Debates of Feb. 13th, 2017

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There are six and a half minutes remaining in questions and comments on the speech by the hon. member for Edmonton West.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member across the way is aware that our government has been very proactive on trade. Whether it has been on issues of pork, canola, official trade agreements, such as with Ukraine, what we are doing today, or the World Trade Organization, trade has been at the forefront of what our government has been pushing forward. We believe that by expanding trade opportunities, we are going to be expanding our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

Would the member not agree that trade equals good-quality jobs into the future and that this is the type of thing we should continue to pursue in the best way we can?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, obviously.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to my seatmate's speech on CETA. I am concerned that in the coming years, by 2019, we will not see any new free trade agreements come before the House to be debated and ratified. I am concerned that we will stop at CETA. The government is not very ambitious when it comes to finding new markets. The Liberals talk about India and China, and the Minister of International Trade's mandate letter only talks about modernizing two agreements, and just a little about, potentially, Japan.

I would like to ask the member if he could comment on that. Does he share the same concern I have that we will not actually see a single new free trade agreement between now and 2019?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. We just heard the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader talk about the encouragement of trade. We agree that more trade equals better jobs for the middle class and people living in poverty. It helps all Canadians. However, we have not seen a lot of action by the government.

We have seen CETA move forward, which was 99% done under the previous government. We have seen the TPP, which was again mostly brought by the previous government. Obviously, we are having problems with the U.S. right now. However, instead of taking the ball and approaching Japan, New Zealand, and our other allies overseas, the Liberals just backed away from it entirely. We have seen them drop the ball on softwood lumber.

There is no vision put forward by the government. These trade deals take years and years. We do not even see a seed planted for the future. There is no vision, zero for the future.

We are a trading nation. We need to trade more and grow more. We need a lot more action from the government on that front.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to take the opportunity to elaborate, because I have heard him respond to others about his concern that there is no plan from the Liberal government. Could he elaborate, for members on the other side of the House, on what would be a good approach going forward, based on the past record of the Conservative government? I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, going forward, I think the government has to make it very clear that we support trade. We have to be very strong and forthright with the U.S. that trade benefits the U.S. and trade benefits Canada.

We also need to reach out to our allies that are part of the TPP and restart the program. I believe that eventually, the U.S. will come around to a pro-trade pattern and will pursue the TPP as a balance against the burgeoning issue of China. We need to trade more with Japan and our allies overseas that share our same democratic values.

The government needs to make very clear that it supports free trade and be a lot more vocal about it. It needs to work strongly in the U.S. to protect our interests within NAFTA but also make very clear that we support trade with other countries and will go ahead with free trade with our allies, with or without the U.S.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend is doing great work representing the people of his riding in the greater Sherwood Park area. I wonder if he could speak more about the current climate we are in internationally. There are a lot of critics of trade, people from different parts of the spectrum who are critical of the very idea of trade.

We know that trade brings economic prosperity. We also know that trade helps bring peace and builds community among nations and also that it flows from the freedom we all expect to buy products and services we want from other countries.

How can Canada make, and what role should Canada play in making, that argument in the kind of international climate we find ourselves in?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I get the impression the hon. member means, by the greater Sherwood Park area, the city of Edmonton. I will leave that to him when he gets up in a couple of minutes.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be one of the 28 Conservative MPs who are part of the greater Sherwood Park collective. Some people may also have referred to it in the past as Alberta, but now it is the greater Sherwood Park collective.

The member is right on a lot of trade issues. It is affecting Alberta right now. We need to very strongly move forward on our trade initiatives, whether it is CETA or following with other countries. Canada, we know, is very clearly a trading nation. About 60% of our GDP is wrapped up with trade.

I see I am running of time. I spent too much time on the greater Sherwood Park area.

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

Mr. Speaker, as much as I would love to spend the next 20 minutes clarifying that point, we better get on to discussing the Canada-EU free trade deal. I think this will be my last opportunity in the House to address this important agreement, and even my colleagues are happy about that fact.

This really is a very important trade deal. It is important for Canada's prosperity and it is important for the prosperity of the European Union. It also comes at an important time in terms of the broader international conversations that we are having about trade.

To review the basic facts, this is a trade agreement that could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade between Canada and the EU, a $12-billion annual increase in Canada's economy. That is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. It is a significant, very direct impact. People watching at home should know that we are talking about $1,000 to the average family's income possibly resulting from the expansion of economic activity that would result from this trade deal. This is a clear benefit in terms of prosperity that flows from this trade deal, but there are other benefits.

For the first part of my speech, before I go on to discuss some of the positives in terms of trade, I want to respond to some of the arguments that I have heard in the House throughout this debate on this particular agreement but also on other agreements. What are people saying against this trade deal and what can or should be said in response to that?

We hear five principal criticisms of trade coming from different parties in the House and other directions as well. We have heard concerns raised about investor-state provisions. We have heard some people say that we should not be signing these big multilateral trade deals and that they would prefer that Canada focus on bilateral trade deals, which is what the NDP is talking about. We have heard people say that there is a risk to jobs from this. We have heard people talk about trade balance. We have also heard in this discussion about fair trade, that trade is fine but it has to be fair. I want to speak to each of these points, which may not be criticisms but arguments that come generally from those who are more critical of trade.

First, on the question of investor-state provisions, the criticism is raised by some people that trade deals involve a process inevitably of adjudication. When a company or an individual feels that the commitments made in a trade deal are not being followed, there is an adjudication process. This allows the critics of trade to come out and say that trade deals allow private companies to sue the government, which is sort of held up as a big red flag.

Let us put this criticism of trade deals in context. We know that a key hallmark of a free society is that governments as well as all of us are bound by law. The law is not simply the means by which the state controls the rest of society; rather, the law is a thing that binds every actor, governmental and non-governmental, within a society. There is a fixed process by which a law is changed, and that process as well must be honoured by the government. This idea that the rule of law structures our life in every way outside of even trade deals has its roots in our very ancient constitutional tradition as well as theories of natural law, that government is bound by law as well.

Even in the absence of trade deals, there is an opportunity for individuals, companies, and civil society groups to bring legal action against the government, to hold the government accountable to the law. That is part of the rule of law. It is central to a good society that government is bound by law. In the context of trade deals, of course, these trade deals impose certain requirements on government.

Governments make commitments to abide by certain provisions with respect to these trade deals. It is necessary, if one is going to have a trade deal that has force, that has meaning, that there be a mechanism by which those who feel they are negatively affected when governments do not follow the provisions of the trade deal can bring forward legal action to challenge the behaviour of governments that are not following through on the commitments that are in these deals.

That speaks to why we have to have some kind of adjudication process as part of trade deals. We have to have an ability for companies, individuals, civil society groups, to bring action against governments if those individuals, companies, civil society groups are negatively impacted by the government's failure to adhere to the provisions of the deal. That is why trade deals have these kinds of provisions that allow the bringing forward of action against governments. It is because governments have to be bound by their commitments in trade deals or elsewhere. Governments, like the rest of us, have to follow the law.

I would understand if some people object and say that they do not like this, that or another provision of a particular trade deal, although I think, on balance, this trade deal is very good. It is one thing to say we do not like specific aspects of a trade deal, but it does not make much sense to me to say we should not have an adjudication process to hold governments up to the standards set by the trade deal. If we are going to have a meaningful trade deal, we have to have some kind of process of adjudication against that deal to ensure that the commitments made in the deal are actually followed through on. That is why these investor-state provisions are important. I think that point needs to be understood and appreciated by some members of the House and elsewhere who have focused their criticisms on this particular aspect of the different trade deals that we have seen here and seen debated elsewhere.

The second criticism we have heard, and we have heard this from the NDP members, is they are willing to support certain bilateral trade deals but have generally been suspicious or critical of trade deals that are undertaken on a more multilateral basis. I know they supported the Canada-Korea free trade deal and they are supportive, at this stage at least, of the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal, but they have made the point, in questions and comments, that these are bilateral trade deals and not multilateral trade deals. I scratch my head when I hear that point in terms of trying to understand what the actual difference is.

Of course, there is the obvious difference that one involves more countries than another but really, philosophically, multilateral trade deals move us faster forward in getting trade access to more countries. They allow us to advance our desire to access more markets and give more economic freedom to Canadians more quickly. The negotiation process can be more elongated and more complex, but there is no fundamental reason to support bilateral trade deals and not multilateral trade deals.

I would also make the point that if we are not keen on multilateral trade deals, effectively we shut out the possibility of trade with certain blocs of countries that have already entered into trading arrangements which preclude any individual country from within that arrangement from making individual bilateral agreements.

Within the European Union, of course, as we are discussing today, an individual country in the EU cannot go out and sign a bilateral trade deal with Canada because the conditions of the union are such that the union as a collective must sign these new trade deals to move forward.

The position of the NDP in accepting bilateral trade deals but not multilateral trade deals is effectively to shut off the possibility of trade with large regional blocs. I would just add that as we see the emergence of more of these regional trade blocs, that position would effectively really limit Canada's ability to expand its economic relationships with other countries. I think we should hope for trade deals that bring in as many countries as possible, that expand the sphere of prosperity and of freedom, and cast that net as wide as we can.

The third criticism we have heard throughout this debate is people say that a trade deal is going to put jobs at risk. Usually it is not phrased like that. They say that in a particular sector we're going to expose jobs to competition, so we're going to lose those jobs.

It, of course, does not follow that when we open up the possibility of exchange and competition we are necessarily going to lose those jobs. We may well create the conditions for improvements in that sector, for the expansion of jobs here, and improvements in technology and other things through competition that is beneficial to consumers.

What is the alternative to open trade? One can understand maybe the allure of protectionism, putting up trade walls and preventing one's industry from needing to compete against other industries, but in the long run, protectionism does not create jobs; it kills jobs, because when one limits the market access of one's industry, investments that might otherwise get made here get made in other places. In the long run, we do not see the new investments in a protectionist environment that would actually create jobs for the future.

On this side of the House, as the Conservative Party, we are thinking not only about the businesses and jobs that exist today, but the businesses and jobs that do not yet exist but could exist under the right conditions. When we move forward with a robust trade agenda, it is with an eye, yes, to benefiting consumers and existing businesses, giving them access to new markets, but also to opening up the opportunity for businesses which do not yet exist to come into existence.

With this trade deal, Canada would be extremely well positioned to encourage the creation of new business. We would have preferential trade access to the United States and the European Union. I might add that we would have an opportunity, if the government proceeds in this direction, to pursue deeper trading relationships with major economies and like-minded democracies within the Asia-Pacific region. We have a real opportunity.

On the other hand, when we open ourselves up to competition through trade, it is important that we do not take steps that undermine the competitiveness of our industry. I worry that the government is doing things that are going to, in fact, undermine our competitiveness, such as the new taxes the Liberals are imposing, the carbon tax, the increase to the payroll tax, the elimination of the small business hiring credit, the effective tax increase on small businesses.

Yes, there is a squeeze on the taxation side coming from the government which is putting our economy at risk and is hurting our competitiveness, but nonetheless, in general terms, we see that opening ourselves up to competition and the benefits that come from exchange will benefit us and create jobs in the long run. The strategy of building up protectionist walls does not encourage investment. It is not a job-creation strategy. Protectionism is a job-killing strategy.

One of the other points we hear from those who are critical of trade is the need to be hypersensitive around the issue of a trade balance, that we cannot be running a trade deficit, that we should always be trying to export more than we import. Let us be very clear about what the objective of trade is. Fundamentally, the objective of trade is to increase the standard of living and quality of life for Canadians.

Some people still think about trade in this kind of 17th century mercantilist economic mode, where it is all about exports over imports. We have heard this criticism, in fact, from the government, saying that we have a trade deficit and that is somehow catastrophic. The reality is that a trade deficit, unlike a budget deficit, is not something that has to be paid off. In any normal economic exchange system, there are going to be times when one imports more than one exports, or vice versa.

Finally, I want to talk about the issue of fair trade. This is a frequent talking point around the trade issue: yes, free trade, but what about fair trade? When governments enter into trade negotiations, they are not themselves determining what goods will be traded. They are not determining the prices or the terms of trade between countries. Rather, they are undertaking negotiations to open up the space for trade to occur between private actors in individual countries. It is up to those private actors, of course, to make trades and exchanges that they regard as being in their own interests. People do not make exchanges if they are not usually beneficial. That is fairly clear in any normal interaction.

In the international trade discussion, people are often asking whether it is fair and who is winning in that trade deal. I made this point before. When I go to the grocery store, who is winning? Is it me or the store? Actually, we are both winning. The store is getting my money and I am getting groceries that I need. Mutually beneficial exchange is not about someone winning or losing; it is about everyone being better off.

Therefore, when governments undertake trade negotiations, they open up the possibility for a mutually beneficial exchange to occur between individuals in the different countries. There might be certain conditions, where in the absence of proper environmental protections or proper labour rights protections, there would be an unfairness that would result from that. However, generally speaking there is no creation of compulsory trade as a result of these agreements, so there is not a need to worry that there would be some unfairness that emerges in trade, for instance, in an agreement between Canada and the EU. What we are doing is giving private individuals and companies the freedom to enter into trading relationships that are beneficial for them, for their customers, and for the people they are exchanging things with.

I hope that for those members of other parties who are listening, this addresses many of the principal criticisms of trade deals that are out there, the criticisms around investor-state provisions, around multilateral versus bilateral trade deals, around jobs, around trade balance, and around questions of fairness.

If I can, in the time I have, I will briefly make some comments about the future of our trade agenda.

I commend the government on moving forward to implement a number of trade initiatives that were begun, and, in the case of this deal, signed by the previous government. It is a credit to the Liberals that they are moving forward with a trade deal that was put on their desk.

On the other hand, we had the trans-Pacific partnership, which was put on their desk, and they dragged their feet and it is still there. Of course, the signals we are getting from the American administration has put a big question mark beside that. In whatever form, it is critical that the government lead on trade in the Asia-Pacific region. There is huge opportunity for Canada to expand its economic activity in the Asia-Pacific. The basic logic of emphasizing our relationships in the Pacific is still very much there. It is important, because we need to make trading agreements with like-minded democratic countries, like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, countries that share our values, and to use those agreements to set the terms of trade in a way that is consistent with the rule of law in that region. That is an opportunity that we have, and we need to lead and speak clearly about the value of that trade.

We need to work with the Americans to have them continue to engage with freer trade in the Asia-Pacific region as well. I was always a big supporter of the trans-Pacific partnership and will continue to be. In whatever form we move forward, I would encourage the government to not just move forward with some of the agreements that we signed, but to undertake new trade initiatives that reflect new challenges and new realities, and especially to consider that opportunity and need in the context of the Asia-Pacific region.

We know, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the benefits that come from free trade, and from this deal in particular. Estimates tell us that this could bring in a $12-billion annual increase to Canada's economy. That is the equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average family's income and almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. That involves exposing existing industry to competition. It involves giving consumers the benefit of a much wider degree of trade access, and it creates an opportunity for not one side to win or lose, but for Canada and Europe to prosper and to strengthen ourselves together.

I hope we move forward with this, and I hope we see the continuing development of new trade initiatives that will allow us to achieve shared prosperity with other countries as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated and have had the opportunity to emphasize how important trade is to Canada. The member made reference to the whole idea of protecting investors, and that is incorporated into the agreement. It is reciprocal between the EU and Canada, which in essence allows for companies to invest with confidence.

Could the member expand on that point, that if potential investors in the EU are looking at investing a significant amount of resources into Canada, that the design and inclusion of that aspect of CETA is to provide assurances? By doing that, we believe there will be more opportunities for Canada to export goods and to see more investment coming into Canada. Could the member provide some further comments in regard to the benefits of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend is quite right to point out that there is a connection between these things. I spoke specifically about investor-state provisions as part of the normal functioning of a rule of law society in which businesses, private individuals, and civil society groups can bring actions against the government when those actions of government do not conform to its commitments as defined in law. However, the member is quite right to point out that there is a connection between that and investor confidence. When there are mechanisms for investors who have been wronged to seek the appropriate review and remediation of that wrong, that obviously gives them a greater confidence and a greater willingness to invest.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was especially interested in the part of the member's speech that dealt with the rule of law. In my mind, when we think about the rule of law, I think there are three basic constituent elements: legality, democracy, and human rights. We know that the bills passed in the House of Commons eventually become law. That is the legality part. Democracy comes in because the House is democratically accountable to the people of Canada; therefore, we have the authority to bring forth laws for the good of the nation. The human rights aspect is that all of our laws are subject to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My question centres around the investor-state dispute resolution system, which has now been changed to the investor court system. The language has been watered down a bit, but it still comes to this fundamental philosophical question. If we have some kind of a dispute resolution system, which I would argue does not have any democratic accountability, how does he mesh that with his explanation about the rule of law? Where is that missing key component to the rule of law, the democratic accountability?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting and important question that my friend has asked, but it is important for him to acknowledge that democratic accountability does not preclude the exercise of real power by adjudicative bodies that are not themselves democratic. We do not elect judges, and I do not think that the NDP members support, or have ever supported, the idea of electing judges. That is because they appreciate the fact that democracy takes place in terms of setting law in place. Typically in a rule of law society, there is the adjudication of individual claims that takes place underneath that legal framework, and that adjudication takes place in a context that is more independent.

My point is that there is a continuity between that process as it happens in the context of domestic law and these investor-state type of provisions. You have an adjudication of commitments that have been made by democratic governments, and have been ratified, passed, and supported by democratic legislatures. We have made the commitment, but the enforcement of those commitments is done through independent adjudicative bodies. The member might not like that in this case, but I think he would have to acknowledge that it is consistent with how rule of law systems practise these kinds of things across the board.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have been asking members on both sides of the House today is on their thoughts about now until 2019. This is one of the last free agreements, which was mostly negotiated by the previous Conservative government and finalized by the current government, but we do not see much new in the agenda. There is not much in the way of a new pulse on where the new markets are going to be and what the new negotiations are going to be.

The previous government left off in some early discussions with Mercosur, a very few countries, but we have not really heard anything. The mandate letter to the Minister of International Trade mentions India and China, and a hopeful statement about Japan, but it is very brief.

I would like to hear from the member whether he shares my concern, which is that we may very well not see a single new free trade agreement brought before the House for consideration and ratification if it is a good free trade agreement. I would like to know if he agrees with me that this is an issue of concern between now and 2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the member that if not a lot happens between now and 2019, the Conservatives will certainly resume a robust trade agenda after 2019.

The question of where we should be going next is an important one. Through the work of Brian Mulroney's Conservative government, there was free trade with our partners in North America. Now, thanks to the hard work undertaken by the Harper Conservative government, we are moving forward with trade with Europe.

The next step, and the member alluded to this, is to expand trade with like-minded democracies within Asia. Of course, there is a lot of economic growth happening there and some real opportunities. The Conservative government began the process of seeking free trade with India. Given the strong people-to-people ties that Canada has with India, and the economic opportunities that exist there, this is certainly very important. However, we should pursue multilateral trade arrangements within Asia as well.

The government has talked about seeking bilateral free trade with China, but I would suggest that if we focus on working with like-minded democracies, we have an opportunity to establish the terms of trade along rule of law lines that respect human rights, labour rights, environmental concerns, and other issues, and we can do that through a kind of partnership like the TPP. That would be a good basis on which to explore subsequent trade with China and other powers. However, the first step is to establish partnerships with countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, the Philippines, and others, with whom we clearly have relatively similar systems of government and ideas about the rule of law and democracy.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan dismissed concerns about the investor-state provisions of CETA by saying that provisions of trade agreements need to be subject to some sort of adjudication. I wonder if he would agree with investor rights being subject to the same dispute resolution process as the rest of the agreement.

Certainly what New Democrats are concerned about is not having an adjudication process, but creating an entirely separate adjudication process just for investor rights, which privileges them over many other rights and considerations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear the member say that he is at least supportive of the principle of adjudication in the context of trade agreements. I do not know if that is the case with all of the critics of these provisions who have raised them. Of course, the specific mechanism for adjudication has to be one that is negotiated in the context of trade agreements, and it has to therefore involve an identified mechanism that is invested with the trust of both countries.

I do not agree at all with the suggestion that this somehow puts other rights on the back burner, especially since this and other trade deals are very much designed to ensure the protection of other kinds of rights. It is important to underline on trade deals that they are not just about looking at the economic dimension, but that there are always discussions of the other important dimensions of life. Trade deals are designed to ensure the protection of those things. Therefore, it is not at all correct to say that other rights are somehow pushed to the side.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House and talk about the Canada-European Union trade agreement, which is one that I have spoken on a number of times. We have the opportunity to stand in the House to speak about Canada's opportunities on the world stage and the promotion of Canada on the world stage. It always brings me back to the opportunities and experiences I had in the promotion of Canada for over 20 years working in aviation and trade. Indeed, it brings back some great memories.

I am going to focus my speech on a couple of different areas. Obviously, we have heard a lot of speeches over this debate and, indeed, on the earlier versions of this agreement. I am going to talk about why Canada has this agreement, and then get into the agreement as it sits today. I also want to talk a little bit beyond the trade agreements, what we need to do, and what the government needs to do to make sure that we capitalize on the opportunities that trade agreements bring.

The question we always have with respect to a trade agreement as we move forward is making sure that it is the right deal for Canadians, and making sure that Canadian jobs are always promoted first and foremost, and are top of mind. I know that for the previous government under Stephen Harper, first and foremost of critical importance was creating an environment that precipitated investment and trade, and also furthered trade. This was what Prime Minister Harper and his strong team of ministers focused on.

Again, we should always be mindful that we give kudos to the hon. colleague, the member for Abbotsford, who moved this agreement to where it is today. As well, we had the former minister of trade, the member for York—Simcoe, as well who did considerable work in moving agreements such as this.

If I remember correctly, our former Conservative government put over 40-plus agreements in place. The reason we got over 40 agreements done and in place is that we had a focused government that understood that Canada first and foremost is indeed a trading nation. We understood that our economy is predicated on the commodities that we produce. One in five Canadian jobs is directly or indirectly linked to trade. Trade allows us to secure and be the drivers of our prosperity. Every billion dollars in exports generates as many as 11,000 new jobs.

The Canada-EU agreement will be one of the largest agreements that we have had since NAFTA. The history of our Canada-EU relations goes back to 1497 when John Cabot landed. He was looking for spices, but instead found fish, cod at the time, and lots of it. Subsequently, a lot of boats from Europe came to get our cod, because Canadians had some of the best north Atlantic cod. It was dried, salted, and shipped over to Europe. This expanded into the fur trade with our first nations and further with the Hudson's Bay Company. We have a long history of trade with Europe.

As I said, earlier, the Canada-Europe trade agreement is a landmark agreement. It has been mentioned in the House that it really is a gold-plated agreement. It sets the standard for agreements.

This agreement connects producers to over 500 million consumers. It connects our producers to the world's largest economy. Indeed, the EU represents 500 million people and an annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion.

The day that this agreement comes into place, it is said that Canada could experience a 20% boost in bilateral trade, and I believe it has been mentioned time and again that we could experience a $12-billion annual increase in our Canadian economy. That is not chump change. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of jobs. That represents over 80,000 new Canadian jobs.

On the day that it comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines on non-agricultural products would be duty-free, along with close to 94% of all EU tariff lines on agricultural products.

The Canada-EU agreement would also give Canadian service providers, which employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of Canada's total GDP, the best market access the EU has ever granted to any of its free trade agreement partners.

This agreement would also give Canadian suppliers of goods and services secure preferential access to the world's largest procurement market. The EU's $3.3-trillion government procurement market would provide our industry and our service providers with the most significant new export opportunities that they have seen in decades.

We have talked a lot about what CETA would bring and we have talked a lot about when it comes into force. I always like to bring it back to what it means for my province of British Columbia. I am the first to stand to say how proud I am to be from British Columbia and to be one of the MPs from there. The EU is already B.C.'s fifth largest export destination and it is our fourth largest trading partner. British Columbia stands to benefit significantly from the preferential access to the EU market. Once in force, CETA would eliminate tariffs on almost all of B.C.'s exports and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. The provision of CETA would help erase regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights, and ensure more transparent rules for market access. B.C. would be positioned to have a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. We have one of the most business-ready and most competitive business environments and supportive climates in B.C. Our province consistently receives AAA credit ratings. We have vast resources, low tax rates, a stable and well-regulated financial system, and a fiscally responsible government that attracts investment from around the world.

Canada used to have that, as well.

In the previous government, we had a government that understood that to be competitive on the world stage, we had to create a business environment, an investment environment, with low taxes, quality jobs, quality tradespeople. Our government understood that.

B.C. is at the commercial crossroads of Asia-Pacific and North America. We are also equidistant, in terms of flights, between Asia and the European markets. Our fish and seafood exporters would benefit from CETA. I have said this before.

The seafood industry has gone through many transitions and, indeed, faces an uncertain future. We are just finishing up our study of the Fisheries Act review. We studied the northern cod. We are seeing that fishery has yet to rebound. We have studied our Atlantic salmon fisheries, as well. We know that our fishing communities on the east coast are hurting, but there are incredible opportunities for them. When CETA comes into force, almost 96% of EU tariff lines for fish and seafood products would be duty-free and on 7%, 100% of the products would be duty-free.

It is hugely important because the EU is the world's largest importer of fish and seafood products. EU tariffs for fish and seafood average 11% and can be as high as 25%. It comes down to a competitive advantage, and Canada has it. Once the deal comes into force, Canada can be even more competitive on the world stage.

I talked a lot about what CETA would do and what it would bring, but I want to focus on getting agreements in place, what that means, and how we go about doing that.

We have strong familial ties with Europe. There is a large European diaspora in Canada making sure we can connect with those Canadians. Getting trade access is about more than just formal agreements. It is not enough to just sign the agreement. We have to make sure we have resources and that we are doing everything in our power to build the capacity to take advantage of these opportunities. Whether it is a strategy that looks at our ports or an airports strategy, the previous Conservative government understood that. We invested in our trade commissioners. We invested in making sure that our air policy was there to support our trade and agreements.

I want to talk a bit about that. As we said, getting the agreements across the finish line is just one thing, but we need to make sure that we get a strategy that leverages all of our advantages, including our geographic advantages at home and abroad. Whether it is our trade commissioners, whether it is making available marketing dollars or export investment dollars, it is always so critically important that there is a holistic program that backs up any trade agreement. Access to markets and trade promotion are futile if we cannot move the goods we produce faster and more efficiently than our competitors.

Our former Conservative government invested $14.5 billion in our gateway program, into our ports, our airports, and our transportation networks. We have a world-class multimodal system that competes with none other. We are well positioned to take advantage of our geographic position. In 2006, under former Prime Minister Harper, we launched the Asia–Pacific gateway program, and in 2007 we started a national policy framework for strategic gateways and corridors. On that, I would like to get into a bit about our gateway system. It is incumbent upon us that we talk about this. Again, signing the agreements is just one part of it. We have to be able to make sure that we can move our goods and move the people faster and more efficiently than others before.

I have spoken about the port of Prince Rupert time and again, the closest marine port to Asia compared to any other western seaport. It allows us the competitive advantage that our goods can arrive one to two days faster than from any other west coast port. As I said before, it means that products from and to North America arrive at their destination quicker, with less fuel and less risk. We also have the fastest and greenest road and rail networks into the U.S. Midwest, running right straight through Canada and into the heartland of the U.S. I mentioned the Prince George Airport, my home airport, that has the third longest runway in Canada. It was an investment that our previous government made so that we can compete on the world stage. That is just in my riding.

Port Metro Vancouver is North America's most diversified port. It trades $75 billion worth of goods with more than 160 trading economies annually. The port-related activity alone has an economic impact of $9.7 billion a year and continues to grow. These are all great investments that our previous government put in, and again it is about making sure that once they get that agreement in place they can capture those opportunities.

I want to talk again about the gateways. We have three major gateways in Canada. There is the Asia–Pacific gateway. We have the Ontario–Quebec continental gateway that our previous government invested huge amounts of money in. Thanks to CentrePort in Winnipeg and other trade corridors and supply chain logistics investments in marketing, we were able to capture that movement into the U.S. heartlands.

The Atlantic Canada gateway program in 2007 capitalized on many centuries of background in terms of using Atlantic Canada as a springboard into the U.S. for trading.

Our Conservative government understood that investments went beyond just signing an agreement. We looked at investing in our trade corridors. Whether it was the third largest container port of Halifax or North America's most efficient class 1 rail carrier, double-stacked container service on both the east and west coasts, our government understood that it took more than just signing agreements to allow our consumers and producers to capitalize on them.

Trade is such a complex file. We have to look at many things. We talked about the umbrella, about ensuring we had a bit of strategy, a holistic approach to this. I go back to the agreement done in 2007. Our Conservative government recognized the direction we where moving in with our trade agreements and we recognized where we wanted to go. In December 2009, we signed a comprehensive air transport agreement, which allowed Canadian carriers access into 27 other markets. We reciprocated on that agreement, allowing those member states access to our Canadian market.

Atlantic Canada is situated right on the flight path. One of the very first airports in North America was Gander airport. It gets an incredible amount of traffic from Europe in the trans-Atlantic cargo network, and it is through the investments that our government made. We looked at our air policy to ensure our air cargo policy was where we wanted to go, that our aspirations matched what we were doing with our regulatory and policy framework.

Our government invested in information and technology to ensure Canada was in tune with some of its largest trading partners, whether it was the U.S. to the south of us and our largest trading partner, or the EU. We wanted to be in line with the information and technology of those countries. We wanted to ensure we had a secure supply chain as we moved forward.

I talk a lot about trade gateways and the promotion of Canada, because I was on the front line of promoting Canada. We always ask, why Canada? I had the opportunity to be in Europe this past fall. I boarded a bus with my Canadian pin. A handful of people wanted that pin. People want to trade with Canada. They want to be associated with Canada. Why? Because we have the rule of law and one of the most safe and secure countries in the world. We have a political system that rivals any.

Up until the last 18 months, for the most part, we had a secure business environment. Canada did not have a large debt, which usually creates political unrest, certainly with investors. We had principled and pragmatic leadership that saw where Canada wanted to go, but we looked at our policies, whether it was our air policy, our regulations, or our framework. We ensured our small and medium-sized enterprises could take that opportunity to invest, expand and see the benefits of trade agreements, whether it was our go global fund that helped with funding and marketing products.

Signing an agreement is just one part of the process. We celebrate and congratulate the government across the way for getting CETA to the finish line, but there are a whole host of things that need to accompany that agreement. Our Conservative government set them up very well. We hope the Liberal government recognizes that, sees this through and continues with some of the programs our government funded. We funded a number of different initiatives because, under Prime Minister Harper, we understood that Canada was a trading nation first and foremost and that Canadian jobs and Canadian prosperity depended on trade.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, trade is going to allow us to export products, which is very important. It is good for the manufacturing sector. In my riding, a lot of research and development is taking place. I have three post-secondary institutions, and I am very proud of the research they are coming up with that ultimately leads to the creation of products and makes Canada sought after by the world in having these products brought to their markets.

The member commented on how the agreement would impact jobs. I would like to hear a little more about that in terms of areas like research and development and how the agreement would lead to job creation for Canadians, which is one thing on which our government has been very focused.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the benefit of trade agreements is our Canadian products and Canadian producers. We have some of the best and brightest, innovative, and technological companies in the world right in Canada. Being able to access new markets, the world's largest economy, is only going to create more jobs.

I will bring it back to the comment I made before about the third grader in my riding who asked what trade agreements did. If that third grader can only manufacture widgets and sell them within his small community of a couple hundred, it is not going to create jobs, and slowly but surely his product is not going to have any more market. If we can open it up to the communities and countries around us, all of a sudden that product can get to all of the largest economies in our world, whether the U.S., the EU, or, I hope, an Asia-Pacific pact, or the TPP. Trade is good. Trade creates jobs and ensures that our best and brightest are showcased on the world stage, and that is so important.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the labour mobility provisions of CETA would allow European companies to bring their own workers into Canada, without having to go through our immigration system. The deal would also allow vessels flagged in ports of convenience, like Malta and Cypress, to operate in Canadian waters, despite atrocious labour standards on board.

I wonder if the member for Cariboo—Prince George shares our concerns about CETA's effective expansion of the temporary foreign worker program.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, coming from the NDP. It is another poke in the hole of something, or a witch hunt on trade. The New Democrats say that they are standing up for Canadians, but they will find every excuse to go against a trade agreement. The bottom line is that in uncertain times, as we are seeing with our largest trading partner south of the border, we need to ensure we are not putting all of our eggs in one basket. That is exactly what CETA will bring.