House of Commons Hansard #77 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tfa.

Topics

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Mr. Speaker, over a month ago, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard assured me that an action plan to dismantle the Kathryn Spirit in Beauharnois would be ready by the end of August and that the preparatory work would begin this fall.

For the past few weeks there has been nothing but radio silence.

Residents of Beauharnois have two questions for the minister. Has the provincial government finally been given a copy of the action plan? Will the construction of a stone wall around the Kathryn Spirit start this fall as planned?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Fisheries

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

I had the opportunity to talk to my colleague about this issue, which is very important for the people of her riding and those in neighbouring regions. I can assure my colleague that we will still meet the deadline that we discussed this summer. I do not share her pessimism.

I would like to commend the municipality and my Liberal caucus colleagues for bringing this matter to my attention and to the attention of the Minister of Transport. I believe that a suitable solution to this problem will be implemented in the coming weeks.

TaxationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, this summer my family welcomed our new son, Francesco. Sunny ways was followed by a baby boom on this side of the aisle.

Stability and support for families is paramount to my young family, as it is for so many others throughout my community and our country. Families expect their government to ensure a strong and prosperous future for generations to come.

Can the Minister of Finance please update the House on the steps the government is taking to ensure Canadian families have those supports?

TaxationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for reminding us of something we know.

The last decade of low growth has been tough for middle-class families. That is why last December we introduced a tax cut for nine million middle-class Canadians. It gives a single person on average $330 more this year and a family on average $540 more this year. It is also why we introduced the Canada child benefit, which gives nine out of ten families $2,300 more this year.

Later today we will be voting on Bill C-2 to formalize these measures. I urge all members in the House to vote in favour of middle-class Canadians and in support of this legislation.

Rail TransportationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, what a shame to saddle one's child with such a heavy debt.

Three years have passed since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. On June 23, the leader of the official opposition came to Lac-Mégantic to announce her party's unequivocal support for the rail bypass bill. In a unanimous report released in June, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities asked the Minister of Transport to take action. People want to see something tangible, as well they should.

What has the Minister of Transport done since June to expedite the Lac-Mégantic rail bypass bill?

Rail TransportationOral Questions

3 p.m.

London West Ontario

Liberal

Kate Young LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to improving rail safety. In budget 2016, we are investing $143 million to improve rail safety and the transport of dangerous goods.

The Minister of Transport had the honour of meeting with citizens of Lac-Mégantic to hear their concerns. He is aware that the municipal council and residents of Lac-Mégantic would like a rail bypass outside the city. We are awaiting the final results of the rerouting feasibility study before making a decision on this file.

HealthOral Questions

September 20th, 2016 / 3 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health would have us believe that she is helping sick people, but she announced plans to take $160 million away from them and put it in her government's coffers. She has declared war on Quebec's health care system.

Does the Minister of Health really think that cutting transfers to Quebeckers, demanding that they hand over $160 million, and attacking Quebec's National Assembly is going to help sick people in Quebec?

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Markham—Stouffville Ontario

Liberal

Jane Philpott LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I would like to say that it is quite the contrary. Our goal is to be collaborative. No one wins when we are combative in managing health care in this country.

In fact, my communications with my colleague, the minister of health from Quebec, have indicated that we need to uphold the Canada Health Act. It is important that if Canadians have paid for care through their taxes, they get that care and they do not have to pay again. We will uphold that tax. We will make sure they have access to the care that they need.

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, even Quebec Liberals are lamenting Ottawa's decision to cut billions in transfers and fine Quebeckers $160 million, so the minister is clearly out to lunch.

Never has a government done so much so quickly to undermine the quality of care in Quebec. People are waiting 18 hours to see an emergency room doctor and six months for an appointment, yet the minister would have us believe that cuts will solve the problem.

Does the minister realize just how insulting that is to Quebeckers' intelligence?

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Markham—Stouffville Ontario

Liberal

Jane Philpott LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, we will work collaboratively with all provinces and territories in this country to address health care needs. We will continue to increase the Canada health transfer, as we have already indicated, for next year.

However, it is also important, as my colleague points out, that we innovate. In fact, Canadians should have access to good care. That is why we uphold the Canada Health Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find those good solutions and implement them for all Canadians.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.

INCOME TAX ACTGovernment Orders

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

It being 3:05 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-2.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #104

INCOME TAX ACTGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by nine minutes.

When the House last took up this question, the Hon. member for Saskatoon—University had finished his remarks and was about to start questions and comments. We will ask for questions and comments to the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, maybe we could just start off the questioning by asking about the importance of the World Trade Organization and, as I said earlier today, of the agreement that was achieved back in December 2013. It was quite a significant agreement from the World Trade Organization.

Ultimately we need to see 108 countries, I believe, ratify the agreement. Hopefully Canada will be able to ratify it shortly. There have already been 90 or 91 countries that have ratified it to date.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts or comments in regard to how important it is that Canada endorse and ratify this agreement, because it would send such a positive message to the world, and in particular to the World Trade Organization, on what is likely one of its most significant accomplishments since the inception of the organization.

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Mr. Speaker, we are in a bit of a unique situation here in Canada. The political trends, particularly in Europe and in the United States, now tend to be away from freer trade.

In Canada, we have not yet seen that, possibly because we have had such a good experience with growth, and also possibly because it is a smaller economy than others, either the trading block of the European Union or the United States. We are more trade dependent.

I think it is an important signal. First, it helps to send the message to poorer countries in the world that Canada wants to engage in trade, and we want to grow their economies and our economy, back and forth. Second, it sends a political message out to the world—in a minor way, but we are working on that with other things, encouraging the government to back other trade legislation—that there are historically growing, prosperous countries that continue to support a basic fundamental principle of economic growth.

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise to speak since returning from vacation. Allow me to say hello to you. It is always a pleasure to see you lead our proceedings.

Bill C-13 seeks to implement the agreement on trade facilitation concluded by members of the World Trade Organization. This bill amends a number of Canadian statutes. I sincerely believe it is imperative to scrutinize these changes in committee. For example, major changes are being made to regulations on Canadians' health and safety.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to two clauses in particular. The first is on rejected goods. By accepting Bill C-13, an importing country could hereby return goods that do not comply with its health standards. If the bill were passed, Canada would no longer be required to keep questionable goods indefinitely. Moreover, if it were not possible to identify the shipper, Canada could simply destroy the dangerous goods.

The second clause I want to focus on deals with goods in transit. At present, Canadian regulations prohibit the transit of any goods that do not meet national technical standards. For instance, if a food product is banned by Health Canada, its transit within our borders is simply prohibited.

The bill ends that prohibition. Products could pass through our borders even if they do not meet Canadian regulatory requirements regarding health and environmental protections, since they would not be destined for the Canadian market.

Clearly, specific measures or conditions could be applied to certain statutes under the administration of Health Canada, and of course the NDP wants to ensure that any changes made to the way goods are treated do not compromise the health and safety of Canadian workers, who would be at risk during the transshipments.

Given that I represent a riding where marine transportation plays an important role, I feel it is my duty to ensure that workers who might have to handle those products are not in any way at risk. That is why I would like the committee to call on as many experts as possible in order to highlight any potential consequences of this change. The health of workers must not be compromised in any way.

I will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading, so that we can shed as much light on it as possible and get as many answers as we can to all our questions.

The NDP has always supported good trade measures. How do we distinguish between a good trade measure and a bad one? Once these regulatory changes are raised, we should try to see whether there are any economic benefits to this WTO agreement and whether it will facilitate trade.

For the benefit of those watching, I would like to point out that the NDP's support for any international trade measure depends on the findings of a careful study of, among other things, respect for human rights in the various countries concerned and respect for environmental rights. In fact, respect for environmental rights is becoming increasingly important and should be a major element of every agreement. The protection of workers, which I alluded to, is also one of the elements studied. The last aspect is the strategic interest of the agreement to Canada.

Canada's geography already provides a link to major world economies because we have access to three large oceans, which facilitate international trade.

Accordingly, cutting administrative red tape and streamlining customs procedures can improve the predictability of trade and reduce costs at the border for Canadian exports. This in turn means that SMEs in developing countries could also benefit from streamlined regulations resulting from this agreement.

This looks promising because all partners win. We call this a win-win situation.

Conversely, I will digress briefly and refer to a bad agreement that is being proposed by the government, the TPP. To quickly give you my views on this agreement, I need only quote the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which has proven that the agreement's so-called trade benefits are nothing more than a smokescreen:

It is a vast overstatement to say the TPP grants Canada new access to Pacific Rim countries when 97% of Canadian exports already enter the TPP economies tariff free.

Behind these figures and these words, there are 60,000 jobs that could disappear. In Mauricie alone, dairy, poultry, and egg producers will be the big losers. The Fédération de l'UPA in the Mauricie region estimates that 300 farms will be impacted by the trade implications of the TPP. When I say “impacted”, it is clearly understood that they will be negatively impacted. These policies are detrimental to Quebec producers, local communities, and well-paid jobs generated by the industry.

Pierre Lampron, member and president of the UPA in the Mauricie region, made it very clear who would pay the price of these policies when he said, “At the end of the day, it is our producers who will pay the price, because a pound of cheese produced outside Canada is one pound less produced by local businesses”. He was likely implying that Quebeckers and Canadians can only eat so much cheese.

I hope that the government will listen to reason when it comes to the TPP. After that aside, I will now come back to the benefits that the trade facilitation agreement will bring to our SMEs.

It is true that the implementation of the TFA could reduce the administrative burden on our SMEs. Small and medium-sized businesses spend a lot of money on administration, and reducing those costs could improve their export potential. However, the federal government must do a lot more for SMEs. The government could keep the election promises it made to support SMEs. After promising to lower their taxes from 11% to 9%, the government is depriving SMEs of the tax relief required to invest and create jobs.

In Trois-Rivières, over 2,000 small businesses would have benefited from this measure, but the government prefers to give tax breaks to large corporations that do not put those tax savings back into the Canadian economy.

By abandoning our small businesses, the government is also abandoning the middle class, since, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, one-third of business owners earn less than $33,000 a year, and 41% work more than 50 hours per week. I would remind the House that one has to earn at least $45,000 in order to benefit from the most recent tax cuts.

With this budget, the Liberals are turning their backs on hard-working families just trying to make ends meet, but it is true that small businesses depend largely on international trade. Therefore, in order to ensure the success of small businesses internationally, the government needs to develop a specific support policy taking into consideration the following two facts: first, Canadian small businesses have very little presence in international markets—a measly 10% to 14%—, and second, those that do export their products are still far too exposed to the vagaries of the American economy.

To improve the situation, the government needs to make it easier for small businesses to access funding when they are trying to succeed in international markets. Small businesses often do not have the resources to carry a lot of inventory and keep up with demand.

I see I am running out of time. I would have liked to say so much more. I will probably have a chance to make a few more points as I answer questions, but let me wrap up by saying that following a careful assessment, I can support TFAs as long as they are concluded with strategic partners that respect basic human rights.

I would also remind the House that, while the TFA might be beneficial for small businesses, the government needs to do more. Finally, the TFA's measures can help developing countries, although I did not have time to address this issue and I hope to come back to it.

I will stop there and I look forward to questions from my esteemed colleagues.

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my hon. colleague and his party will be supporting Bill C-13 at second reading to get it to committee. I want to delve a little more deeply and examine the questions he ultimately is concerned about that might be presented at committee, particularly, as he noted, with respect to protecting the safety of workers.

This legislation clearly deals, in part, with non-compliant goods and goods in transit that may not be compliant with existing Canadian regulations. The intent is simply to give the Government of Canada authority to provide exemptions to allow goods to continue in transit, keeping in mind that it would still have to protect Canadians and workers.

Could the member perhaps explain what his specific concern is and what would make him more comfortable in supporting this legislation at third reading with respect to simply giving the government the authority to look at the particular situation in question and then grant an exemption where it thinks it is appropriate?

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

At this point, it is relatively easy to support this bill, even at second reading, because it makes only minor changes to Canadian legislation.

To answer his question, I imagine that the first questions asked in committee will be about the health and safety of the workers directly involved in the transshipment of goods that must remain in or pass through Canada.

We simply want to ensure that all workplace health and safety standards will be respected under the new agreement. The agreement only needs to be ratified by two-thirds of signatory countries to come into force. Therefore, Canada's support is not needed because some 78 countries have already ratified the agreement. Nevertheless, we are staying the course to ensure that workers' health and safety remain a priority every step of the way.

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct the record on what the Minister of National Defence said earlier today in the House.

The minister rose to say that we announced a national security and rule of law dialogue during the Prime Minister's visit on September 12. While the announcement was made on September 12 and in conjunction with a trip, the Prime Minister concluded his trip to China on September 2.

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle for this clarification and bringing it to the attention of the House at the first instance.

Questions and comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brampton South.

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON

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

As members may know, Canada played a key role in the negotiation of the TFA at the WTO. The TFA focuses on streamlining, harmonizing, and modernizing customs procedures. It has enormous potential for reducing trade costs and times. The TFA would enhance predictability and transparency of customs decisions for traders, expedite the release of goods through the use of modern technologies, and increase the efficiency of customs procedures through improved coordination between border agencies. In these negotiations Canada ensured that the TFA would provide a full range of trade consultation measures while preserving our ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.

I would like to speak today about some of the legislative amendments that are required for Canada to join the ranks of 92 other WTO members, including the EU, the U.S., and China, who have ratified the TFA.

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

Article 10.8.1 requires WTO members to allow importers to return to the exporter goods that were rejected on account of their failure to meet certain health and other technical requirements, unless another means of dealing with the rejected goods is provided for in that country's laws—for example, seizure and disposal. Therefore, governments that wish to retain the ability to treat incoming goods other than by permitting their return will need to be able to point to specific provisions in their laws or regulations providing authority to do so.

Article 11.8 prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point, known as goods in transit. This provision would allow foreign goods to move through Canada, for example, from Europe to the United States, without complying with our technical regulations.

The transit through Canada of some goods, such as pharmaceutical drugs, cleaning products, or pesticides, that do not comply with technical regulations is currently prohibited by certain federal statutes, which need to be amended. To ensure that the Government of Canada's statutes and regulations comply with this article of the TFA while maintaining safeguards to the health and safety of Canadians and the environment, amendments to five statutes administered by Health Canada are required. Those statutes are the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act; the Food and Drugs Act; the Hazardous Products Act; the Pest Control Products Act; and the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.

Bill C-13 identifies criteria under which non-compliant goods could either be returned to the exporter, re-consigned in accordance with article 10.8.1 of the TFA, or alternatively, seized, detained, forfeited, and/or disposed of by inspectors or customs officers. This means that non-compliant goods such as drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, food, tanning equipment, children's toys, hazardous products, and pesticides that pose unacceptable health and safety risks could be seized and not returned in certain cases. In other cases, in the absence of significant risk factors, products could be returned or re-consigned.

These amendments will enhance the predictability and transparency in how rejected goods are treated at the border, and will help ensure that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment continue to be protected.

In regard to article 11.8, most importers are aware of the prohibitions on the transit of unregistered or unauthorized products, although sometimes companies request one-off permission to transit such products through Canada.

Presently, these activities are expressly prohibited by legislative or regulatory requirements, and are routinely denied.

Preventing products that do not comply with technical regulations from transiting through Canada can be considered a trade barrier. This is because the health and safety of Canadians and the environment can in fact be protected in an equally effective and less trade-restrictive manner.

The legislative amendments proposed in the bill specify that Canada's technical regulations would not apply to goods in transit through Canada as long as certain requirements to protect health, safety, and the environment are met. More specifically, Bill C-13 includes requirements designed to mitigate the risk that certain goods in transit could be diverted into the Canadian market or compromise the health and safety of Canadians or the environment as a result of accidents or spills.

For example, labelling requirements for certain goods in transit would enable inspectors, border officers, handlers, and sellers to distinguish between goods destined for import and those just passing through. Such labelling would denote the origin, intended destination, and product safety and handling procedures for goods in transit.

By implementing the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Canada would meet its international obligations under the TFA with respect to article 10.8.1 in dealing with the treatment of rejected non-compliant goods, and with respect to article 11.8 to improve the flow of goods across its borders.

Bill C-13 would enable Canada to update and better coordinate customs processes that will help bring economic benefits to Canadians. I support this bill, and I urge all hon. members to support this bill, which would enable Canada to do its part to bring this agreement into force, and ensure that the health and safety of Canadians and the environment remains protected.

Food and Drugs ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is lovely to be back in the House of Commons. I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

Certainly, I am always happy to hear about trade and new trade happening. If I think back to our Conservative government, when we were in government, and the 44 countries with which we introduced trade deals, I think it is wonderful.

I specifically appreciated how the member looked to the technical details of what is involved in trade, a lot of times, because if we do not get those right, they can be a barrier. I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks there is some ability to leverage what we learned in this specific deal, so that we can deal with interprovincial trade in a better way. Many times there, as well, we see that it is technical differences between specifications in the provinces that are causing the barrier to trade.

I would be interested to hear what the member has to say about that.