed spectacularly to do.

We are hearing in consultations across the country that a wide sector of Canadians were never consulted while other sectors were effectively at the negotiating table. That is no way to put forward a trade agenda, which we want to do, that will benefit all Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, while there are hearings in Windsor, to talk about this important issue that affects my constituents, especially the auto sector that is very valuable.

What I find very interesting is the criticism of the Conservatives, which is fair enough, with regard to consultations or lack thereof, and the new path we are going down that includes all of that, despite the fact that the Liberals supported a number of previous trade agreements. They supported every single one. Every single trade agreement that walked into the House and threw itself down on the floor was signed by the Liberals, despite the criticism of non-consultation. Somehow, eureka, they found it. It is unbelievable.

I want to ask a specific question. In the auto sector, there is a 20-year phase-in for the United States, a 12-year phase-in for Malaysia, and only a 5-year phase-in for Canada. Will the parliamentary secretary commit to at least meeting Malaysia's standard of a 12-year phase-in for the automotive sector, and how he is going to specifically accomplish that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I grew up at the other end of Highway 3 in the Niagara Peninsula, so I have driven that highway from Fort Erie all the way to Windsor more than once, and I must say I enjoyed it.

That is precisely one of the reasons that we are consulting. As a government, we did not set the criteria for our very able negotiators. The difference in phase-ins is one of the things that we have to assess. Sadly, the agreement is take it or leave it. We are going to have to decide whether the differential phase-ins for the auto sector, which have been criticized by a number of different stakeholders, will push us toward not ratifying, or whether there are counterbalancing effects or benefits that account for or help to mitigate that disadvantage.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this very important and timely topic.

What struck me was that the first member to speak on this talked about the World Trade Organization and how the previous government viewed it as something that was irrelevant and did not matter anymore. That was even though he had also discussed the importance of renegotiating the entry of Canadian beef into South Korea, which was done through the WTO.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the World Trade Organization and the importance of the international system in trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very good question.

There are a number of different trade instruments, so to speak. We need to be in the game or at the table with respect to all of these instruments.

We admit that there are difficulties with the WTO, but there are also certain advantages that one can have if one pursues the options properly. For example, WTO tribunals can make rulings that allow us to impose countervailing duties, something that ISDS proceedings in the bilateral agreements do not allow for. They are strictly for damages.

There are advantages to being at the WTO table. Certainly, in principle, we want to act multilaterally whenever we can. We want to act in concert with the rest of the world when we can. Therefore, it is important to be at the WTO table, notwithstanding its challenges.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has become a hallmark, and again with the TPP, of this young government to postpone and procrastinate on making tough policy decisions on the basis of the need for further consultations. The government is going to have to make a number of tough decisions, which are going to make some Canadians unhappy one way or another, until the proof of the pudding in the good policy decision that we know the government will sooner or later have to make.

We can remember how faint-hearted the Liberals were in the negotiation of Canada's greatest trade treaty, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and how, if they had been in power at the time—they lost an election on the issue—they would have listened to the faint hearts who did not recognize the great benefits which would follow from signing the NAFTA agreement.

My colleague has said quite clearly that this is a take it or leave it agreement. We know that the Liberals, in the end, will take it because it is a good deal for Canada. The cost-benefits have been done across the board. Why postpone? Why not bring the debate to Parliament, as Conservatives have brought it today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that we have already made a number of difficult decisions in our budget, for example, in our commitment to deal with aboriginal peoples on a nation-to-nation basis. We have made a lot of gutsy decisions, which had not been made for 10 years.

With regard to the TPP, sadly that side of the House only heard one side for 10 years. We are taking the time to listen to the other side, and then we will take a decision in terms of what is best for all Canadians.

There are plenty of studies out there. They are conflicting studies. The previous questioner mentioned a study from Tufts University in the United States, which is a hallowed institution. The Peterson Institute and other institutes are giving us different numbers. We are doing our own studies. We need to assess all of that before we make a decision.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what is important to all Canadians is a trade balance.

One of our colleagues pointed out earlier that when the Conservatives inherited government ten years ago, they inherited a multi-billion dollar trade surplus. Over the years, they converted that surplus into a multi-billion dollar trade deficit. As a direct result, the Liberal government now has to clean up their mess. It is not just the overriding trade deficit that we have to clean up, but we also have the additional responsibility of consulting with Canadians before we have a vote in the House of Commons.

Would the member not agree with that assessment?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is something that we need to deal with. It is a mess that we need to clean up as we move forward, and before we make other kinds of commitments.

There is some light. While we are still in an overall deficit position, our exports were $1.2 billion higher in the first quarter of this year than the last year when the Conservatives were in office. We are moving. We are trying to remove impediments. We managed to get COOL out of the way, which the previous government failed to do. We are working on new markets through CETA. We are getting there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the excellent and highly respected member for Windsor West.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to this opposition motion concerning the trans-Pacific partnership. I have to admit that I find the debate very amusing. In fact, both the government and the official opposition are arguing and quibbling about which one of them is the staunchest supporter of free trade. I believe this is going to make for an interesting day, but we are losing sight of the crux of the matter. What we are presently debating is a trade agreement, which is simply a contract between various nations that establishes terms and conditions, in this case, for trade. We can support trade agreements and recognize that Canada is a nation whose economy depends on trade and, at the same time, disagree with the terms of the contract.

When Conservatives and Liberals negotiate trade agreements, it seems that the details are not very important. This debate is about whether we should or should not sign the contract without even looking at the details.

I find this particularly interesting because the current government and the previous government made accusations implying that we approve or reject agreements without even having read them, which is completely untrue. We learned about the details of the trans-Pacific partnership during the election campaign, since the agreement was announced during the campaign. I remind members that this agreement was negotiated behind closed doors and that we knew nothing about it before the campaign. We therefore had enough problems with the agreement that we were able to take a stance on it.

I find it quite interesting to hear the Minister of International Trade accuse us of having made up our minds without even having read the agreement. I remember very well that during the previous Parliament, in which I served, the Conservative prime minister showed up with a signed agreement with the European Union and announced it to the House. In his first question in the House, the member for Papineau, who was the Liberal leader at the time, congratulated the prime minister on signing the agreement, saying that the Liberal Party would support it and asking when the Liberals would have access to the agreement.

We will therefore take no lessons from either side about the NDP's positions on extremely important contracts. I believe that such agreements should be assessed on the basis of their content and their consequences.

There are problems with this agreement. I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I thank him for mentioning the supposed strengths and weaknesses of this bill. However, there are other factors that he did not mention. One of them is of particular concern to me.

People generally expect a trade agreement, or a contract between nations to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, to have to do with trade. However, the agreement in question contains clauses that will affect specific aspects of people's daily lives, and so far, those clauses have not been talked about here in the House as part of the debate on the trans-Pacific partnership.

Privacy is one such issue. Right now, Canadian data, such as banking information and confidential information, are stored on Canadian servers, which are obviously not accessible to the United States at the moment and do not fall within the scope of the USA PATRIOT Act. However, the provision that requires these types of data to be stored on Canadian servers may be removed. It is therefore quite likely that these data could be stored on servers on American soil, where they would be accessible to American security intelligence agencies. That means that the CIA and other agencies would have access to these data under the USA PATRIOT Act. Are Canadians aware of that? I do not think so because Canadians assume that trade agreements have to do with tariff and non-tariff barriers.

My colleague from Windsor West asked an excellent question. We have a non-reciprocal agreement with regard to the auto industry.

Tariffs will be phased out over a period of 20 years for the U.S. auto sector and 12 years for Malaysia, but that phase will be just five years long for Canada. Not only does this agreement lack reciprocity, but the Canadian and U.S. sectors are closely integrated. Having two different tariff elimination timelines, one over a 20-year period and the other over a five-year period, will cause huge problems for the industry and jeopardize its integrated nature. This will cause problems that do not get a lot of air time in the House.

Moreover, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Conservatives and the Liberals have an agreement about takeovers, which are subject to a strategic review if they hit a certain threshold. The agreement will raise that threshold to allow more foreign takeovers without prior review by the government and what used to be called the Department of Industry. That is a problem because some takeovers affect strategic sectors here. More and more of these kinds of acquisitions will not have to undergo a review to assess their impact on Canada.

I have my eye on both parties, but I will be paying particular attention to the current government. Federal assistance to Bombardier comes with strings attached by this government. I do not take issue with the need for such conditions to ensure that Canada's investment includes oversight of Bombardier's operations. We agree on that. This is similar to the model that was proposed and applied by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. However, it bothers me when the government tries to use this assistance to change the share ownership structure at Bombardier in order to get rid of multiple voting shares.

We could argue about the effectiveness of this system, which has served Quebec well so far. This system is used mainly in Quebec. However, getting rid of multiple voting shares paves the way for foreign takeovers. I cannot figure out why the government would want to impose a condition to make foreign takeovers easier when we see what is happening right now with Rona and Couche-Tard. Multiple voting shares in those companies may be eliminated if nothing changes, making it easier for a takeover to occur.

As I was saying, we need to know the ins and outs of this agreement. An impact study is needed in order to analyze the details. Independent studies have estimated that Canada will lose about 60,000 jobs if the agreement is ratified, and 20,000 of those jobs will be in the auto sector. This is an important issue that needs to be raised. If the government has already done a study regarding the impact of such an agreement on the Canadian economy, it should be made public so that Canadians can see it. So far, they have been left in the dark.

In light of the many debates that have taken place in recent years on the trans-Pacific partnership and the treaty with the European Union, I have to admit that it seems as though the dice are loaded. The government can talk all it wants about consultation, but that means nothing if it is done only for appearances' sake and if the decision has already been made. This is also known as paying lip service.

We have consulted, but we have decided.

It is all smoke and mirrors when it comes to the much-touted consultation. In fact, much of the consultation mentioned by the government took place as part of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The government is taking credit for it, but it would have happened anyway.

What is more, I seriously doubt that all 20,000 emails and letters people sent will be translated into the other official language, for one thing, or seriously considered by the government, for another thing. To hear the Minister of International Trade and the Conservatives talk about the agreement, it is clear that a decision has already been made and that this exercise is basically a charade so that the government looks good and appears more open for having done this consultation.

The bottom line is that the decision has been made. That is extremely unfortunate because it means that we will not get to hold a very important debate about the provisions and the consequences of the agreement. If a study has been conducted on the economic impact that this agreement will have on Canada and our economy, I appeal to the government to immediately make it public.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question, but, first, I was disappointed to hear the member across the floor take credit for the COOL agreement. We know how much our colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, did on that file. It is very disingenuous for him to take credit for that work.

I understand we will be on different sides when it comes to how we feel about trade, but I agree with the member when he says that consultation for the sake of consultation will not necessarily get us anywhere.

Would the member rather us see the Liberal government bring this agreement forward to debate in the House, sooner rather than later? The consultation has been done and now is the time to get this agreement in front of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. The answer is no. What I would like to see is real consultations where the government would respond to concerns about the agreement.

In my speech, I talked about the impact that this agreement could have on privacy. I have not heard the government say anything about the impact that the agreement will have on Canadians' privacy. Members need to know about that before they can vote in an informed manner, unless of course their minds are already made up and they think that all trade agreements and contracts are good regardless of what measures they contain.

Without that information, we cannot make a decision in good conscience and in keeping with the principles of good governance. Independent studies have been conducted. I am asking the government to table the studies that it likely has done on the economic impact such an agreement would have on Canada and all of our industries. Members will all agree that there are winners and losers in any trade agreement. We want to know what the government's analysis of this agreement says. We would like the government to make it public.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments, especially those about privacy.

We have heard the criticisms in that regard. There is a quid pro quo because a number of Canadian companies in the financial services and insurance sector have told us that the cross-border flow of data is very important. I have an honest question. I would like to ask my colleague whether he believes that the flow of data could compensate for the loss of privacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly, Canadian data are at greater risk than American data in the cross-border flow of data.

Americans have the USA PATRIOT Act, but we do not have such a law. Therefore, I believe that there are two problems. First, the data that are currently protected will no longer be protected under the provisions of the trans-Pacific partnership. Second, Canadians for the most part are not aware of this.

I think that they would have quite a different opinion of a treaty such as this one if they were aware of this. If the government is concerned about transparency, is willing, and truly wants to have meaningful consultations, I urge the government to put this issue at the forefront in consultations so that Canadians are aware of it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, emerging in this conversation is a very fair critique of the previous government's approach to trade. Its trade performance was abysmal. It has already been pointed out that it inherited a trade surplus of about $60 billion. By the time it left office, there was a trade deficit of about minus $20 billion. We set monthly records in trade deficits under the previous Conservative regime.

Any of us in the House who tried to stand up and talk about fair trade or who tried to analyze these trade agreements in substance were dismissed with this ridiculous charge that somehow or other we were not in favour of trade. I wonder if the Conservatives wonder why they lost the last election, with that kind of simplistic approach to politics.

I want to turn my attention to the issue of human rights. The TPP includes two countries that have abysmal human rights records. Brunei has brought in a form of sharia law that punishes homosexuality and adultery by stoning to death. Vietnam still uses prison labour and child labour.

I have not heard a peep out of the Conservative government about human rights. Former minister John Baird did say that with respect to Iran, the Conservatives would never trade with a country that disrespected the rights of homosexuals. However, here the Conservatives were signing a trade deal with Brunei which had the worst record on homosexuals in the world.

Could my hon. colleague comment on that, and does he think Canada should be rewarding countries with abysmal records on human rights with preferential economic terms?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an excellent point, and that is one of our focuses when we are assessing the impact of the trade agreements we sign with other countries.

We were the only party in the House on the Standing Committee on International Trade that opposed the trade agreements with Colombia and Honduras. Respect for human rights was behind our opposition to these agreements.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments that have negotiated these types of agreements have missed a perfect opportunity to use the agreements to improve the standard of living and enforce human rights in the countries with which we are negotiating. They refuse to do so.

Unionists are being murdered in Colombia and Honduras. The situations in Brunei and Vietnam have come up, and these are other situations in which we refuse to use these trade agreements as leverage to enforce and increase the protection of human rights and improve the standard of living and labour standards in these countries. These things are simply not part of any trade agreement.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on such an important debate in the House. I thank my colleague for his intervention and his work on finance. It is very important for many reasons, but the depth of the file is very important to Canadians especially given what we are seeing here today.

I am currently diagnosed with red-green colour blindness, but I now can see quite clearly that I have red-blue colour blindness with regard to this chamber because what we are seeing is a continuation of policies. I give the former minister of trade credit for being very clear about his position on this, even though we disagree, and hence the motion coming forward today.

The Liberal position is clearly middle ground, trying to reach but making no sense considering what is happening right now. I would like to thank the member for Essex in particular. She has been travelling this country with the trade committee. It is interesting to hear a parliamentary secretary or a minister talk about using a committee as a vehicle or a reason to take action and later on talk about how committees are their own masters in deciding what they want to do independently. Again, it is the suck and blow type of approach the Liberals have on this type of issue. They use it for benefit at one point, and later on when it becomes a problem for them, they distance themselves from it.

As people listen to this debate the Liberal position is peculiar because they are saying they are having consultations across the country in different formats, whether it be meetings or the input coming in, but then they are here admittedly with an agreement that does not require or can never really have any real meaningful consultations right now because the agreement cannot be amended. In the first hour of debate we heard that.

Of particular concern to me and many Canadians because it is a significant employer, a value-added employer with innovation, which we are struggling to move forward in terms of developing the economy and having value-added jobs and services available, is that the auto industry is particularly at risk with this deal. In fact, this is so much so that when the deal was proposed, the auto industry was offered up as a sacrificial lamb for other types of industries, as in many other deals, despite the fact that in the trade agreement the vast majority of tariff issues do not exist with most of these countries.

The former minister of international trade talked very importantly about non-tariff barriers, which are critical to any trade agreement. We have seen that in the South Korea trade agreement with the United States, and now with the Canada and South Korea trade agreement, in regard to the auto industry. What is meant by non-tariff barriers is that, for example, in the auto industry tariffs go down to export into that country, but they make it more difficult to export into that country through regulations, other fees, and the difficulties supporting that import post-sale. It is a more difficult to set up dealerships. Importing parts and importing service standards are more difficult, all that becomes heightened. We end up with a consumer over there looking at a product that comes from Canada that competes on price and value, but if it cannot be fixed or serviced, that is a huge problem. That consumer will decide not to purchase that vehicle. Hence, the disaster that has been going on.

There were meetings in Windsor yesterday between the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Unifor. I thank the leadership of those organizations for hosting a round table, which included the Province of Ontario, as well as Mr. Tanguay, the auto czar for Ontario, that called again for a national strategy for the automotive sector. That is a common thing for manufacturing, to have that structure in place to support a national vision.

Ironically, the Liberals call for it, despite never implementing it when they controlled, or at least held government in many provinces. Their dysfunctional relationship with their provincial cousins is also more clear and evident with the TPP. They have dysfunctionality with the provincial cousins to the point of hostility, with Kathleen Wynne, the premier, expressing concerns about some of the auto sector and the agricultural issues around supply management.

We see it with Brad Duguid, another Ontario minister, who says:

We have concerns about the provisions in the agreement with regard to auto.... In particular, the provisions where tariffs will be reduced in Canada to zero in five years, and in the U.S. it’s 25 years.

That’s an unlevel playing field and we think the federal government failed to negotiate effectively on that measure.

What we are left with is that, despite the auto integration that we have with the United States, the continual struggle to keep that is so important for manufacturing. If one is not familiar with the auto sector, a vehicle could literally cross back and forth many times as it is being built to reach the final product, because we have that high level of integration. With that high level of integration, we have a lot of expertise and jobs to protect, because it is clearly important for retooling and future jobs.

How is it we have the importation of vehicles under NAFTA? We were talking about the three amigos summit previously. That is what the government was talking about and how important that is. We have Mexico, the United States, and Canada with pretty well an integrated automotive sector, but the United States gets 25 years in the same agreement of exemption on the auto industry and we get five.

Trade agreements are just that. We all support trade. We all do it from early ages to later on as adults. I remember that when I was trading a Gretzky rookie card, I knew not to get a Dave Semenko card. I have nothing against Dave Semenko; I am a goalie, so I like those kinds of players around me, especially when the crease gets hot. However, the reality is that there is a certain value on one versus the other. But that is what we got.

Imagine then that we have the international powerhouse of Malaysia versus Canada. Malaysia gets 12 years, more than twice that of Canada. It is insulting, coming from a city that helped found the auto industry with the Ford Motor Company and others, to have a country like Malaysia outmanoeuvre the then-Conservative government.

That is why a national auto strategy is important, because trade agreements affect all the investments that we make, whether it be labour investments, incentives, or tax reductions, all those policies and investments by all of us across Canada make a difference. What do we do with this? We undermine all those investments: training opportunities; people going to school, college, university; high-end development of a future; patent development; innovation that actually branches out beyond the auto industry. Look at Auto 21 in Windsor where many of the auto manufacturing issues led to spin-offs to other patents in the development of technology. All of those things are put at risk for the great unknown.

The Liberals know there is a problem, because they talk about $1 billion to the auto industry for amelioration, but they have not said how or when and they have not put it in their budget.

The end consequence is this. We put at risk so much that we have publicly invested in as capital, training, in the future of innovation, and the manufacturing industry, without even a study, a peek, or a glimpse of the consequences, and we have been out-negotiated. There is no way around it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember spending some great time with my colleague from Windsor on the industry committee, and I have a lot of respect for the work he does here in the House. His community, like my community, is very much affected by the auto industry. Although we may have different approaches, I think in the big picture of things we want to do what is best for our communities.

Let me turn to one of the concerns I have about the TPP. As we know, Canada is in a very unique situation in the world. With the European free trade agreement, we now have access to 500 million new customers, some of the most affluent customers in the world. If we have the TPP agreement, that will bring another 800 million, which means Canada will be the only G7 country that has access to some of these affluent countries around the world, with the potential for growth.

I think the member is aware that this is a contract year that is very important for Oshawa. As he said, everybody knows where the Conservatives stand, and we know where the NDP stands, but it is the uncertainty right now, in a contract year, when these international companies, American companies, want certainty about where Canada is going to be playing in the field internationally.

These are American companies. If Canada does not sign on to the TPP and America does sign on to the TPP, what is the NDP's solution to that? If we are left out, these American companies, like the ones in my community, will have no incentive for staying in Canada, and their incentive will be to go back to the United States.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to work with him on the industry committee over the years. It has actually been very positive. If there are differences of opinions, at least they are expressed with respect and decorum, which is very nice.

With regard to the industries, it is a dog's breakfast in terms of who will be the winners or losers. For example, Dianne Craig of Ford Motor Company has said that the TPP is a setback. Quite clearly, we have issues related to that. Often, General Motors has expressed concerns on different trade agreements. Some feel different about CETA than they do about TPP.

Our solution is what we called for in the last election, iCanada, a one-stop shop for the development of a national program for the auto industry, which is being discussed in many places, including in the summit that we had for the auto industry in Windsor the other day with all of those players from the industry, the unions, and economists talking about how we actually go forward with a national auto policy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, at times it is very interesting to watch NDP members stand and talk about trade as if in some fantasy world they actually think trade is good, because their actions do not follow their words in terms of belief in trade. I have been here now for five years, and with the exception of the questionable voting that might have or did not take place regarding the Jordan trade agreement, the NDP have consistently only voted one way, and that is against trade. Canada is a trading nation, and it is of critical importance that we do have world trade.

How does the member justify the NDP's position, even before the ink on the agreement finished drying, even before the election was over, that it made very clear the NDP will oppose the TPP? It does not matter what Canadians have to say about it, the NDP will oppose this trade agreement.

Does the member believe that the NDP has any credibility on this issue to carry it forward in terms of debate, and to carry it forward to the Canadian public? It seems to me it is only the Liberal Party that is doing that.