Debates of Sept. 17th, 2018

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really want to go back to the issue of supply management. I feel that in trade agreements this has become kind of the favoured way for Canada to make concessions on the table.

The people who are hurting for that are our farmers. We hear, clearly, from farmers from coast to coast to coast that they do not want to give up their family farms. They do not want to give up the supply management that has worked so well for our system, that has kept our milk prices competitive, that has kept our food local, that has kept hormones out of our milk and that has responsible animal treatment on our farms.

There are family farms in my riding that are 100 years old or more. I do not really understand how the Liberals can say on one hand that they will protect something, but that they then continue to give up. In CETA, they gave up on supply management. In CPTPP, they are doing the same. At the same time, something is happening, and there is a lot of speculation as to what is happening, in the NAFTA negotiations.

I wonder if the member could provide us with some insight as to what she thinks about the Liberal government saying that on one hand they will protect it, but then it is death by a thousand cuts to these farmers who are the backbone of our communities in rural Canada.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a member of Parliament from Quebec, where supply management is not only extremely important, but is also entrenched in our vision of agri-food development.

Our government's position is very clear: we firmly believe in supply management, and we are absolutely committed to it. Unfortunately, there is an ongoing misconception that Canada overprotects farmers with supply management, but I disagree. As we have heard many times, this system was designed so that the government would not have to subsidize dairy, egg or poultry producers. This system has served Canada well, and some countries are asking if they can adopt it. Personally, I am very supportive of maintaining supply management. All negotiations require concessions, but this government will absolutely support farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

I rise in the House today to reiterate to farmers that we will always stand by them and that we will continue to fight for them. For years, the Conservative and Liberal governments have conceded significant parts of Canada's dairy market to international partners. We need only look at the agreement with Europe, the TPP, the diafiltered milk file, and so on. Canada always makes concessions on the backs of farmers.

The Producteurs de lait du Québec, the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, and UPA Montérégie put their trust in this government, which keeps telling them that everything will be fine. When the Prime Minister was in Saguenay he told them that he would not make any concessions on supply management. Today, we are hearing a different story. It is not just one industry that is under threat today. Supply management is a pillar of our regional way of life, the safety net of our farms and our entire local and regional economy. Supply management is not just a way of protecting our farmers. It is also something that concerns each and every one of us, including Canadian consumers.

I have said all summer long that in Canada we cannot just open our refrigerators and not find milk, eggs or poultry. Supply management is the guarantee of the quality of our products, the assurance that Canadians consume products that have been tested and inspected and that meet strict standards in order to give our fellow citizens the very best of what we produce. In fact, more than 75% of Canadians support the supply management system. Is the government going to turn its back on three-quarters of the population?

I rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the farmers I met throughout the summer who shared their concerns with me. I held a press conference this summer with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé as part of the Saint-Hyacinthe farm Expo to reiterate our support for farmers, who keep wondering whether they will once again have to pay the price for this government's mismanagement. Dozens of farmers reached out to us to thank us for our tireless work on supply management.

On behalf of everyone in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale, but also on behalf of the 13,000 supply-managed farms across the country, I want to reiterate the NDP's request: Canada cannot make any concessions at the expense of farmers. If supply management falls apart, there will be immediate consequences for them and for thousands of farmers and agricultural producers. Does this government realize that that would shut down thousands of farms in Quebec and Canada, and cause the loss of thousands of direct and indirect jobs on our farms and in the food processing sector?

The government must not cave in to American pressure, for our farmers cannot give any more without putting their farms, their plans, and their families at risk. On their behalf, I call on the government to show real leadership.

In my riding, in Upton, more specifically, Martin Joubert and his wife, Émilie Courchesne, from Ferme de la Carrière, told me how important supply management is to the survival of their farm. If supply management breaks down then they will simply lose their farm. Producers like Martin are worried and rightly so. Everything rides on supply management because it is a system that works. The Prime Minister himself told farmers in 2017 that he would not make any concessions on supply management. It is time for him to put his money where his mouth is.

The NDP is the only party that has always defended supply management in its entirety as a way of ensuring our food sovereignty. It is people like Martin and his family that I stand up for every day in Ottawa, here in the House, and knowing how important supply management is to them I will continue to stand up for them. There are roughly 7,000 people like Martin Joubert and his family in Canada. In Quebec, nearly 4,000 farms need this government to show leadership and this Prime Minister to keep his promises not to make any concessions.

Dairy and agricultural production are key sectors of our economy, and keeping supply management is essential for them. Not only are local production and our ability to feed Canadians at risk, but thousands of jobs and family businesses across Quebec and Canada may well disappear.

Canada's government must vigorously defend supply management during NAFTA negotiations. It is all well and good to talk about another agreement today. We know that these negotiations are part of the bigger picture.

During the last two trade negotiations concerning the European Union agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we are debating today, Canada was already weakened by U.S. demands and gave up some market share of supply-managed sectors.

These concessions of 2% of our dairy market in the Canada-European Union trade agreement and 3.1% in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership translate into total losses of $260 million for dairy producers alone. To date producers have not been adequately compensated.

This summer, agricultural producers in my riding were asking me at what point would the system collapse. We have reached 16%. Will it be 17% or 18%? Was it 15% before the supply and demand system collapsed?

We must not say that it is only 1%, 2%, or 3%. That would cause major breaches that could destroy the system.

The fact is, the Canadian market is already one of the most open markets in the world because of those concessions. Canada imports 10% of its dairy needs, primarily from the United States, while the Americans import only 3% of their needs. I think they know what food security is all about. The same is true in the poultry sector, where Canadian imports surpass production by 16%, while the United States imports less than 1% of its production from Canada. We cannot concede any more without jeopardizing the viability of the sectors in question.

Supply-managed farmers should not have to pay the price for every round of trade negotiations, so I have the following questions. When will the government learn from its past mistakes? When will it finally show some leadership and refuse the Americans' conditions? How many losses and new obstacles do our farmers have to face before the Liberal government will finally take action for them, rather than against them?

As I mentioned, I spent the summer meeting with agricultural producers. In a riding like Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, our summer includes the Saint-Hyacinthe agricultural fair, where I spent five whole days, the corn festival, the Saint-Nazaire d'Acton pork festival, the Expo-champs farm show, and the Salon de l'agriculture trade show in January. Expo-champs is held on the side of the highway, in a field set up to showcase equipment and innovations. This summer, there was a lot of talk about smart agriculture. Farmers told me that given the uncertainty surrounding NAFTA and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, they are holding off on investing in their businesses. The next generation of farmers are very worried and have a lot of questions. Will they want to take over the family business under these conditions?

In Upton, in my riding, there are still two country roads where every lot is a dairy farm, which is extremely rare today in Canada. If we concede too much market share and the supply management system falls apart, the landscape of our regions is going to change. Right now, my riding is full of family farms. If the system falls apart, they would be replaced by farms raising thousands of animals. Is that what we want to see?

At the agricultural fair, people were very concerned about animal health and welfare and the quality of the foods we eat.

I learned from producers that Wisconsin's surplus exceeds Canada's total output. Our job here in the House is to protect the family farms that are emblematic of agriculture in this country. We have to make sure those businesses survive. We are here on their behalf, and we will continue to defend them.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on her excellent work with farmers in her region. We hear about it in Drummond, another place where agriculture plays a very important role.

I have here an article from La Terre de chez nous about how supply management took a hit in TPP negotiations. Now supply management is taking yet another hit. I met with dairy producers this summer too. They told me they are sick of always being the ones to take the hit. Farmers are coping with diafiltered milk, CETA, the TPP, and the demise of family farms, and I think they have just about reached the breaking point.

How can the Liberals justify their actions? They are doing exactly what the Conservatives did. Why are dairy producers and other supply-managed producers always the ones taking the hit? How can the government justify that? How can the government be okay with it?

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

Mr. Speaker, we built a collective system. The farmers that I represent refer to this as our collective wealth. It is a supply management system that relies on a collective organization and that allows farmers to work together and agree on how to do things.

I can understand that some people might find it tiresome to organize collectively, but we should be proud of this system. It works. In my riding, there are all sorts of farms. Beef, pork, and maple syrup producers would certainly be better off with this agreement in place, but they tell me that they do not want an agreement that would benefit them to the detriment of their colleagues, neighbours, and friends. That is what will happen if we abandon some of our agricultural sectors, and farmers are opposed to that.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we spent over a year doing consultations regarding the CPTPP. One of the things we heard from so many businesses was how important this type of agreement is for them in terms of diversification and not putting all of our eggs in one basket.

The chapter on labour mobility was a really important one and we heard from so many people who testified before the committee across the country. I am wondering if the member opposite, one, supports trade in general for a fair and just agreement and, two, can comment on the importance of labour mobility, so that if someone is working in the finance sector in Canada, that person can also go to a subsidiary or partner in the U.S. for short stays in terms of temporary work, to do management practices there.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not live on another planet. We know that we need agreements. That said, we are not sure how this one will protect Canada's industries. I represent a very agricultural riding, and I believe that this agreement will hurt the people and businesses that I represent, which is unacceptable.

I will continue to say loudly and clearly that we cannot sign an agreement that will kill businesses and sacrifice jobs here in Canada. There are also concerns about food security. We must never forget that we cannot rely on other countries for our basic food needs. That is a fundamental issue that we need to concern ourselves with.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, after a busy summer in Drummond. I had the pleasure of meeting with constituents, advocating various issues, and touring the municipalities I represent to attend events like festivals, barbecues, and celebrations.

Today is our first day back, and on the agenda is the Liberals' TPP 2.0. In reality, this is far from an improved version. It seems like the government figured it needed to diversify, so it decided to basically sign anything. This is essentially what is going on, and I will explain why in a little bit.

Over the summer I met with a number of people, including representatives from small farms, like those in Saint-Félix de Kingsey or Saint-Majorique, for example. More and more Canadians want to know what they are eating and consuming. I am obviously disappointed that the Liberal government refuses to make the labelling of GMOs mandatory. My constituents are also upset. People want to know more about what they are eating and they want to know the producers. Unfortunately, in the last 15 years we have seen a downward trend in the number of family farms. Human-scale farms are becoming rarer. I recently met with Roger Lafond, from Ferme Gerola, in Saint-Germain, Alain Brassard, the vice-chair of Les Producteurs de lait for Centre-du-Québec, and Christian Piau, from Ferme Botti, which is transitioning towards producing organic milk. These men told me that dairy production and the production of other goods under supply management have suffered enough. They have struggled enough in recent years.

I will give some examples. First, there is the free trade agreement with Europe. That agreement contains a concession of 2% of dairy imports in Canada. That is hurting our farmers. We should not forget that the government said it would set up a compensation program. Let us talk about that compensation program. UPA representatives came to see me to tell me what a terrible failure this program was. On February 4, 2018, Radio-Canada, among others, ran an article entitled, “Canada-Europe Agreement: Dairy Farmers Criticize Compensation Program”.

The article said the following:

Short application window, not enough compensation: the program set up by Ottawa [by the Liberal government, it should say] to compensate dairy farmers after the conclusion of the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, is being criticized. Some farmers and the Government of Quebec question the methodology chosen by Ottawa on the eve of signing another free trade agreement, the TPP, which will open the Canadian dairy market even further.

Canadians, the UPA, and farmers have come to see me to tell me that their application had been rejected. Unfortunately, they applied too late because the deadline was far too short. Just a few hours after the program opened, there was no more room. One dairy farmer, Yves van der Tol, added that it takes a lot of time and energy to prepare the submission. He said he did it himself, but some people hired consultants to prepare their file. They paid money only to have their application denied.

It is not a compensation program so much as an investment program. That is not so bad, except that it does not compensate all dairy farmers. Dairy farmers back home in Drummond are still suffering from this failing in the Canada-Europe agreement. Then there is the whole diafiltered milk crisis.

Since 2015, we have risen in the House countless times to talk about the urgent need to deal with the diafiltered milk crisis. It was not exactly rocket science, but the government dragged its feet for so long that dairy producers and processors took the matter into their own hands.

Those producers have a lot to say to the Liberal government, which said it would defend supply management but now says it plans to give up 3% of the market. Good thing the government is defending supply management. Just imagine if it were not. The market would be wide open. Dairy producers in my riding, in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and everywhere else in Canada are not at all pleased with what this government has done.

That is not the end of the story. Things are even worse than that, unfortunately. Contrary to what the Liberals might think, we are not against trade. What we are against are trade agreements that are not good for Canadians or, in this case, for farmers. We have to have trade agreements that combat inequality and climate change. This agreement does neither of those things, and that is another serious problem.

I had the honour of welcoming Iolande Cadrin-Rossignol to Drummondville, Drummond. She is the director of a documentary my colleagues have probably heard of called Earth: Seen from the Heart, which came out a few months ago. It is an adaptation of a book by Hubert Reeves that talks about the environment and features places that are incredibly significant from an environmental and biodiversity perspective, as well as places that are going to disappear unless we act now.

We held a screening of her film, and over 100 people came. In fact, there is still a waiting list, but residents of Drummond are invited to attend an additional screening next Sunday, September 23, at 2:00 p.m. at the Drummondville CEGEP. Registrations are still open, but people should hurry.

Here is what the director said: “I am happy to see the enthusiastic response to this film in Drummondville. It is clear that people are eager to save our beautiful planet, because it is the only one we have.”

The message of the film is a good illustration of why this agreement must not be adopted: it does not do everything necessary to fight climate change and protect the environment and biodiversity. It all goes to show that this government is in too much of a hurry. It is rushing to sign this trans-Pacific agreement, just as it rushed to pay $4.3 billion to buy a pipeline, angering the thousands of Drummond residents who did not want to buy a pipeline. Buying pipelines is not a government's job, least of all when that government claims to be interested in protecting the environment. That makes even less sense than this trans-Pacific agreement.

I have a lot more to say, especially about the notorious dispute settlement mechanism that also does not work. It makes no sense to be sued for opposing shale gas development in Quebec and to have to pay millions of dollars because we want to protect Quebec's water. Unfortunately, this mechanism is staying in the agreement, and that is unacceptable.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, for his comments on bringing family farms into the House of Commons. It is very important. It seems as though the Liberals are in a crisis about supply management. They are saying one thing, but they are doing another. That is becoming quickly exposed by Canadians and by the families in my riding.

I had a meeting late on Friday evening with dairy farmers, Bernard Nelson, Mark Stannard and Vicky Morrison, and our Essex County Federation of Agriculture president Lyle Hall. There is deep disappointment in what the Liberal government is doing.

Under the original TPP, there was an opening of supply management, but there was some money attached under the previous Conservatives that evaporated under the Liberals. We find ourselves in this situation because of the U.S. When it was in the TPP, it wanted access to our dairy market. That is where this came from. When Canadians went back to the table in the CPTPP, the Liberals were not able to get rid of this provision in the CPTPP. They had an opportunity to do it, but they did not stand strong and did not defend supply management and our farm families.

I thank my colleague for bringing forward those stories because these are real people. Talking about food safety and the health of Canadians is a big part of this conversation that cannot be ignored.

Does my colleague agree with the dairy farmers in my riding and has he heard from farmers in Drummond that this opening of our market is just the beginning of death by a thousand cuts to our farm families in Canada?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Essex for his kind words and good work on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

This agreement is far from being progressive. I do not understand why they included that word in the title. It was probably to project a good image. It is sad to say, but we all know how important image is to the Liberal Party. Calling an agreement progressive does not make it so. In fact, this agreement is not progressive. We want supply management to be fully protected. We must stop chipping away at it. Supply management has been eroded by the agreement with the EU, then by the CPTPP, and then some more in the NAFTA renegotiation. That is unacceptable. We cannot continue in this way as the people of Drummond have told me.

That is not all. The dispute resolution mechanism is extremely important. I did not have time to talk about it earlier. There again, it had to be renegotiated and rejigged because it was not working. We are abdicating our sovereignty. We are abdicating our right to protect our environment and enforce our laws. We create laws to protect the environment. Multinationals are taking us to court because they want to foster their unbridled growth whereas Canadians are asking us to protect our environment and our biodiversity. That should be renegotiated. Unfortunately, the Liberals caved when they renegotiated the agreement. The agreement's 5,000 pages are more or less the same as they were under the Conservatives. They are even worse as we have gone backwards.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way wants examples. Truth be known, the NDP does not support trade agreements. That is the reality. The voting record of NDP members clearly demonstrates that.

To recognize the importance of Canada being a trading nation, for example, I made reference to HyLife, which employs hundreds of Manitobans and 95% of what it produces is for export. Last weekend, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg North at Canada Goose where 700 new jobs are coming. Canada Goose exports jackets.

Would the member acknowledge that exportation is critically important to the creation of future jobs and having these trade agreements is one of ways we can secure these markets into the future?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support trade agreements, but not just any trade agreement. This is what we have been saying all day.

Under President Obama, the United States also developed a labour consistency plan with Malaysia and Brunei, to require that these countries respect labour standards. It is not complicated. We are talking about basic labour standards, including freedom of association and collective bargaining. This all disappeared under Liberal rule.

We support agreements that respect workers' rights. At the very least, we are asking that agreements respect the environment, workers' rights, and supply management.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to let the House know I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say once I conclude my remarks.

I am rising today to state my opposition to the trans-Pacific partnership. We could call it the CPTPP, or whatever kind of window dressing the Liberals want to add to pretend it is not just a deal that was negotiated in secret by Conservatives, ultimately to be signed by them with no real meaningful changes. However, I am not going to do that because I have more respect for the intelligence of Canadians than apparently some others in the House. I am going to call it the TPP. I just wanted to say at the outset that is something I am doing on purpose, not by accident.

I, and the NDP, have opposed many trade deals in the past. The reason I oppose this deal is that it is a deal for the few and not the many. That is the problem. There is a concept of trade in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party that is really just about corporations being able to use resources across countries to amass their own wealth but that does not actually allow that wealth to be shared by workers in the countries that are parties to this agreement. That is just as true for Canada as it is for many other countries. Not all trade deals have to be this way, but Liberal and Conservative governments in Canada have chosen to make them this way. That is why that period of corporate globalization happens to coincide with a growing proportion of the wealth produced in those years in these kinds of trade deals. These are the numbers we see over a 25- or 30-year period.

We have seen GDP growth and wealth increase, but the problem is that it is not finding its way into the pockets of the workers who are producing that wealth. A larger and larger percentage of that wealth being generated is going into fewer and fewer hands. It is not the NDP making that claim. We have seen many different organizations track that information and report on it. There is inequity built into these agreements.

What we have been trying to highlight in today's debate are the various mechanisms and what they actually mean for a Canadian worker when we get into the content of the agreement, not just in terms of what the exports at the company they work for are going to be but the wages they are going to be paid once they are in unfair competition with workers in other countries that do not have the same standards and under agreements that do not require some kind of meaningful reciprocity when it comes to labour standards.

Likewise for the environment. What happens to the environment in Canada if we are forced into competition with jurisdictions that do not have the same regulations? What happens to the Canadian worker when the job leaves Canada because we have now given equal access to our markets to products made in countries that do not observe the same standards?

That is why I am quite proud to stand in this place and say that I oppose this deal and the many deals like it.

I look forward to the day when we have a trade deal that actually puts the interests of the Canadian worker first. I look forward to supporting that deal. I do not think we are going to see it negotiated by the Liberals or Conservatives, at least not these iterations. The Liberals had opportunities to fix what was wrong with the TPP. They passed it up. What we are hearing out of the NAFTA negotiation rounds is that they are getting ready to sell out Canadian workers in another international trade deal all over again. The track record over the last 25 years or 30 years just is not there. What the Liberals have done most recently does not show that they have learned any lessons from that past.

We talk about investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, which is a bit of a mouthful, but what does it mean for an ordinary Canadian? What it means is that when one votes for a government that says it wants to institute certain standards for the public good, whether it is an environmental or labour standard, a foreign company could say that a provision, which might be in the public interest, does not matter, as it is going to cost them money. Therefore, one could be taken to court and sued not just for the company's loss of profits, although it gets that too, but also to block the policy change.

To add insult to injury, not only do we not get the policy that is in the public interest, but then we also have to pay money for not getting the policy, which is in the public interest.

This is not available to Canadian companies because Canadian companies do not actually have the same rights under ISDS provisions.

On the world stage, Canada is the biggest sucker for this kind of unfair treatment. I will reserve some of my more inflammatory characterizations of that for a private conversation.

Canada no doubt has been the biggest sucker for this kind of treatment. It has cost us more money than anybody else and now we are lining up another 10 countries that will be able to do that to us again. It does not make sense.

We can look at TPP and ask ourselves questions about how it is going to benefit the Canadian worker. When we look at chapter 12, which is something I have talked about many times in the House and in committee, there is nothing in there for a construction worker who is out of work.

Liberals talk about infrastructure investment and how they are going to put Canadians to work by investing in infrastructure on the one hand, but with the other hand, they are off signing a deal that is going to make it far easier for international contractors to bring in temporary foreign workforces to perform that work when Canadians are out of work. There is no infrastructure to track those workers once they are in the country. There is no infrastructure to find out what they are being paid. There is no infrastructure to figure out whether their training is adequate or if it meets our safety standards.

That is what is wrong with this agreement. On the one hand, Liberals are saying they want to fix the temporary foreign worker program and invest in infrastructure for Canadian workers and on the other hand, they are doing things that are actually going to make it easier for that work to get scooped up by other workers. It does not make sense.

In terms of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, we see it again with respect to the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Even though some of the worst provisions in the TPP have been suspended, we know that they could come back at any time. They are sitting there on the books waiting to drive up the cost of Canadian drugs, even as the government says it wants to bring about some kind of drug insurance plan. We are not exactly sure it is going to be the right kind, but while the Liberals are talking about trying to lower drug costs for Canadians, in their trade file they are off on their merry way making it easier for the international pharmaceutical companies that produce those drugs to raise the price. Once again the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, which is the charitable interpretation, or it could be that the voice of the left hand is being cynically put out there for political reasons, while the real hand of the government remains the right hand.

That is why international corporations get provisions in the main agreement and Canadian workers, if they get anything, get things in side agreements that are not binding and do not mean anything and can be overwritten very easily. That is another measure of how serious the government is.

If some of the language in those side agreements which represent meaningful measures when it comes to labour standards and environmental standards actually made it into the trade agreement, and they are not there currently, then we would have a deal that the NDP could look at seriously to consider whether or not it was going to support it. That would mean the government was actually trying to make a trade agreement that worked for Canadian workers instead of what amounts to a handful, relatively speaking, of Canadian investors and business people who are looking to invest abroad and want to do so on their own terms to get a big return. If they were to bring that money back to Canada and not send it off to Barbados, the Cayman Islands or wherever else they like to put their money, that would show GDP is going up and the Liberals and Conservatives could say they are increasing wealth.

However, if you follow the numbers, that wealth is not going to Canadian workers. That is why they are experiencing the highest levels of household debt in generations. That is why they are finding it hard to find housing. That is why they are struggling to pay the cost of their drugs. It is because of the way the wealth has been created over the last 25 or 30 years under these kinds of trade deals, not trade deals writ large.

The problem is that the Liberals and Conservatives in this place conflate their idea of trade with trade generally speaking. There are different ways to trade. In fact, we trade already with many of the nations that are part of the TPP. In many cases, there are hardly any tariffs on the trade happening between those countries.

That is one way to trade. We have been trading that way. We can expand trade under that model or we could do it under another kind of agreement that actually supports Canadian workers and supports employment for Canadian workers and actually recognizes the environmental impact of trading with certain nations that do not have the right standards. We could do that. That is still trade. In fact, I think it is a better kind of trade and it would be an effective kind of trade.

That is the kind of trade the NDP supports. That is what we are fighting for. It is why we are saying no to this agreement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to come back to the issue of what this trade deal would actually do to communities across the country given the attacks on supply management, which the government has refused to admit is happening within the agreement.

Those of us in the NDP are the worker bees in this Parliament. We have read through the agreement and have actually found its implications. We know that we are looking at losses of up to 60,000 jobs. In terms of supply management, we know what that means for farmers and farming communities in the hon. member's province of Manitoba and what it means in terms of industrial workers, particularly in the auto sector, and those lost jobs.

What does this mean? Why are the Liberals and Conservatives trying to ram this bill through rather than actually looking to fix all of the problems in this trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the great virtues of supply management is that it has allowed farmers to get a fair price for their product. When we do the comparison between Canadian prices and international prices, in fact, Canadian dairy products are priced competitively. What it means is that we have actually been able to support smaller dairy farms as opposed to just having an expansion of the corporate model. That means a populated rural Canada.

There is a downward trend that we are always trying to fight, but one of the ways we are going to fail in fighting that is by getting rid of supply management which actually allows smaller farmers to be successful and get a fair return for the work they are putting in. The U.S. is encouraging us now to abandon our supply management system. We hear reports of dairy farmers in the United States who are going out of business and in some cases, unfortunately, taking their lives because they are not able to get a fair price for their product. People are willing to pay a fair price for a fair product and we should not be adopting models that in other countries clearly are not working.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his very eloquent speech, my colleague expressed a lot of the frustration that we in the New Democratic Party feel when it comes to trade agreements simply because, as my other colleague pointed out, we do our homework. We look at these agreements from top to bottom. We examine them and make sure that we are representing Canadians and their interests. While members on the other side say the NDP is being anti-trade, do they say the same to the dairy farmers of Canada? Do they say the same to the building trades? Do they say the same to the Girl Guides and librarians? They were some of the 400 witnesses that appeared before the international trade committee.

People expressed their legitimate concerns. They are not anti-trade. They said that with this particular trade agreement, they have serious concerns with the provisions and the impacts they will have on their lives. New Democrats do not deny that and try to gloss it over with some pretty language. We acknowledge the fact that real Canadians feel a real threat to their daily paycheques and their very livelihoods. That is something it seems this Parliament is devoid of on both sides, in the official opposition as well as in the government. There is an absolute refusal to acknowledge how harmful this agreement would be to Canadians, and that does a disservice to trade.

Over the summer we had a conversation about NAFTA that we have never had in this country around trade. It benefits all of us to look at trade agreements in depth, in a way that we have not before, and challenge the way we have been treating the effectiveness of it. My colleague did this very well.

I want to speak to one particular point: the building trades. When representatives of the building trades appeared before the international trade committee as some of the 400 witnesses, they said they were not prepared to be before for us because they had never been part of a trade agreement before, and the government had not even informed them that they would be involved in a chapter in the agreement. The building trades see a direct threat to their livelihoods. I wonder if the member could speak to what he has heard from some key stakeholders in the building trades on the CPTPP.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I am a construction electrician by trade and a proud member of the IBEW. We already know of instances where international contractors are bringing in temporary workforces from outside the country, whether it is Ireland or elsewhere, to perform work when guys down the street are at home waiting for work. It is not fair. It was something that Liberals said they wanted to fix when they were looking at the temporary foreign worker program, but again, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Even as they say they are fixing the abuses of the TFW program, on the other hand, they are writing those very same abuses into the TPP, an internationally binding agreement. It makes no sense and the building trades know that full well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to this very important bill which we are opposing because of the profound negative impact that comes from the botched series of negotiations and the very ineffective way in which this government has implemented it.

I should start by praising the work of the trade critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Essex. She has been extraordinarily eloquent on this issue and she has done her homework. She has actually read through the agreement. She has identified the problems. She was the only member of the trade committee who actually listened to the witnesses, hundreds of whom came forward from a wide variety of backgrounds to talk about the problems with this agreement. She is the only member of the trade committee, having heard that feedback and input, standing up for those Canadians who came forward. We thank the member for Essex for her work on this.

I am in this House in part because of my interest in trade issues. I was interested in trade prior to becoming the CEO of a major social enterprise, WIDHH. That social enterprise was involved in exporting a wide variety of assistive devices for people who are deaf, deafened and hard of hearing. What we did was we opened up our website. We had a wide variety of products that are very unique. What happened when we did that is we found such an interest from the Americans, and even in Europe, that we were starting to receive orders.

I went to the federal government at the time. This was before I was a member of Parliament. I asked what kind of assistance was provided for export support. I was told there was not much and that I could get a loan, the same way I guess one can get a loan to go to a post-secondary institution. One can go into debt. That is about the only way the federal government will help with exports. That is the case today. We are talking 15 years later. We have one of the most deplorable records with respect to providing export promotion support of any major industrialized country. Australia provides about $500 million a year to bolster its export sector. Canada provides only a fraction of that, a few million dollars a year. This is, I think, the foundation stone to what has become a profoundly dysfunctional trade policy.

What we have is a government, first the Conservative government and now the Liberal government, signing agreements but without doing any sort of impact analysis, without understanding the economic ramifications of the agreements that it signs, and then throwing them on the floor of the House of Commons.

As we heard today, the debate has not been on the agreement. It has been from the NDP side, of course, because we have read the agreement. We are bringing forward the objections that were raised at the trade committee by Canadian groups from coast to coast to coast. However, the Conservatives and Liberals speak only in wild theory about trade. Of course we support trade, but there are two different approaches to trade that we see worldwide.

When it comes to Conservative and Liberal governments, there does not seem to be much difference between one party and the other, as we saw earlier today when a Liberal MP joined the Conservatives, and we have seen Conservative MPs join the Liberals. There does not seem to be any distinction between the two parties, aside from colours and some policy. However, regardless of which governments we have, Liberal or Conservative, they all support a very top-down model of trade. They call it free trade, but it is basically top-down. It certainly helps the lobbyists but it does not help regular folks across the country.

We take fair trade as something that we believe could bring the benefits of trade but actually makes sure that those benefits go to regular folks. There is nothing worse than a politician who, having not read an agreement, just gets some talking points and says that this has to be in the interest of everybody because trade is good, and votes to hammer so many sectors in the Canadian economy.

Let us look at the impacts. We have heard from a number of speakers today in this corner of the House talking about what the projected implications are of signing this agreement.

What we are seeing is a significant impact on the supply-managed sector, and not just on the supply-managed farmers in those sectors, whether we are talking about dairy or poultry or egg farmers; the impact is on their whole community when we dissect and rip apart supply management. Liberals may defend that by paying lip service to supply management on the one hand, but on the other hand they are signing agreements and trying to drive bills through the House that would actually devastate the supply-managed sector. However, we on this side actually believe in supply management as an effective approach.

We have been talking all day about the importance of ensuring that those supply-managed agricultural communities stay prosperous. We are going to lose thousands of jobs in the supply-managed sector if we ram this bill through.

Let us look at auto. The member for Essex knows that sector well, and she worked in the industry. We hear from that industry that it is going to lose tens of thousands of jobs. The total job loss that we are talking about when we talk about the auto sector, the supply-managed sector and other sectors is 58,000 jobs, yet we have yet to hear a speaker from the Liberal government address the concerns in this agreement and in the bill. I mean, they talk in highfalutin terms about trade being good, but not all trade is good if we devastate tens of thousands of jobs in our own economy and if we have not done an analysis of the impact on the economy. If we have not done our homework, not necessarily will every agreement be of benefit.

The Liberals have pointed out that there are a few key sectors that, at least at the national level, are supported and that there is potential for growth in a number of areas. However, I come back to my original point about when I was an exporter involved in a social enterprise that had a unique product. The government was not willing to provide export promotion support, and yet every other country does that. In terms of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the beef industry, in the U.S. they spend tens of millions of dollars a year. The United States government provides export promotion support. In Canada, there is nothing—crumbs.

Those sectors, in part, are reacting because of the incompetence of the government when it comes to trade management and providing export promotion support. Those sectors are hoping to provide some benefit or hoping to grow their sectors. However, the problem is not in whether or not we sign an agreement; the problem is a lack of export promotion infrastructure. This is not something the Liberals generated on their own. They inherited it from the former Conservative government.

I have talked to trade commissioners abroad as I have gone around to various countries, formerly as a trade critic, and talked to them about what kind of budgets they have to address these concerns about export promotion support. Many of the trade commissioners have said that they do not even have the budget to buy a cup of coffee for a potential client of Canadian exports. This is why, when we look at what the government had done, as we saw earlier this year, we are now seeing a record trade deficit.

The Conservatives signed a bunch of agreements. Now the Liberals are signing a bunch of agreements. They do not really look at them. They do not do any sort of economic analysis. They just throw them out on the floor of the House of Commons and say that trade is good, hallelujah, and then they leave. However, we see the devastation that results in our communities, because we are on the line with folks who are actually working for a living. What we see is record trade deficits as a result of this incomprehension between bad free trade agreements that these governments sign and the lack of supports for export promotion that could lead to good jobs in Canada.

We have heard today all of the problems that are in this agreement. We have heard the inability of the government to put in front of the House of Commons an agreement that will benefit all Canadians. We know for sure that we are going to lose tens of thousands of jobs. The government hopes that may be compensated for by some growth in some areas, but the reality is that in no way, shape or form can any member stand in this House and say that they have concrete evidence that this agreement is going to be a direct benefit.

When we look at all of the failings of this agreement, including its investor-state provisions, that take away the rights of regular Canadians to put in place public policy to their benefit, members can understand that I, for one, am standing in this House to say that I am going to vote against this bill and against this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was actually fairly well established, even before the NDP saw an agreement dealing with trade and this legislation, that the NDP would oppose it.

New Democrats knew they were going to oppose the legislation and the agreement even before they saw it. I believe that has already been fairly well established. It goes right back to Thomas Mulcair, the former leader of the New Democratic Party.

The legislation comes forward, New Democrats see the agreement and then look for ways to justify their position of voting against it. The reality is that it does not matter, because they vote against trade deals as a general rule.

Out of the 50 or 60 nations that we have trade agreements with, the New Democrats might have been embarrassed into voting for one or two of those agreements. Then they try to create an impression that thousands and thousands of jobs will be lost.

Over the last three years, under this administration, working with Canadians and different stakeholders, we have seen over half a million new jobs in Canada. We believe that by going and securing those markets into the future, we will be able to continue to generate those very important jobs that are so critical to Canada's middle class.

Will the member across the way make it clear that that the NDP's position on this agreement was decided before the New Democrats even saw the details of the agreement itself?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, wow, that's the ultimate conspiracy theory from the conspiracy theorist.

However, the reality is that if the Liberals actually wanted to build a fair trade agreement, they would just listen to what we have been saying for years. We have talked about the components of fair trade. These do not include investor-state provisions. These do does not include eliminating whole sectors that benefit the Canadian economy immensely, like supply management, like our auto sector, through the Auto Pact, a major initiative that we in the NDP supported. Those are the kinds of initiatives we support. We support fair trade.

We do not support the Harper Conservatives' attempt to gut a fair trade agenda. We believed, like a lot of Canadians, that the Liberals would put in place another agenda, but they have not. They have the same agenda as the Harper Conservatives. It is a betrayal of those sincere commitments made in 2015, which Canadians listened to and thought there would be a shift in trade policy as a result of, to a more progressive trade policy, a fair trade policy.

However, what we are seeing today, sadly, three years later, is exactly the same kind of mess that we saw under the Harper Conservatives. That is a shame, because what the member is saying is that Canadians, and almost 60,000 Canadian families, should lose their breadwinner to support the member and the Liberal government's wrongheaded ideology. We reject that completely.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was listening, as I was, to our colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who was talking about the different narratives and approaches to trade, and how there are different ways to conduct a trade deal.

We need to look at how unfair this is to labour groups in our country and other countries around the world. We can look at the fact that investors in Canada have a quasi-judicial panel to go to, but if a complainant from labour is wronged, they have to prove that the wrongdoing had an impact on trade in order for this agreement to take effect.

If the deck were ever stacked against labour, and if we ever needed a clearer example of a corporate-driven agenda against labour interest, look no further than this agreement and multiple agreements done by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments.

Could my colleague comment on that particular fact?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a strong advocate for agriculture and communities that depend on agriculture right across this country and a strong defender of supply management. I wish we had similar members in the Liberal government caucus standing up for supply management in reality rather than just in form and paying lip service to it.

The reality is fair trade is bottom-up. We think of the benefits of trade to people who are working hard, the middle class and folks wanting to join the middle class, and working-class people as well in manufacturing industries and farmers.

Free trade, the way the Liberals and the Conservatives conceive it, is top-down. It benefits lobbyists. It does not benefit regular Canadians. We stand with regular Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, ocean plastics are a mounting global concern. Each year more than 20 million tonnes of debris are entering the world's oceans. Around the world plastic is having a devastating impact on marine environments, ecosystems and human health. If left unchecked, it is predicted that by 2050 the mass of plastic in our oceans will soon outweigh that of fish.

Single-use plastics are a part of everyday life. Around 80% of all plastics in the ocean come from land-based sources. Ninety-five per cent of single-use plastics, such as coffee lids, plastic bags and plastic drinking straws, are used once and discarded.

Marine plastic debris is a huge growing threat to our oceans, marine life and human health. Ocean plastics impact the ocean and coastal ecological web, threatening our fisheries and the livelihood of over 72,000 Canadians who make their living from fishing and fishing-related activities, many of whom live in my riding. Plastics are even found in the flesh of supermarket seafood and in sea salt, affecting the safety of our food security, including our salmon and our shellfish. In fact, every piece of shellfish right now in Baynes Sound, which is a producer of 40% of the shellfish in British Columbia, has a piece of microplastic in it.

Even though Canada has the world's longest coastline, our country has no national policy to prevent plastic from entering our waters and no mechanisms to clean up the pollution that is already there.

There is a complete regulatory and legislative void at the federal level to address plastic pollution. We are falling behind our global neighbours. Over 40 countries, including four of the G7, France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom, all of whom we know the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be meeting this week in Halifax to talk about the state of our oceans and plastic, are taking concrete steps to address plastic waste and plastic pollution. Even countries like Kenya, China and Rwanda have all taken action to regulate single-use plastics. Cities like Seattle, Vancouver and San Francisco that requires restaurants to use biodegradable plastic straws all have policies to regulate single-use plastics. Communities on the west coast are leading the fight against ocean plastics. Cumberland, Qualicum Beach, Tofino and Victoria are all taking action.

Canadians are showing a huge concern over ocean plastics. A petition recently created by SumOfUs and the Ocean Legacy Foundation garnered over 100,000 signatures in just over two weeks. Just on Friday at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, almost unanimously the cities and towns of British Columbia voted in support of my Motion No. 151 to create a national strategy to tackle ocean plastics.

Thirty-five per cent of Canadians have identified this issue as very important. Over 50% think it is an important issue. Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians think it is somewhat important.

I hope the government will start to pay attention. Currently, the government does not have any plan in place. It has a volunteer charter and that is not good enough for Canadians. They expect more. They expect us to fall in line with the G7 nations that are taking action and the communities in our country that are taking leadership on this issue. Ninety-five per cent of municipalities in Canada voted at the FCM to call on the Government of Canada to take action on ocean plastics.

I would appreciate it if the government could respond with a real commitment, not more voluntary commitments, but something concrete that would support what Canadians wish, and that is a government that is going to help prevent plastics from entering out waterways.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in response to the member's remarks. I would like to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his continued interest in combatting plastic pollution in our waterways and oceans. As a coastal MP, it is important to me as well.

Plastics play an important role in Canadians' lives, but their mismanagement poses a threat to our livelihood and to our ecosystems. Preventing plastic pollution is a pressing global issue that requires action at all levels of government and among industry, as well as the public.

Canada has made oceans health and addressing plastic pollution a priority under its 2018 G7 presidency. I note in particular the oceans protection plan, which includes a $1.5 billion investment to keep our oceans healthy. During the G7 summit in June we launched the oceans plastic charter and the Charlevoix blueprint for healthy oceans, seas and resilient coastal communities. Canada has also committed $100 million to help vulnerable regions improve their waste management practices and combat plastic pollution in oceans.

These international commitments provide a springboard for action in Canada as well. We are working with provincial and territorial governments through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to develop a national strategy that responds to the charter and moves toward zero plastic waste in Canada. Our shared goal is to keep all types of plastic in the economy and out of our landfills and the environment. This is an ambitious vision, and it will require action by all of governments, industry, consumers and individuals. We are working with all of these partners to identify innovative ideas to improve the design, use and management of plastic products.

On Earth Day, Environment and Climate Change Canada also launched a public dialogue on plastic waste. We have invited all Canadians to share their views on moving Canada toward a zero plastic waste page on canada.ca.

The federal government is already taking action on marine plastics in particular. We have legislation and regulations in place to prevent pollution and protect habitat. Last year, we were among the first countries to phase out microbeads in toiletries. We invest in waste water infrastructure and research. We support national conservation initiatives, like the great Canadian shoreline cleanup. Also, as I mentioned, we announced the G7's plastic charter and $100 million in a marine mitigation fund.

We are going to continue to advance these national and international discussions in the coming months, starting with the G7 environment and energy ministers meeting in my home province of Nova Scotia this week. Ministers are going to focus on discussions like climate change, oceans and clean energy, including the next steps for advancing the oceans plastic charter.