Debates of Sept. 19th, 2016

Food and Drugs Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, members of the Conservative Party support this legislation as well. It is important and we need to move forward on it.

We are at a critical time internationally, when there are many voices criticizing the idea of open trade and an open economy. Now would be a good time for the government to make up its mind on critical trade deals like the trans-Pacific partnership. We have no leadership from the government on that. People know where the Conservatives stand. People know where New Democrats stand on this trade deal. The Liberals have been in office for close to a year and have continually been punting on this important deal. They refuse to take a position and show any leadership.

Consultations have gone on. It has been a long time. The government has had plenty of time to become familiar with the deal. What is that member's position on the trans-Pacific partnership? When will the government finally decide whether it is going to speak for the idea of open trade or not?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that he and his party are supporting Bill C-13.

On the matter of the TPP, as our government has stated and clearly demonstrated, we continually conduct consultations, and a report on those consultations will be provided. We have clearly stated that this bill or agreement needs to be shared, discussed, analyzed, and its impact on all sectors made clear. We made a commitment to do that and we continue to do that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before moving on to the next question, I would remind hon. members not to address one another directly, but to do so through the chair.

The hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something the member brought up in his speech this afternoon is of particular interest to me, that being the CBSA. Amazing women and men work for the Canada Border Services Agency. They protect our borders and are on the front lines of facilitating trade while enforcing regulations and keeping our country safe. They have an incredibly difficult and challenging job and I thank them for the job they do.

That said, it is clear that they bear the majority of responsibility for imports and exports, as they should, but the agency is severely under-staffed. The agency needs more men and women at the border to be able to prevent the importation of things like diafiltered milk, and the issue we are having around that in particular. When we are talking about expanding the dangerous goods that will be travelling through our country, we need to ensure that the CBSA has all of the tools it needs to be able to do so safely, as the member mentioned in his speech.

Do you believe that the CBSA requires additional support to make our borders more efficient and secure?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before the hon. member for Richmond Hill answers, I am sure the hon. member for Essex did not mean the Speaker, because she was speaking through the Speaker. She did not mean “you”, meaning me. She meant the hon. member for Richmond Hill. I want him to take that into account when he answers that question.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the budget cut by the Conservative government put us in the position we are in. Having said that, our commitment to Bill C-13 is to bring the visibility and oversight that is needed. Actually, we are dealing with the process first. Once the legislation is in place and there is an alignment with the other 92 members, we will take it into consideration for the 2017 budget to ensure that those legislative amendments are supported with the proper resources.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about Bill C-13, legislation that would allow Canada to implement the WTO agreement on trade facilitation, otherwise known as the TFA.

As members may know, Canada played a key role in the negotiation of the TFA at the WTO.

The TFA would enhance the predictability and transparency of customs decisions for traders; expedite the release of goods through the use of modern technologies, such as electronic payment; and increase the efficiency of customs procedures through improved coordination between border agencies. Canada ensured that the TFA would provide a full range of trade facilitation measures while preserving our ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.

Today I would like to speak about some of the legislative amendments that are required for Canada to join the ranks of 92 other WTO members, including the EU, the U.S., and China, that have ratified the TFA. The TFA will enter into force once two-thirds of WTO members, or 110 out of 164 WTO members, have ratified it. Canada needs to do its part to make this happen.

While Canada's customs regime is compliant with the vast majority of provisions in the TFA, certain statutes require amendments in order for Canada to fully implement the TFA and maintain safeguards for the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. These amendments relate to two provisions of the TFA: article 10.8.1, on rejected goods; and article 11.8, on goods in transit, which my colleague addressed.

Today I would like to talk about the amendments required to implement article 10.8.1 on rejected goods. Article 10.8.1 requires WTO members to allow importers to return to the exporter goods that were rejected on account of their failure to meet certain health and other technical requirements unless another means of dealing with the rejected goods is provided for in that country's laws, such as seizure and disposal.

Governments that wish to retain the ability to treat goods other than by allowing their return will need to be able to point to specific provisions in their laws or regulations that provide the authority to do so.

To ensure that the Government of Canada's statutes and regulations comply with this provision while not increasing risk to the health and safety of Canadians and the environment, amendments to five statutes administered by Health Canada are required. Those statutes are the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. Specifically, Bill C-13 identifies criteria under which non-compliant goods could be either returned to the exporter, re-consigned, or seized, detained, forfeited, and/or disposed of by customs.

Bill C-13 would enable Health Canada to deal with seized goods more effectively and in a more harmonized way. What exactly does this mean? It means that non-compliant goods arriving at the border, goods such as drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, food, tanning equipment, children's toys, hazardous products, and pesticides, could be seized and not returned in certain cases. For example, when products pose unacceptable health and safety risks, they could be seized and not returned. In other cases, products could be returned or reconsigned.

These amendments would enhance predictability and transparency in how rejected goods were treated at the border and would help ensure that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment continued to be protected.

By making the proposed amendments, Canada will meet its international obligations under the TFA in respect of article 10.8.1 in dealing with the treatment of rejected non-compliant goods. Bill C-13 would also enable Canada to avoid having to maintain indefinite care and control of non-compliant goods. It would enable Canada to take action to recover costs and to avoid having to maintain indefinite control of non-compliant goods.

I support Bill C-13 and all the benefits it would bring to Canadians. I urge all hon. members to support this bill, which would enable Canada to do its part in bringing this agreement into force and in ensuring that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment remains protected.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch a bit on what the member across the way talked about in terms of hazardous products and pest control products. It is important for us to understand that it is not just that these products travel safely; it is that communities are protected from any potential damage during transport. It is also that the people who work to transport these products across our country are protected and that their health and safety is ensured.

Because Bill C-13 would make some changes in how we would deal with goods in transit and with non-compliant goods, is the member confident that the changes in Bill C-13 would maintain existing health and safety standards for workers who might come into contact with these products?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I honestly do not know that detail. The member mentioned in her speech the importance of looking at this in committee. I expect that any concerns will be brought to light in that environment. Overall, the bill is well worthwhile and will protect the environment in the ways we need to do so.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for this bill. We will probably support this, mainly because we all know that one in five jobs is created by trade. The Asia–Pacific gateway is in my riding of Richmond Centre in British Columbia, so trade is very important to my riding and also to British Columbia.

We support the bill because it would enable Canada to implement the trade facilitation agreement, the TFA, which was concluded under the previous Conservative government. Canadian investors, importers, and exporters of goods, including small and medium-sized businesses, the SMEs, which I have listened to, would benefit from the implementation of the TFA. Also the inactivity of many SMEs as players in international trade has more to do with red tape than with tariff barriers.

Will the Liberals adhere to the recent G7 leaders' declaration and the economic impact report by the Office of the Chief Economist and commit to ratifying the trans-Pacific partnership, independent of the United States?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to hear that the Conservatives support one of our bills. The TPP is an issue that is still under consultation. My riding is certainly affected. There are a lot of exports coming from my riding, even though we are not anywhere near the border, and I will be following this very closely.

I appreciate the question. There is more to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that opposition parties seem to be in support and maybe we could even see it passed, given the comments we have heard. There are 162 countries in the World Trade Organization. Two-thirds need to pass the agreement for it to be ratified. We are getting closer to 108, which then would put it into place. I think just over 80 countries have already ratified it.

Could the member comment on how important it is that Canada ratify it as soon as it is most appropriate for the House to pass it?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously very important to pass this bill and ratify the agreement. We need 140 out of 184 countries to agree to it before it can move forward. Until it is ratified, it is up in the air. It is important that we pass this bill and get on with it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the Environment; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Employment; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Rail Transportation.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-13, which would ensure that Canada meets its obligations under the WTO's trade facilitation agreement. This is something that our party will fully support.

Our previous Conservative government concluded the trade facilitation agreement. We value whatever makes it easier for Canadian companies to conduct their business both here and abroad, because they are our country's best job creators. We value simplifying custom procedures and cutting red tape. We value expediting the release on clearance of goods and reducing the cost associated with processing. Trade must be predictable for Canadian businesses, and this is something that the WTO is good at and which the trade facilitation agreement furthers.

Canadian investors, importers and exporters, and especially small and medium-sized enterprises would greatly benefit from the passage of the bill. Our party will vote in favour of it, because Conservatives know that small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. We saw it as our duty in government to give the support they needed to do business, not just within Canada but also internationally. We understood that our SMEs were doing very well, and Canada prospers when they do well.

International trade is vital to the Canadian economy. It represents more than 60% of our GDP, and one out of five jobs are linked to exports. Without international trade, there would be 3.3 million fewer jobs in Canada, meaning our unemployment rate would skyrocket to 25%. This is why it is absolutely vital that we support our business community. It is also why it is vital for Canada to look beyond the WTO to further our market access around the world.

Before the House rose for the summer, my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, spoke during this debate and gave us a history of the agreement at the WTO. The trade facilitation agreement is part of the Bali package which is a group of outcomes that took about 15 years for well over 100 countries to negotiate, agree, and now to ratify in our respective legislative chambers. It is 15 years and counting, I should probably say, since over 20 countries have yet to pass this agreement after us.

While the timeline for accomplishing anything at the WTO is concerning, it does serve a purpose, the highest of which is the common set of rules it sets that govern international trade. The WTO holds countries to account when they are suspected and found guilty of breaking the rules, and Canada has certainly benefited from this oversight.

Take the softwood lumber dispute for example, or the United States' country-of-origin labelling requirements for beef and pork. Rulings on these issues by the WTO ensured Canada was able to hold the United States to account for its cross-border trade indiscretions and give us the moral authority to demand nothing less than favourable outcomes for the Canadian industry. However, 15 years is a tremendously long time to negotiate an agreement like this, which largely deals with measures with which our own customs regimes already comply.

My colleague, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, also spoke earlier in this debate before the summer recess and alluded to some reasons of why the WTO was a difficult body in which to accomplish anything meaningful in a period of time. It is a large group of countries of very diverse interests and everyone has a veto. It is an organization that values and protects the free flow of goods around the world, but its limitations are evident. That is why the government should follow in the steps of its predecessor and continue to build on Canada's legacy as it supports job-creating industries by pursuing bilateral and smaller multilateral agreements that hold real promise for Canadian exporters and are achievable in the not too distant future.

I have in mind three things: the continuation of the global markets action plan, the ratification of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, and the ratification of the trans-Pacific partnership.

The global markets action plan, or GMAP for short, was a revolutionary yet simple way to think and go about doing international trade with the ultimate goal of nearly doubling the number of Canadian SMEs exporting to emerging markets from 11,000 to 21,000. To do this, the plan called for the government to concentrate its efforts on determining the markets that held the greatest promise for Canadian business by engaging in vigorous trade promotion and ambitious trade policy.

At the heart of GMAP was that it played to the strengths of the business community. A strength of GMAP itself was that it was methodically based on the insight of the businesses themselves that would be the government's partners in the plan.

In order to ensure that the program was built in a way that served Canadian SMEs best, our previous government created an advisory panel comprised of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canaccord Genuity Group, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Alliance Grain Traders, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Cenovus Energy, CGI Group and the University of Alberta.

Contrary to what the current government might think, it does not have a monopoly on the act of consulting. Perhaps the difference is that our previous government consulted in meaningful ways that gave those affected by a policy real input into its creation.

The results of the GMAP exercise with the identification of three party market types with engagement by Canadian officials in each of the countries identified as having potential for Canadian businesses, two of these market types target emerging markets.

As past chair of the Canadian ParlAmericas group, I was able to see first hand what GMAP meant to Canadian business in trying to expand into the Americas.

When I went to Peru in the late 2000's, officials were talking about how the increase in wheat exports were happening there. It showed what happened when all of a sudden farmers were allowed to sell their grain, but also when there were trade agreements in place so they had bankability and knew exactly how to go about selling their grain into Peru and thus the exports approved drastically increased.

To my knowledge, the government has not expressed its intent to work toward growing the engagement of Canadian SMEs in emerging markets under GMAP, and it would be a shame for the government to let down those who actually do trade and export around the world. These are the same people who resoundingly endorsed GMAP. I look forward to hearing from the Minister of International Trade on her plans for this highly-valued policy framework.

The second thing the government should do to help our exporters create jobs is ratify the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This agreement is huge for Canadian exporters because it would give them access to over 500 million affluent customers ready to buy whatever Canada has to offer. It is estimated that CETA could help grow the Canadian economy by adding $12 billion annually to our GDP, which is the equivalent of 80,000 jobs or raising the average family's income by $1,000 annually.

It is imperative that the Liberal government get this agreement across the finish line, and to be frank I am concerned about its action on this file so far.

If reports out of Europe are to be believed, it looks like the agreement is coming apart at the seams and the actions of the government seem to corroborate this, first with the secret reopening of the negotiations to revise the section on investor-state dispute settlement to appeal more to some European interests, and now with the appointment of a new CETA envoy to help get it done. Both of these developments do not beget a lot of confidence within the Canadian business community, but I join with our exporters in hoping that the government meets its target to have the deal signed in October. Perhaps the good news out of Germany today that its chancellor has the necessary votes to proceed with the deal will be a sign of positive things to come for CETA.

The third thing that the government must to do to continue to build Canada's economy and create more jobs is join with our allies in preparing to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership this fall. The TPP is arguably the most important trade agreement of the 21st century. Indeed it is the largest free trade agreement in Canadian history as it would give our exporters access to 800 million customers from 11 different countries. Notably, it would grant us free trade access to the Japanese market which, as the world's third largest economy, is possibly the biggest advantage of the TPP.

The other large advantage of the TPP is that it is good and safe strategy for increased engagement with Asia because it sets the rules of engagement for that region. Increasing our business relationships in that part of the world is imperative for Canada so that we do not fall behind in the global marketplace. A report by the Asia-Pacific Foundation on Canada's Asia strategy says that by 2020, almost two billion people, 1.7 billion to be exact, or 54% of the world's middle class, are projected to spend almost $15 billion annually. That is 42% of the world's total consumption and Canada would be remiss to not prepare for the massive growth that is projected for Asia in the future.

China is undeniably a large part of increasing growth in Asia as a 2011 Asian Development Bank estimation suggests that China will contain about 20% of the world's middle class by 2030. It is also clear that what China demands, Canada has to offer, with our energy and agricultural resources being particularly in demand.

The TPP was developed with the express purpose in mind of some day bringing China into the fold of freer trade on our own terms, with our allies and the force of precedent on our side. Importantly, it treats issues that Canada should be wary of when looking to engage further with China.

Take for example the issue of China's state owned enterprises. Now let me be clear. Our party does not disagree with foreign investment in Canadian industry. Quite the contrary, in fact. However, we do insist that it must occur under the right conditions. Following the purchase of Nexen by the China National Offshore Oil Company in 2012, the previous Conservative government announced a new policy consisting of two elements: limiting further acquisitions of oil sands assets by state owned enterprises; and requiring additional scrutiny of acquisitions by state owned enterprises in other sectors.

China has asked Canada to loosen these restrictions, which should be concerning for Canadian companies, which would face unfair competition within Canada as a result, in addition to other international companies that do business here under globally established laws and norms.

Chapter 17 of the TPP tackles the issue of state owned enterprises as the partner countries agree to ensure that their SOEs operate on the basis of commercial considerations and act in a non-discriminatory manner when making purchases and sales. The chapter commits countries to fair competition and includes rules to generate better transparency with respect to government control over commercial state owned enterprises. By ratifying the TPP before pursuing a free trade agreement with China, Canada will have some clout to ensure that we can achieve outcomes that do not infringe on fair competition within our own economy.

Another area that those pursuing a freer trade with China should be wary of is labour rights. Chapter 19 of the TPP deals with this head on as it contains enforceable commitments to protect and promote internationally recognized labour principles and rights. It ensures that TPP partner countries provide acceptable working conditions in terms of minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational health and safety, and includes commitments to ensuring that national laws and policies provide protection of these fundamental principles and rights.

Non-tariff barriers are also a concern when it comes to doing business with China. Canadian farmers know all too well about the damage non-tariff barriers can cause to our industry. Our canola farmers are still operating under an immense amount of uncertainty as to whether they will be able to continue to sell their crops into China. China has been threatening to block our canola exports, supposedly over concerns of blackleg, and it claims the matter can be resolved if Canadian exporters lower the amount of extraneous plant material in its shipments to below 1%. Our Canadian industry has been telling us that this ruling is not based on solid science and that the current limit of 2.5% is a number that already poses an extraordinarily low risk for blackleg transmission.

The increased time and cost that would have to go into preparing a shipment of canola to be sold in China with a dockage rate of less than 1% is prohibitive for Canadian farmers. Though the Prime Minister announced that the September 1 deadline for this new Chinese regulation had been delayed, this has done nothing the alleviate the future uncertainty for western Canadian canola farmers who are harvesting their co-ops right now as we speak.

Around 40%, or $2 billion, of Canada's canola seed exports go to China, so non-tariffs of this sort can have real consequences for our economy. China has been known to use regulatory barriers in the past to block other Canadian agricultural products, including beef, pork and biotech crops, whether to protect its domestic industry or to strengthen its negotiating position on other issues.

Chapter 7 of the TPP combats non-tariff barriers by affirming each country's rights and obligations under the WTO sanitary and phytosanitary Agreement and by establishing a series of new commitments regarding regionalization, equivalence and science-based analysis. Most important, it also provides increased transparency in the application of each country's SPS regulations, including a requirement that TPP countries notify others of all regulations that may have an effect on trade.

Indeed, the government should really consider the benefits of using the TPP as a springboard towards further trade with China, given the Canadian public's deeply divided sentiment on the matter. Polling numbers released by the Asia-Pacific Foundation to coincide with the Prime Minister's recent trip to China show that an equal number of Canadians both oppose and support a free trade agreement with China at 46% each. We know that those who are hesitant to support more engagement with China do so largely for concerns involving security, human rights and the rule of law. By ratifying the TPP before pursuing free trade with China, the government can begin to negotiate from a position of increased coordination among our allies in the Asia-Pacific region. They say there is safety in numbers, and the TPP means exactly that.

Beyond giving us access to the Japanese market and the tools it offers in preparing for further trade with China, the most compelling reason for ratifying the TPP this fall is that this is an agreement that Canadian businesses want. Our businesses create jobs in Canada and ratifying the TPP will help them create even more. Across the board, in every region of the country, we will find businesses that support increased trade in Asia through the TPP. Those who are supportive include companies in aerospace, agriculture, food processing, auto manufacturing, wine and spirits, fish and seafood, forestry, information technology, pharmaceuticals, medical technology, mining and extractives, financial services and transportation.

By ratifying the TPP, Canadian businesses would be the only G7 exporters to have free trade access to all of the U.S. and Americas, Europe and the Asia-Pacific continents. That is over 60% of the world's economy and every industry and region in Canada would have access to these customers. It is lost on me why the government is continuously delaying the ratification of the TPP.

Besides having Canadian industry tell them to get this deal done, Global Affairs Canada's own chief economist has found that joining the TPP would provide a net advantage to Canada by creating significant new export opportunities, particularly in Japan, while warning of the loss in opportunity Canada would suffer by staying out of the agreement. With the private sector and her own chief economist all touting the benefits of the TPP, it is a mystery as to why the Minister of International Trade continues to go out of her way to avoid ratifying this deal.

International trade is about jobs in Canada. The more markets we have to sell into, the more jobs are created here at home to satisfy the global demand for what Canada has to offer. With our economy losing some 110,000 jobs in June and July, and with the unemployment rate creeping up another tenth of a point in August to 7.0%, the government should be spending more time thinking about ways it can facilitate more trade for Canadian goods and services. It cannot afford not to.

This brings me back to Bill C-13. Canada must continue to work within the WTO framework and support the efforts there towards freer trade around the world. That is why I and my party will be voting in favour of the bill, because in doing so we vote in favour of the Canadian economy and Canadian jobs.

I would also urge the government to use this as an opportunity to seize the international trade file with more vigour than it has shown thus far. The government must be smart about its trade policy and only pursue those agreements that will benefit and create opportunity for those actually practising international trade and employing Canadians. Continuing the important work set out in the global markets action plan, getting CETA across the finish line, and ratifying the TPP before pursuing free trade talks with China will set our economy up for continued growth and prosperity through the years to come.

These are all things that I hope our trade minister gets and understands. As we look forward and look at what is going on in the Canadian economy, we have heard a lot of promises from the Liberal government, promises I think it intends to keep, at least I hope it does. We all remember the commercial with the Prime Minister going down the escalator, talking about how he had a plan for creating jobs here in Canada. That is very important, because we need to create jobs here in Canada.

However, the results have been somewhat lackluster. They are not there. We have lost jobs here in Canada. Our inability to show a clear direction on what we are doing on the trade file has Canadian companies really confused about what their future holds.

A good example is that on TPP the Liberals are dragging their feet, waiting to see what happens in the U.S. However, when it comes to the Asian development bank, they go in headstrong, full steam ahead, with a commitment of close to $1 billion, with no agreement from our allies. The U.S. and Japan are telling us not to be a part of that. Looking at that consideration, Australia belongs to that bank and only gets 4% of the benefit.

There is no commitment for that $1 billion to be spent on any company that generates jobs here in Canada. It is doing what we should not be doing. What we should be doing is working with our allies on all fronts, setting up the proper tools and regulations.

It just creates inconsistency in how businesses are supposed to plan for the future. If we see a consistent message by their ratifying the TPP now, and a strong argument for CETA, and getting that done here in October, that would tell the business community here in Canada to invest. It tells the business community that it will have market access and not just in Europe but in Asia. That is pretty exciting. We will see job growth happening from that. We will see the benefit almost instantaneously.

Why the Liberals are hesitating on this file is beyond me, unless they just do not have a clear vision of what to do in the future.

I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that Bill C-13 is an interesting bill. It is something that should probably go through the House in a matter of 30 seconds. It is a no-brainer.

We are doing the stuff that is required in this bill already at the Canada Border Services Agency, so it is not like we are adding new expertise or new procedures and processes. We will be spending money in other countries to help them get up to the level of conduct that we expect, which is a good thing. As we improve their regulatory processes and combine them or harmonize them with Canadian processes, it makes it easier for our companies to do business in those countries.

I look forward to seeing this ratified and moving forward. I look forward to seeing legislation on TPP, hopefully this fall. I look forward to legislation on CETA so that we can get these trade deals done and move forward with things like the Pacific Alliance and other opportunities that await us in the trade file.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments made by the member opposite. I have to admit, as the member stated when he was observing what the government is doing to add incentive and to add co-operation, especially with those folks at the municipal, regional, and provincial levels, we are doing just that.

In my riding in the past month, we announced the groundbreaking for General Electric, 220 jobs in the Niagara region, and that was based on the co-operation that the Prime Minister was directly involved in, as well as Minister Freeland, to ensure that she understood the package we had available in Niagara, the province of Ontario, and therefore our great nation.

My question has to do with a level playing field and fair trade. Does the member in fact believe that the TPP offers that fair trade, especially when looking through a triple bottom line lens of environment, economics and social, and in comparison to and in competition with those countries that we do trade with? Is that equality actually there? Is it actually fair trade? Is Canada actually on a level playing field? Does the member opposite truly believe that the TPP offers our business community fair trade and that our workforce to be able to compete within that market throughout the globe, as well as its being fair to this great nation?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. If we look at what we have today, we have nothing. There is no agreement. There is nothing in place. There is no ability to get a dispute solved. Is TPP perfect? Probably not. Will it need some improvements down the road? We can bet on it. However, it is a basis to build upon. It gives some bankability and stability. It addresses things like labour rights and the environment that do not exist today in any agreement with those countries.

When we ask, “Is this good for Canada?”, there is no question that this is good for Canada. I would rather have the rules set by these 11 countries as we deal in the Asian basket than trying to do a bilateral deal with China and have rules such that in fact we would not be able to enforce non-tariff trade barriers. This would allow us to do that.

My suggestion, as has been consistent in my speech, is to get TPP done. That would allow the door to open, under TPP, to negotiate with China in a situation that is beneficial for Canada and keeps everything even fairer going into the future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go on, I would like to remind hon. members not to mention other members' names, only their title, their rank, or their riding.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few counterpoints to make to my hon. colleague's remarks before I ask my question. One of them is that Canada already has free trade agreements with four of the major economies in the TPP: the United States, Mexico, Chile, and Peru. The other countries that make up the balance of it are actually relatively small economies.

It has been shown that the average tariff in the world right now, without any tariff agreement, is in the single digits, and of course Canada already can trade with countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, and does so every week without any real problems.

The question I want to pick up on has to do with the question my hon. colleague on the government side asked about human rights. One of the countries involved in the TPP is Brunei. Brunei has adopted a form of sharia law that makes homosexuality punishable by being stoned to death, as well as adultery, for that matter. I know that John Baird, when he was the foreign minister, said that Canada would never tolerate any country that dealt with homosexuality in that way, and he singled out Iran at that time.

I wonder what the Conservative Party position would be, in terms of why he would be advocating giving preferential economic treatment to a country that kills people based upon their sexual orientation. Does he think that is sending the right message from a human rights perspective?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did enjoy my time when the member was on committee. Actually, I will say that when he was on committee, the NDP was pro-trade and went forward on the Korea trade agreement and he was quite helpful in getting that through the legislation. We had a unanimous report out of committee suggesting that we approve that agreement.

With respect to his question, any of those are not acceptable. Canadians will not accept them and the Conservative Party will not accept those things either. However, we need a mechanism to deal with them and economics is one mechanism to deal with them, to basically lay out the line and say, “No, we won't accept that”. We have the ability to work with 10 other countries to tell them that, to raise that standard, to say these are what acceptable human rights are. However, if we do not have an agreement, we have no influence, we have no say, we have no sway.

With respect to the small tariffs, those small tariffs put us at a disadvantage in a huge amount of areas. When we look at it and say, “It's just small tariffs. We already have a trade agreement with four of the bigger countries”, what about these emerging countries like Vietnam? They are emerging. They are going to be big players somewhere down the road. Their middle-class economies are growing. Do we not want to have our companies in there, growing with them? They are going to do business with somebody around the world. Would we not rather have them do business with Canada than somebody else?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the summer I had a chance to hold a round table within my riding, where I had the opportunity to talk with small business owners and medium-sized business owners and really hear what mattered to them. One of the things they brought up was the obstacles in their way with respect to trade.

I also took the opportunity to look at a study that was done across Canada by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. There was a survey that was completed, and again, this was one of their top barriers with respect to generating capital and creating jobs.

I would like the hon. member to comment on how the TPP might actually help solve this problem. Specifically, I am interested in my context, where Lethbridge, Alberta, is a fairly rural area, largely agrarian in nature or agriculture-based. How would the TPP go about facilitating further developments and business capital within our region?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Lethbridge area very well and I thank the member for her question. She does a great job and we are proud to have her here.

I was lucky enough to travel in that region for a company called Flexi-Coil back in my other life, in earlier days, and it is a very astonishing area. Its ability with irrigation, ability with the feed sector, the cattle sector is just phenomenal.

Let us look at the cattle sector, for example. Let us look at stability in the market in Japan so that we have access to that market and a stable process. Let us look at the fact that if there was a dispute, we would have a mechanism that we could go to settle those disputes. Those are things that are necessary in order to maintain a steady trade balance or trade into Japan. We do okay in canola and other crops, but when there is a dispute it is hard to resolve that dispute because we do not have a panel to help resolve it.

When we have TPP in place, we will have bankable access into that market. We can develop those market chains. We take big feedlots that are located south of Lethbridge, in Picture Butte and up to Nanton, Claresholm, and that country. They can look at it and say they have the opportunity to maybe add a few more thousand head to their feedlots in that part, which means more barley sales, which means more green sales. Again, the economic activity just flourishes from that point.

Then when we throw that economic activity into Lethbridge, it goes throughout the rest of Alberta and Saskatchewan, because they buy a lot of goods from other provinces and other areas. They buy a new truck, a new tractor, and a new combine, and we see that economic activity all generated because they had the ability to sell beef to Japan. That is what trade can do.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my comment to my colleague is that the more we delay the decision on TPP, the more hesitant business is. In our province, our premier is currently over in South Korea trying to get business to Saskatchewan.

Could the hon. member talk about the Premier of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall, over in South Korea today signing agreements, hoping to ensure some prosperous business with South Korea?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work and his great questions.

Saskatchewan is a trading province. It has over a million people who grow a lot of grain and a lot of beef. We have resources like potash and uranium.

We have a trade deal now with Korea. We can actually go into that market with confidence knowing that the premier has an agreement in place that he can use for backup in case of any disputes. He also has preferential treatment going to that market, depending on whatever goods he is choosing to promote and sell.

Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership has been around for many years, and that is what they are very good at. When they see a market opening up, they are very good at taking Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises, introducing them to those markets, and helping them go through the process of selling goods in those markets. I think GMAP has also done a great job in identifying and helping SMEs look for those markets.

When we look at this, it is so good for our western economy, so good for the Canadian economy. We see this being promoted by all the premiers and leaders. They are asking for this deal to be done too, so I would encourage the government to just get on with it and get it ratified.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Mount Royal. Having said that, let me get right into the debate and pick up on the member's last comment where he was trying to encourage the Government of Canada to in fact speed up on it.

There was an agreement that was signed off by different ministers at the World Trade Organization in December 2013. We are talking about 162 countries that make up the World Trade Organization. Once it was signed off, in order for it to be implemented, two-thirds, or 108 of those countries, have to ratify it. That is what we are talking about today. We have legislation before us and we want to be one of the countries to ratify it. Right now there are just over 80 countries that have ratified it in one form or another. The essence is there and it has been ratified. We are hoping to demonstrate some leadership by moving it forward.

It is important to recognize that it was not that long ago that we had a change in administration. The Harper government was replaced with the current government, and I would suggest that there has been a new attitude and tone. It is one that has a very aggressive approach in dealing with trade, and it goes far beyond Bill C-13. We have seen that in some of the comments that have been made today by opposition members. However, here we are months later, and now we have Bill C-13 before us. It would appear that all parties are at the very least prepared to see it pass second reading, and it would be most encouraging, as a sign and gesture of goodwill and understanding of the legislation. As one of the New Democratic members of Parliament said, let us get it to committee where we can look at possible amendments or changes.

There is a different attitude once we get to committees. We have a Prime Minister who has been very candid, saying that if members have ideas and thought it through, an amendment that can get the support of a committee is a welcome amendment. I do not know what the restrictions might be specifically on Bill C-13 and what might not be an acceptable amendment, but that is not for me to decide. All I know is that it seems that the Conservatives and the New Democrats would like to see this bill pass. It would be a wonderful thing to see it pass through to committee today. If in fact the opposition members are true to what they are talking about, we would advance it to a committee. It would be nice, and I would suggest it is in fact quite doable. As I indicated, l08 countries need to ratify it in order for it to take effect. Many colleagues, on all sides of this House, have talked about the benefits when this piece of legislation not only passes but the law is in fact administered by the trading organizations or different countries.

In listening to a number of the comments, especially from the Conservatives, I made mention that this government has an aggressive approach to trade. We recognize the value of trade. Trade is what creates good jobs in many different ways. One of my colleagues just made reference to General Electric. There are examples today, and hopefully there will be many more examples into the future, as we look at ways in which that we can enhance trade with countries, whether it is on a multilateral basis or in a very general way. I was quite pleased that the Minister of International Trade signed off on an agreement over the summer in Ukraine. That agreement was not a done deal by the previous administration. There were a number of outstanding issues that had to be resolved, just like CETA. CETA is not a done deal, and we are seeing a lot of problems.

Those problems are not coming from Canada; they are coming from European countries that are having second thoughts. One of the most invited and able-minded individuals at the table is trying to ensure that not only the interests primarily of Canada—we have a bit of a bias—but of the European Union as well are being served to see that this agreement gets back on track. Hopefully through the efforts of this government and other like-minded governments, we will see that pan out.

It is interesting to hear members on all sides of the House talk about the TPP. This is an issue that came up during the election. We were aware of the Conservatives' position during the election. It was clear. It did not matter. Earlier today, I talked about the Conservative Party losing touch with Canadians. The TPP is yet another example of how those members have lost touch with Canadians.

Some might suggest that New Democrats have always been out of touch, but that would be rather harsh. I would suggest that their conclusions on the TPP are premature at best. They have taken the position that we should vote against it no matter what the content, no matter how it might benefit or draw back Canada.

Prior to being elected as the government, we told Canadians that we would review the TPP thoroughly before any sort of decision or vote took place in the House. This government is committed to doing that.

Bill C-13 seems to have substantial support. I do not know where the Bloc or the Green Party stand on it, but it seems to have substantial support. I am encouraged by that, because I recognize, as I am sure most people in the chamber recognize, the value of trade. Canada is a trading nation. That is not new to the Liberal Party. Liberal governments have always made major strides toward enhancing trade. In the dying days of the Paul Martin government, we had a multi-billion dollar trade surplus. In the sixties, we had the auto pact agreement, which generated thousands of jobs. Many of the industries that are here today are because of that trade agreement. We understand and appreciate the importance of trade to Canada's economy, to the vitality and strength of our middle class. This is one of the reasons we are pursuing it aggressively. It would enhance the strength of Canada's middle class and those who want to be a part of it.

I look at industries in my own province, whether it be the pharmaceutical industry, or one of my favourites, the pork industry. Manitoba has more pigs than people. Manitoba exports pork, which is one of many other commodities. This is an industry with which I am quite familiar. I have had the tours and I have seen the wealth that has been created as a direct result of that particular industry. That industry would not be where it is today if it were not for the ability to export. That basic principle applies to every region of our great nation in terms of our ability to export. It is critically important.

We are just months into a new session and we have an important piece of legislation. I understand and appreciate the support that is being offered. I would suggest that the House might even want to see it pass shortly.

I thank the House for the opportunity to share my thoughts. It is always a privilege to share my thoughts on issues such as trade, which is important to all Canadians.