Debates of Sept. 20th, 2016

Food and Drugs Act

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my province of British Columbia, trade deals signed by the Harper Conservative government and successive Liberal governments, especially over the last 10 years, have cost 21,000 jobs in value-added manufacturing in the forestry industry. We have lost 21,000 lumber-producing and pulp and paper jobs, which were well-paying, solid, lifetime jobs. This has had devastating consequences for some of our communities.

I am curious what my Conservative colleague would say in response to this question. Why did the Conservative government, during its time, not focus more of its efforts on facilitating domestic trade and improving opportunities for small and medium enterprises instead of negotiating these flawed trade deals that are sacrificing a great many jobs at the local level and harming our economy?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to adapt to the realities of the market and the existing situation. That is life.

We can take a a romantic view of the situation, where everyone is equal, everything is going well, life is good, and there is no problem because the wealth will be distributed to everyone. However, we need to create wealth in order to be able to do that. From what I can see, free trade agreements have resulted in the creation of real wealth across the country.

Today, one in five Canadian jobs are linked to export policies. One in five. We need to adapt to the new reality. I am feeling very inspired by General de Gaulle today. As he said, it is perfectly natural to feel nostalgic for the splendour of sailing ships, but no policy worthy of the name can ignore the realities. The same is true here. Markets and doors are opening around the world and Canada needs to be part of that. This reminds me of the fearmongering that we heard in 1988, particularly from the Hon. Ed Broadbent, a man for whom I have a lot of respect and regard but who was completely mistaken in this matter.

He is happy that we have free trade agreements to ensure our country's prosperity.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member stated quite clearly in his speech that trade is in fact good for Canada. It is good for our economy overall; it is good for our present, and it is good for our future.

Would my colleague elaborate on how trade agreements in Canada benefit tomorrow's young people? I want to know the impact they have on our youth.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when we talk about exports, we are talking about creating jobs. When we talk about exports, we are talking about products made here in Canada that we are selling somewhere else. As a result, someone else is giving money to Canada. It is the Americans, Europeans, Japanese, or whomever. This is good for Canada, because we are bringing in fresh, new money here.

When we talk about opening the door, we are also talking directly to youth, because youth are involved in high-tech business and high-tech manufacturing. In my own riding, as I am sure is the case in other hon. members' ridings, I have a lot of businesses that are hiring bright young people with high-tech facilities and skills. This will create new products that can be sold offshore, and that offshore money will come back to Canada. This is how we create jobs in Canada. This is what is good for youth all around this country.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague championed free trade in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

He took the opportunity to recognize the sound economic thinking of several Quebec separatists, such as Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry. I would like to thank him for that because federalists, who tend to favour ideology, so seldom acknowledge the economic contributions, wisdom, and importance of Quebec separatists.

In his speech, he also talked about how exports are vital to creating wealth for people. In Quebec's economy in particular, exports have slumped in recent years. Quebec has been in a trade deficit situation since the early 2000s, and the manufacturing sector has lost a lot of jobs, more than 220,000. The number of jobs has kept falling in recent years. Canada has different economic priorities, such as supporting western Canada's oil economy.

Will these natural resources end up having a negative long-term impact on our economy? For one thing, we will have to cope with the aftermath of oil extraction and deal with climate change. For another, they are hurting Quebec's economy.

Does my colleague think that the Canadian economy is negatively impacting Quebec's economy?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.

In response to each of the points in my Bloc Québécois colleague's argument, I would say that, when we are having an economic debate, it is very important to consider all the information.

Yes, I am pleased to recognize Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry and remind the House of their contributions. I do so without any acrimony and in all sincerity. I know that in their political family, things have not always been easy, especially on the left, since the unions vigorously opposed the free trade agreement. Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Landry had the courage to say that it was good because it was going to create jobs in Quebec.

The member talked about a certain reality in Canada, specifically that some areas of the economy sometimes produce more than others. Businesses need to adapt to that reality, but what does that mean? It means capitalizing on start-up companies, which employ people with specific high-tech training. That is also what real wealth creation is about. It is about creating companies in which those people are going to produce things that do not yet exist. That is what is going to create the need, create the sale, and create exports.

To respond to what my colleague said, indeed there is a lot of oil in Canada and that is good. I am quite pleased about that. Need I remind the hon. member about the equalization payments Quebec has been receiving for far too long? What about the big ticket for the economy and the very future of this country, the energy east project we are still waiting for the government to decide on? We think this project is good for Quebec, good for Alberta, good for Canada, and good for all Canadians.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to discuss and debate Bill C-13.

Oddly, since this morning, except for a few interventions, very few people have spoken to the content of Bill C-13. This bill seeks to enact legislative amendments to comply with a World Trade Organization treaty or agreement that was signed to facilitate trade. I would say it is not an extremely controversial bill. We are supporting the bill at second reading simply because there are very few changes in it, since Canada is already largely compliant with the terms of the trade facilitation agreement. Very few legislative changes will be needed.

However, given that one of the arguments put forward by the government and those supporting the agreement's ratification is that this will truly help small and medium-sized business, we would also like to see, not just in the bill, but in the government's actions, concerted efforts to promote the economic activity of SMEs. Unfortunately, the government's efforts in that regard have been rather lacklustre from the start of its term. We hope this will change.

I very much enjoyed hearing the various debates from both sides of the House. They did not necessarily pertain to the bill itself, about which little has been said, but focused on who is the staunchest supporter of free trade in the House. I find that very amusing because arguments are being bandied back and forth, and members are accusing other members of not supporting free trade as much as they do. What we should note is that very little is being said about the content. Not much was said about the impact of this bill, except for the impact according to major economic theories and concepts, which we do not disagree with when it comes to trade. Canada is a nation that exports and imports. Its economy is open and benefits from the opportunity to develop through exports.

No one objects to that, and that is why the NDP will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading, just like we voted in favour of various other initiatives, such as the Agreement on Internal Trade. The NDP has also supported various trade agreements that have been signed, including those with Jordan and South Korea. That explains why, in some situations, we are still waiting to see what decisions the government will make, particularly with regard to the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, for which the previous Conservative government promised specific compensation for dairy farmers and fish processors, as well as for the provinces, for drug expenses. We do not really know what the Liberal government is going to do about that.

With regard to the agreement with the European Union, we are not opposed to it at first glance, but we need to carefully analyze the compensation that will granted by the government, if any. This may seem surprising because I often hear my Conservative colleagues and, to some extent, my Liberal colleagues saying that the NDP is against trade agreements and free trade. That is not the case. Unlike the other parties in the House, the NDP is more focused on the content of these trade deals.

This is extremely important because we need a lens we can use to evaluate our support for these agreements. I have not really heard these arguments from the Conservatives in the past. I have not heard them from the Liberals, either.

I would like to tell you a story. After the trade agreement between Canada and the European Union was signed, about two or two and a half years ago, Prime Minister Harper returned, and we discussed that trade agreement in the House. The day after the signing, the first statement in the House by the Liberal leader, now the Prime Minister, was to extend congratulations on signing the agreement. He said that the Liberals supported it, and he asked when we might have it. This seems quite absurd to me, since a trade agreement is a contract. In a contract, there is content to be reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate for Canada’s needs and what Canada is seeking.

That is why we need a lens, an evaluation grid or a set of principles for assessing the content of these agreements.

The NDP always evaluates three particular factors before deciding whether to support an agreement or not. First of all, any trade agreement between Canada and its partners must bring definite economic benefits for Canada. We are not talking about a zero-sum game. We fully realize that both parties may gain something. What should concern us is whether Canada gains something in the end.

It is important to realize that, in any trade agreement, some industries benefit more than others. Some of them may even lose in the deal. It is necessary to assess the overall economic impact of the agreements.

That is where the problem lies in the case of the trans-Pacific partnership. In the House, the Liberals and the Conservatives are ready to support it without first studying its economic impact on the country. This is pure carelessness, dogmatism, and irresponsible behaviour.

As parliamentarians, our duty is not to rubber-stamp a trade agreement simply because it is a trade agreement. We first have to clearly determine what the specific and overall pros and cons are for Canada. That has not been done in the case of the trans-Pacific partnership.

In fact, it is very rarely done for most trade agreements. It is rare for a specific study by the Department of Finance or Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada on how a trade agreement will affect the Canadian economy to be tabled in the House.

The first prerequisite is therefore that the trade agreement must have a positive effect on the Canadian economy with regard to growth and industry.

Second, such an agreement must be reciprocal. A trade agreement between Canada and a trading partner must afford Canada the same access and conditions that Canada gives its partner within its own borders. That would seem obvious, but it was not the case when we concluded certain agreements in the past.

For example, in the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement we signed with China, a number of elements did not ensure reciprocity between Canada and China. Nevertheless, the two parties in the House were fully prepared to sign the agreement. It is worth noting that the agreement has not been ratified since it was signed four years ago.

This makes me smile, because people gripe about why the Liberal government still has not brought the trans-Pacific partnership to the House for ratification, when the Conservative government signed agreements such as the one with the European Union and the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China that were never put before the House for ratification.

The third condition is that a trade agreement with any partner must comply with conditions regarding environmental protection and the protection of workers’ rights. In general, it must respect and promote the protection of human rights in the countries concerned. Once again, despite the claims made on both sides, this point does not seem to be of particular interest to the House or the committees studying the matter.

Since 2011, my first year in the House of Commons, we have been extremely consistent about supporting or rejecting trade agreements discussed in the House. We rejected agreements with Honduras, Panama, and Colombia, because those countries do absolutely nothing to protect human rights.

In committee, the two parties told us that signing a trade agreement would automatically promote the development of human rights and that there was no need to include provisions in the trade agreement.

They said that reviews would be carried out year after year regarding the human rights situation and how the treaty affected human rights. Systematically, there is never any follow-up on this issue. As a result, agreements are signed with countries that consistently violate human rights. We still sign agreements without bothering to try to insert provisions that will safeguard human rights and the environment.

That is why the agreements with Panama, Colombia, and Honduras were rejected by the NDP. That is why the NDP supported the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Since the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union seems to pass this test at this time, we are quite willing to study it further.

That is a long way from the picture of the NDP that the Conservatives and the Liberals are trying to paint. When all is said and done, we are the only party that is truly responsible with regard to international trade, because we are the only party that does not automatically support everything that is put before the House and everything that is signed by successive governments. We pay attention to details and content.

In progressive circles, more and more people find that in fact, a trade agreement is not a bad thing in itself. It is an agreement that establishes the rules of the game between the two trading partners. However, it will be extremely important to amend this content in the future, because it is not just a matter of free trade.

These treaties generally say very little about the barriers to be eliminated; they have more to say about protecting investors. Indeed, that was the case for the trans-Pacific partnership. The bulk of the TPP, and of the agreements tabled in the House, is not about eliminating tariff or non-tariff barriers; it is about protecting investors in the various countries.

If we could stop talking about free trade, since the issue is not free trade, and start thinking about what could be called fair trade, Canada would be in a position to alter its negotiating stance with the various countries and include elements that would add a significant component of fairness to its trading. This would ensure that the benefits underlying international trade would go to everyone, not just to the privileged few. That is the basis of the NDP’s argument on international trade.

Let’s return to the issue of the TPP. We should ask ourselves whether it will be beneficial or not and whether there will be benefits for Canada or not, once again, beyond the usual elements—clichés, I would call them—concerning international trade. Let us ask the question. About 80% of our exports to the countries that already trade with Canada, namely all of the 12 countries in the TPP, are raw and semi-processed materials. If we look at what we import from those countries, 80% of those imports are high value-added products.

We are therefore in a situation where, economically, many experts complain about or lament the deindustrialization of Canada, Canada’s shift toward an economy that used to be industrially diversified, an economy that relies increasingly on raw or barely processed materials.

I think we would do well to have a debate and think seriously about how the Canadian economy has evolved in that direction, particularly since the 1980s.

The economic impact I mentioned includes another factor. Tufts University estimated that the trans-Pacific partnership would cost up to 60,000 jobs in Canada. However, the Conservative government, on whose watch we negotiated that agreement, did not present any economic analyses about job gains or job losses. What will the economic impact be with respect to growth?

In the United States, that analysis was done, and it was estimated that the trans-Pacific partnership could increase the gross domestic product by nearly 0.20% by 2025. We are going to make major structural changes in the American economy and all of the signatories’ economies for a 0.20% gain. At some point, we have to be critical of these agreements, not with regard to the principle of trade, but with regard to what our goals are when we negotiate and ratify these agreements.

There are very few analyses and debates in the House, only platitudes. That is a real shame, and also the reason I am proud to be part of the NDP. Since at least 2011, the year I was first elected, that party has taken a consistently procedural approach to analyzing these agreements. We want to continue doing so. An agreement such as the trans-Pacific partnership will have repercussions for supply management and the cost of prescription drugs, since there will be a big impact on intellectual property. These are repercussions of unprecedented scope. Let us not forget that Canada is currently the country with the second-highest cost of prescription drugs in the world. The agreement also gives enhanced protection and profits to makers of brand-name products rather than makers of generic products, which will drive up the cost of prescription drugs significantly. In the end, not only will the people have to foot the bill, but the provinces as well, since many of them have drug insurance plans, like the hospital sector, which is managed by the provinces.

So I want to reiterate the NDP’s support for this bill, which, in the end, does not have a big impact on the Canadian economy, but I also want to remind members that our primary role is not just to say yes or no to a trade agreement, when we have to decide on one, but to analyze it in depth to see how it will affect the Canadian economy and the people we are supposed to represent in the House.

I urge members to take a much more rigorous approach in this regard. We are already doing so. We are giving the other parties an opportunity to step up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on his speech. I very much appreciate that he takes the time to go over every agreement.

At the beginning of his speech he said that the Conservatives and Liberals support the trans-Pacific partnership without having conducted an economic study. That is not really true, however. The first thing we see on the website on consulting Canadians on the TPP is a link to the economic impact of Canada's potential membership in the TPP. That is the first thing we see. We are studying the issue. Consultations are under way to determine which questions need to be answered. That is why we have not done it yet. We are still studying it.

I just wanted to point that out to my colleague and tell him that these studies are ongoing, contrary to what he says.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that consultations are being held on this right now, but that is not the same as having systematic impact assessments of these agreements done by the Department of Finance and the Department of International Trade, who have been negotiating these agreements in recent years since they have the resources to do so.

I worked at a number of agencies in civil society and I noticed a difference in holding consultations where stakeholders quite often have an opinion from the outset, whether for or against this agreement, and having studies done systematically by the government departments that are involved and have the necessary resources to undertake these studies since they work in this area on a daily basis.

It is good to get the opinions of certain stakeholders during consultations, but it is not the same as having those departments submit a report to Parliament so that we can really delve into the issue of the agreement's impact.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on my colleague's theme on consultation around the trans-Pacific partnership.

Friends in the labour movement have said that their consultation of the TPP was a phone call two hours prior to a meeting, asking if they could they come to it. That is not really meaningful consultation to us.

I want to pursue my colleague's conversation about supporting the trade facilitation agreement, which we do support. Could he talk a bit more about concerns around worker safety? Some of the changes around hazardous goods in transport would conceivably involve more exposure to hazardous materials, including pest control. Could he tell us about his concerns around protecting workplace safety and about conversations we might have in committee on this issue?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who pointed out that I was guilty of something I criticized in the House: people not talking about Bill C-13.

Basically, Bill C-13 will make changes to Canadian law affecting the goods in transit through Canada that are not destined for the Canadian market. In many cases, such goods will go through airports, for example. Products that are subject to specific regulations in Canada will touch down on Canadian soil on their way to somewhere else.

Under this legislation, Canadian regulations will not apply to such products, which raises concerns about Canadian workers handling these goods in transit. I do not think that has really been analyzed.

We do not feel that the government has paid enough attention to worker health and safety concerns. I hope the committee will take a good long look at this issue if this bill passes at second reading, which it probably will, to ensure that it will not chip away at worker protection.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in his thoughtful speech that people should not support or approve trade agreements before they had seen all the details. I am assuming he is also saying that parties should not speak against or take a position against agreements before they have seen all their details.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as soon as we see that certain provisions of a trade agreement are going to have serious repercussions on certain areas, and that they have not been taken into consideration, of course we are going to take a position. I think the members of all parties need to keep an open mind, depending on the provisions of the agreement and the analysis that is done.

If a trade agreement seems unacceptable at first glance, a party can oppose it, but if the facts then address those concerns, people need to be open enough to change their minds. At present, with respect to the trans-Pacific partnership, we have not seen any willingness to make changes or ask for changes during negotiations.

We are currently faced with a fait accompli, and a number of provisions regarding supply management, the protection of intellectual property, and many other areas are hardening our original position on the issue.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his analysis of this very important bill. Of course we want to continue to diversify our economy, support SMEs, and encourage exports through good agreements. However, some agreements are better than others.

My colleague mentioned the trans-Pacific partnership, or TPP, among others. I wonder if he could explain why it is a bad agreement and what makes a good agreement versus one that is completely unacceptable.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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

I did summarize the main problems posed by the trans-Pacific partnership. The government has not really done an impact analysis of the higher drug costs that the provinces will have to cover. This increase will be quite significant and this alone should justify an impact study, at least for the provinces.

There are concerns about supply management. Concerns were expressed about the European Union agreement and compensation has been promised. In fact, it was clear that there would have to be a transition period for dairy producers so that they can adjust to changes in import quotas for cheese. It is obvious that the trans-Pacific partnership significantly undermines Canada's supply management system. Once again, there is no transition period or mechanism that will help the industry adjust to the changes resulting from the trans-Pacific partnership.

Certain aspects of other agreements led the NDP to oppose them. For example, the NDP opposed the agreements with Honduras and Colombia because of those countries' lack of respect for human rights. In Colombia in particular, labour activists, people who want to improve the lives of workers, are killed, routinely murdered, and the government is not doing anything about it. None of these factors convinced the other two parties to include protections in these free trade agreements.

The human rights issue also played a role in the case of Panama. We do not agree with the fact that successive governments have refused to make some sort of connection between tax treaties and trade agreements. Panama is a tax haven and we are signing a free trade agreement with that country that will help facilitate tax evasion in more ways than one. Once again, this did not persuade any of the parties in the House to make amendments. That is why we voted against that agreement.

We need to analyze the impact of each trade agreement in order to determine the benefits as well as the missed opportunities. That explains the positions we take.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I would like to remind hon. members that we have just wrapped up a period of debate where members had 20 minutes for speeches followed by 10 minutes for questions. We are now going to continue with a period of debate with 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by welcoming all my colleagues on all sides of the House back from their summer. I hope they enjoyed it as much as I did. Like many of them, we attended fairs, we did farmers markets, we did parades, we met with constituents, and championed causes. I was very happy to visit all communities in my riding from Dorset and Cardiff in the north and northeast to Seagrave and Millbrook to the south, and many other towns in between. Like every other summer, I ate way too much Kawartha Dairy ice cream. I am looking forward to Thanksgiving when only the gravy and pie can make me feel less guilty about my summer indulgences.

However, today I am pleased to be back to speak to Bill C-13. The bill would implement the trade facilitation agreement concluded by our previous Conservative government at the World Trade Organization's ninth ministerial conference in Bali in December 2013. I hope the Liberal government will continue to build on this record of international trade.

Bill C-13 would create jobs and opportunities for Canadians. It would simplify customs procedures, reduce red tape, expedite the release and clearance of goods, reduce costs associated with processing, and make international trade more predictable for Canadians. It would help protect jobs, not only for Canadians but also in jurisdictions right around the world.

As we all know, Canada is a trading nation. We have a rich history in the development of trade. From the Hudson's Bay Company to our oil fields in Alberta, it has all contributed to the Canada that we know and love today.

The TFA will be the first multilateral trade agreement concluded since the WTO was established over 20 years ago. Once it enters into force, global merchandise exports are estimated to increase by $750 billion to $1 trillion per year. The exports of developed economies are estimated to increase by $310 billion to $580 billion per year. The overall boost to the world export growth is estimated to be up to 2.7% and 21 million jobs created. That is just shy of the population of Ontario and Quebec. However, these jobs will not just be in developed nations like Canada; they will be spread right across the globe. It is important that Canada act quickly on trade matters to show the world that Canada is open to the world for business.

The TFA will enter into force once two-thirds of WTO members have completed their domestic ratification process. Currently we sit at 81. We need 108 of those members. So far, those include EU, United States, and Japan. Since June 2016, the following nations have ratified the agreement: Madagascar, Senegal, Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, Uruguay, and Mexico. That is just since June of this year. Many other nations have already ratified the agreement: India, China, Turkey, and New Zealand just to name a few.

As members can see, this would not benefit just one or two nations. Bill C-13 would benefit countries and people right across the globe, including people in our hometowns, and my hometowns of Bobcaygeon and Fenelon Falls. In fact, this agreement would reduce total trade costs by more than 14% for low-income countries, more than 15% for middle-income countries, and more than 13% for upper middle-income countries.

To quote the World Trade Report 2015:

The TFA is groundbreaking because it provides for assistance to developing and least-developed countries to help them implement the Agreement. The Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility, launched by the WTO in July 2014, is designed to help deliver this support to them.... WTO work on trade facilitation culminated in the adoption of the Trade Facilitation Agreement...at the WTO’s Ninth Ministerial Conference in Bali in December 2013. It is the first multilateral agreement since the establishment of the WTO in 1995.

We all know that Canada is a trading nation. We cannot afford to allow ourselves to be alienated. We cannot afford to exclude ourselves from these multinational agreements. Our refusal to be involved would put Canadians at a distinct disadvantage in international trade when compared to nations with bilateral or multilateral agreements. Our previous government knew this, which was why we were responsible for signing agreements across the globe. We understood the importance of trade, which was why we worked so hard to ensure that Canadians had access to large and growing markets. The TFA will introduce further rules and regulations that will level the playing field for Canadian businesses.

I want to take a minute to relate this back to my riding. My home riding, like many members' ridings, is filled with small and medium-sized businesses. There are many local businesses across Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock that would benefit from the TFA and other trade deals. These deals would allow farmers in Cannington, Kirkfield, and Bethany to export their products abroad and would give businesses like Kawartha Dairy a level playing field to expand and create opportunities for Canadians. We as parliamentarians need to ensure that Canadians are given the opportunity and ability. Agreements like the TFA and TPP would do just that.

I am pleased to see that the Liberal government introduced this bill. I hope to have that signed, and once it is done I hope the Liberals continue on other agreements, like the TPP, which I mention many times. As we all know, the TPP is an international trade agreement. It represents a market of almost 800 million potential customers, with a combined GDP of $29 trillion. It is projected that the TPP would boost Canada's GDP by $4.3 billion by 2040. Staying out of the TPP would likely lead to a reported $5.3 billion in GDP losses, according to the Global Affairs Canada website.

There is a very strong case to be made for ratification. The government needs to take action and ratify the TPP to ensure that hard-working Canadians have not only the opportunity but the ability to prosper as well. In Canada, one in five jobs are directly linked to exports. Canadians cannot afford to be left out of this deal. Trade can grow our economy without spending billions of dollars that we do not have.

I do not normally find myself in agreement with the members opposite, but I am happy to see the Liberals are continuing to build on our previous government's accomplishments, of course regarding trade. I hope that this deal is signed and that our colleagues across the floor will ratify the TPP as soon as possible.

If the Liberal government were serious about trade, it would adhere to the recent G7 leaders' declaration and commit to ratifying the TPP, independent of the United States. That would ensure that Canadians are given a strong position to grow and expand their businesses in the future, putting something into place that would lower trade barriers and increase market access, which will be critical for the success of Canadian businesses and the protection of Canadian jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I do not necessarily agree with him. When I think of the World Trade Organization, I see it as a body of 160-plus countries around the world that came together in recognition of the value of trade. It is something on which our government has been fairly aggressive in following suit and making sure deals get done. We just signed off on a Ukraine trade deal. We can cite the many efforts of our Minister of International Trade. She has spent a great deal of time in the EU area trying to get that deal back on track.

The Conservatives continually make reference to the TPP. The Prime Minister made a commitment that we will be looking at it and consulting, and at some point in time there will be a debate on it.

When we think of the World Trade Organization, and Bill C-13 today, this is probably one of its greatest achievements. We need 108 countries to ratify, and I understand 91 have actually signed it. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on why this is important. Ratifying this would send a very strong message to the World Trade Organization for the efforts it put into the agreement.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are on the same side on this. We on both sides of the House see the importance of ratifying this deal. We all know trade is a growing part of the world economy. We are seeing that nations across the world are reducing their trade barriers. They are not being protectionist. They are not isolating themselves from the world. We are seeing that right now at the WTO. We need 108 of those countries. More and more come on all the time. I listed the group that has ratified since June and some that have done it before. Also, these include countries that believe in the same things we do: labour laws, environmental protection, and the list goes on. These are countries of all sizes and progression levels.

We are seeing that trading, opening up our barriers, and getting our products out are good things, especially in Canada. We are an exporting nation and we need to get our products to market. Hopefully, we can continue trade agreements like we are seeing and like we have seen already. There are 51 total agreements. We would like to see that progress continue to the benefit of our economy and Canadian jobs.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned in his speech that it is very important for Canada to act quickly on this trade negotiation. He went on to say that, without trade, Canada would be at a significant disadvantage on the world stage.

The question I have for my colleague is this. I would like him to elaborate on why this is so important. In particular, I am interested in hearing his thoughts with respect to small and medium-sized business within the agricultural sector. This sector is very prominent in my community. It is very important to us to make sure we get commodities to market, within agricultural sectors. Therefore, I would like him to elaborate with respect to the importance of this trade agreement.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my friend from Lethbridge probably knows, a large section of my riding is agriculture-based. A large section of that economy is based on the success of agriculture, whether it be beef, canola—just name it and we probably have it in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. Therefore, getting those products to market and expanding those opportunities are huge.

When we have 800 million potential new customers, especially related to the TPP, with a growing middle class that wants our high-quality products, we have an opportunity to not only boost the revenue for those farmers but also encourage the young farmers who want to get into it if they know they can make a living, succeed, and get their product to market easily. That is something the government can do. I believe every government has a responsibility to create an environment for private sector growth. This is one way to do it, especially in our agriculture communities. We often talk about getting young people involved in agriculture, and this is one way to ensure there are opportunities. If people know they can get their product to market and earn a living, that is a little more incentive to get those young farmers starting up and getting their operations going.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate on Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement. Of course it comes as no surprise that I am going to be supporting this piece of legislation, as technical as it as and as difficult as it was to read through it.

I think it gives us an opportunity to celebrate the good work of the previous minister of international trade, the member for Abbotsford, a friend on this side of the House, whose hard work on behalf of Canadians has borne fruit.

It was at the ninth WTO ministerial conference, as the previous member mentioned, in Bali in September 2013, that ministers adopted the Bali package, which included allowing developing countries more options for providing food security, boosting least-developed countries' (LDC) trade, and helping development more generally. The largest deliverable was streamlining customs procedures through the trade facilitation agreement, which is now before us, which we have a chance to debate, implement, and ratify.

The previous government not only made free trade a centrepiece of its economic agenda but also demonstrated that Canada can be ambitious and bold when it seeks to expand access to new markets for Canadians. Over a 10-year period, the Conservative government was able to negotiate free trade agreements with 46 different countries, bringing the total number of countries with which Canada has trade agreements to 51. That is 4.6 agreements per year.

The Liberal government, on the other hand, is coming close to one year in office, next month, and it has exactly zero. It has zero new agreements ratified and consented to by Her Majesty. I think that is quite the record for the first year of government. It has no record on free trade to call its own. In fact, a previous treaty that we implemented and that this House passed, Bill C-11, the Marrakesh treaty, was passed last session and was, again, the work of the previous government and is now implemented in legislation.

I am not complaining. I would like to see the government implement more legislation based on the good work of the previous government, especially on the free trade agenda. There are lots of legacy pieces there that should be implemented. Again, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade spoke on this bill originally, he said this would reinforce the government's strong record on trade; except there is no record of which to speak. It is the record of the previous Conservative government, and in fact, all the good ideas and all the hard work of the member for Abbotsford, who contributed more to Canada in terms of free trade agreements signed, negotiated, and ratified than any other member in maybe the last 50 years.

There is no record for the Liberal government to promote, reinforce, or strengthen here. This bill, though, does lay the foundation for the potential of a record. There is an opportunity. There are two more free trade agreements that the government could bring before the House so we could ratify them properly.

Like many good ideas, they started with the Conservatives and, I want to again mention, the member for Abbotsford who deserves high praise. Many of these agreements, many of these successes, are thanks to him and the work he did when he was a member of the government.

Bill C-13 is good news. We know that trade accounts for 60% of Canada's annual GDP and represents one in five Canadian jobs that are tied to export. Members of the WTO have ratified the TFA, like those mentioned before: the United States, the European Union, China, and Japan. They expect Canada to do the same without delay.

We know that 108 countries, two-thirds, have to complete the domestic ratification process. The sooner we do it, the better for Canadian investors, importers, and exporters of goods, including small and medium-sized businesses, which will benefit from the implementation of the TFA.

I want to highlight one business in my riding that would benefit from this agreement. This business is called Tundra Process Solutions. We know that in Alberta right now times are tough in the oil patch. Easily more than 100,000 jobs have been lost. That is direct jobs and does not even count the indirect jobs.

I was pleased today to join the member for Lakeland, when she was doing a press conference on her e-petition. It was very successful. She had an oil worker there from Grande Prairie, talking about the job losses he is seeing.

Tundra Process Solutions is one of those companies in the oil patch that is diversifying. It is a great Canadian story. It is in my riding. It has purchased a manufacturing company that builds equipment, from California, and actually moved it to Calgary. It is a manufacturing oil and gas company producing equipment that it is selling to the world today.

With this type of agreement today, it could export to new countries, bypassing some of these very complicated customs rules and tariff rules, as well as the paperwork, the red tape required for it to move its product to a willing buyer in another country. This is how it is going to make money. Its 25-plus workers who depend on export will be quite happy when the TFA is passed, because their jobs depend on finding new markets for the product they produce.

With the lowering of tariffs across the globe, the cost of complying with customs formalities has been reported to exceed, in many instances, the cost of duties to be paid. Trade costs are among the most fundamental factors shaping the evolution of trade.

We have to remember that we do not live in a static world. If Canada does not move forward with more free trade agreements, others will, and that, by definition, will start cutting us out of those markets. Therefore, we have no choice but to pursue a free trade agenda.

The TFA is critical for many parts of its legislative measures, and there are two of them specifically. I will mention one of them, but there are two important ones. Article 11.8, which the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent mentioned before in debate, 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 as a good in transit. This would affect Tundra Process Solutions Ltd., because it is moving equipment from country to country, some of which is being purchased and some of which is being leased. Oil and gas is an international business. Many companies are horizontally and vertically integrated and can move equipment around, so this is good news for them. This is measure is an excellent one to introduce.

I think of the government's financial agenda and the budget it proposed. This would have no financial implications for the Government of Canada. This would be paid for with current dollars.

To support the TFA's implementation, Canada, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. provided support in December 2015 for the launch of the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation. It is a fantastic idea. It is more good news from the previous government and more good work by the member for Abbotsford. This initiative was designed to assist developing countries to implement the TFA.

The UN Conference on Trade and Development estimates that the average customs transaction involves 20 to 30 different parties; 40 documents; 200 data elements, 30 of which are repeated at least 30 times, and the re-keying of 60% to 70% of all data at least once. In my previous life working for a chamber of commerce, I know that specific point is when errors begin to happen and costs begin to rise, because the errors have to be fixed but oftentimes can start to compound. Then there are regulatory problems and delays in the business. If this agreement could help to at least reduce these by 50%, it would be a huge change for Canadian businesses. Again, there are many technical and legislative benefits to the TFA.

I want to finish on the principle of the matter. Free trade at its core is about a willing buyer and a willing seller meeting and making a voluntary transaction. Its core is about freedom. As former Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, "Canada is free and freedom is its nationality."

The great debates in Canada were about reciprocity, reciprocity between provinces, and reciprocity with our closest trading partner the United States. That has been the fundamental part of what it means to be a Canadian. We have had a lot of trouble with internal trade between our provinces. We can all agree that we want new markets to send our products to, so they can see the maple leaf and the words, “Made in Canada”. I am proud of that when I see it overseas when I travel. Trade between people regardless of nation they live in is the ultimate proof of the nationality of freedom that Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke about.

The economy does not need more stimulation or subsidies. What it needs is us to get out of the way and get rid of these laborious customs rules and the paperwork involved. That would provide more freedom for businesses owned and operated by Canadians. It is for Canadians. We can recapture that spirit of freedom that Sir Wilfrid Laurier encouraged.

Let us pass the TFA and move on to the true record of the government. It could ratify the Canada-European Union free trade agreement. It could ratify the trans-Pacific partnership agreement. It would have a record to speak about. It would have a legacy to speak of in 10 years. It would have something to look back on. It could say it was a government that promoted free trade.

Free trade has always been a part of this country. It was about reciprocity in a different generation. Today we talk about free trade. Sometimes we talk about fair trade, equitable trade, but it is about choice. It is about giving Canadians the choice on whom they choose to trade with, and with the least rules possible. Let us give Canadians the freedom to trade as they wish. Let us live up to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's call that “Canada is free and freedom is its nationality”. That quote appears in our new passport. It is in each so that every single Canadian can turn to the middle of the page and look at it right there. That encapsulates what Canada is all about. It is about the freedom to trade, the freedom to associate, the freedom to speak one's mind.

I cannot see anything better than ratifying this agreement and proceeding to ratifying the next agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member started by commenting on the Stephen Harper government and how the Conservatives were great at trade. I believe he said there were 46 trade agreements, to give the impression they have done a fantastic job in signing trade agreements.

However, we need to recognize that while the European Union agreement is with over 26 countries, it is just one agreement. Yes, it does affect many countries, but it is somewhat misleading. This deal has been off the tracks. If we check with some of the European countries, we will find out to what degree the current government is trying to resolve outstanding issues because the previous Conservative government did not get the job done.

The current Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister got the job done in a trade deal with Ukraine. It was the president of Ukraine who stood in the House and challenged us to bring forward a trade agreement. I was there, as were other members. This is an initiative, and trade is important.

However, when the member looks at Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement was signed off on in 2013. The United States signed it and ratified it in January 2015. Why does the member believe that the Conservatives did not ratify it in a more timely fashion?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North because I was worried that over the summer he had become mute, but I am glad he will be here in the chamber debating as passionately as he always has.

As I mentioned, there were 4.6 agreements reached per year, and the Liberals do not have any of that. They have proceeded with exactly zero agreements. They have had a year to work on this, including an entire summer. They are free to go around the world to find countries willing to sign a free trade agreement with them. It is really up them. It is not up to us to go around trying to find partners for them to negotiate with.

I will mention the free trade agreements that we negotiated. We negotiated an agreement with the European Union in good faith, and since then individual EU member states have been changing their minds as politics changes and new parties have come into power. That is simply the nature of politics, especially international politics. We have national elections in different countries. We have the European Union with 26 member countries, and any one of them can go in a different direction after signing onto the agreement.

Again, it is not a matter for us to debate whether they made a right or wrong choice. When they signed the agreement, we signed it in good faith at the time, and it is up to them to ratify it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why did the Conservative government not focus more of its efforts on facilitating trade and improving opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises instead of negotiating flawed trade and investment deals that sacrificed tens of thousands of Canadian good-paying jobs?