House of Commons Hansard #76 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trade.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
With regard to materials prepared for Deputy Ministers from November 5, 2015, to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?
(Return tabled)
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to address the matter of two ministers of the crown misleading this House.
On April 28, 2016, I gave notice, pursuant to Standing Order 39, of a written question seeking information regarding the use of rented limousines by ministers on official business.
Question No. 152 reads as follows:
With regard to government travel, for the period of November 3, 2015, to April 22, 2016: (a) which ministers have used rented limousines while on official business, within Canada or elsewhere; and (b) for each use identified in (a), what was (i) the date of the rental, (ii) the location of the rental, (iii) the nature of the official business, (iv) the cost of the rental?
The Department of Health responded to this question saying,
With regard to government travel, for the period of Nov. 3, 2015, to April 22, 2016, the Minister of Health did not use rented limousines while on official business, within Canada or elsewhere.
This answer was personally signed by the Minister of Health.
Likewise, the Department of Natural Resources replied, stating:
Insofar as Natural Resources Canada is concerned, the Minister of Natural Resources did not use rented limousines while on official business.
This answer was personally signed by the Minister of Natural Resources.
On page 15 of the 24th edition of Erskine May, it describes a contempt as follows:
Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
On page 77 of the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Joseph Maingot addresses the issue of privilege in this current context like this:
...any “report, paper, votes or proceedings” that are printed or published by order or under the authority of the House of Commons or Senate pursuant to s. 7, 8, and 9 of the Parliament of Canada Act are protected by absolute privilege when printed and published in toto, and by a qualified privilege when printed and published as extracts or abstracts.
Specifically to the issue of questions, he continues on page 80, saying:
Since two of Parliament's constituent elements, the House of Commons and the Senate, were established for the enactment of laws, those events necessarily incidental to the enactment of laws are part of the “proceedings in Parliament.” However, Parliament has also always been a forum to receive petitions, and the Crown's satisfying the grievances of Members before granting supply eventually led to straightforward requests for information. Therefore, the events necessarily incidental to petitions, questions, and notices of motions in Parliament in the seventeenth century and today are all events that are part of “proceedings in Parliament.”
On December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled, and I quote:
While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member....
The Minister of Health used an executive limo service called Executive Sedan Livery Service Inc. In response to the allegations that she misled Parliament, she explained to the Canadian Press on August 21, 2016 the following:
I don't want to get into the semantics of definitions of types of vehicles.... Again, in retrospect, we could have obviously been much more specific and clarified exactly what car service was used in some of my work.
The minister has admitted that the answer she provided the House regarding her use of car services omitted important details by saying that she could have been more clear. This omission, as Erskine May would argue, is a contempt of the House. My ability as a member to assess whether or not taxpayers are getting value for their money was impeded.
The Minister of Natural Resources signed off on a statement by his department saying he “did not use rented limousines while on official business.” However, he actually did use use a car service called London Limos, which provides “limo transportation and chauffeur services in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada” during the time frame in question.
The company boasts on its website that “As Winnipeg's favourite source for limo transportation services, London Limos offers premium personal transport services.” Semantics aside and simply put, the minister rented limousines and boldly and deliberately told Parliament that he did not.
On page 234 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it states:
[In order for the Speaker to] find a prima facie question of privilege...an admission by someone in authority, such as a Minister of the Crown or an officer of a department, an instrument of government policy, or a government agency, either that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that leads naturally to the conclusion that a Member was intentionally misled....
The Minister of Natural Resources has not denied the fact that he used a service called London Limos, yet he told Parliament he did not rent a limo. The Minister of Health has admitted to omitting important details when she responded to my question, information that would have led a reasonable person to conclude that she did indeed rent a limo.
For the record, lest there be an attempt to use wiggle room on the definition of a limousine, I submit the following definitions, which were compiled by an Ottawa area columnist. The definition of limousine according to the Merriam-Webster North American edition is “a very large and comfortable car usually driven by a professional driver (called a chauffeur)”. The Oxford Dictionary, also North American edition, states “A large, luxurious [automobile], especially one driven by a chauffeur who is separated from the passengers by a partition.” Also in the same dictionary, it states, “A car licensed to transport passengers in return for payment, typically more luxurious than a taxi and not fitted with a taximeter.” In the same dictionary it states, “A passenger vehicle carrying people to and from an airport.” Webster's dictionary states, “any large, luxurious automobile, especially one driven by a chauffeur”, and “a large sedan or small bus, especially one for transporting passengers to and from an airport, between train stations, etc.”
In conclusion, I have two more precedents to offer. Despite the fact that it is crystal clear to the opposition, the media, and the Canadian public that these two ministers rented limos, the ministers insisted on splitting hairs over the meaning of limos and whether or not they should have provided this information to Parliament. When it comes to providing accurate information to Parliament, these ministers have missed the mark and have come in well below the standards expected of them. These ministers must be held to account for their dismissive use of this place.
On March 21, 1978, at page 3975 of Debates, which is also referred in Maingot'sParliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 227, Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part:
...the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be, not—do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.
On December 13, 2010, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood rose on a question of privilege with respect to the minister of international co-operation's deliberate misleading of the House with respect to a funding application to the Canadian International Development Agency and the insertion of the word “not” into a letter. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that it was not contradictory for the minister to state that, while she did not know who inserted the word “not”, it had indeed been done on her instruction. The Speaker ruled on March 9, 2011, and found that there was indeed a prima facie question of privilege. He noted that the sixth report of the standing committee had made available materials not previously before the House. He explained that he had taken its findings into consideration and measured them against other material, including statements in the House and answers to oral and written questions. He concluded that the information provided to Parliament by the minister had at the very least caused confusion. The ministers' answer to my question and their statements in the media have clearly caused confusion.
I have saved the final and most important detail for last. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the earliest opportunity. In this case when the Order Paper questions were answered, I, like every member of this place, had every reason to believe in the truthfulness and accuracy of those documents. It was only during the summer months that a well-respected member of our parliamentary press gallery discovered, through an access to information and privacy request, that in fact the information provided by the ministers in question on the Order Paper was at odds with the facts clearly illustrated by the access to information and privacy request documents.
I raise this for two points. First, because of how I learned of the matter, I would like to point out that this is the very first opportunity I have had to raise this question of privilege in the House. The second and I think the most important point is this. If there is not a finding of privilege in this matter, then Order Paper questions essentially become meaningless, as they are essentially trumped by access to information requests. If we allow that to occur, then in essence we are collectively allowing an erosion of Parliament and eliminating one of the few tools of democratically elected members—and I mean this not only for opposition members but also for the members not in cabinet on the government side—that allow all of us collectively to hold the government to account. That is the main issue here at play.
The question we as parliamentarians have to ask is this. Are we going to allow the erosion of the one tool that we all can use to establish clearly the facts of a matter, that we can use to be able to do our jobs? I know for a fact that my constituents, all of the citizens in my riding, are counting on me to do my job. I know, looking at all of these members of Parliament here, that each one of you was sent here with a purpose to do your job as elected members of Parliament, whether you are in the government or not.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I would remind the member to direct his comments to the Chair, of course, and not to use the word “you”, unless he is speaking about the Speaker, of course, as the member knows.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry about that and I do appreciate the advice. Again, I am not one for passion, but I think this is an area that each one of us should be engaged in, and I appreciate your point.
Above all, beyond individual members of Parliament, I believe that your role as Speaker is to protect the integrity of the House, and not just to preserve but to protect the parliamentary procedures that have evolved over many decades to allow this place to help build the greatest country of them all.
For this reason I have raised my question of privilege. I would add that while this matter and the sums of money involved may be relatively trivial for some, the principle of protecting Parliament, including the Order Paper questions, is a very important one that I believe we should all take very seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you leave this matter to the House to decide. If you find this to be a prima facie breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate corresponding motion.
Thank you for your time and I thank the House for its attention.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that all questions of privilege raised and brought before the House, we take very seriously.
With regard to the two members that the member referenced, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Natural Resources, I will have to return to provide further comment on the Minister of Natural Resources at a later time, but with regard to the Minister of Health, I have a few thoughts that I would like to share.
I listened very carefully to the member's intervention and I am confident that this is a matter of debate and does not constitute a prima facie breach of privilege. The member is arguing that the minister deliberately misled the House in response to Order Paper question 152. As members of the House know, responses to the Order Paper questions are not to be used as opportunity for debate.
Page 522 of O'Brien and Bosc states:
...no argument or opinion is to be given and only the information needed to respond to the question is to be provided in an effort to maintain the process of written questions as an exchange of information rather than an opportunity for debate.
I submit this is precisely what the member is attempting to do.
The government tabled its response to Order Paper question 152 on June 14, 2016, within the prescribed time provided for it in the rules. The response to the question reflected the question asked and contained the information requested. It is a well-established fact that the Speaker is not authorized to judge the content or quality of answers provided in the House, including responses in Order Paper questions.
Speaker Jeanne Sauvé, in her February 28, 1983 ruling, stated that it is not the Chair's responsibility “to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate''. This sentiment was again echoed in Speaker Milliken's ruling on December 12, 2002, when he stated, “the Speaker has no role in reviewing the content of responses to written questions”.
The minister has publicly stated that she followed all proper procedures to determine the appropriate answer. This answer was then tabled in response to the Order Paper question. She has even stated that in the future she will endeavour to disclose additional information, should that aid in providing more clarity.
I believe the member is trying to conflate two issues. The member referred to comments the minister made outside of the House, including an apology regarding her expenses, as evidence that the minister has misled Parliament. However, we must be clear that the comments made were in relation to her travel expenses. It did not speak to the response to the Order Paper question. The minister's comment regarding her travel expenses and the content of the Order Paper response are two separate issues. While the Minister has addressed her expenses related to travel, we cannot confuse that with the accuracy of the response tabled.
Furthermore, a disagreement over the content of a response is merely that, a disagreement over the facts, and not a question of privilege. Speaker Fraser, in his May 15, 1991 ruling, stated:
The difficulty that is always with the Chair in these cases is that there are often very great differences of interpretation on the answers given. It is not a question of privilege; it is a question of disagreement over certain facts and answers that were given.
This is precisely what we have before us today. I submit that this is not a question of privilege, but a dispute over the facts.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to support the comments made by my Conservative colleague. I would also like to respond to what we just heard and add my voice to the debate, if I may.
We are discussing past speakers' rulings and the quality of responses. It is very important to note that, in the case at hand, the facts put forward are not at issue, but rather the fact that some were omitted. It is very difficult to obtain a ruling on a non-existent answer.
That is the issue on which we are calling the government to account for having misled Parliament.
It is really important to note what we have seen in the past, and we have seen some doozies, especially in the last number of years since I have been a member of Parliament. However, we are not talking about interpretation or partisan difference, as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader alludes. We are talking about the omission of information, which prevents us from even having that debate to begin with over how we interpret the facts that are presented to us.
When it comes to questions on the Order Paper, I believe you have an extremely important decision to make because it is a tool that allows parliamentarians to get very precise information at times. Accordingly, it is of the utmost importance that all the facts be included.
On that note, if needed, we may come back to this on behalf of the NDP. We will look over what has been said by both our colleague in the Liberal Party as well as our Conservative colleague, and if needed, offer a further response.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for raising this question of privilege. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his response.
I also want to thank the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly for his comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons indicated that he wants to add some comments. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly also indicated he wanted to make other comments. We will set the question aside for now and I anticipate that the hon. members will come back with other comments in due time, perhaps later this week.
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude my remarks on Bill C-13, a bill we began debating before the summer about implementing a WTO agreement on trade facilitation, or the TFA as it is called.
This agreement is largely about harmonizing border rules around the world in order to expedite the flow of goods and to give businesses greater certainty. We know how important it is to Canadian producers that they have predictability when exporting their goods. Many of these producers are the small businesses that create jobs and drive our economy.
Canadian SMEs stand to benefit from this TFA through greater predictability of customs and border procedures for exports to developing countries. It could increase Canadian SMEs' access to markets in emerging economies, assuming they are equipped to do so. We want to see the government assist SMEs in realizing the potential benefits of the TFA, as well as address other weaknesses in Canada's SME export performance. With a sluggish economy, it is absolutely imperative that the federal government be looking at ways to better support Canadian small businesses.
The Liberal government made a lot of promises last election to small businesses. It promised to reduce the tax rate to 9%, but broke that promise in its first budget.
There is a lot the government can do to support SMEs who export their goods abroad. In the previous Parliament, the Standing Committee on International Trade adopted an NDP motion to undertake a study of the global markets access plan and how the government can better support Canadian SMEs with accessing international markets. The committee's report outlines recommendations for how the federal government can pursue consistent and ambitious policies that further secure SME success in international markets. The NDP wants to see the government implement the study's recommendations and the recommendations outlined in the NDP's supplementary report.
The committee heard that Canadian SMEs have not reached their full potential in terms of accessing international markets. Only 10.4% of SMEs exported in 2011, and most of this trade was done with the United States. There is so much opportunity for them to increase trade with emerging economies, which is what we are essentially talking about today. However, our SMEs face a lot of challenges in terms of difficulties and inefficiencies with border clearance, as well as accessing capital to expand and grow.
In my riding of Essex, so much of our economic prosperity depends on the ability to move goods efficiently through the border with the United States. Having the necessary infrastructure in place is critical, which is why the NDP is such a strong supporter of the new bridge crossing between Windsor and Detroit. For people in Windsor-Essex, a strong Canada-U.S. relationship is a big priority. We're directly impacted by border and customs issues. We watch closely when the Prime Minister and the president meet, as we have a lot riding on seeing concrete outcomes from these meetings.
Last time the leader of the Liberal Party went to Washington, he met with the president about pre-clearance at the border, which is welcome but is not new. The general agreement on this was signed a year ago.
Earlier this year, I participated in the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance conference. There were a lot of excellent discussions focused on how to make cross-border trade more efficient and streamlined. With increasingly integrated supply chains, we know how important it is for Canadian businesses to have simplified, harmonized, and standardized controls to govern the movement of goods across national borders. Canada is on the cutting edge of these discussions, because we are a trading nation. Many of our livelihoods depend on trade.
Around the world, we are seeing growing criticism and dissatisfaction with the kinds of lopsided trade deals many right-wing governments have been focused on negotiating. This rising anti-trade sentiment can be extremely hurtful for Canada, but I also understand that some of this sentiment is rooted in the realities we see around the world. The gap between the world's wealthiest and everyone else is bigger than it has ever been before, and the world's trade and investment liberalization agenda is not trickling down the way we were all told it would.
Deals like the TPP are not focused on creating jobs for the working class. They are focused on granting corporate rights and privileges that trample on the public good. We know that if the TPP comes into force, it would cost Canadian jobs. It would create a culture of fear among our governments of legislating in the public interest. It would hurt our ability to legislate action on climate change. It could mean no national pharmacare program in Canada.
Over the summer, I held a series of town hall meetings on the TPP. I also spoke with a lot of people in my riding about the kind of trade they want to see.
Canadians want to see solutions to the trade issues that matter in their communities. Steelworkers want to see an end to the unfair steel dumping practices that directly threaten good Canadian jobs. Forestry workers want a solution to the softwood lumber issue, not a renewed trade war. Farmers want a payment protection program so they can export with confidence. Dairy farmers want a fair system in place for dealing with improperly labelled imports. Grain farmers want greater access to markets such as Japan, and canola farmers want to export to China with confidence.
These are the bread and butter trade issues that matter to working Canadians, and I will be working hard to hold the Liberal government to account. I believe strengthening trade opportunities for Canadian SMEs is a bread and butter issue too. It matters to a lot of Canadian families and communities.
I will be supporting Bill C-13 at second reading, and I want to hear more at the committee about how Canadians might benefit from the TFA.
According to the WTO, the TFA could boost global merchandise exports by around $1 trillion, with up to $730 billion accruing to developing countries. It also estimates that the agreement will benefit women entrepreneurs in developing countries who head up many of the SMEs that could benefit from the TFA. The average growth of women-run enterprises is significantly lower than those run by men. I would like to hear more about how the WTO will support developing countries in implementing the TFA and how it will support women in the least developed countries as beneficiaries of increased trade.
The WTO makes big claims about how beneficial the TFA will be. It seems quite common for proponents of trade deals to produce extremely optimistic studies. Just the other week, the Liberal government released a TPP economic study that many say overstated the benefits and understated the losses.
In conclusion, I see some potential benefits in this agreement for Canadians, including for the people in my riding of Essex. The bill deserves further study at committee, which is why I will be supporting it at second reading.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech earlier on today, she talked abut goods flowing through Canada and the possibility of goods being diverted. Does she have any clear examples of how that could possibly happen?
We understand that goods coming into and flowing through Canada have to leave Canada, and we have all the policies and procedures in place to make sure that happens. Therefore, I would like some clarification on the statement that the member made in her presentation.
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, some examples of the goods in transit that the member is speaking about in Bill C-13 appear when we talk about enabling Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to comply with article 11(8) of the TFA, which essentially prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through the WTO member's territory. It definitely speaks to transit through Canada of goods that do not comply with Canadian technical regulations, and Bill C-13 would create the legal authority to allow the government to exempt goods in transit through Canada through these technical regulations.
At the end of the day, we want to identify that the goods in transit are safe. We want assurances from Health Canada that we will not be endangering any Canadians in the transit of these particular goods through our country. That is incredibly important to the NDP. Again, we will be watching closely the study that will happen at the committee level.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the NDP will be supporting the bill at this stage. I think it is an important bill for facilitating trade for Canada and in Canada's interest.
I want to ask the member about the trans-Pacific partnership.
President Obama has championed the trans-Pacific partnership as a progressive trade deal with important protections for the environment and workers' rights. Clearly, the member disagrees with him. Therefore, I would ask her who she thinks should be setting the rules of trade in the Asia-Pacific region. Should it be like-minded nations, western democracies, or should it be China?
If we do not move forward with the TPP, we put ourselves in a situation where much more likely the rules of trade are going to be shaped to a greater extent by China. I would be concerned with that. I think we are better off with the TPP negotiated by President Obama and others, which protects environmental issues and workers' rights. Does the member not agree that is in fact a better way to go?
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear that my colleague is in favour of this deal, because essentially, this is a Conservative deal that was negotiated behind closed doors and that did not include large numbers of groups. There were many people in Canada who were not included. Labour was not part of the conversation, nor were environmentalists, seniors, or our youth. The list goes on. Those who protect public health in our country were not part of the conversation on the negotiation of the trans-Pacific partnership.
It is not good enough for Canada to sit and watch what is happening in the U.S. We need to take leadership on this. We need to ensure that we are protecting Canadian jobs.
At the end of the day, what we see of this trade deal is 60,000 jobs lost. We have the economic impact study that came out last week. Again we see negligible growth being projected for the next 24 years. If the amount promised to our supply management sectors, $4.3 billion, is actually realized, we will see no net benefit from the trans-Pacific partnership, according to the report that was released.
Again, the report released by our own government says nothing about jobs. It actually says in the study that it does not take labour into account. It does not talk about digital rights. It does not talk about many of the chapters included in the trans-Pacific partnership that need to be part of the conversation Canadians are having.
I can also let the member know that I travelled across this country this summer talking about the trans-Pacific partnership, and I have yet to find an average Canadian who thinks that this trade deal is good for our jobs, our economy, and our communities.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to meet average Canadians who support this trade deal, I invite her to come to my riding at any time. I can introduce her to many of them.
The member is selective in the studies she quotes. I want to ask her this very directly. She said that this is a Conservative trade deal. I am certainly proud of the role our Conservative government played in negotiating the trade deal. Of course, it was a deal that involved many countries. Would she not at least recognize the leadership that President Obama showed on this issue, pushing it forward and pushing the negotiations? Would she consider it a Conservative trade deal on the basis of the many different nations, representing different political philosophies and different political parties, that considered this an important deal for global trade?
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I can only extend to the member down the bench that I am more concerned about our Prime Minister looking at this trade deal. I am more concerned about his lack of leadership with respect to this trade deal than I am about what is happening with our neighbour to the south. Our trade with the U.S. is incredibly important. I come from a region that relies on that. I certainly understand the benefit of that, but we need to look at this deal.
When we look at the report that came out a couple of weeks ago, we see that we already have TFAs with countries that are in the trans-Pacific partnership. Even the chief economist said that trade with those countries will go down. We will actually see a loss in trade with countries we already have TFAs with.
It is time in Canada to look at the way we are engaging in trade. We have heard the minister opposite mention a progressive trade agenda. I would love to explore that further and understand what exactly she means by that. We need to look at these trade deals, on balance. There have been 60,000 jobs lost in our country, and negligible growth, by all reports. Regardless of who we are looking at on the economic impact study, it shows negligible growth for our country. Yet we will see a depletion of jobs, which is something we certainly cannot have happen in our communities. I would venture that the member down the bench cannot afford to have those jobs lost in his community, either. Therefore, I encourage him to have a town hall in his riding. I will be following up to ensure that he does so, so that he can actually engage with people in his riding on the trans-Pacific partnership. I look forward to hearing the results of that town hall.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the problem with a number of the statements the member made is that the NDP traditionally have just said an outright “no” to agreements, including the TPP, even before there has been any sort of real discussion. Our government has been very clear about working with Canadians and stakeholders, whereas the New Democrats have a foregone conclusion on all trade agreements, and that is to oppose them. It does not matter what the content is. I have not seen them actually stand in their places and vote in favour of a trade agreement.
I am glad to hear that it appears that they will be supporting Bill C-13. The Conservatives and the NDP are building a consensus to vote for it, and I am appreciative of that.
Does the member not believe that Bill C-13 allows for the type of consultation that is necessary to ensure that Canadians are protected within our different trade corridors?
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-13 I would like to see a further exploration of the technical changes that are happening to this TFA so that ultimately we can determine whether this would be good for Canadians.
As far as the trans-Pacific partnership goes, the NDP has voted in favour of trade deals in the past, and I think the member is well aware of that. What I would like to say about this particular deal is that as vice-chairperson of the trade committee, I have listened to hundreds of people who have come before the trade committee as well as to hundreds of people out in communities across Canada. It is something the Liberal government has promised to do as well. When the resounding message from Canadians is that this deal will not be good for their jobs, for their families, and for their communities, I hope I will see the member opposite standing up and representing those people in Canada and voting against the trans-Pacific partnership.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her incredible leadership on this issue in standing up for not just us as New Democrats but for Canadians on the issue of the TPP.
I wonder if once again the member could talk about how important it is to have a federal government that defends good Canadian jobs rather than the interests of investors and some of the most wealthy CEOs around the world. Can she speak to the sentiment that she is hearing on the ground from Canadians who are concerned about the lack of leadership from the current government and its willingness to sell us out?
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, one particular point I would like to hit on is that Canadians understand the inability to afford medication. The trans-Pacific partnership would extend the patents, which would mean that it would cost Canadians more money to take the medication necessary for a pathway to health. That alone is egregious in the trans-Pacific partnership, and people understand the impact of that on their lives.
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about Bill C-13, the legislation that would allow Canada to implement the World Trade Organization agreement on trade facilitation, otherwise known as TFA.
As members may know, the TFA is the first multilateral trade agreement finalized since the establishment of the World Trade Organization, in 1995. It is truly a landmark achievement. The TFA focuses on streamlining, harmonizing, and modernizing customs procedures. It has enormous potential for reducing trade costs and time, particularly in developing and the least-developed countries. In fact, the WTO estimates that full TFA implementation has the potential to increase global merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion, and it could reduce global trade costs by an average of over 14%. In the event that not all WTO members fully implement the TFA, the real-world impact will be significant.
Domestically, implementation of the TFA will provide Canada with the unique opportunity to promote inclusive growth. It will do this by making cross-border trade easier for businesses of all sizes, particularly SMEs.
I would like to speak today about some of the legislative amendments that are required for Canada to join the ranks of 92 other World Trade Organization members, including the EU, the U.S., and China, which have already ratified the TFA.
While Canada's customs regime is compliant with the vast majority of the provisions in the TFA, certain statutes require amendments for Canada to fully implement the TFA and to maintain safeguards for the health and safety of Canadians and our environment. These amendments relate to two provisions of the TFA: article 10.8.1, rejected goods, and article 11.8, goods in transit.
Today I would like to talk about amendments related to article 11.8 on goods in transit.
Article 11.8 prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point, which are known as “goods in transit”. This provision will allow foreign goods to move through Canada—for example, from Europe to the United States—without complying with our technical regulations.
The transit through Canada of some goods, such as pharmaceutical drugs, cleaning products, and pesticides, which do not comply with the technical regulations, is currently prohibited by certain federal statutes: the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
While most importers are aware of the prohibitions on the transit of unregistered or unauthorized products, from time to time companies request one-off permission to transit such products through Canada. Such activities are expressly prohibited by legislative or regulatory requirements and are routinely denied.
Preventing products that do not comply with technical regulations from transiting through Canada can be considered a trade barrier. This is because the health and safety of Canadians and the environment can, in fact, be protected in an equally effective, less trade-restrictive manner.
The legislative amendments proposed in the bill would specify that Canada's technical regulations would not apply to goods in transit through Canada as long as certain requirements for protecting health, safety, and the environment were met.
More specifically, Bill C-13 includes requirements designated to mitigate the risk that certain goods in transit could be diverted in the Canadian market or compromise the health and safety of Canadians, or the environment as a result of accidents or spills. For example, labelling requirements for certain goods in transit will enable inspectors, border officers, handlers, and sellers to distinguish between goods destined for import and those just passing through. Such labelling could denote the origin, intended destination, and product safety and handling procedure for goods in transit.
By implementing the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Device Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Canada would improve the flow of goods and services to its border.
The world is more connected than ever before, yet all too often outdated and uncoordinated customs procedures slow down the movement of goods and raise trade costs. Bill C-13 would enable Canada to facilitate custom procedures at home. The TFA will do the same around the world and bring considerable economic benefits to Canada and other World Trade Organization members.
I support Bill C-13 and all the benefits it would bring to Canadians. More specifically, I support it because it would benefit the many small and medium enterprises in my riding of Richmond Hill, such as those in the construction industry, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, service delivery, agriculture, transport, and others.
Although it is a small suburban town, Richmond Hill has huge export and import potential and the residents of Richmond Hill can stand to benefit significantly from the removal of these trade barriers.
I urge hon. members to support this legislation, which would enable Canada to do its part to bring the agreement into force and ensure the health and safety of Canadians and the continued protection of the environment.