Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2018

Motions in amendment

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech and a lot of the things brought forward by my colleague.

She mentioned some of the people she worked with before and some of the hard work they have done with trade agreements. Could the member comment further? She would know the history of some of the work they did. Our former minister is not in the House today, but he did a lot of work on that. Maybe the member could remind us of some of the tremendous work he did.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister was instrumental in this trade agreement, the trans-Pacific partnership. In the middle of fighting an election, he managed to get this trade agreement signed. He took time away from his own campaign and, thank goodness, not only got the job done on the TPP but won his election as well.

I would also like to mention Gerry Ritz, who was a very effective trade minister. We all worked together on the comprehensive trade agreement with Europe. Talking about real consultation, those ministers went to small communities, not just to Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, and called in people from the farming and other sectors who would potentially be impacted by any agreement. They listened to and took their concerns into consideration before they started negotiating. That is why we are in a position to pass a trade agreement successfully at this point.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, since the CPTPP includes investor-state provisions that allow investors to sue Canada for regulating in the public interest on issues like health and the environment, could the member tell the House why she supports an agreement with such harmful provisions?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does not matter what I did or did not say in my speech, and I certainly did not touch on anything she is asking about. The point is that the NDP would find something wrong with any trade agreement, because they do not agree with them.

Over the weekend, I was speaking to line workers from the auto manufacturing sector, and even those who do not work on the line, who are worried about their neighbours and family members and their businesses. They were worried that they would be impacted if the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement did not go through. They said that it is so important that we also have other agreements with other countries so that we can still build autos to go to other places, so that Windsor does not become a ghost town.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to support Bill C-79, the implementation of the comprehensive progressive trans-Pacific partnership.

We live in unprecedented times. Steadfast relationships we have had for years are being challenged, ideology is taking the place of facts and compromise and trust in international institutions and agreements are reaching a new low. These pillars, which are threatening us as never before, are really the very source of Canada's success diplomatically and economically.

Canada has a proud history organizing multilateral agreements and ensuring they will bring more than just military or economic security. Lester B. Pearson once said about NATO that it should, “promote the economic well-being of their peoples and to achieve social justice, thereby creating an overwhelming superiority of moral, material, and military force on the side of peace and progress.” Trade agreements like NAFTA and CPTPP are excellent examples of what Lester Pearson was talking about.

In the time I have today, I would like to delve into the importance of trade to the future of Canada.

The CPTPP is a major trading bloc, comprising 11 countries, representing 495 million people and a combined GDP 13.5% of the overall global GDP. This is where the next century of growth will occur and the CPTPP is a bridge for Canadian goods and services into this important and expanding market.

Canada is the fifth largest agricultural exporter in the world, and the industry employs 2.3 million Canadians. That is one in eight jobs in Canada. When CPTPP enters into force, more than three-quarters of agriculture and agri-food products will benefit from immediate duty-free treatment, with tariffs on many other products to be phased out over time.

This is very important for my riding of Guelph, which is an agricultural centre for Canada, both in research and in production. This is going to create new market access opportunities for Canadian pork, beef, pulses, fruit and vegetables, malt, grains, cereals, animal feeds, maple syrup, wines from Niagara, spirits, processed grain and sugar.

CPTPP will eliminate 100% of the tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products. The vast majority of tariffs would be eliminated immediately, while a smaller number would be phased out over periods of up to 15 years. Tariff eliminations will make Canadian exports of a wide range of products such as salmon, snow crab, herring roe, lobster, shrimp, sea urchins and oysters more competitive, while providing protein to a growing part of the world.

Coupled with Canada's new oceans protection plan, which will help preserve and sustain Canada's coastal waters and fish stocks, the CPTPP will also offer Canadian fisheries a sustainable industry that can supply these growing Asian markets.

The CPTPP will benefit more than just Canada's agricultural sector. This agreement offers plenty of opportunities for Canadian industry. Under this agreement, 100% percent of tariffs on industrial goods and consumer products will be eliminated. The majority of Canadian industrial goods exported to CPTPP countries will be duty-free immediately upon entry into force of this agreement, with most remaining tariffs on industrial goods to be eliminated over 10 years.

Guelph is home to Japanese based employers Hitachi Construction Truck Manufacturing and DENSO Manufacturing. Even Sleeman Breweries is owned by Sapporo from Japan. This provides us excellent business connections by one of the key countries in the CPTPP. Canada being one of the first of the six signatories and core supporter of the comprehensive and progressive deal that was renamed by Canada, would be a further win for Canadian business and put us where we need to be.

Just as we cannot delay in getting this stable national democracy without progress in living standards, likewise we cannot have one world at peace without general social and economic progress.

The recently announced LNG development project includes Japanese partner Mitsubishi, showing Japan's commitment to investing in Canada's energy market to provide it a stable and trusted future supply of energy that has 25% less CO² per energy content than diesel and half the CO² to BTU that bituminous coal has. The $40-billion investment is Canada's largest external investment in the history of our country.

The CPTPP has measures to promote civil society and address concerns around labour and the environment. There is an entire chapter on labour and basic workers' rights. Rights guaranteed in the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work must be reflected in law and practice for member nations. This includes the elimination of child labour, forced labour, discrimination and respect for freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. Provisions in this chapter are also enforceable.

The CPTPP agreement includes provisions to enhance environmental protection in this region and to address global environmental challenges, which is one of the most ambitious outcomes negotiated by Canada to date. Provisions in this chapter are enforceable through the dispute settlement mechanism of the agreement. Again, it is another first for Canada.

Another way the CPTPP promotes the well-being of the middle class in Canada and other CPTPP nations involved is through a stand-alone chapter on small and medium-sized businesses in the text of the treaty. This is a first for any Canadian trade deal.

This chapter includes provisions to ensure that SMEs have access to information specifically tailored for their use, making it significantly easier for Canadian SMEs to explore and navigate the CPTPP markets and to develop trade with those nations. It also includes enforceable provisions on state-owned enterprises to promote fair business practices.

The world needs more Canada. Canada must use all the tools available to bring positive change to the global community. To confine ourselves simply to the diplomatic sphere denies us one of the most powerful levers at our disposal, namely, our economy.

Trade agreements are an excellent way for achieving these goals. They build on economic growth. They include social and environmental progress. At the same time, they benefit the middle class in the nation's involved.

Once the CPTPP enters into force, it will be one of the largest free trade agreements in the world and it will provide enhanced market access to key Asian markets. However, it is also part of a suite of agreements that we have around the world that include CETA, with us trading with Europe, and now includes the new USMCA agreement that is in stages of development with the United States and hopefully will come into force in the near future.

Canada must be a part of all these agreements. We are actually the only G7 country that is a part of all of these agreements. They give us the opportunity to grow our manufacturing industry and help our farmers and our intellectual properties reach new markets. They benefit Canada economically as well as socially and environmentally.

I am looking forward to supporting the legislation in the next bit. I am looking forward to helping in whatever way I can through the businesses and the people in Guelph.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will be supporting the legislation.

I want to ask the member an important question.

A couple of weeks after the current government was elected, the Prime Minister was down in Manila for the first APEC summit with Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama was quoted as saying that the US and Canada would soon be signatories to the original TPP, and Mr. Obama asked the PM to ratify the deal as soon as possible. At that time, the Prime Minister was not in a hurry. He said that the deal was made by a previous government and that he had to consult about it.

This week we have two deals. We have the CPTPP and this new deal with the Americans.

In hindsight, does the member think that instead of dithering on that first deal it would have been better for Canada if we had the original TPP or does he think the situation we are in right now, where we have lost quite a bit in the new Canada-US-Mexico deal, is going to be a better situation, with two separate agreements?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me a chance to highlight the fact that we did not rush into the deal with respect to a TPP. We wanted a comprehensive package that included safeguards on labour, safeguards on protecting women in the workforce and safeguards on the economy and the environment going hand in hand. Rather than rushing into that deal, we worked through the comprehensive part of it and were successful in renaming it a comprehensive deal.

It is the same with the deal that we reached this week with the United States and Mexico. We also negotiated comprehensive elements into that, which reflects the Canadian culture, our nature and where we want to see the world heading.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Like Guelph, Saint-Hyacinthe is a major centre for agricultural education and research.

I represent a riding where agriculture is very diversified. My colleague named the various sectors that will benefit from the TPP and some of those are in my riding.

I think it is a shame that we are entering into an agreement that pits farmers in the same country against one another. Some benefit and others do not. In my opinion, this does nothing to bring our communities together.

Pierre-Luc Leblanc is a major poultry farmer in my riding and the president of Éleveurs de volailles du Québec, the Quebec poultry farmers' association.

According to that association, under the TPP, the poultry industry will lose more than 2,200 jobs, which will slash their contribution to Canada's annual GDP by $150 million.

What does my colleague tell the dairy, poultry and egg farmers in his riding who are penalized by this agreement?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for welcoming the agriculture committee to her riding in the last few months. It was great to see her interacting with the industry. I know she is very passionate about that.

I would say this to the people who are working in the poultry industry. We are looking at a 2.1% change in quota coming in from other countries through the CPTPP. That will be phased in over a period of five years, beginning in five years, and will be phased in over another period of 15 years.

Therefore, it is important for them to understand that a light switch is not being turned on and immediately these changes will happen. That will give us an opportunity to develop value-added markets. If we can do value-added processing of chicken or poultry products, it gives us an enormous opportunity to ship those value-added products to the CPTPP countries. In the long run, I think we will see a great benefit for Canadian producers, even the ones within the supply-managed sectors, as we develop more value-add opportunities for Canadian businesses.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to talk about the CPTPP.

I would like to recognize a few members of Parliament who made tremendous strides for our country on trade. There were a great number of people on the negotiating team, but certainly I would like to recognize our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, our former agriculture minister, Gerry Ritz, and of course, our former trade minister, who is still a member of Parliament. Those three individuals worked tirelessly to make sure we brought this deal home in 2015.

There are a tremendous number of trade deals that were accomplished from 2005 all the way to 2015. It was right in the midst of the election when the TPP agreement was signed. The beginnings of it date back a decade ago now. We entered into it in 2012. It is so important to have tariff reductions for our producers and to have access to 500 million people. It is tremendous.

In my area of Huron and Bruce County, we produce a lot of beef, pork and different commodities that will be cash crop commodities that will be sold in those different countries. The reduction in tariffs makes us very competitive against the United States, Brazil, Argentina and different countries that we compete with. No one can compete with us on quality and reliability with all those products, but those other countries are growing all those different commodities. We know in Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia, we will see a big uptick immediately when the deal is finally ratified. That will be great for our producers. It will be quite exceptional. There are other areas, such as manufacturing, etc. where there will be benefits, but in our area, it will be good.

The CPTPP truly looks like what one would expect a traditional trade deal to look like. There is give and take, but at the end of the day, all the countries are winners. We are really making progress on that front. I think back to the time that the chair of the Dairy Farmers of Canada said that supply management is set up for the next generation. That is a quote that goes back to the 2015 election, after the TPP deal was signed. It was a deal where we were able to make some concessions on our supply-managed front, to a point they could accept, but at the same time, pursue the interests of our non-supply-managed agricultural sectors and have tremendous gains.

Today, I called a few agricultural processors in my riding to see if they would like to make some comments on what they see is the future of this trans-Pacific partnership deal. They would not give me any comments. What did they want to talk about today? They wanted to talk about the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement. They were furious on a number of different fronts, and they were furious at the Prime Minister. I tried to get them to give me a quote on CPTPP and maybe throw me something on Japan, Vietnam or something they would see. They did not want to talk about that. In fact, they did give me a quote. It was a quote regarding the current Prime Minister, and I am sure I would be thrown out of the House if I used all the words one individual said to me.

They are furious. They are saying that trade deals are fine, that they are good and they will make good use of them, but the Prime Minister needs to wake up. He needs to realize the taxation disparity we now have between the United States and us. There are issues with red tape and bureaucracy in our country and they are going to continue to grow under the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. That is what they all wanted to talk about today.

Obviously, we will be supporting the CPTPP. However, on the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, I said to one person today that it got so bad in the negotiations that we could not even negotiate getting the “C” in front of the “M” in the name. One would have thought the Prime Minister could have at least gotten the “C” in front of the “M”.

There are buy America provisions, steel and aluminum tariffs, further IP protection, pharmaceuticals and concessions on supply management that it appears none of them are going to ever be happy with. I am waiting to hear from the rural members of Parliament on the Liberal benches, and there are a couple. I am waiting for them to stand up for their farmers.

The hard pill to swallow for farmers in the supply-managed sector is that they did not get anything. The government could have gone to them and said, “We had to make a few concessions, but look at what we got. We have more than we could ever imagine.” That did not happen. I know the Prime Minister has been asked about 27 times in question period to state one concession from the U.S. administration and his hair almost lights on fire because he cannot think of one. The negotiations went on for 13 months and we have nothing to show for it, except a really bad deal, because nothing was dealt with on buy America.

Wisconsin wanted access to Canada for its dairy farmers and yet it is one of the biggest buy American states in the United States. One would have thought the Prime Minister or one of the people on the trade team would have thought that maybe they could get a few percentage points on access for dairy and in return the others would have to take buy America out of the equation, or at least get something.

I would say the Liberals are lucky that Stephen Harper got this one to the finish line. However, the U.S. deal is your baby and you did not even get it to the one yard line in your own end.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he is to address the Chair and not the individual party or members.

It being 5:34 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 4 to 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 4 to 7.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #894

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 and 4 to 7 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.