Debates of Sept. 20th, 2016

Food and Drugs Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for listening to my rhetoric for five years. Hopefully, he will get something out of it.

This is precisely what we are talking about. The bill would remove the red tape so SMEs can get more involved in the free trade market around the world. I went on many trade missions where SMEs came with me. In fact, I was a SME. In one of my previous speeches, what he called rhetoric, I said that the biggest hurdle for small businesses was red tape. This is what international trade means. This is taking away the red tape so small businesses can go and look for markets.

However, one of the biggest and the most important things is that our government has signed free trade agreements with other countries. When we have a free trade agreement and we remove many of the restrictions and the red tape, it allows SMEs to access the markets in other countries, and this is a good thing for Canada.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Sarnia—Lambton is a border community, so we have seen benefits from the North American Free Trade Agreement. About 40% of the trade in Canada is there. I guess we are also a port city. We are really looking forward to seeing the TPP and the agreement with the European countries signed. It seems to be taking a long time.

I am happy this bill is coming forward at this time, and I would like to see the pace picked up on the ratification.

With all of his years of experience in the House, could the member say what he thinks Canada should be doing to encourage a faster signing of all these deals?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Parliament, I went to Doha for a WTO meeting, called the Doha Round. There was a huge number of countries in the WTO. This was going to be the agreement that would open up trade around the world. Unfortunately, all of that optimism slowly dissipated as more and more protectionism came from these countries.

The member has very rightly pointed out that the opening up of the markets and of free trade routes is one of the ways that not only Canada prospers, but everybody in the world prospers. If we look back at history, when there was free trade all around the world, there was a massive income increase. When the protectionism comes, then the whole world economy goes down and everybody suffers.

Taking that into account, it is a good thing to ratify this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, Taxation; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Health; the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, Indigenous Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13. I will not read the entire name of the act because it would amend a number of different acts, but we are referring to it as a trade facilitation agreement.

This is an agreement that was concluded by the previous Conservative government, and one that really would go a long way to helping out our small and medium-sized enterprises, those business where the owners have always been apprehensive about engaging in exports because of all the hassles they experience dealing with customs officers, brokerage agencies, and trying to get their goods across the border.

However, this TFA, the trade facilitation agreement, would greatly simplify all customs procedures. It would cut through the red tape that so many businesses experience at the border. It would expedite the release and clearance of goods. Often we see goods get caught up in storage. If they are dealing with food products that have an expiration date, we have to ensure that these goods, especially fresh meats and fresh vegetables and fruits, get over those borders quicker. As well, we want to ensure that those imports that so many of our businesses rely on are not getting tied up in that bureaucratic red tape at the border. Essentially, this whole process would make international trade for all Canadians, specifically for our small and medium-sized enterprises, much more predictable.

We have to always remember that when the Conservatives were a government, we worked very strenuously to reduce red tape for all businesses right across the board. Bill C-13, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative government, really would go a long way in cutting back that red tape that is unfairly burdening our businesses and small enterprises, often the family-run operations, with extra paperwork and processes. Business owners do not have the time, energy, or staff to make that happen.

It is interesting to note that this was a WTO commitment. As any of us who have been involved in trade know, negotiations and dealings at the World Trade Organization are extremely slow. We often think about the wheels turning very slowly on things in Ottawa, but nothing moves slower than what we see at the WTO.

This negotiation started back in 2004, and only concluded in December 2013. It took nine years to negotiate. Those of us who were around when the Doha Round started to try to advance the WTO and expand the number of products that were going to be covered through trade under WTO, the number of countries that were going to be in the WTO, and how much tariff rate barriers were going to be reduced are glad to see that this is one part of the WTO that has successfully reached a conclusion. It is imperative upon all member states of the WTO to ratify these agreements.

It would come into force as soon as two-thirds of all the member states of WTO have signed on to the FTA. Currently, my understanding is that about 81 have signed on. It means that Canada and so many other countries need to get this ratified as quickly as possible. Back in May 2015, as a government, the member for Abbotsford, when he was minister of trade, tabled this document in the House to start this process.

Two main issues are addressed in this trade facilitation agreement: article 10.8, which deals with the treatment of goods rejected on account of their failure to meet certain health and other technical requirements; and article 11.8, which would prohibit the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point. Therefore, these are goods in transit.

This would not impact on Canada's ability to protect the health and safety of our consumers. The goods that Canadians receive, especially food products, would still live up to our high phytosanitary and health standards. It would also not impact on how any of these goods have any impact on our environment.

As I said, this is the first time we have actually seen the WTO agreement reach any ratification level in 20 years. What we are seeing is that this would increase global merchandise anywhere from $750 billion to $1 trillion. Developed economies would see a growth of $310 billion to $580 billion per year. World export growth would increase 2.7%; that is 21 million jobs that could be produced around the world. We would like to see some of those jobs created in Canada.

We talk about trying to get through some very difficult times in our economy. As we see the energy sector continue to struggle in western Canada, as we continue to experience a sluggish economy across the country and jobs continually being shed, from one end of this country to the other, under the current government, we need to have something that gives clear direction and stimulus to the economy. One way we can do that is by approving the TFA. The other thing we can do is approve the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP.

I am so proud of our record as the previous Conservative government. We signed trade deals with more than 46 countries. Compare that to the Liberal record, which is three countries. Now the Liberals are signing on to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Of course, that was negotiated by our previous government. They have an opportunity to finalize the regulatory and legislative processes to put the trans-Pacific partnership in place.

I am concerned, from what we are hearing in the opposition benches, that the government has a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to the TPP. All members of the trans-Pacific partnership are part of the WTO and are part of the TFA we are talking about, the trade facilitation agreement. The key point on TPP is that rather than wait and see what happens in the U.S. elections, we need to be more aggressive and move forward.

We are talking about major gains. The Chief Economist of Canada released a report just last week that said that if we are part of it, Canada's gains in GDP will be $4.3 billion a year. If we are not part of the TPP, our losses will be $5.3 billion a year. These are big numbers.

Again, we want to grow the economy. As Conservatives, we want to see more Canadians employed. If the United States, because both candidates for president seem to be anti-trade in their rhetoric at this moment in the election cycle, does not sign on to the TPP, it actually presents a greater opportunity for Canadian farmers, Canadian manufacturers, and Canadian exporters to grab a greater share. The potential to grow would be beyond $4.3 billion.

In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, beef production is by far the main economic stimulator. Hog production is as well. If we do not have access to those trans-Pacific partnership countries, we will see a major decline. Estimates by the Chief Economist himself are that beef exports could drop by two-thirds. That will be a real stab in the back for all Canadian farmers, from one end of this country to the other, but especially in western Canada. We need an opportunity, and this is the opportunity, to grow jobs and expand our economy.

If the United States becomes more protectionist because of the current nominees for president, it presents a greater opportunity for Canada in the TPP, the WTO, and other trade agreements.

I urge the Liberals to ratify the Conservative- negotiated trans-Pacific partnership. I urge them to make sure that we get Bill C-13 passed and that we continue to stand up for all of our export-based industries. If we truly believe that we are a trading nation, we have to support them by reducing tariffs and red tape. Bill C-13 does that, and so does the trans-Pacific partnership. The Liberals should get on side and get the TPP passed immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we agree on many things in this debate. Obviously, every party is agreeing on Bill C-13. I also think we agree that free trade is good, but it has to be fair trade.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments in regard to the TPP.

I have the good fortune of sitting on the international trade committee. What we are doing is listening to Canadians. We have listened to a lot of Canadians, and there are a lot of Canadians who really want this ratified quickly, but there are just as many Canadians who have some concerns about it. We are trying to find that balance. However that plays out, it will play out, but I think we all know that if the U.S. does not ratify it, the deal will not be there.

I spoke with many food processors and hog producers from the hon. member's province, and they are excited, actually. One of the markets they are very excited about is Vietnam, because there is a growing middle class there, and they enjoy pork products, especially Canadian pork products.

I am wondering if the hon. member would be willing to work with our government, in light of the TPP not happening, in perhaps getting some unilateral trade agreements with countries like Vietnam and Japan to get those great goods to markets and create jobs here in Canada.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard the member say, the TPP may not be signed. The Americans may not sign it, but that does not kill the deal. I do not think the Americans will sit on the sidelines forever after the election, if all the other member states move forward.

It is important to note that if the United States decides to become more protectionist and does not sign the TPP, it is highly likely that it will also try to renegotiate NAFTA. If that is the case, if it is going to turn into a protectionist, navel-gazing country, as we have seen from the two presidential nominees, we need to find alternative markets. That is why the TPP is so important.

The member mentioned Vietnam. Hog producers and cattle producers see the opportunities that exist in Malaysia, Vietnam, Korea, and especially Japan, which has some of the highest tariff rate quotas in the world. If we are going to reduce those tariffs and all those costs, we have to get on side and sign the TPP.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would like to correct in the member's speech. When he mentioned the chief economist and the report that came out about a week and a half ago, he said that there would be $4.3 billion over one year. The $4.3 billion that was mentioned would be over 24 years, and $4.3 billion is the amount the previous Conservative government, which included the member, actually negotiated as compensation for our supply management sector. Essentially, it is a wash. We would see no benefit at all, according to our chief economist and these numbers, from the trans-Pacific partnership.

While we know that beef and pork would see the benefits of trade with Japan, would the member not agree that we should pursue the bilateral agreements we were previously doing before we entered into the trans-Pacific partnership so that those sectors could see the benefits of that trade?

Ultimately, I want to speak to his piece about our getting in. He said that it is important that we get in so that we have preferential market access. That is absolutely not true. There is a certification process that takes place after ratification by our Parliament, and all the cards are held by the U.S. The U.S. is not going to enter into an agreement where Canada has preferential access to those markets before it does.

Was the member aware of the certification process and the fact that ultimately, whether we ratify it or not, the U.S. holds all the cards in this deal?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, she is partially correct about the $4.3 billion. It is an annual increase by 2040, because we have to slowly reduce those tariffs. There is a timed phase-in as tariffs are reduced and eliminated. However, it does result in a huge increase.

We can sit here and argue about the small print, but the reality is that if we are not at the table, if we are not signing this deal, we are not going to have the opportunity to access all those markets.

The U.S. does not hold every card in its pocket. It may decide to walk away. If it walks away, the certification process changes. The member states that are there will still have the opportunity to move ahead with this deal.

Because it would vacate its opportunity to have preferential access to those markets, the U.S. will ultimately want to stay in when reason sets in for the presidential nominees as the selection cycle matures and Americans make their choice in November.

We need to understand that we should be leading on this, not following the United States. Right now we are distracted by politics and very ramped up, torqued rhetoric.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the House of Commons today to discuss Bill C-13, an act that would allow Canada to implement the trade facilitation agreement.

Trade is an incredibly important tool for growing the Canadian economy and economies throughout the world. Its benefits to our economy are vast. It has helped put Canada on the strong economic footing we have enjoyed for the last few years.

Trade deals are designed to enhance businesses to allow them to be competitive and productive and to deliver goods around the world in an environment that is less encumbered by trade barriers. A trade deal is a tool by which governments can deliver new hope and opportunity to Canadians. Trade provides businesses with new clients, people with new products, consumers with cheaper goods through more competition, governments with closer ties, developing countries with greater economic growth, and developed countries with greater economic security.

It is no wonder that I will be supporting the trade facilitation agreement today, which seeks to reduce barriers to trade throughout the world.

Why is this so important for the Canadian economy? Let me describe the state of the economy today. Manufacturing has been consistently contracting this year. According to StatsCan, there are more than 40,000 fewer Canadians employed in manufacturing today than there were last year. That means that there are over 40,000 families that have lost economic means due to the sharp reduction in manufacturing employment, 40,000 families that are finding it difficult to send their children to post-secondary education, 40,000 families that are finding it difficult to pay a mortgage or rent, and 40,000 families that may even be finding it difficult to put food on the table.

What new hope or opportunity is the government offering? It is not a plan for economic growth, not a plan to create jobs, and not a plan for Canadians to be personally responsible. The only focus of the government is bigger government and more reliance on the government.

This brings me to the trade facilitation agreement that seeks to reduce barriers, increase the speed and ease at which goods can be moved through and to jurisdictions, and essentially to reduce government intervention and the size of government in the trade of goods between jurisdictions and through jurisdictions.

While the trade facilitation agreement is designed to increase competition and access to markets around the world, the current government is making our manufacturers and businesses less competitive.

When Canadian manufacturers are less competitive against businesses internationally, our economy sheds manufacturing jobs, and we end up with more unemployed folks right here in Canada. There is no strategy to create jobs in Canada from the Liberal government. In fact, I would argue that there is nothing but a Liberal unemployment strategy.

What is it that the government is doing to breed a less competitive Canada and to ensure increased unemployment?

I spent the summer travelling our country and conducting economic round tables, touring manufacturing plants, visiting new small businesses, finding out the state of the sharing economy, and determining how to create more jobs for those who are not working. Number one at every single round table was the need for freer and more free trade.

In no particular order, I would like to outline the concerns I heard about what is happening domestically here in Canada.

The Liberal government's failure to lower taxes on Canadian small business and entrepreneurs, after promising to lower them from 11% to 9%, is hurting.

The Liberal government would be carbon taxing the provincial carbon tax, without providing any concrete information so businesses can start planning for costs and people can budget these costs into their home budgets.

The Liberal government would be introducing payroll taxes and increasing the costs for employers and employees by as much as $2,000 a year.

Finally, Liberals have failed to waive EI contributions for one year with the hiring of young people between the ages of 18 and 24. To quote the Liberal platform, what was said was:

to encourage compa2nies to hire young Canadians for permanent positions, we will also offer a 12-month break on Employment Insurance premiums. We will waive employer premiums for all those between the ages of 18 and 24 who are hired into a permanent position in 2016, 2017, or 2018.

While it is understood that small businesses gain substantial benefits from trade, as we can see, small businesses and their opportunities are being damaged by Liberal government policies that are stifling our Canadian competitive advantage in the world.

In fact, the policies of the Liberal government are damaging businesses so much that last month alone 39,000 self-employed workers went home. To repeat: 39,000 small businesses closed their doors and are no longer in operation in the month of August alone.

I know from the riding I represent, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, that we are feeling the pain. Our economy is built around manufacturing, agriculture, and small business jobs that will benefit from the trade facilitation agreement and greater trade opportunities overall. However, these self-employed workers are being negatively affected by the high tax practices of the current Liberal government. Since the Liberals assumed government, our unemployment rate in the greater Barrie area has soared from 6.1% to 8.7%. Specifically, the increase in payroll taxes, the proposed provincial carbon taxes, the removal of the hiring tax credit, and effectively increasing taxes on Canadian small businesses from 9% to 10.5% are all measures that are creating dismal job results to date and the the worst economic data since the great recession.

While manufacturing employees and self-employed workers have been so negatively impacted by Liberal government policies, the resource sector has and will feel the effects of these taxes as well. This is a sector that has lost over 100,000 jobs since the drop in the oil price. While the government is continuing with the former Conservative government's approach to the trade facilitation agreement, it is also adding pain to these through the high tax, no pipeline approval policies that we have witnessed to date.

Freer trade is designed to open up access to economic growth for the future. There is no group that better embodies our collective future than our young people and our youth. Unfortunately, these domestic policies are once again constricting our youth despite the many commitments made to us by the Prime Minister during the last election.

While the Prime Minister promised an increase in $300 million for youth employment, he also promised 40,000 jobs for youth each and every year for the next three years. Unfortunately, the reality of the government's domestic policies is again showing itself, but this time among the youth of our country. The August job numbers show that there were 48,000 fewer jobs for young people this summer, not the 40,000 job increase that was promised for youth.

While the Liberal government continues with our previous government's work on the trade facilitation agreement, its domestic policies are driving people out of work and to unemployment. Instead of following through with waiving EI contributions for the hiring of our young people, the government turned its back on youth and left them in the unemployment line with an unemployment rate of 13%.

When all is said and done on this topic, I do support freer trade, the reduction of tariffs and other barriers, and government interventions that stifle opportunity. I stand in support of this legislation because it would create greater opportunity not only for Canadians but also for many developing countries around the world. What I cannot do is pretend that this by itself would help unemployed Canadians find jobs. The government needs to stop raising tax after tax, running away from promise after promise, and finally develop a strategy for growing our economy and putting unemployed Canadians back to work.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in the House, to see my colleagues again, to develop legislation, and to analyze various policies.

I found my colleague's speech interesting. He certainly told us all about what the Conservatives did. However, there were a lot of mistakes in his speech, particularly with regard to the investments the government has made since it took office.

The government has committed to investing a historic $120 billion in infrastructure, a very impressive figure. Investments in youth, families, and children are also quite impressive. People are still talking about them. He forgot to mention all of these points.

The question I would like to ask him is this: since his government was supposedly such a proponent of world trade, why was Canada one of only four G20 countries to ratify this agreement? Why did the new government move forward with this bill so quickly? The Conservatives were in power for 10 years and they did not do it.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are happy that the government is continuing our work on this file. We are obviously supporting this moving forward. However, there are certainly many pieces of our economy that are hurting right now. We also believe that we should be focusing on our unemployed workers in western Canada who have felt the results of the drop in oil prices, and the unemployed workers in Ontario who have felt the results of a manufacturing sector that is being hurt badly. Quite frankly, our youth who bought into, believed, and invested in the promises that were made to them need to be taken care of as well.

Unfortunately, by the government's backing off of on its promised tax reductions for small business and its walking away from and breaking promises to our youth, in particular on providing benefits to businesses to hire youth, we are in a very bad job environment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats are supporting this bill at this stage in principle and look forward to studying its impact in detail at committee. However, one of the things this bill does is facilitates the transit of goods through Canada that may or may not conform with Canadian law, such as health care products and pesticides.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comment to share. As far as the New Democrats are concerned, while we all want to facilitate trade, we want to ensure that we do not allow Canada to be used as a conduit to ship goods that may be environmentally dangerous or dangerous to the health and safety of workers, or products derived from endangered species. Does he have any concern with respect to that or will he join will the New Democrats in making sure that this bill does not have that unintended consequence?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will work with the government and the House to ensure that Canadians are protected. That is what this bill does. It provides for our regulations and standards to exist when goods are being shipped to Canadians. We will continue to support that going forward.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a great speech and for highlighting the importance of trade agreements and the impact they can have on job creation.

I was just in Atlantic Canada and heard from my friends there the importance of these kinds of trade agreements. They told me that they could sell their lobster for $10 a pound here, but with the TPP could get $100 a pound from various other countries in the world. I want to encourage that and I wonder what the member has to say on it.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are certainly for opening up new markets, finding new places to send our goods, and putting Canadians back to work. That is something that we need to have the government move on, and hopefully it will do so very soon.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of sending this bill to committee at this time.

One of the things I find really refreshing about this debate is that there is a certain amount of simplicity to this bill as compared to other types of trade measures that often come before the House. That is not to say that the bill could not stand to be improved. I think my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway made some good suggestions as to how the committee might look at improving this bill.

For those Canadians listening at home, the object of the bill is relatively simple. It allows two things, in order to bring us into compliance with the TFA signed with the WTO. First of all, it would allow Health Canada to either send back or allow for the disposal of goods that come to Canada and do not meet certain health requirements. It would also allow the transit of goods across the country that may not be in compliance with standards that they would have to meet in order to stay here, but could be moved from coast to coast and then on to another destination.

These are the kinds of issues that it makes sense to talk about when we talk about trade, in trying to reduce barriers and trade-offs. That was part of what I think was driving that exchange initiated by the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

What is refreshing about it is that we see the government initiating a trade measure that does not, as we have seen so many times from Liberal and Conservative governments, sell out Canadian sovereignty in order to make life a little more convenient for foreign corporations. That is the kind of thing we are seeing with CETA and TPP.

It is really nice and refreshing for New Democrats, because New Democrats do support trade. We support reasonable measures to promote trade, but not having to have a debate about the nature of Canadian sovereignty and the ability of a democratically elected government in Canada to legislate to protect the environment and workers here. That is very nice. I wish we could do it more often in this place.

That is one of the reasons I am taking a certain delight in this debate, despite some Canadians who may be listening at home finding the debate kind of bland.

We are not talking about a trade deal, for instance, that would lock Canada into extra patent protection for large pharmaceutical companies that already have a 20-year life on their patents and would raise the costs of pharmaceutical drugs here. One of the reasons the NDP has been advocating for a national pharmaceutical plan, or a national pharmacare plan, has been to reduce the cost of drugs.

We do hear from the new Liberal government that it wants to reduce the cost of health care in ways that make more care more accessible to Canadians. However, instead of pursuing a national pharmacare program, we have seen it lending support to deals like CETA and the TPP that are going to do more to increase the cost of drugs for Canadians than whatever the government may do, short of signing a national pharmacare plan, to reduce those costs.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory for the government to bring in a national pharmacare plan—and I will be very pleased and also very surprised if that comes to pass in the term of the government—and then sign a deal like the TPP or CETA that would raises the cost of those drugs and nullify the benefit of the national pharmacare plan. If the effort to bring in such a plan just backfills the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, which are potentially going to receive less money under a pharmacare plan because the unit cost of drugs will go down, we are not obligated to sign a deal like the TPP just to put that money right back in their pockets. We are interested in the net gain for Canadian families, not for international pharma.

It is nice to talk about trade. We have heard the new Minister of Labour say that there has been a problem with the temporary foreign worker program, for instance, and that it has been abused. I would like to talk about how we reduce legitimate trade barriers without having to have a whole conversation about how we are going to create a shadow temporary foreign worker program that is hidden in an international trade deal with 12 other parties, a program that cannot be changed, when we know that even when the program was being administered only by the Canadian government, there were plenty of problems with it.

We were fortunate that the government was able to act unilaterally to try to curb some of the worst abuses of that program, a program that not only was making life difficult for Canadian workers who were then competing with temporary foreign workers but also making it hard for those temporary foreign workers who in many cases were being asked to pay obscene amounts of money in their home country just to get to a job, which when they came to Canada, was not what they were promised. Under threat of deportation by their employer, they had to put up substandard wages and substandard working conditions that were not part of the promised jobs.

That is not what it means to talk about reducing legitimate trade barriers. We should not have to conflate all of those issues together, and then be told that if we are opposed to enshrining a broken TFW program in an international trade deal, we are not in favour of trade.

We should not have to be told that, if we have a meaningful plan and believe in having affordable pharmaceutical drugs for Canadians, somehow we are anti-trade.

This is the kind of thing we should be talking about when we are talking about trade: tradeoffs. Some may be reasonable, some may not. We may ultimately be in favour of some, and ultimately not others. It will be because we think that the tradeoffs are, on balance, better for Canadians or, on balance, worse. However, the practice of successive Liberal and Conservative governments of ramming through a whole bunch of bad public policy and taking away the right of democratically elected governments in Canada to change those policies when they do not work and calling that a debate about simple trade is the dishonesty that needs to come to an end. At least we have been spared that dishonesty in this debate and, if nothing else, I am glad for that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think of Elmwood—Transcona as the rail centre of Canada with the Symington yard there and the CN yards. Trade, obviously, is a big part of the hon. member's constituency. Yet, in 2014-15, exports dropped by another 7% over the previous year. Even with the free trade deals, even with all the promotion of free trade, we were not trading.

Maybe the hon. member would comment on how the bill we are now discussing might actually result in some trade and may get some trains moving through Elmwood—Transcona and whether there are any other hindrances to trade that free trade deals do not address that maybe we should be considering.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question and for his knowledge of Elmwood—Transcona. Certainly, as a member of Parliament representing a rail community, I see two sides to the element in the bill that is about transporting dangerous goods from one corner of the country to the other.

On one hand, I am optimistic and glad at the thought that it might help increase rail traffic, because there are many people in my riding, definitely, who would benefit from that. On the other hand, we are also a community through which those very goods would be passing, so it is important to me. I would implore those on the committee to take seriously the warnings of the member for Vancouver Kingsway and to ensure that, however that comes to pass—and I am confident and hopeful that there is an appropriate way to do that—it would not put at risk either people working on the railway or people living in those communities.

I will end by saying I think the member is quite right. In spite of all the trade deals that have been signed, still we see that real wages have gone down and that untold tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have left the country. Paper access to markets is not the same as real access. We have given a lot away, in terms of Canadian sovereignty, in order to secure paper access to markets that has not necessarily resulted in real economic benefit for Canadians. That has to be part of the debate. That is what we in the NDP are trying to make part of the debate on the TPP, and I would appreciate the member's support in doing that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was the trade critic for three years in this House and privileged to represent our party in that regard. One thing I learned in that capacity is that trade is often a tertiary issue, meaning that trade determines who we are trading with and upon what terms we are trading, but the fundament question really is, “What are we producing to trade?” It brings to mind the fact that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to deliver a national industrial plan so that we can actually build the Canadian economy—take our blessings and our natural resources and actually build those to provide secondary and tertiary production. Then we would not be just shipping raw resources but actually creating the good jobs here in Canada to get that secondary value, that value-added production, out of those goods. We would not be shipping off raw goods and importing highly finished goods in return, which is often the case, still, in 2016. We are shipping important goods like coal, copper, and canola, but we are importing cars, equipment, and machinery.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any thoughts as to how Canada can get more out of our natural resources and how we can improve the production and high-level manufacturing of goods in Canada, so that we can not only trade with countries but actually trade high-value goods with the rest of the world?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right that we need a trade framework that enables a Canadian government to have a plan and take action on such a plan.

With the Unifor negotiations with GM going on, a lot of experts on television recently have been talking about the auto industry, which has been no small part of the conversation about how, since the signing of NAFTA, we have seen tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the auto industry flee Canada and go to Mexico. Over time, that becomes the question.

Yes, we want to trade with other people, but we started off with things to trade. If we do not have a strategy and do not engage in a proper trade framework, we may wake up decades later—not overnight but later, which is the point we are getting to with some of the agreements—and realize we just do not have anything to trade anymore; and we are not capable of generating the kinds of quality jobs here at home that are going to sustain our communities. That should not have been the point, signing those agreements back then. Advocates of those agreements did not say that was the point.

We need the courage to look at the data and say, if that is what is resulting from these agreements, then we need to stop doing the same thing and expecting different results.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me this afternoon to speak on Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement.

As we all know, and as we have stated here in the House for the last day and a half, Canada is a trading nation. It always has been and always will be, despite what is decided this year, this decade, or this century. Canada is known for trading.

From the early days, the traders came over to this country and settled many centuries ago. We should also be reminded of our first nations, because they were the first real traders of this country and they continue to be a valuable asset to this country.

I think our previous Conservative government raised the bar on trade. We started with the five agreements and we are at 51 now. With a country so rich in resources, we all agree that trade is essential in growing our economy here in Canada.

Canada needs to be a part of this trade agreement. As members know, it takes two-thirds of the WTO membership to make this happen. When we get there, hopefully we will be part of the solution.

This agreement seeks to level the playing field, and it would also help developing countries. I have a couple of instances in which I am going to talk about developing countries. So often we talk in the House about big business, but I am going to talk about how we in Canada, with our innovation, can help those in need throughout the world. I think that is an important part of this equation.

At the end of the day, this is all about making sure we have global standards that truly are enforceable. We talked a lot about the trans-Pacific partnership, and we will talk more in the House this coming year. On TPP, there is no question that it is the most comprehensive trade agreement in the world today, and I truly believe we must be a part of it.

We should reflect on the great work done by the previous government and the lead minister on the TPP, the member for Abbotsford, B.C. My province of Saskatchewan certainly salutes him. We averaged $23 billion in trade annually from 2012 to 2014. The TPP would eliminate the tariffs on almost all of Saskatchewan's key exports and would provide access to new opportunities, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Saskatchewan would benefit immensely from agriculture and agrifood.

We recently toured the Port of Vancouver, and I was delighted to see the rail cars come from Saskatchewan, with the word “Saskatchewan” on them, in the Port of Vancouver, dumping their grain into the ships for export worldwide. It was a thrilling moment to see the end part of that. Of course, being from Saskatchewan, I know that this is an important time in our province with the harvest that is going on. Our grain and agrifood is certainly a big part of who we are in this country.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to tour a potash mine in Allan, Saskatchewan. It was a real eye-opener to see what goes on in the potash industry. We spent the better part of the morning underground and then toured the facility on the surface as they prepared to ship Saskatchewan product to the world. Again, potash cars heading west with Saskatchewan product gives our province a sense of pride in the work that is being done by our men and women in the province of Saskatchewan each and every day. We all know that potash feeds the world, and even underdeveloped countries.

I should add that a number of new developments in potash have started in my province. We have the big miners, like BHP putting through their mine in Jansen. However, I want to talk about another mine that is coming up, K+S, originating from Germany. It is in the southern part of Saskatchewan.

Not only are the big producers benefiting from this agreement, but a number of the smaller ventures are also benefiting, such as mines like Karnalyte, which is starting a project in Wynyard; Gensource; and many other small operations that are exploring the possibility of exporting their product worldwide.

Also, pulse crops are really big in our province of Saskatchewan. Recently, I was flying back to Ottawa from Saskatoon and a delegation from the University of Saskatchewan was on the flight. They were going to Ethiopia to help partner with that country.

Ethiopia, as we all know in the House, is struggling, but the University of Saskatchewan has reached out, trying to develop Ethiopia's farming industry and pulse crops. People believe that pulse crops can be grown in Saskatchewan and also in Ethiopia. Canadians, as we all know, have great innovation skills and we love sharing our knowledge worldwide to make this a better place to live. That is what I mean about helping underdeveloped countries such as Ethiopia reach their potential.

I know several businesses in Saskatchewan that trade daily with countries around the world. I am going to name one in my city, Nutana Machine. It is in the city of Saskatoon. It supplies mining equipment, not only in our province but around the world. Imagine the sense of pride of the workers at Nutana Machine when they see their work being produced in Saskatoon. We talked about products produced and shipped over to Europe, and Nutana Machine now because of the Internet can deal with problems. If it does have an issue in Europe when it ships the product over to Europe, and Romania is one place that I have seen where it has shipped some goods, then the company can deal with it on the Internet and can actually see the end product. It is built in Saskatoon and then it is shipped to, let us say, Romania and they can see the end product and how it is working over there. Nutana employs right now a healthy workforce who live in our province of Saskatchewan. They certainly help our local economy.

Most of our farm-machinery outlets reach out to the world with their products and their knowledge. In the small community of St. Brieux, with a population of just over 600, is a farm manufacturer called Bourgault Industries. It does millions of dollars a year of business overseas. Looking at its website, we see it is advertising employment opportunities for assembly workers, for painters, for welders, for engineers, and for maintenance. All this is in a community of 600 people in St. Brieux. The company travels to Europe several times a year. In fact, I actually have a relative who works at Bourgault in St. Brieux. He travels to Europe several times a year, not only building relationships, which as members know is an important part of business, but has also adopted a second family from Germany who go back and forth. Bourgault Industries is one of the big success stories in our province.

I come from Humboldt. It is in the area called the “iron triangle”. Manufacturing firms have set up everywhere around the Humboldt community in places like Annaheim, Englefeld, and as I mentioned, St. Brieux. They are communities that probably would not exist today if not for some previous trade agreements. All of these communities have welcomed experienced workers from all over the world to come to Canada and start a new life. They have fit in well in our communities in Saskatchewan. They have contributed greatly to the economy and well-being of rural Saskatchewan. I would say that rural Saskatchewan would be a ghost town without these trade deals.

My late father was born too soon. He was the head flour miller for Robin Hood. He started his career in Ontario, went to Moose Jaw, and later to Saskatoon. He moved to Humboldt to help the Humboldt flour mills. Even in the 1960s, the flour that he produced was sent all over North America. I can imagine now if he were living today, hearing about this opportunity to show the world his product and the quality he could provide to others in other countries.

This agreement, as we all know, would give Canadian businesses access to over 60% of the world's economy. The gains from tariff elimination and improved market access in agriculture are especially significant in the markets of Malaysia. We have talked about Vietnam here in the House, and also Japan, but let us think about the market of Japan. Thirty-two per cent of tariff lines on agriculture and agri-food products would be duty free upon entry. That is a real opportunity for our economy, especially for our beef and pork producers, who would have access to that huge market. This would have a big impact on small- and medium-sized businesses. Trade missions to other parts of the world are a normal process in this country. There is not a province or a territory now that does not do trade missions worldwide. We have one from our province right now in South Korea.

Canada must act quickly on Bill C-13. There are 800 million new potential customers waiting for Canada. Canada is known for its hard work. We are known for our quality products and innovation. Let us not get in the way of this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate when the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood gets to speak in the House. He is always very thrilling to listen to, and I am wondering if he might consider a career in broadcasting after this career. I am not suggesting he has a face made for radio. I am sure he would be a great TV personality in Saskatchewan, so we appreciate his comments.

I am on the trade committee and we had the privilege of travelling to Saskatoon when we were doing cross-country consultations. Hearing from the pulp producers, the pork farmers, and the beef farmers impressed me a lot, as well as the size of some of these Saskatchewan farms. Coming from Ontario, I did not get a chance to appreciate until I was out there how big these farms are and what big operations they are. The Saskatchewan market, frankly, is not big enough to sustain those farms, so they have to find other markets. I am all for helping Saskatchewan growers and producers and everyone involved in that supply chain make sure there are markets for their goods.

I am wondering if the hon. member has given any thought to other markets. If the TPP does not come to fruition, is he willing to work with the government to go into Vietnam and Japan? We are already in Korea. There is also Malaysia. These markets are literally begging for Saskatchewan products. Will he help us get his products to those markets?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for the kind remarks.

Yes, the population of our province is just over 1.1 million. We were stagnant for years under an NDP provincial government. Now we have a progressive government in Saskatchewan and we are open to the world, and it is showing. I imagine when the trade commission went through Saskatchewan and Saskatoon, the glass was half full. They want to trade their product.

I go to major league baseball games in the United States, and one of the greatest thrills I have is getting a hot dog and putting mustard on that hot dog, because I know that mustard came from the province of Saskatchewan. It gives me great pleasure to say I am from Saskatoon in Saskatchewan in major league ballparks.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize the hon. member across the way. I did some of the hydraulic work in the flour mill in Humboldt, so I am familiar with the prairie ingenuity.

I was at the Ontario outdoor farm show last week and heard that the machine manufacturers in Ontario are now producing more agricultural machines than Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Being originally from Manitoba, that might not be good news but it is good to see competition.

Those manufacturers are not talking about free trade deals, they are talking about how hard it is to get their product through the paperwork and through the processes of the Government of Canada. It hurts them because they do not have enough people in their offices to do all that paperwork. Maybe the hon. member could comment on how the bill might help the good folks in Saskatchewan get product to market.