Debates of Sept. 19th, 2016

Food and Drugs Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that I went three months without hearing from the member for Winnipeg North. All now seems to be right in the world.

I want to ask the member a question about TPP. This is from Global Affairs Canada's website, from the office of the chief economist. It states:

According to our modelling results, should Canada choose to remain outside the TPP Agreement, and all other current TPP members are parties to it, this is projected to lead to GDP losses of $5.3 billion (US$ 4.2 billion).

In light of that information that his government is making available about the economic losses if Canada does not join TPP, will his government finally be ready to state its position on TPP? If not, would he at least be prepared to tell us when it will make a decision on this important trade agreement?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is in due time, after we have had the opportunity to do what we promised Canadians.

We have been very aggressive on the trade file. All we have to do is look at the summer, where we signed off on the Ukraine trade agreement. The Minister of International Trade has been spending an immense amount of time outside of our country, promoting and encouraging and trying to broker trade agreements, or promoting all of those valuable export opportunities we have here in Canada.

We are very aggressive at defending and selling Canada's potential for exports. A part of that is trade. That is why we have Bill C-13. How many sitting days have we had since the election? There have been 80 or 90 days of actual sitting, and we are already dealing with a bill that the Harper government sat on for a period of time. It was not a long time, in fairness; it was December 2013, but it could have brought in something in 2014 and chose not to.

We have seen a change of attitude, and it ultimately shows that there is more transparency and accountability. We want to make sure that when it comes time to have the debate on TPP in the House that members like me, my colleagues, stakeholders, and Canadians will have had the opportunity to participate extensively in making sure that the right thing is done on the TPP.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister has promised a rigorous debate on the trans-Pacific partnership. She has been out there consulting with Canadians, meeting with people, and listening to pretty much every dissenting voice that is out there. I am wondering where those meetings and the feedback are leading to. I did a town hall on TPP in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, and people clearly did not want to see the TPP move forward as it stands.

My question for the member is this. Is he going to hold a TPP consultation town hall in his riding to hear from people in Winnipeg North? If people in Winnipeg North do not want to see the TPP move forward as it stands, is he going to support it and push it forward? From what I am hearing from people across Canada, there is not support for the TPP as it stands. The member could perhaps tell us a little more, whether he has read the text of the agreement, and how that might affect the decision-making.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an advantage over the member; I have the opportunity to have a choice. He, as a member of Parliament, has no choice on this issue because the NDP, even before there was any real consultation, had already decided it was in opposition to it.

The answer to his question is that I have already had some public meetings, and I will be having another public meeting, in part dealing specifically with the TPP. However, there are other ways that I consult and work with my constituents that go beyond public meetings, even though I have just had two public meetings in the last week or 10 days.

The point is, I have confidence and faith in the government, in particular the minister and the Prime Minister, that they know what they are doing on the TPP. They are allowing Canadians and different stakeholders to provide the input necessary for us to make a smart decision on it.

I am looking forward to an active debate. At least there will be one party in the House that will be open to an actual debate on the issue.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be speaking today on Bill C-13. Indeed, it has been very difficult not hearing from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for three months. I have been missing both the members for Winnipeg North and Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan; imagine how difficult it has been for me for several months.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak about a bill that in layman's terms would be motherhood and apple pie. There has been a lot of discussion about broader trade deals like the TPP, and this bill would allow us to comply with whatever World Trade Organization agreement on trade facilitation, TFA, provisions we are not currently compliant with respecting non-compliant goods and goods in transit.

I have not heard yet today any arguments against the specific provisions being discussed in Bill C-13. We should all accept that this is a bill that should go through, regardless of one's position in the end on trade deals. Regardless of our position on trade deals, we should make sure that Health Canada has the means by which to ensure that all non-compliant goods fall within the exemption that exists in the TFA, and that we allow ourselves to exempt goods in transit from the technical requirements that we need to exempt them from for the TFA. Regardless of whether we think the TPP is good, not good, or whether we do not know yet, it sounds to me that the Bill C-13 is something that should pass. Hopefully, we will get all parties in the House to agree to pass Bill C-13.

I am also pleased to talk a bit about trade and the TFA, partly because I cannot spend 10 minutes on Bill C-13 itself. It sounds like most of us could not do that, so we are jumping to other trade issues that are related to Bill C-13 but are not exactly Bill C-13. I am someone who deeply believes in free trade and is very disturbed about some of the language coming from south of the border. There is protectionist rhetoric being used in the American election that I think is triggering all kinds of fears about trade. I am happy to stand and essentially defend trade.

I believe that trade can be a transformative force. A balanced and open rules-based system creates new economic opportunities and drives productivity. More open trade can create jobs, help spread innovative technologies, and help economies integrate into the global workplace. Closer to home, trade benefits Canadian producers, manufacturers, exporters, investors, and consumers. It also contributes to sustainable development and poverty reduction abroad.

Multilateral trade negotiations can, of course, sometimes be difficult to relate to the day-to-day work of doing business. That is not so for trade facilitation, though, under the TFA. The TFA is not a theoretical agreement; it is about making trade work better for everyone. It is important that Canada become the 93rd or 94th nation as soon as we can, to aim for the 108 nations so that the TFA can be ratified. For traders, the TFA would help ensure faster, simpler, and more predictable cross-border trade, which would translate into lower trade costs.

The WTO estimates that full implementation of the TFA could boost global merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion, including up to $730 billion in export opportunities for developing countries. Even in the event that some WTO members do not move forward to fully implement the TFA, the real-world impact will be significant.

The WTO also estimates that the TFA would reduce trade costs, averaging over 14% globally, including reductions of over 17% for the least-developed countries. Lowering trade costs can increase trade, contribute to a higher national income, and reduce poverty. It can drive the growing participation of developing nations and small and medium-sized enterprises in the world economy. In fact, countries that do more to lower trade costs, for instance by improving logistics, tend to grow more rapidly.

These lower trade costs, along with enhanced timeliness and predictability in the delivery of intermediate goods, would drive growing participation by SMEs in world trade, as the high costs of international trade disproportionately affect SMEs as well as developing nations. Having worked for an SME for part of my career, I can attest to that. Helping SMEs reduce their trading costs would also benefit women in developing countries. The World Bank estimates that 8 to 10 million SMEs in the developing world have at least one female owner.

Implementation of the TFA is expected to deliver a significant stimulus to the world economy. These same factors would also make it easier for developing countries to participate in global value chains. The WTO estimates that this boost in global trade resulting from the entry into force of the TFA could create around 20 million jobs worldwide by 2030, with the majority located in developing countries.

Let me note, that is only five million jobs worldwide less than Donald Trump has promised that he will create in the American election. However, I will not speak to the reliability of either the WTO's statistics or Mr. Trump's.

The TFA may also help to reduce corruption. Let me explain.

Opportunities to engage in fraudulent practices at international borders increase with wait times. By simplifying trade procedures and reducing the time taken for goods to clear customs, the TFA is expected to decrease the incidence of trade-related corruption and increase the customs' duties collected.

The TFA, as I mentioned, will enter into force once 110 WTO members have ratified it. To date, 92 have already done so. I urge all hon. members to do their part by ratifying the TFA and bringing Bill C-13 into force as soon as possible so we meet the stipulations to allow us to move forward to ratify the TFA.

In short, I have listened a lot to the debate and I have heard it diverge to TPP quite a lot. I understand the tendency to move toward TPP as soon as we start discussing trade. It is an important trade agreement that is now before Canadians.

It is important that we learn as much as possible about the TPP, and in my view move toward its ratification. However, at the same point in time, I want to go back to Bill C-13, because so many times we have diverged from the legislation today. There are two simple things that we really need to adopt, and I hope we will have cross party consensus to support the wonderfully lucky Bill C-13.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion here today and hope that I too will get the same treatment as the previous member, because I am going to talk about the many reasons to support this legislation, but with a little stylistic flair of my own.

It is an honour to be back in this place to do the work that Canadians expect of us, and more so given the recent economic indicators that are neither promising in terms of jobs nor economic growth. In fact, the only significant growth we are seeing these days is in the new debt being added, not just by our federal government but by many provincial governments as well. That is something that should trouble all of us, given that there will be less revenue available to pay for other much-needed government services as interest on the debt grows. That is why I believe that bills like Bill C-13 are very important and why I am here today to speak to this bill.

First, I think I already let the cat out of the bag by saying that I will be supporting this bill. It is well known that the World Trade Organization agreement was negotiated under the previous government. I would like to publicly commend the new Liberal government for seeing it through, given the political temptation to abandon legislation solely for the reason that a particular party did not come up with the idea originally. I would also like to explain why I strongly support the bill.

I am very concerned about Canada's future, as I believe all of us are. We know that our population is aging and that the fastest-growing segment of our population is over 65. In fact, over the next two decades the number of Canadian citizens over the age of 65 will basically double, from roughly 4.7 million citizens today to over 9.3 million by 2030. We also know that the ratio of workers remaining in the workforce to help pay for benefits like old age security and the guaranteed income supplement will basically fall in half over the same time frame. Let us also not ignore what this will do to our future health care costs, let alone what the interest costs will be on debt at that point.

What does all of that have to do with Bill C-13? I am glad you thought of that question, Mr. Speaker. I think the one thing we can all agree on is the importance of growing our economy, adding jobs, and creating new sources of revenue and opportunities for employers and investors. Obviously, we may disagree on how best to do that, but Bill C-13, in my view, is definitely an important step in the right direction.

The last Conservative government was a strong believer in the importance of trade. As much as some tried to falsely claim that all of our eggs were in the oil and gas basket, it should not be forgotten that when the Conservative government came to power, Canada had free trade agreements with just five countries. Over the course of the previous government and the under the leadership of our former prime minister, and of course his very capable minister of international trade, the member for Abbotsford, Canada concluded free trade agreements with an additional 39 countries. I should say there were other trade ministers as well, but the member for Abbotsford has my full attention.

That takes us back to this bill. While free trade agreements are a critical first step, the mechanics of getting goods smoothly across international borders is a very important step. This is of particular concern to poor developing countries who lack the capacity to do so, which can lead to lost opportunity, increased costs, and delays. These things are what we often call “regulatory red tape”. One of the best ways we can combat red tape is to harmonize regulations and procedures so there a more universal language with free flows of goods and services across borders, and that is essentially what Bill C-13 proposes to achieve.

We are fortunate here in Canada that we have always been a successful trading country. However, for the sake of example, let us take a moment to provide an example to better illustrate how increased efficiencies at the border can benefit other nations that traditionally may have lacked capacity and expertise. In Rwanda, the people introduced a single-window system in 2012, a very simple concept. This basically enabled customs documents to be submitted online. This not only cut processing time in half, it also saved an estimated $10 million U.S. per year due to increased efficiency.

This means that the time it takes a shipping container to move from the Mombasa Port to Kigali has gone from 21 days to 6 days. For someone from an agricultural producing area, such as Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, any time we say that we can cut down the time it takes for a shipping container to be processed, that gets my attention. Why? It is because the longer that is, usually the less shelf life of the fruit and other agricultural products that we produce in the Okanagan. Therefore, this is why we need to look at measures within the WTO agreements and look to adopt them as important ways to increase our markets.

Keep in mind that for this TFA to come into force, two-thirds of the WTO membership must have this agreement ratified and adopted. I have mentioned why it is important to recognize that by supporting this bill, Canada is also fulfilling our international obligations, which will benefit not just our own trading relationship but those of other developing nations. In fact, a recent bank group research study suggests that full implementation of the TFA will promote global welfare gains in excess of $200 billion per year.

Again, helping developing countries to become more self-sufficient raises the ability for them to enforce labour and environmental laws. It allows them to become more innovative and pay for important things like health care and education. I would imagine that would make them more competitive, which means we would have to be more competitive. These are things where the rising tide raises all boats, and Bill C-13 is one way to do that.

On a local level, I am also pleased that streamlining customs documents and procedures makes it easier for small business owners in my riding to access new and emerging markets outside of our local trading area. We heard earlier how the premier from Saskatchewan was in South Korea. My premier in British Columbia, Christy Clark, has made many visits to the Asia-Pacific area. She knows that British Columbia's future is in those markets.

For a small business owner, this can mean less time with these new markets where limited cash flow is tied up in a holding pattern waiting for goods to clear customs. As we witnessed with the port of Vancouver disruptions, many small business owners can become financially crippled when goods they depend on are tied up because they are sitting idle at port.

Decreased shipping times, in particular, are important for growers in my riding. As I said, they are shipping perishable goods. It is another important consideration, and one that benefits both B.C. agriculture and aquaculture producers as well.

As some members will know, I have been a strong advocate for reducing regulatory red tape and increasing trade opportunities at every opportunity since becoming elected as a member of this place. In my riding, many of the key private sector employers depend upon trade. That is a fact.

When the port of Vancouver shut down some time ago, it was not just small business that was impacted. Even large-scale employers such as lumber mills were potentially looking at shutdowns and layoffs, and that can devastate a small community like Princeton and Merritt. The largest municipality in my area wholly situated in the riding is West Kelowna, and its largest private employer is a mill called Gorman Bros. Therefore, the biggest private employer needs access to those markets.

Again, removing regulatory road blocks is generally not costly on government. In fact, in many cases increased efficiencies provide savings to taxpayers. That is why it is encouraging to see the Liberal government getting on board and supporting a trade related measure that can help many Canadian business owners who are employers and job creators.

I mention this, of course, because the Liberals could have delayed the bill with the usual consultation, followed by reviews, followed by more consultation, followed by hopefully a decision at some yet to be determined point, much as the case with internal trade. Yes, I am going to go there. I have to raise internal trade for a moment.

While it is commendable that the Liberal government is finally moving one trade related measure forward while so many sit on the consultation merry-go-round, let us not overlook that it is important to note that not every Canadian supports increased international trade. However, I have yet to find a Canadian who does not support the principle of buying Canadian.

In fact, when the official opposition tabled a motion calling on the government to elevate the Comeau decision to the Supreme Court for clarification that would help us to grow internal trade, both the NDP and Green Party joined with us in support of that motion. I thank those members for that support.

How often do these three parties agree on an economic measure? Yet, when it is a proposal that could support increased internal trade, that is precisely what occurred. Of course, it was the Liberal government, despite promising free votes, that instead whipped the vote and said no to that.

Let us recognize that despite turning their backs on internal trade and using the endless consultation routine to stall other trade related agreement opportunities, at the very least Bill C-13 is being supported by the Liberal government, and in a timely manner. Given that it was the former Conservative government that made this agreement, we know how challenging it is for the Liberals to support it here in this place. Again, kudos to those who are seeking that this legislation move forward.

While I applaud the government for moving this bill forward, I remain confused on exactly what the Liberal position is on trade deals like the trans-Pacific partnership, as an example. In 2015, we know the Prime Minister said “The Trans-Pacific Partnership stands to remove trade barriers, widely expand free trade for Canada, and increase opportunities for our middle class and those working hard to join it.”

In fact, one month later the President of the United States, when sitting with our Prime Minister, further stated, “We are both soon to be signatories to the TPP agreement...”

I believe that sounds positively clear, yet it has also been reported that the Prime Minister will not allow a free vote on the trans-Pacific partnership deal within his own government caucus. Our trade minister now states that even though the government has signed onto the TPP, it is not necessarily committed to it. I would submit that this position is not positively clear, positively clear as mud perhaps, but not positively clear.

To summarize, I believe Bill C-13 is an important bill. Reducing regulatory red tape and harmonizing regulations at our international borders will be of benefit to exporters and importers alike, and consumers will also benefit. This will streamline and create efficiencies for our fellow WTO members that will particularly benefit developing nations that are lacking capacity.

I also believe that decreasing shipping time is beneficial to shipping fresher produce and other agricultural products, something that my farmers are looking forward to.

We also know that there are significant cost savings, as well as other economic benefits that will help increase prosperity and the economies of World Trade Organization member nations.

It is also refreshing that in spite of the Liberal government fondness for cancelling initiatives they did not author, in this case, the good work of the former Conservative government is being recognized and supported. . I am hopeful that the Liberal government will continue to recognize the value of trade, as is reflected by their support for this bill, and that they will continue to support other trade deals given our long-standing record as a trading nation.

Sometimes taking a stand and making a decision instead of kicking the can down the road through endless consultations and reviews may be politically unpopular with some. However, I submit that making difficult and unpopular decisions is necessary if we are to continue to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada.

In an era of stagnant economic growth and increasing job losses, our government needs to take decisive action and recognize that bills such as Bill C-13 are important steps to making trade work more efficiently. We also need to have trade agreements in place for bills like Bill C-13 to enhance the trading relationship.

Again, I am proud to support this bill and appreciate that members in government and opposition recognize the value of making trade between nations more affordable and efficient. Let us hope that this new-found support for trade will also extend into the government's agenda with more agreements announced in the near future.

In particular, rather than trying to force a national carbon tax on Canadians that will only increase costs to the very middle class the government covets the support of, if the government has a mindset to force anything on Canadian provinces, I would suggest that instead of a carbon tax, how about a true inter-provincial trade agreement that recognizes that free trade within Canada is a right as guaranteed by section 121, the free trade clause within our Constitution?

We know that this is a principle that all Canadians can get behind and support, much as I believe many will support the principles of Bill C-13 that help ensure trade agreements between nations are more prosperous, successful, efficient, and beneficial to all those involved. I am very pleased to be here representing my constituents. I thank everyone for their time and attention to this important bill.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I admire my colleague's passion and concern about trade. It is something we all share. Canada is a trading country. We all want to see us prosper in that regard.

I did sneak into his riding a few months ago to go to the meeting of the Council of Forest Industries, and I am bringing this around to the TPP since that seems to be the theme here this afternoon. At that meeting, a noted Conservative economist, Jock Finlayson, was speaking about the forest industry and trade throughout the world. He was asked about the TPP and how Canada would benefit. His very candid answer was that we are not really going to benefit at all, but it would be better to be on the inside looking out than on the outside looking in. I thought that was very tepid support for what other members in the House seem to think is a very beneficial bill, when data shows we will be losing jobs in Canada and above all we will have investor-state dispute mechanisms that reduce the sovereignty of the government, provincial governments, and even municipal governments like West Kelowna. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member will have a chance to go to the different mills in his riding, but most mills in British Columbia have what is called the J-grade of wood. That is the most perfected wood that is available and they charge an extreme amount to the customer who ultimately buys it. I asked what J-grade stood for. Originally when the Japanese first came to British Columbia mills seeking new supplies for wood, they wanted to make sure that the wood could be displayed in their homes quite proudly and they were willing to pay large amounts for it. We benefit in British Columbia from a lot of sales to Japan of that highly rated wood, which is part of the trans-Pacific partnership that we are trying to get ratified. I am sure that consumption of that wood will only go up.

On the flip side, China does purchase quite a bit of wood from British Columbia. Oftentimes, though, it is for outside formations. That kind of wood does not supply high-paying jobs, but again, China is not part of the trans-Pacific partnership. From the perspective of wood, I would suggest that since Japan is such a major purchaser of British Columbian wood, we would benefit greatly and would see even more exports of our great Canadian British Columbia wood in Japanese stores and homes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House. I hope you had a great summer and hope all my colleagues in Ottawa did as well.

As an Albertan, I have heard loud and clear the fact that through our trade agreements Albertans are having trouble right now. We have 10% unemployment in central Alberta and Red Deer. People are hurting. People are suffering. People are walking away from their homes. The Liberals have a tremendous opportunity and the opportunity does not cost the government anything. It is just a matter of making a decision in this place that we are going to do some nation-building and build some pipelines. Whether I talk to ambassadors, to consul generals, or trade commissioners from other countries, the question I always get, and also from a Japanese friendship society event in my riding just a couple of days ago, is when we are going to build a pipeline. That is because in Japan they are paying $14 a gigajoule for LNG and we have it at $3 a gigajoule in Canada. We should be into that marketplace.

I wonder if my colleague from beautiful British Columbia wants to comment about the similar types of problems they are having there.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would love to ask a question of the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, but I am going to answer his question first.

I would simply point out what I said near the tail end of my speech, that sometimes it is important for governments to see a broader picture and to make decisions, not simply to kick them down the road. Pacific NorthWest LNG is a decision that the government will have to come to terms with. It is the greatest one-time investment that we have seen in Canadian history, billions of dollars in short-term construction and billions of dollars in the long term. That means revenue for British Columbians and taxes for the government to be able to pay for all the things we want.

I would simply suggest that the government needs to focus on growth. All of the outcomes, whether in terms of the environment or health, can be possible if we have growth. Right now we do not have growth. That concerns me, and I hope the government will take a bigger picture approach when it comes to some of these contentious decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, in December 2013 the agreement itself was signed off on. As the member is likely aware, the World Trade Organization comprises about 160 countries, a certain percentage of whom have to ratify the agreement. It would appear as if there is support on all sides of the House to see Bill C-13 advance. I am wondering if my colleague might share his thoughts with members of the House on how he believes this legislation should ultimately go through. Does he see it consuming a great deal of time or would he rather see it go through quickly, given that it appears that all parties are support it and that 108 countries' support, I believe, is required for its ratification?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a great question. As long as the member wants to rise and add to the debate, the government simply has to make a decision as to whether it wants to cease debate. There are a variety of different motions it could use, which member probably knows better than I to do, or it could simply hear us talk. It is up to our party leaders and other individual members of Parliament to confer and decide how much longer it should take.

There is a lot on the agenda that needs to be looked at. I want to reinforce that we do need growth. We need it for our long-term prosperity. We need it to address our short-term economic concerns. As the member for Red Deer—Lacombe previously pointed out, Albertans are hurting and British Columbians want growth. Premier Christy Clark wants to see things like the trans-Pacific partnership dealt with quickly and decisively with a positive outcome. She also wants to see Pacific NorthWest LNG taken care of by the Liberal government so we can get to yes in British Columbia and grow our economy.

All of the outcomes I have talked about come down to our being able to get to a yes. I would encourage the member across not just to look for yes on this legislation, but on all these other projects that are going to be good for all of us, not just in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Alberta, but right across this great country.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, after about 10 years of Conservative government and a Conservative trade agenda in this country, Canada experienced some of the largest trade trade deficits it has ever experienced in 2015. This spring, under a Liberal government, that unfortunate record continued, with Canada setting new records for the largest trade deficits in Canadian history.

I am wondering if my colleague could tell the House why he thinks Canada is experiencing these record trade deficits after 10 years of his government's pursuit of these trade agreements, which are supposed to have helped Canada improved its trade conditions.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member asking a very clear question. I will try to give it as quick an answer as I can.

First, we have seen the drop of oil prices, energy prices. Energy exports are a major part of our GDP. Obviously, if we are sending less and receiving less for it, we are going to see a greater trade deficit because we still have a lot of manufacturing.

Also, in the case of globalization, we are now getting microchips and parts from other areas of the world, such as Asia, where it is sent to Canada. We draw it in, and then we repackage it in today's automobiles. That makes us competitive. It also allows for the benefits of trade to extend wider and further. Therefore, that raises the trade deficit.

However, if we talk to most macroeconomists in the area of international trade, they will say that a deficit is not a bad thing; it just has to do with the context surrounding it.

If the member wants a more concise answer, he should speak with a variety of economists and seek out whether this environment is suitable for that level of trade deficit. Again, if it is a large number and it cannot be accounted for, we should seek answers and clarity.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House to speak for the first time since coming back. It is my first speech since the first election. I was asked to make this speech before we rose for the summer, and I think, like most of us here, when we saw the topic of the bill and were asked to speak for 20 minutes on it, we wondered what in tarnation we could speak about for 20 minutes on what seemed to be an insignificant bill. However, it is not. As many of us have discovered as we have continued this deliberation, there is more and more at stake and much more to be discussed when we speak about Bill C-13.

In essence, it is a bill to make some substantial small changes to the Food and Drugs Act and a number of other agencies. One could ask, why is it so important that the government pass this legislation? As was said, it is part of a trade facilitation that took place in 2004 when there was a movement toward freer trade.

When did that begin? I heard a number of dates tossed about. I think we could go back even further. I think 1949 was the first time that the WTO began the proceedings, because it saw, after the devastation of World War II, what could happen when nations begin to fight with one another, especially in the 20th century, and the damage and horrors that could be inflicted.

They also recognized, probably from men like Adam Smith, who wrote his book The Wealth of Nations in the 1700s, the profound and good things that can come about when nations begin to trade with one another.

That is the reason, I would presume, that as we continue these talks, we talk more and more about free trade. I would not be one to say that it is without controversy. There is much controversy. We heard that here in this House. I am on the trade committee and we have done consultations across the country. We heard some dire warnings about what could take place in a free trade atmosphere. Those are the things we need to discuss here. Not only do we need to discuss them here, but we also need to understand them thoroughly so that we can take them home to our constituents so they can understand them as well. There are decisions that the Liberal government and we as a country have to make.

I am the last Conservative speaker, so I guess that makes me clean-up. I hope I do not fare like the Blue Jays and strike out, but I would love just to talk about what has happened in these last few weeks, particularly today, what we are discussing, and why it is so important.

We are very fortunate in this country to be a nation that is involved with trade. It started right from the beginning with fur traders first came to this country. Prior to them, our first nations were traders, and we continued that tradition. We were not a large people. We did not have a big population, but collectively, we were able to do some amazing things. We were also very fortunate to border the largest economic powerhouse the world has ever seen, the United States of America with its 300 million people, compared to our 33 million people. I think it is actually 330 million—a ten to one ratio. We are able to bring our goods a relatively short distance. In my case, in Chatham-Kent—Leamington, it's about 50 miles or 80 kilometres, and in Chatham-Kent—Leamington, it is very important that we have this free trade agreement.

That took place earlier, in the l990s, when the NAFTA agreement was formulated. We recognized at that time as a country that we needed to continue and to have in place rules and regulations so that we could continue to carry this out.

In Chatham-Kent—Leamington and in Windsor, and some of my colleagues are here today in the House who represent Windsor, we are involved in the auto trade industry. A lot of people do not realize this, but cars are not just made in a particular factory. Rather, they are pieced out in a number of factories. Sometimes those factories produce the product and have to bring them across to the other side of the border where there is added value. Then they come back to Chatham. They tell me that this is done many times over. Can members imagine if we did not have an agreement in place that allowed for those goods?

Canada and the United States are able to show just how well a free trade agreement can work. I do not want to digress because I only have 20 minutes, but I will say that there are some alarm bells that are going off at this particular time when we think about what is happening south of the border today. Actually, it is north of the border. Here is a little trivia for members. What is the country that is north of the border of Windsor? It is the United States. The United States has been rattling its chains and talking about rewriting NAFTA. That would have some catastrophic effects on us as a nation. Maybe we can talk about why that would happen.

The other great thing that we can be very proud of and are very fortunate to have are some incredible trade negotiators. Having had the privilege of serving on a number of committees of the House, the finance committee for four years and the trade committee for the past year, I got to meet some of those people. When we asked questions of the people who are involved in trade negotiations, they told us that we probably have the best trade negotiators in the world, people like Steve Verheul, Kirsten Hillman, and others, that marvellous team we have that has managed to do some incredible free trade agreements, such as with the Ukraine, as was mentioned here, Jordan, Colombia, South Korea, and the countries of the European Union, which is our biggest trade deal since NAFTA. Yes, there are some problems, but not on the Canadian side. It is not with respect to the negotiations that we did, which were excellent. However, there are always countries that see free trade as a threat.

I will take a little sidebar now because I want to talk about one of those countries. It was mentioned a number of times in the House. It is one of the BRIC countries. It is Brazil, which is the first letter of the BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, China. When I travelled to Brazil a number of years ago, I saw something that was very disconcerting, something that just did not look right. What I saw was a nation that had built a protective wall around its economic borders. In so doing, it managed to produce pretty much all of the goods that it consumed. Some people would say that it is a wonderful idea and that is what we should be doing as well.

However, what happens is that there is a class of individuals, usually what we call the “one percenters”, who have the factories and produce these goods and have a captive audience. Brazil has a population of 200 million people. Then there is the class of people right below that who distribute those goods, sell those goods, or who may be in management positions. However, there is a huge underlying class of people who live in poverty because inevitably what happens when a country does not have access to trade in goods, when it is not involved in free trade and the good economic practices of competition in the workplace and the marketplace, the price begins to go up. That is precisely what happened in Brazil.

For instance, I know there are those who say that we should produce our own cars in this country. We know we cannot do that. I can say the auto manufacturers have told me that a manufacturing facility must produce at least 300,000 cars a year in order to be economically viable. We would quickly consume that in this country. In Brazil, with 200 million people, it thought it would be able to do that. Therefore, when Ford wanted to sell a car in Brazil it had to produce it there. If General Motors wanted to sell one, Brazil had to produce it. If Volkswagen wanted to, it had to be produced there as well.

As a result, if we watch the economic news, we see that Brazil is in a real tight spot. For that reason, because Brazil saw that position challenged, it put opposition against that free trade agreement.

As I said before, we are a nation of traders. I talked about our history. When we envision Canada, when we think about the map, for instance, we see these huge agricultural areas. We travelled, as I said, across the country to a number of provinces, right from the west to the end of Quebec. In my riding, for instance, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, we are number one in counties for wheats, I think for soybean, and number two for corn. I am bragging, but I think we can all brag about our ridings, especially those who come from the agricultural side. We produce tomatoes and breweries. The other thing we produce in my riding is greenhouse produce. It is a billion-dollar industry. Again, the fact that we are next door to the greatest economic power in the world gives us an opportunity to move those goods to the other side of the border.

I think I heard that in Europe the average individual consumes something like 100 pounds, or it might have been 200 pounds, of greenhouse goods. It was quite high. In Canada, it is about 20 pounds. In the United States, it is about three. Think about the opportunities. One day's drive: 200 million people, and think if those borders were closed. I think we can all come to the conclusion that trade has been good to us. It has been good to us in agriculture. It has been good to us in manufacturing.

Even in my riding, we have suffered. We definitely have taken a setback in our auto industry. Nevertheless, when we crossed Canada on our tour, we came in contact with many who were involved with agriculture. I remember the trip from Montreal to Quebec and I get excited. I am not one of these people who sits in the bus and chats about nothing; I am always looking. I saw so many new manufacturing operations, small and medium-sized manufacturing buildings in Quebec. When I talked to my Quebec colleagues, I asked them about this. They told me there are nouveau businesses that are excited about the possibilities, but they need markets. They told us that we need free trade agreements. We need a free trade agreement with Europe. We have a great trading relationship in the United States, but we have to expand that. We cannot, as somebody said, put all of our eggs in one basket. We need to be able to sell our produce to more locations. Europe is one of those agreements. The TPP is another. We have discussed that at length too.

What I want to lay out more than anything else is that the concept of free trade is a noble one. It has enriched and empowered people and brought them out of poverty. With regard to countries like Korea that were in such dire straits after the Korean war, we cannot imagine the poverty that was there, and yet the free market system lifted that country up to the world-class society it is today. That is what free trade does. That is what the free market does. That is why we have to defend it.

Are there problems? Absolutely. We are never without risk when we go on ventures, especially one as noble as the one being described. There is always risk. I believe there are risks from globalization. We must always continue to make sure that we keep our national institutions in our communities. That should not be destroyed as we move out.

Those are some of the things we heard when we crossed Canada. People are a little afraid of this. In some cases, they are very afraid of it. What we are seeing in the United States and what we saw in Britain is a result of the fact that people are fearful that they are going to lose the power they possess as a culture and as a people and that it will be shifted to another organization or another seat of power. Those are things that we need to defend and fight for in the House on a continual basis.

The concept and the reality of free trade is an excellent one. If we think about our people in the east, in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, the first nations, all of our diversity, we are a trading people. We know this to be true and we see the difficulties that can arise when we lose that power or the rights that we have negotiated for something like the softwood lumber industry. Today, the United States is again looking at that agreement and attempting to break the agreements we have made.

Therefore, it is incumbent on us here in the House and on the government to make sure that we fight for them, so that the people in B.C. have access to wood, and that people in the Maritimes, where the Conservative caucus just visited, and Quebec, and Ontario still have those places; and so that the people in Alberta are able to sell their oil and gas and beef.

When I first came to the House, we talked about peak oil. Does anyone remember that? Is there someone here from the class of 2006? We were going to run out of oil and it was only a matter of time. We no longer talk about peak gas. As one of my colleagues mentioned, we talked about the importance of getting that gas to market and having agreements. When Alberta has such an enormous amount of gas from fracking and Japan is prepared to pay the price, it makes economic sense.

In my neck of the woods, when I was first elected, people were paying $11 a gigajoule for gas in the greenhouse industry. Today, I think it is about $4.50. Think of the ability that gives us to compete with our neighbours and in the marketplace. That is why we need to make sure that we have these agreements in place for Alberta, and for Saskatchewan with canola. That is why we need a government that has the fortitude and the strength to tell the Chinese there is a problem that needs to be straightened out, that there is too much at stake for the people of Saskatchewan to lose their canola to foreign countries that do not operate in a fair way or for Manitoba to lose out on wheat exports, as well as the pork industry and farming. In Ontario, it is auto parts manufacturing.

The Ford Motor Company announced that its platform in Brantford, I believe, will be used to ship cars to Europe when the trade agreement with Europe comes to fruition. As a matter of fact, it is going to do it before that, but it will be a much better agreement once that starts to happen. Bombardier is involved with the aerospace industry both in Ontario and Quebec, and I already mentioned the greenhouse industry. Quebec has hydroelectric power and could sell electricity. Then, of course, in the Maritimes, there is fishing and lumber. Free trade is good for Canada.

I want to finish by saying that free trade needs to be extended. We cannot stop. We need to extend it to the trans-Pacific partnership. There are 800 million people in Japan and is the third largest economy in the world. Those opportunities will escape us if we do not take the necessary steps. All of us need to be bold and vigilant to ensure that the right agreement is made in the best interests of our people. However, let us not be afraid. Let us not be afraid of free trade. We have a stronger, more diverse economy by taking goods to more people in the world, because trade is good for Canada.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Chatham-Kent—Leamington and welcome him back to the House. We have the pleasure of serving on the House trade committee together. I can be frank. He is a good contributor to that committee and brings a lot of insight and perspective that we all appreciate on that committee. We on this side of the House agree with him that free trade is good and is good for Canada. Of course, it has to be fair trade. I think he agrees with that as well.

I want to pick up on one of his closing comments on his support of the TPP. As he knows, we have heard a lot of Canadians speak about the TPP in our committee work. The auto industry is concerned about the effect the TPP might have. Coming from the part of Ontario he comes from, I wonder how he can reconcile some of the pressure the auto industry is facing with his support for the TPP.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member and welcome him back, as well. I look forward to working with him and his seatmate again once we get back.

He is right. The auto industry has suffered a blow. However, we can do things as a government. When I think back to the 1970s, for instance, we had an enormous advantage over the Americans. It was our health care system.

I have put forward a proposal. We could look at something like a pension plan, but not the one being proposed. I feel that it is going to cripple the economy. However, we could use our imaginations, and we could again make this a great place, because we have great automakers. We have the best in the world. We can talk about Windsor and the knowledge that is there. We have to start talking about those things, cross borders with each other, start discussing things, and come up with some interesting proposals. One of them is our pension plan. We can reform that in a better way than is being proposed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for quite a far-flung speech. Not too many people can go from Adam Smith to current economic theory in this House.

I want to ask him a little about the auto sector, knowing that he comes from that area. He mentioned that the Canadian auto sector did very well in the 1970s. He attributed that to Canada's health care system, which no doubt played a role. I would argue that the Auto Pact actually played a much larger role in building Canada's auto industry at the time, which is a form of managed trade as opposed to free trade.

The TPP would lower the rules of origin so that the content of a car made in one of the TPP countries that qualifies for tariff-free import into Canada would be less than 50%. That means that a car made 50% in Malaysia or Vietnam, that is maybe contributed to from China, because it only has to be 50%, or slightly less than that, could come into Canada tariff free. I wonder if he could tell us how a car that, say, has 45% Chinese content and 55% Vietnamese or Malaysian content, with their low wages and lack of standards and government programs in those countries, would affect the competitive abilities of the carmakers in his region?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I agree on those things. We have to look at the overall picture, though, and what has happened in the auto industry. We have seen the introduction of many automakers. There was a time, when I grew up, and I was involved in the auto industry, when we talked about the Big Three. We talk about the Detroit three today, because they are no longer the Big Three. There have been other players. That has had an effect on some of the things he is talking about.

The other thing we cannot forget is that we also have an enormous parts manufacturing industry. When we did our cross-country consultations, we heard repeatedly from those who supply those automakers that we should get this deal done and that it was going to be good for Canada. Why is that? I mentioned Japan, with 120 million people. Anyone who has been to Japan knows that there are an awful lot of cars there. Japan has a protectionist system in place that we would be able to compete with. We would be able to make parts for those auto industries.

The member is quite correct that there are times when we would, on the one hand, lose some, but on the other hand, we would gain.

When we expand our trade, because we are good at it, because Canadians are good automakers, good traders, and good bankers and do a lot of things really well, we have nothing to fear. When we get out into the workplace and out into the marketplace, we can compete, and we will succeed. We will succeed in that industry as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is just a reminder to members to address answers and questions to the chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to compliment our colleagues here today in the House, because Canadians are competitive. They have been competitive for decades, centuries. We reinvent ourselves.

I look at my province. We have the best agriculture farmers in the world. Everybody wants our product. Everybody wants a product from Ontario, because we have good workers. We have not talked about that in the House, but Canadians are one of the best in the world at producing, one of the best in the world at manufacturing. I think that is something that we should be proud of in this country. We have not talked enough about it in the House here.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say through you that the member should not stop there. He should not stop with manufacturing. Let us think about the farmers.

When we did that cross-country tour, I saw what was taking place in Alberta and I saw what was taking place in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I know what takes place in southwestern Ontario. When I took that trip from Montreal to Quebec and saw the innovation that is taking place there, I saw that we have so much to be proud of. Just spending time in the Maritimes and seeing how our fishing industry is rebounding again, we could go on and on. We have the finest institutions in our education system. We have schools that people from across the world are dying to get into. We have so much to offer. We have nothing to fear. I believe that as a nation, given the chance, when we compete, we will succeed.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question that I think my colleague will appreciate.

The member's riding is a riding steeped in trade history. It used to be the home of the Canada Southern Railway, the Cayuga Subdivision, and the CSX from Blenheim to Sarnia. These are all major lines that were very important to southern Ontario.

Could the member address how losing many of these lines has affected trade in his area?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think most of us would agree that the times they are a-changing. What was once the best mode of transportation is no longer the best mode of transportation.

I sometimes wonder when I travel down the 401, for instance, and I see all of those trucks, if we are doing this the right way. That is what we can do as Canadians. The trucking industry is another one that I failed to mention, and I should have. I once chaired a caucus called the trucking caucus.

We talked about Adam Smith, the unguided hand. This is an area where, and this is the beauty of it, if we are involved in trade that is unfettered, where everyone gets an opportunity, somebody is going to come along with an improvement in trucking or rail. We can start to do those things. That is why I get excited when I think about free trade. That is why I get excited when I go across the country and see the innovation and all the great minds that are involved in this enterprise.

Again I say, we have nothing to fear. We will move forward.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-13. As New Democrats, we support getting the bill to committee, but there are some serious questions that need to be addressed at committee.

Over more than a decade, I have seen an almost juvenile debate against trade or for trade. All these things turn off many Canadians, because they understand that trade created this country. Even in terms of the foundation of this country, there were different items that allowed for trade and sale. Some of the most severe, for example, were related to slavery. Canada and the British Empire were one of the first to end that trade practice, despite our neighbours to the south who continued that practice. It is part of the heritage of the area of Windsor West, which was the end of the Underground Railroad, where people came for freedom. They were a commodity.

Trade is ingrained, in a much more social fabric, and is part of our history.

Bill C-13 is very important and we should not underestimate it. Those who think it is just a maintenance bill have to go no further than reading the acts it is amending. The Food and Drugs Act is obviously very important for our health and items related to our food chain.

The Hazardous Products Act is significant. I come from a community where more than 30% of our daily trade with the United States goes along two kilometres of the border, and in that two kilometres, we fight daily to make sure that hazardous material crosses on a ferry system, in full compliance with the law, versus going over a bridge, where there is no way to get fire services to put out a fire in a truck that has chemicals or other things that should not be there. Unfortunately, in that process, some people in trucking institutions change the placard that says that it has dangerous or hazardous materials and has to cross at certain crossings. They will change that placard by taking it off or putting another one on to hide it so they can cross the border. Nobody sees them, at times, until they get to the other side. If there is such a thing as a spill, there is no containment and capture on the Ambassador Bridge. It seeps into our drinking water.

Another act needing amendment is the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. Nuclear waste is a significant issue that we as a country, and many other countries across the globe, have not taken seriously enough. I fought a campaign about four years ago to stop Great Lakes nuclear waste items, which were not emitters themselves but were contaminated from the work they did, from going on ships across the Great Lakes. Exposure would be like standing by the shore and getting an X-ray.

Imagine if there had been any problem with the turbines and they ended up in the Great Lakes. There was no recovery system for them. However, they were then to go all the way across the ocean to Scotland to be worked on, basically to be melted down, to be consolidated in a more solid form and come back across more highly radiated but smaller. We would end that process.

The point I am making is that even during the creation of nuclear waste, these items that we are amending through this process could even involve hospital things, the secondary nuclear waste. This relates to the current campaigning that we are working on right now, because the government has on the table a proposal to store secondary nuclear waste for up to 100 million years right next to the Great Lakes.

This waste material is to be put down a shaft the length of the CN Tower within a kilometre of the Great Lakes for 100 million years, and only three of these in the world. Two are closed in Germany, and the third in New Mexico caught fire a couple of years ago and radiated some of the people working there.

Therefore, the single-source location for this experiment is something that we have opposed. A more progressive and thoroughly exhaustive approach to dealing with this nuclear waste is needed, as opposed to just saying, “Okay, we're going to put here, we'll give you some cash, you guys deal with this. You'll get some jobs, hooray, and we'll leave this for somebody else 100 million years from now to deal with”. Even the most stringent heavy nuclear waste facility could only last 10,000 years at best with the estimates they are making. Therefore, these issues that we can change here with Bill C-13 are very important.

The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act is another issue that would change here. It worries me, with the bill before us, and I want to see some of the testimony that comes forward. The background work that I have done on some of the counterfeit and knock-off items that are coming into Canada and also being used across the world relates to the proposed legislation, which would potentially make it easier for the movement of those materials.

People might think right now that maybe it is just a knock-off of a favourite Marvel t-shirt, sports t-shirt, or whatever it might be. It is not a big deal for them. However, when we look at the data and the research, often the people making those things are children. Instead of going to school, they are being exploited to produce those items.

At one time this parliament had an all-party committee that I co-chaired with Dan McTeague, a Liberal at the time, and we had a Conservative member, James Rajotte, formerly of the Canadian Alliance and then Conservative Party. We had several meetings on the types of items, and it was not just those handbags and t-shirts. There were counterfeit items, like circuit boards, which were in hospitals. They had CBS standards stamped right on them. Therefore, installers, electricians, and others could not determine which were the knock-offs versus the others. We heard about other types of issues, including plane and automotive parts getting into the manufacturing assembly process.

Why, when we look at Bill C-13, is this very important? It is because we are amending some other acts that would increase some of the trade, which can be good for jobs and can be good for some of the processing that we do in this country, but it comes with some risks. How do we mitigate the risks?

What I mean by that is the fact that we only screen about 4% of the containers coming into our ports in this country. We have around 10,000 trucks going through the Windsor-Detroit corridor per day. We have a compliance rate that is one of the best in the world, and an oversight rate that is among the most stringent.

Meanwhile, we only screen 4% of the containers coming in to ports like Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver. We have heard about a number of different things, as I mentioned, related to knock-offs and counterfeits. In that, we also have drugs, some of them are not just illicit drugs but prescription drugs that are getting across the border. This act also calls for issues related to the Pest Control Products Act, chemicals that are listed in Canada. The act would now make us compliant with the WTO. With all those goods and services coming into Canada, it would give us the provision to do some screening, and I would argue that we would actually have better response. We could send them back, store or keep them, or we could redistribute them.

I have been supportive, to a degree, of that type of thing, and I will give my Conservative colleagues credit on this. I had a bill on invasive carp in the last session of Parliament, and it was passed through regulations. We had a big campaign on it. The bill was about allowing invasive carp that come from the United States into Canada to be seized by CBSA officers. Without waiting for Fisheries and Oceans officials, because in certain areas we do not have those people, the CBSA officers could then send those fish back to the United State right away or destroy them.

Here is a quick lesson for people. Invasive carp stand high when they are stood up. They eat everything so that nothing else gets food. It is an invasive aquatic species that has destroyed the Mississippi River and the heritage there, and it is sold illegally in Canada. It is seen as a delicacy, and there are other types of uses. We have been fighting to keep this out. There is an electrical fence in the Mississippi to try to keep them out of the Great Lakes, but they come across into Canada.

My bill, with some penalty improvements and a number of things, was graciously accepted by the then government and it was implemented. Now we do not have to wait for Fisheries and Oceans officials to come before sending back the invasive carp. As an interesting side issue, the reason it is so important is that the invasive carp, like the Asian carp, can live in packed ice for 48 hours. They have “zombie-like characteristics”. They can be taken out of the ice, thrown into a tank, and they will wake up. The danger is that they are not just getting into the Great Lakes but into Ontario with its thousand-plus lakes, and in other lakes across this country. They are stored in ice to be sold to market, but some people have been releasing them into those lakes. If they happen to be females that are going to give birth, we have a real risk there, and we are seeing this more.

My point is that with this new bill, it will be interesting to see some of those things taking place. However, my concern is about the workers and the obligations of sending illicit products into our country that have a high degree of risk. With this agreement, we would get that type of a benefit, but here is the drawback, and it is a serious one. If Canada is not the point of destination for something that is not approved, we have to allow it to be moved to another point. Someone could be shipping something that, for example, contains mercury that is legal in another country, or perhaps asbestos, which is another banned substance. That has been in everything from drywall to crayons for kids. These materials that are not regulated in Canada then escape our laws here and they move through. That is a best-case scenario.

That is assuming that there is no potential for those products to get further into Canada through our systems, whether by rail, plane, car, truck, or any way whatsoever. We have to rely upon the shipper to do that.

We have talked a bit about trade and competition and other things like that. I saw the Prime Minister in China. I want members to think about this. I have heard the same argument over and over again, that if we could just make sure that we have access to China and other countries, they will change their practices, they will not use children, they will not use cheap awful labour with humanitarian discrepancies, and they will not use the environment basically as a subsidy for production.

One of the things I am most proud of, and I give credit to the Liberals for eventually changing this, is that it used to be legal in Canada for an environmental fine or penalty to be a business-related expense. That is what happened. I arrived in Parliament in 2002-03. I could not believe it. Individuals could get half of their money back from a fine or a penalty. This was a judge's ruling. Say for example that a company poisoned a river and was later fined for doing so. That company could claim up to 50% of the fine as a business-related expense. There were drug cases involving illicit drugs on the market that were marked wrong and were sold to men, women, and children in Canada. Those companies were later fined for marketing infringements. Unbelievably they could claim up to 50% of that fine as a business-related expense. That is unbelievable. It would be like a person receiving a $100 speeding ticket and then getting $50 back because they were on their way to work and it could be put down as a business-related expense. That is the way the law worked when I arrived here.

Think about this. It was a bigger argument than just the injustice of that. It was the injustice to the fair competitor who was doing the right thing, the company that was not draining oil in the auto shop out back, the company that was not processing meats and other products and disposing of them and not making sure viruses were not taking place. It was the farming community that did not use pesticides and other types of operations as a subsidy versus their competitors using illegal activity. They would have to compete against this illegal activity. We still see this behaviour taking place. I give the Liberals credit for this. At that time it was the Canadian Alliance, the precursor Conservative Party. We all finally agreed on a motion that I made at the industry committee. We did not budge from it and it was changed in the budget, so that is no longer the case. It is about fair practices. That is why Bill C-13 is going to be interesting; it relates to fair practices in China and other places.

I will quote from an organized crime research brief. Some people might think that this is a New Democrat conspiracy using a document from Public Safety Canada, a review that it had in our courts on organized crime. The number one methods and techniques used by organized crime groups include smuggling methods and concealment techniques such as the use of shipping containers, concealing contraband among legitimate imported goods by using fraudulent shipping documents, and the use of transit countries and co-operation among different criminal groups. That is the problem. Therein lies some of the challenges in terms of the use of those containers that we currently have a problem on, but only at 4%. They could contain lead toys, materials not approved by Health Canada, or other materials that should not be in our consumption stream.

This is a serious piece of legislation. It is about Canada competing with other countries. It is also about Canada competing with other rules that may or may not sync up with our values.