Debates of Sept. 17th, 2018

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to the role as the new Minister of International Trade Diversification.

I have a couple of questions for the minister. I want to point out that this party and its leader said in June that we would pass the bill at all stages so we could move forward on this initiative. It was also this party and its leader who said that we would come back in the summertime and move forward on this. It was also this party, under the former leadership, which had strong chapters on environment and labour, which remain virtually unchanged with the CPTPP.

I did read the article on the port of Montreal receiving 20% more, and we see that trade is up 12%. The challenge is that exports are only up 1% to CETA countries, to European countries.

Given the fact that the minister talks about certainty and the best place to do business, the challenge we have right now is around regulation and red tape. It is around getting some types of rules in place so people understand and can invest in energy, etc. in our country.

What will the government do to show the world that we are a predictable and reliable place to invest in?

[Jim Carr]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member to ensure the bill can move as expeditiously as possible through the House of Commons and the other place.

The hon. member knows that in order to have expedited processes, unanimous consent of all parties of the House is required. This was not possible, and he knows that. However, I take it from his very constructive intervention that he will work with us to ensure the process is as smooth as it can be, and we both undertake to have serious conversations with our counterparts on the other side of the House to ensure the bill moves as fast as we know the Canadian people want it to move.

The member also knows that we have taken many steps to ensure the regulatory process is more clear, that the timelines are predictable and that investors understand at the front end precisely what is involved in the process. We think that is a step forward. We hope that for many years to come it will serve the people of Canada.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the minister. However, I am quite stunned by the minister's speech today. It indicates to me that the previous minister and his team have not fully briefed him on the impacts of NAFTA for working people, which he mentioned throughout his speech. We had 400 witnesses at committee on the TPP and we received written comments from 60,000 Canadians, 95% of which opposed the trans-Pacific partnership under its previous iteration.

The minister should really be well aware that industry and labour groups in the auto and auto parts sectors in Canada are strongly opposed to the CPTPP. The auto industry is already facing potential U.S. punitive tariffs. It is in the crosshairs of NAFTA. It knows its sector inside and out and it knows how false the Liberals' claims are that the CPTPP will open up markets in the Asia-Pacific, particularly Japan.

I really encourage the minister to speak with those in the auto sector in Ontario. I also encourage him to look at the statistics around the jobs that potentially would be lost. Twenty-thousand auto parts jobs in Canada would be lost under the CPTPP. It is not just me saying that. It is groups like the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada. If the minister speaks with his staff, he will find it has had several meetings around this.

The auto industry does not want this trade deal. As a former auto worker who represents a region filled with auto workers, I understand this impact. Why is the government ignoring them?

[Jim Carr]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member to this new relationship. I invite her to join us in a very constructive way to ensure the legislation passes in the interest of the entire Canadian economy.

We have been having conversations, as the member knows, with various sectors for quite some time now. We are confident that this agreement will give access to markets that these sectors do not now have.

She also knows that trade produces growth and growth produces jobs. We are interested in creating new wealth for Canadians and that this new wealth is translated into new job opportunities for Canadians working now and Canadians who are looking for opportunities to work because we have opened up export markets.

I know the member's party is not traditionally supportive of any free trade agreements. We could look at the conversation in 1993 around NAFTA, and it would be very similar to the conversation we are having today. However, the world has changed. Canada is an outward looking nation. We know that these agreements will create opportunities for the working people of Canada, and we invite the member to join us to ensure we get there as quickly as we can.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to back in the chamber, this place of democracy in Canada.

I listened intently to the minister's speech. One of the things I heard over the summer was about the business climate in Canada, particularly in northern Alberta, Peace River—Westlock, the riding I come from, where we are seeing mass amounts of capital fleeing the province of Alberta and Canada. I know the government wants to use this to say that Canada is open for business. What is the government's plan to ensure we can get some of these major energy projects up and running again, particularly in northern Alberta?

[Jim Carr]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I have had the privilege for the last two and a half years, almost three, of working with the people of northern Alberta, working with the energy workers of northern Alberta.

In my travels around the world, and most recently in the Asia-Pacific, I know there is a real appetite to have more serious conversations about the resources that are so important to the member's constituents, his province and indeed for all Canadians. Therefore, the sustainable development of our natural resources and the exploration of new export markets for those resources is a very important part of the government's strategic role. I look forward to working with the hon. member to ensure we do it in the best way we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canada is really dependent on world international trade. Since day one, the Prime Minister has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. In many ways trade is one one way we can enhance and grow that middle class.

Could my colleague provide for the House his thoughts on how trade agreements and trade in general enhance the opportunity for Canadians in all regions of the country to benefit and, in particular, for what has been the Prime Minister's number one priority, Canada's middle class^

[Jim Carr]

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Manitoban understands how dependent we all are on international trade and how important it is for us to diversify markets. However, it is important to add another dimension to the answer and the discussion.

We spend an awful lot of time talking about how we distribute the national wealth. These are very important conversations. We all have ways we think we should be distributing this wealth that are equitable, that give opportunity to Canadians.

Also, we have to talk about creating wealth. The wealth is created in large measure by small and medium enterprise. Those enterprises that trade most freely, particularly in expanding markets, are the ones that create good jobs, the ones that create higher-paying jobs. That is the link between trade, wealth creation and jobs.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister of international trade on his new portfolio. There are a lot of issues with TPP, but the short question is about the investor-state provision. We are now opening ourselves up to completely groundless charges against Canada, which Canada inevitably loses. Such was the case with Bilcon, where our Environmental Assessment Agency did a great job; two ministers, federally and provincially, did a great job; and Bilcon managed to go to a secret chapter 11 venue. Even though Canada appealed, we lost, and we now owe Bilcon up to $580 million.

Why would we open ourselves up now to disputes from additional countries, including Malaysia and Japan? I do not think we will have much trouble from Brunei, but from large economic players. Their corporations can attack our laws, which are in place to protect our environment, labour rights, and public health.

[Jim Carr]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a small correction, if I could, for my friend and hon. member: It is international trade diversification. That is a very purposeful and important word, and it leads to an answer to her question. Canada must always retain the capacity to respect the rules of the world trade order. As a matter of fact, I think we are on the verge of helping to lead a discussion on reforms to the WTO. It is also important that investors have confidence when they invest money around the world that those investments are reasonably protected.

I also look forward to working with my hon. colleague as we seek swift passage of this important legislation.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are finally here for this debate to, hopefully, get this important trade agreement ratified quickly. CPTPP is a trade agreement that will greatly benefit Canadians and Canadian businesses. It will help diversify and grow our economy, and most importantly, it will help create needed Canadian jobs.

I have to say that it has taken longer than we thought for the current government to be able to get this implementation process in place. Having said that, now that we have NAFTA in jeopardy and a series of other issues on other major trade files, we need Canada to successfully continue to diversify its export markets now. There is no time to wait. We could have easily done this earlier in the summer when the opposition leader asked the Prime Minister to immediately convene an emergency session of the House to approve this agreement. It was disappointing to see that the Liberals rejected that offer. However, we are here now and we are ready to get it done.

For Canadians watching at home, it is important to explain what the CPTPP is. It is important because one out of every five Canadian jobs depends on international trade, and these are essential trading relationships that help generate 60% of our GDP.

CPTPP stands for the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is the successor to the TPP agreement signed by our previous Conservative government. It includes 11 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It was signed in March of this year and is still waiting to be ratified. Hopefully the government will finally get this job done.

CPTPP reduces tariffs in countries representing 13% of the global economy, or a total of $10 trillion. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that the TPP, in the version signed by the previous Conservative government, would boost Canadian income by over $20 billion over the next decade. The agreement comes into force 60 days after at least six signatory countries ratify it, and the deadline to ratify it is in February 2019. After that, we lose our first-mover advantage, and Canada will have to play catch-up with the other signatory countries.

The Prime Minister replaced his international trade minister earlier this summer and told Canadians that the government would renew its efforts to diversify our exports. This opportunity is now. In fact, the opportunity was there even in June when, on this side of the House, we stood ready to get this deal ratified when the House was still sitting. It is not just Conservative MPs but Canadians throughout the country who have been waiting for the Liberal government to wake up to the many threats that loom large over our national economy.

The Liberals are doing poorly on many fronts: market access for our natural resources, tax and regulatory competitiveness, and international trade diversification. They are also pursuing failed policies to increase taxes and drive down growth. They are trying to ram through a carbon tax and are going overboard with over-regulation.

Imposing the carbon tax on provinces, businesses and families has been a complete disaster for the Liberals. Now the environment minister says that any province that does not get on board with the Liberals' climate plan will not get its share of the government's $2 billion low-carbon economy fund. We ask, “Why are they blackmailing the provinces?”

Despite this, many provinces refuse to sign on to the Liberals' carbon tax. Even Alberta's NDP premier withdrew her support for Ottawa's national climate change strategy. Seeing this, the Prime Minister tried quietly to walk-back how much some large companies will have to pay under this new carbon tax, yet he still plans to impose the carbon tax on smaller businesses and families to make up for the taxes the big guys are not paying. This makes no sense and is fundamentally unfair. The carbon tax is bad for everyone, not just the companies that can afford it most. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal carbon tax has increased the cost of living for every Canadian, including driving already skyrocketing gas prices even higher.

On top of everything, the Liberals are refusing to come clean on the true cost of the carbon tax for the average family. What we know so far is that gas prices will go up by at least 11¢ a litre and the cost of living to heat one's home will increase by over $200. However, again, the Liberals will not tell us the overall cost to an average Canadian family, because they do not want people to know what this scheme will actually cost. The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report recently that found that the carbon tax will take over $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022, while other estimates argue that this cost could be as much as $35 billion a year. This will, without a doubt, hurt jobs, workers and their families.

The good news is that common sense is winning the debate on this issue. More and more Canadians realize that the carbon tax is unfair and will leave them with less and less of their hard-earned tax dollars. Foreign investors are concerned, because the Liberals are simply making Canada a less attractive place to invest. Investment from abroad went down by 42% in 2016 and a further 27% in 2017.

Even the CEO of CIBC, Victor Dodig, is sounding the alarm over falling levels of foreign investment in Canada, warning that the country needs clearer rules to shore up investor confidence. Last week, The Globe and Mail reported that during a lunchtime speech in Toronto Mr. Dodig said he is increasingly hearing from the bank's clients that opportunities for investment returns are better south of the border. He cited several reasons, from the U.S. tax cuts and regulatory changes to trade uncertainty. He also went on to say that Ottawa's criteria for approving large deals involving foreign firms are not always clear, creating uncertainty for potential investors. He pointed to the debate over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project as a prime example of Canada sending the wrong signals:

“That, to me, should be a siren call that that money is here. It will leave”, he said, “and I can't see any upside to it leaving....” Foreign investors “need confidence”, Mr. Dodig said. “They need an element of certainty. They need to know the rules. They need a clear understanding of how things get approved [here in Canada].”

The Globe and Mail article goes on to say that these comments are in addition to Suncor CEO Steve Williams, who told investors in New York, “There is clearly a question of confidence in Canada”, echoing Imperial Oil Limited CEO Rich Kruger, who said this summer that regulatory uncertainty and concerns about competitiveness are causing investment decisions to be delayed.

This is very worrisome. We can just look at what the Liberals have done with Canadian pipelines. It is absolutely stunning. When the Prime Minister was elected, three major energy companies had pipeline projects: northern gateway, energy east and Trans Mountain. They were prepared to build in Canada. Now, thanks to Liberal policies and decisions, we have none of these.

The Liberals piled on new regulations and red tape, and introduced an oil tanker ban and a bill that would effectively ban the future construction of pipelines, and that is on top of their carbon tax. These policies need to be repealed to restore investor confidence in the Canadian energy sector.

However, nowhere has the Liberal mismanagement been more evident than in their handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. It would be difficult for them to top this one.

When the Liberals announced that they were nationalizing the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, Canadians were told that it was going to cost 4.5 billion of their tax dollars to allow construction to begin immediately. The reality is that taxpayers are now the shareholders of this monstrous Liberal boondoggle, and not one centimetre of pipeline has been built. It is absolutely unacceptable that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $4.5 billion of pipeline that may never be built, and that is in addition to the estimated cost of somewhere around $9.3 billion to actually twin the pipeline. Also, recently, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the government had failed to consult indigenous people on the Trans Mountain expansion and overturned approval of the project.

Thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs because of Liberal failures. We gave the Prime Minister another opportunity to outline his plan on how he will get the Trans Mountain expansion built and Canadians back to work. We tried to do this through an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and, yet again, the Prime Minister forced the Liberal MPs to shut down a study of the government's handling of the Trans Mountain expansion. His government has been given multiple chances to reassure Canadians, but instead he has chosen to rely on empty rhetoric.

Our hard-working men and women in the resource sector, whose jobs and livelihoods depend on these projects, deserve to have a competent government that does not get in the way of resource sector jobs at every opportunity it gets. These workers deserve a concrete plan to ensure that the Trans Mountain expansion is actually going to be completed. The failure to get the Trans Mountain expansion built is now threatening other expansions in the oil and gas sector, adding to the total number of jobs at risk. The Trans Mountain pipeline is crucial to oil and gas workers across Canada and to the regional economies that stand to benefit from its expansion, including 43 first nation communities that have benefit agreements worth over $400 million, which now hang in the balance. I also mentioned that right here in Ontario, there are all kinds of businesses close to my riding and in southwestern Ontario that would also benefit from building pipelines.

How do we persuade potential trading partners that our country is open for business, when Liberal policies prove the opposite? The Liberals have not been able to address Canada's faltering position on the global economy. It is a position they put us in with their policies. It is one thing after another with the government. In fact, it is difficult to think of an example of a foreign policy win for the government since it took office in 2015.

That is why I hope that ratification of the CPTPP goes through smoothly. We cannot afford any more issues and delays.

Time and again the Liberals have demonstrated their lack of seriousness to our potential international trading partners. Last year, the Prime Minister touted a free trade agreement with China. What happened there? The Prime Minister's visit to Beijing actually set back our trading relationship. It also failed to address any of the concerns Canadians have about trade with China. The Prime Minister then skipped a critical meeting at the CPTPP, angering our Asia-Pacific partners like Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. There was also his embarrassing trip to India that still haunts us to this day. It is time for the government and the Prime Minister to take trade and our relationships around the world seriously.

I want to dedicate some time to speaking about our trade relationship with the United States, who at one point was a signatory to the original TPP agreement. It is important to note that the United States is Canada's most important trading partner. Twenty per cent of Canada's GDP is tied to our commercial relationship with the United States, and over 74% of Canadian exports go to the United States.

It is no secret that the government is in the midst of very difficult NAFTA negotiations. At this stage, the Americans seem to have already struck an agreement with Mexico and are using that as leverage. This could potentially impact millions of Canadian jobs. Canadians are concerned that our government was not at the table while these decisions were being made. It seems like we were on the outside looking in while major sectors of our economy and millions of Canadian jobs have hung in the balance.

We are heavily dependent on our American neighbours. This makes any tariff action against us very painful for our economy. American tariffs imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum are just another example of why we need to expand foreign markets for Canadian manufacturers. The CPTPP is one effective avenue for this expansion. It has the potential to boost Canadian income by billions over the next decade. That is why we cannot risk looking our first mover advantage. We do not want to jeopardize jobs and supply lines by not being part of the first six ratifying signatories.

We all know that this agreement has broad support. Several industry groups representing agriculture, agrifood, and forestry have all come forward in support of the CPTPP. That said, we would work with all sectors to minimize the risk under the agreement. However, we maintain that on balance this agreement is good for the broadest range of Canadian manufacturers.

Economic modelling by both the Canada West Foundation and the federal government confirm that there would be hundreds of billions of dollars in immediate benefits for Canadian firms if we are among the first wave of signatories to ratify the agreement.

I want to go back to American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum for a second, because they tie in with the urgency of diversifying our trade.

American tariffs have caused great concern among our workers in the Canadian steel and aluminum industries. Thousands of jobs and the livelihood of Canadian workers and businesses are all being threatened. This is even more worrisome considering the U.S. government's repeated threats to impose a 25% tariff on the auto sector. The longer we go without a deal on NAFTA and the closer we get to auto tariffs being imposed, the more anxious Canadians will get and the less certain they will be when it comes to making business decisions. The most pressing priority, and I believe we are all united on this, is to protect Canadian jobs and industry by having tariffs removed from Canadian steel and aluminum, and by stopping new tariffs from being imposed.

That is why we made it clear to the government that we would continue to work with it to bring forward concrete ideas to defend local jobs. Defending local jobs is exactly what my colleagues and I on this side of the House did during the summertime. We travelled across Canada to meet with workers, businesses, and labour groups to determine how best to respond to threats posed by U.S. tariffs and the continued trade uncertainty around NAFTA. We met with over 200 stakeholders from the steel, aluminum, automotive, and manufacturing sectors across four provinces.

We heard from stakeholders that they want the government to do three things: first, conclude negotiations and sign a NAFTA deal as soon as possible; second, provide immediate support to companies struggling to stay afloat; and third, take steps to improve Canada's competitiveness by reducing red tape.

Businesses need certainty. That is why the first recommendation to sign a NAFTA deal was by far the most repeated one by stakeholders this summer. We also heard that businesses have already cut orders, that shifts are being reduced, workers are being laid off, and that others will lose their jobs in the next couple of months.

I also want to mention that despite the government's promise of $2 billion in aid, we found that no one has been able to access any of this money. The $2 billion was earmarked for additional debt offered by EDC and BDC, as well as employment insurance programs like work sharing and retraining.

The challenge I have with the $2 billion is that $1.7 of that was to go to EDC or BDC in the form of additional loans, not tariff relief. We had $250 million to run the strategic innovation fund, and when we dug into that, we found it was for companies doing over $10 million in sales and employing over 200 people. Let us think about that.

No SMEs could get any access to the $2 billion fund. Then we see monies committed for work sharing. Work sharing, to me, sounds a lot like a postmortem of what is going on. It sounds like the horse has left the barn and we are just trying to save the furniture now. Work sharing is a good program, but we need to make sure that people can expand their businesses, not find ways for them not to be able do it. That is the challenge I have with the $2 billion.

We read a great article by David Akin in the The Globe and Mail last week. He said that only $11,000 has gone out, and yet there has been almost $300 million collected in tariffs.

The other thing we found out from talking to businesses is that the tariffs are not actually tariffs, but a surtax. They are actually not eligible for any kind of duty deferral or duty remittances, or any of these kinds of things. It is actually an additional tax.

We have over $16 billion's worth of items being tariffed, anywhere from 25% to 10%, depending on what the products are, which would, if we calculate that out, be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion in additional tax revenue, and yet we have not seen one nickel of that going back to SMEs. There is $2 billion of tax revenue coming in, in the form of surtaxes, and right now we have no plan, other than what was a perceived announcement, on how our small- and medium-sized enterprises are actually going to access any of that kind of tariff relief.

Some of the SMEs are going to have the conversation, asking how they are going to get the money back. They are being informed that they will be told in 60 or 90 days, whatever the case may be. I heard one company say that it may be up to 200 days. Let us think about that. Some of these companies will not be around if that is allowed to continue.

We talked to companies. I was with one of our members in Concord. We asked an aerospace company about what would happen if we did not resolve the issue around tariffs, and they said that it represented an existential threat to their company. They have parts whose prices have now gone up almost 100%.

We see what has happened because of tariffs. We see steel and aluminum prices, steel in particular, going up anywhere from 25% to 50% across the country. That presents a real problem.

I just do not think that piling on more debt, as I mentioned before, or easing workers' transitions into unemployment are adequate solutions. Companies affected by steel and aluminum tariffs are struggling to stay afloat, and need immediate support. This tit-for-tat with the United States makes it even more urgent that we seize every opportunity to expand and diversify our trading relationships.

On this side of the House, we have always supported this. The previous Conservative government had the foresight to conclude free trade negotiations and investment agreements with 53 other countries, including the countries of the original trans-Pacific partnership and the other 28 countries of CETA, which concluded in 2014. Speaking about CETA, another Conservative trade accomplishment, last week the Financial Post reported that CETA has boosted container shipping and promoted a hiring spree at the docks in Montreal.

Once again, the minister mentioned that there had been some increased activity at the docks in Montreal, and it is certainly great to see in Canada that the European free trade agreement is doing exactly what it was designed to do. I would caution, though, that as we have seen imports expand by 12%, our exports have only gone up by 1%. That means there is more work for government to do to get our companies prepared to be able to sell into these markets.

The Financial Post went on to say that the employers association that handles training for the port workforce, as well as the Montreal Port Authority, attributes much of the container flow to the CETA agreement. That is a good new story, but there is still more work that we need to do to expand our exports.

It is also said that the extra dock traffic spurred the association to start hiring 50 more longshoremen and 15 more auditors, resulting in several key terminals nearly doubling their operating time to 17 hours each work day. This is an incredible accomplishment and evidence that benefits come from diversifying Canada's trade.

Canada's Conservative Party is the party of free trade, and we understand the importance of reliable access to markets for Canadian business and workers. In conclusion, I would like to say that given the importance of the bill to Canadian livelihoods, it is crucial to the public interest that Canada ratify the CPTPP agreement as soon as possible.

[Omar Alghabra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague across the aisle on this and other important legislation that will benefit the entire population of Canada. I would like to start by advising my colleague not to talk down our economy. There is absolutely room for debate and discussion, but this constant talking down of our economy while all experts and economists are talking about the growth rate of our economy, one of the fastest in the G7, with the lowest unemployment in 40 years, and the doubling in foreign direct investment from last year. These are good measures. Yes, there is room for debate, absolutely, and let us debate that.

Given that the previous TPP left so much on the table, does he not agree that this version of the TPP, the CPTPP, better protects Canadian interests in intellectual property, jobs, environmental standards, and labour standards? I am curious if he agrees with me or not.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the parliamentary secretary as well.

One of the things I need to say is that it is not a question of talking down the economy. I personally talked to almost 150 stakeholders at over 26 meetings across the country this year, and what I heard over and over again is the fact that we have huge uncertainty in our economy. People are not making investments here because they say that our taxes and regulations are too high. They are saying that the regulatory pathway for how we approve energy projects makes no sense, and I was not necessarily just talking to energy people.

The fact remains that we have a whole bunch of issues on the table that make Canada less competitive. We talk to industries right now and they say they are not looking to invest in Canada. They are actually thinking of moving their investment dollars south of the border. When we look at high taxes, not even including the carbon tax, regulatory uncertainty, and increased red tape, it is true.

What we are trying to point out to the government is that it needs to do more work if we are to be competitive, attract investment dollars, and continue to grow our economy.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I serve as vice-chairs on the international trade committee. I take his point about the tariffs. It has been a very difficult summer in Ontario and southwestern Ontario. People are losing their jobs. Small shops are closing. It is quite devastating. We in the NDP have called for a national tariff task force, and I hope my colleague in the Conservative Party will join us in the effort to address all of the issues he highlighted and the fact that only $11,000 has been paid out to people who are struggling incredibly, when almost $300 million has been collected. This is a broken system, and we have people who are losing their jobs.

My question focuses on the auto sector, which is under attack right now. I often said throughout the summer that it is as though Donald Trump has custom made these tariffs for southwestern Ontario in particular, but certainly our auto sector. We have the steel and aluminum tariffs, the threat of the 25% auto tariff, NAFTA uncertainty, and now we have the CPTPP. It puts 58,000 manufacturing jobs at risk in Canada, including 20,000 in our automotive parts supply chain in Canada.

Does the member think that our auto sector in Canada has not given enough in trade agreements? Will the Conservatives not defend the auto sector and stand with the NDP against this trade deal that would harm the sector significantly?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to be in the member for Essex's part of the country this summer and to tour the Chrysler plant and to listen to some of their concerns. I know she is well aware that Chrysler employs over 6,000 people there, as well as another 4,000 in Brampton. They are very concerned. Ninety-five per cent of the cars they produce go to the U.S., so the talk about the threat of a potential 25% tariff is something that concerns them greatly.

On top of that, we have a whole bunch of other issues around the table. We have supply chains in the immediate area of these auto plants, and they are concerned as well. Certainly, the steel and aluminum tariffs have been major issues, not only for steel and aluminum producers, but also for those people who supply the industry.

As we move forward with any kind of trade deal, one of the things we need to be mindful of, which the auto sector did say it has some concerns about, is non-tariff barriers. Those are issues that we need to constantly fight against as we look at some of these things. We need to go into this agreement with eyes wide open, realizing there will be more work to be done to make sure the deal continues to do what it is supposed to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the trade debate, I appreciate the Conservatives are supporting this legislation. However, they seem to be stuck on misinformation that goes back to the era of Stephen Harper. I know they are great fans of Stephen Harper. Every time the name comes up they tend to applaud their new leader, who kind of tries to emulate Stephen Harper.

There is a bit of misinformation. The member opposite tries to give the impression that Stephen Harper signed 50-plus trade agreements. The reality is that the EU agreement, which had over 28 nations, was never finalized under Stephen Harper. In fact, it was off track, it was going nowhere.

The good news is that the current government minister was the one who got it back on track, and it was this Prime Minister and the efforts of this cabinet that got the deal done. The good news is that the minister who was responsible for getting it back on track is the one who is negotiating NAFTA. That is good news for all Canadians.

I would ask my colleague this. Does he not agree that achieving a good deal is the type of thing we should be striving for, first and foremost, for all Canadians?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague from Winnipeg North that those trade deals we brought wrapped in a bow and put them at the Liberals' doorstep. All they had to do was walk them across the finish line. All the heavy lifting had been done. However, that almost got screwed up, believe it or not. It was unbelievable in terms of the Prime Minister walking out, leaving the former trade minister at a table trying to explain where the Prime Minister was. It was like, “What happened?” There were no comments. I think actions like that have created a conflict that did not previously exist.

Quite frankly, when we look at what the differences are with the CPTTP, other than the name, which is mostly all that is different about that, the same strong regulations around labour and environment are still there. There are a few sidebar agreements, but most of these are non-binding. Therefore, at the end of the day, the deal that we have in place under CETA was largely negotiated by the former government. Yes, the current government still had to ratify it. As a matter of fact, the individual member states still need to do that today. TPP was the same. The current government should be thankful for all the heavy lifting that was done by the former government to get us to where we were. The Liberal government almost messed up some of those agreements. However, thank goodness it finally saw the light and was able to move these things across the finish line.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the Liberals say, “Don't talk down our economy.” For the last three years, all the Liberals have done is talk. The reality is if they had signed the TPP three years ago, Obama would have signed it and we would not be in NAFTA negotiations, as we sit today, and a lot of these problems that Canadian businesses face would not be there. However, what did they do? They talked and they talked, and the reality is we are in crisis mode.

I know this member has been across Canada talking to businesses, labour groups and different people right across Canada. Therefore, he should not talk down our economy; rather, he should tell us what they are telling him in those meetings.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague because I know that he has also been on the road talking to businesses this summer and I am sure he is hearing some of the same things I have heard.

I have heard a number of things. The first thing is that we need to get a NAFTA deal done yesterday. The challenge right now is the uncertainty that it creates around businesses that normally like to plan two to three to five years out. Some of these businesses are saying they cannot even plan for the next three to six months because they do not know what is going on. I have heard story after story.

I have personally talked to over 150 stakeholders, business people, associations and chambers of commerce. This is not stuff I am making up, this is stuff I have heard from people on the ground. I know that my hon. colleague has also heard from people on the ground. They are saying that uncertainty is the killer of business. It is what kills businesses with respect to being able to figure out what they are doing next week, next quarter. As a matter of fact, I have heard a number of people say they have issues. One company I talked to in Welland had already laid off 25% of its workforce because of the uncertainty. A number of other companies in the steel and aluminum industry have said there is no way for them to figure out the tariffs going across the border and because of that they will actually have to lay off some of the people on our side of the country.

The challenge I have is that when businesses do not have certainty there is no way that they can plan for the future. I had a number of businesses that were actually going to invest and double the size of their companies here in Canada with no government money, and they have put their investments on hold. Members should think about that. These were companies that were going to invest in their own businesses, and that has been put on hold because of the uncertainty in this country.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been preparing for a long time to rise in this place to debate Bill C-79 at second reading, which is an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, and 10 other countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It is critically important that we have the opportunity to debate this implementing legislation, as the CPTPP is a massive agreement with far-reaching implications for Canadians.

The Liberals and Conservatives tried to bypass this debate we are having today. They tried to shove the legislation through without parliamentary oversight.

I am proud of our NDP caucus. It has stood up for full democratic debate and a vote on this agreement, one which has working people across our country very nervous. I have committed to auto stakeholders, supply management farms, building trades and the 60,000 Canadians who wrote to the trade committee to have this debate.

As many will remember, the CPTPP started out as the TPP, which included the United States. Canada was late in joining the negotiations, and we were forced to accept everything that had been negotiated to that point. To say that we entered with a weakened negotiating position underplays the terms we accepted on key issues, including on intellectual property, digital and cultural policies, and ISDS provisions that would allow foreign companies to sue domestic governments like those in Canada.

The agreement was negotiated with little transparency or accountability, as Canadians were left in the dark about the government's agenda. This is an unfortunate trend that has continued under the Liberals in the same way it was under the Conservatives.

A deal was finalized in October 2015 in the midst of a federal election campaign, when many Canadians were asking if the Conservative government had a mandate to do so. I remember this time well. Like many of my colleagues, I was knocking on doors and talking to voters across my riding. People in Essex—Windsor were very concerned about the TPP, and for good reason. Many are employed in sectors that would be negatively impacted by this agreement. In our region, we build cars and supply auto parts, work in tool and die shops, and manufacture steel pipe and tube.

Over the last few decades, my region, like many in Canada, has watched as thousands of good manufacturing jobs have disappeared thanks to trade deals like NAFTA, and the exodus of quality jobs to jurisdictions with lower wages and weaker labour standards.

It is not easy for people to lose their jobs. I know this first-hand. I am a 20-year auto worker, and I, along with many of my friends and co-workers, was laid off in the economic downturn of 2008. These are not just numbers on economic reports, but are in fact people's livelihoods: their incomes, their means of supporting their families and in turn their contribution to their communities.

The impact of job loss on people and their families cannot be understated. Many of my co-workers struggled not only financially, but also with their own health and mental health in the aftermath of these desperate years. Marriages did not survive, keys were handed to the bank and some fell into addiction. Many struggled to find hope for themselves.

This is what workers in Canada face. Those occupying the 58,000 jobs under threat are facing this type of life going forward. When I say the TPP threatens to kill thousands of good Canadian jobs, we as parliamentarians must take that seriously. Once these jobs are gone, they are not easily replaced, and when they are replaced, it is usually with precarious part-time and low-wage work.

The people of the United States elected Donald Trump as their president, which was in no small part due to his attempt at luring people to vote for him under the guise that he understood the frustrations of generations of workers who had been left behind by unfair trade agreements. He promised to get rid of NAFTA and withdraw from the TPP.

Mr. Trump's message may have resonated with working people, but his proposed solutions completely miss the mark and will only make things worse for the very people he claims to represent. In fact, that is already the case.

After President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the trans-Pacific partnership in 2017, the remaining signatories continued to meet quietly behind closed doors, in secret. I find this beyond insulting to those who are involved in the current NAFTA renegotiations. I will never forget the betrayal that was expressed toward the Liberals when they signed us back on to the newly minted CPTPP in the middle of a NAFTA renegotiation round in Montreal. Stakeholders in labour were stunned to learn that while they were participating in NAFTA rounds in good faith, believing that the government had finally woken up to the reality of their valuable input into trade negotiations, they were blindsided by the signing, which the government failed to mention to anyone during the weekend. How is it that Liberals were spending day and night in meetings and that this massive trade announcement slipped their mind and they forget to mention it to the stakeholders in the room?

I want to talk a little bit about the TPP and compare it to the CPTPP. We have the old contents and we have the new ones. It will come as no surprise to most Canadians that they are largely similar. The Liberals will point to the mere 20 provisions that were suspended and the multiple side letters, as we heard the minister do earlier. All of these still remain uncertain for many Canadians and we have to keep in mind that all of these provisions were crafted without the input of key stakeholders.

The CPTPP contains the same harmful provisions on auto, dairy, temporary foreign workers, labour mobility and investor-state dispute settlement. The idea that the TPP was somehow transformed into something progressive is laughable. It appears to be a cynical attempt at misleading Canadians.

Trade agreements cannot be just made up of shiny fluff, the products of public relations and rebranding. They need to be meaningful to the lives of everyday Canadians. Canadians do not even know what was agreed to in multiple side letters, including those on culture and autos. How is it that we are debating this legislation and do not even have the full text still for us to be able to fully view?

I want to talk a little about these side letters. This is where Liberals will point to addressing all of the concerns that New Democrats have. It is time that these side letters are exposed for exactly what they are, aspirational language that has absolutely zero enforceability. It is also where the Liberals will point to the so-called progressive elements, which carry very little weight compared to the text in the main agreement. Side letters cannot supersede the text of the main agreement and a side letter is not enforceable through the agreement's dispute settlement mechanisms unless it is explicitly mentioned.

If a Liberal MP stands in this House and defends this agreement based on the side letters then they should be ashamed for fooling people they represent, or they clearly do not understand the way that trade agreements work at all. I hope that my colleagues on all sides of this House in auto ridings will keep that in mind when they are explaining to the people who will be losing their jobs.

Of the 20 suspended provisions, 11 come from the chapter on intellectual property. Many critics of the original TPP have welcomed these changes. However, it is important to remind Canadians that these suspensions are not set in stone and could enter into force at future dates. Suspensions are little more than a way to sell the agreement: “Do not worry. It is suspended.” This is a dangerous sense of security because those provisions could reappear in the agreement very easily.

The original TPP's chapter on intellectual property contained harmful proposals that would have impeded Canadians' access to affordable medicines. These include extended patent terms for medicines, 70-year copyright terms, minimum terms of data protections for biologics and rules that would have encouraged the pharmaceutical practice of evergreening. If the United States were to rejoin the pact, the suspended provisions could be be brought back to life with the consensus of treaty members. This is very dangerous. It could lead to more stringent patent terms and higher drug costs for Canadians. In fact, we are anxiously waiting to see right now if a revised NAFTA will contain some of these same or even worse proposals. Canadians are very worried about this. At a time when the government should be introducing universal pharmacare and not just studying it again, and working to lower the cost of Canadians' prescription medications, they could in fact be setting us up for the opposite.

Now I want to talk a little bit about the rebranding and about the “P” in the CPTPP that stands for progressive. How can the Liberals brand this deal as progressive? Let us talk about some of the issues that exist in that. The new mandate letter, I should point out, for the new International Trade Diversification Minister omits any reference to this Liberal so-called progressive agenda, which is quite telling I think.

The CPTPP has no chapters on gender or on the rights of indigenous people, which is something that the government said was important in the course of NAFTA negotiations. Why has it disappeared from the CPTPP? The CPTPP does not even mention the words “climate change” and its labour provisions are extremely weak. It contains provisions that will weaken Canada's supply-managed sector. It contains harmful ISDS provisions that have been destructive for environment and corrosive to the sovereignty of our government. None of those things are particularly progressive. I will give my colleagues a quote from Scott Sinclair at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He stated:

If the Trudeau government’s rhetoric about progressive trade and inclusive growth means anything—which is an open question—then it requires a genuine rebalancing of trade treaties to better protect workers, citizens and the environment, and to confront the 21st century challenges of extreme inequality and runaway climate change.

The next thing I would like to discuss a little is the consultations. Certainly the Liberal government is in favour of consultations, although the meaningfulness of those consultations has really come under scrutiny, particularly over the NAFTA talks that happened over the summer.

As I have said, the Conservatives signed us on to this deal in 2015 during the campaign. As soon as the Liberals took office, they promised that their new government would be different and that it would consult with the public. Instead of undertaking meaningful public consultations, the government passed this on to the international trade committee, of which I am the vice-chair. Our trade committee's so-called public consultations were widely criticized for restricting public participation in a variety of ways. For example, we received over 8,000 submissions from Canadians, but we struggled to translate and adequately review all these submissions. The fact is that the committees, not just my own, have limited resources, and are not equipped to do true public consultations. The Liberals love to say that they are consulting, but their shallow definition of what constitutes public consultation is very troublesome. This was shown in the recent court ruling on the pipeline and the government's failure to properly consult indigenous people.

On the TPP, the trade committee hearings allowed for a one-hour time slot for the public to make presentations. Every city we toured was filled with people who wanted to speak about the TPP. In Montreal, 19 out of 19 public presenters were opposed. In Quebec City, three out of three were opposed. We heard from more than 400 witnesses and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians, of whom 95% were opposed to the TPP.

According to Global Affairs documents obtained by The Council of Canadians, only two out of 18,000 Canadians wrote to the government in support of the TPP. I want to repeat that: two out of 18,000 people who wrote the government expressed support. That means only .01% of everyone who participated in these email consultations supported the deal. It is no wonder the Liberals are using the guise of public consultations as cover to sign Canada on to the job-killing TPP.

Let us talk about the timing. At a time when the Trump administration is threatening to implement devastating auto tariffs, both the Conservatives and Liberals are championing a trade deal that would put 58,000 Canadian jobs at risk, 20,000 in auto parts alone. The leader of the Conservative Party asked to recall the House of Commons in the summer in order to ram through the TPP trade deal, which would decimate these industries, industries that are already endangered under Trump's outrageous tariffs. There could not be a worse time to be ratifying the CPTPP. Destroying one industry in hopes that another one will eventually grow is not diversification; it is a death sentence for our domestic sectors. Conservatives may be comfortable turning their backs on the auto sector, as it appears the Liberals are, but New Democrats will stand strong with them in these very difficult times.

Let us talk about tariffs. We know the CPTPP would lead to the elimination of tariffs on a range of imported goods and exports in sectors like aerospace, metals and minerals, chemicals and plastics, industrial machinery, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and agrifood, fish and seafood, and forestry and value-added wood products. However, it is important to note that we are already 97% tariff-free with CPTPP countries, so we are talking about three per cent of the tariffs being reduced inside this.

I understand this is significant for some in our agriculture society, but I also know our agricultural communities are struggling not just with the tariff reductions but the non-tariff barriers. Earlier, my colleague spoke to the fact that we have to do more. We have to address and tackle the true barriers, because too many Canadian exporters cannot access existing markets, let alone potential new markets, and there are many ways the federal government can support them.

I have heard CETA mentioned in this House today, and certainly the numbers out of the Port of Montreal. What is not being mentioned is the fact that since we signed CETA a year ago, our exports to those countries have gone down. Do we know what has gone up? Imports from CETA countries. There has been a flood from those countries. Again, Canada is in worse shape with those countries today after signing CETA than it was a year ago. Something is wrong here, and Canadians know it.

I also want to talk about the fact that, as I said, the auto sector is in dangerous times. Over the summer, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh visited the Windsor-Essex region, which is the epicentre of the steel and aluminium trade dispute. He heard from workers and businesses that are very worried about the increased tariffs and unfair trade deals. He committed to them that at every turn, the NDP will stand up for Canadian workers and against the job-killing CPTPP.

Industry and labour groups in the auto and auto parts sector are strongly opposed to the CPTPP. The auto industry is already facing those punitive tariffs and simply cannot stand any more pressure at this point. They know their sector inside and out, and they know how false the Liberals' claims are that the CPTPP will open up markets in the Asia-Pacific region. In fact, they have tried desperately to get the Liberal government to listen to them, to listen to the fact that they will lose jobs and that they are in jeopardy. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has refused to do so and is barely acknowledging the fact that they will be harmed.

The other thing I have to mention is supply management. How can we have a government that repeatedly stands and says that it will protect supply management when in CPTPP it is giving up percentages? At least under the Conservatives there was money attached, some type of compensation to help them. That has completely evaporated under the Liberal government. We are in a precarious time in NAFTA right now in our negotiating phase, and one of the largest issues on the table is supply management. Why, then, would the Liberals bring the CPTPP, which is damaging our supply management, as the very first piece of proposed legislation to put through the House, knowing that we are at this critical juncture in NAFTA? It is baffling, and our farmers are not fooled by the Liberal government and this death by a thousand cuts.

We find ourselves in this extraordinary time in our relationship with our largest trading partner and this delicate renegotiation of NAFTA. It seems like incredibly poor political timing to be pushing through the CPTPP, which some view as poking the bear, with the bear being Donald Trump.

I had a meeting with farmers in my office on Friday night. They are extremely worried about the future of supply management in Canada and in my riding of Essex. They hear Liberals repeating the same lines over and over—that they created and will protect supply management—but to farmers like Bernard Nelson in Essex, protecting our dairy sector means that we do not open a percentage of our market. Whether it is in CETA, CPTPP, or now NAFTA, it is a slippery slope toward the beginning of the end. Bernard and I agree that this approach is death by a thousand cuts and will hurt Canadian farmers.

Diversification is important, but it must be done in a responsible way. Ratifying the CPTPP is the opposite of this. How can Liberals be fighting for a better deal in NAFTA for the very sectors that they are willing give up in the CPTPP? I can tell members that the Liberals must stop signing onto neo-Liberal trade deals like the CPTPP and embrace a truly progressive trade policy that does not leave working people behind. The NDP is determined to continue fighting for truly fair and progressive trade that respects the rights of Canadians. It is time to put the interests of people first, including manufacturing workers, rural communities, and local and small family farms.

I move, seconded by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, because:

a) 95% of the more than 60,000 Canadians who made submissions on the deal were opposed to it;

b) experts have said that this deal could cost Canada 58,000 jobs;

c) the negotiations were shrouded in secrecy, despite promises of transparency from the government on trade deals; and

d) the agreement contains weak labour and environmental standards, and puts our public services and cultural sectors at risk.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. On the motion to move the amendment, I wonder if the hon. member for Essex had another seconder in mind. I see that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is not present.

It is the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, then.

Questions and comments.

[Steven MacKinnon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech.

It is always great to hear a speech on trade from the New Democratic Party. It basically writes itself as it unfolds.

All of the experts around the world point us to the need for Canada to diversify its trade. All of the experts point us to those Asian and South American economies that are growing incredibly quickly, where managed trade relationships, structured trade, and privileged access to those markets is an absolute imperative for Canada. We have achieved that. We have achieved significant protections for key Canadian industries and significant advantages for key Canadian sectors.

The question that I have and that I always have for my friends in the New Democratic Party is this: what trade deal are they able to support?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the type of trade agreement that we will support is a good one, one that works for Canadians, one that is balanced, one that does not throw one sector under the bus in favour of another—balanced trade.

Our country and North America have been gripped by this issue over the summer, with the uncertainty with the United States. Certainly my region, being on the border, feels this very keenly.

I would invite the member to come to my riding at any time to speak to people about what Canadians think about responsible trade deals. I understand the need to diversify and we support that strongly, but it must be responsible. The CPTPP is not.

I will just point really quickly to the labour aspect. I heard the minister talk about labour earlier, and about how he felt that the labour section was an improvement. I am not sure that the Liberals are aware that in the original TPP, the U.S. had negotiated a 12-page labour reform to allow Vietnamese workers to have free and independent collective bargaining. That has disappeared. The U.S., under President Obama, struck a labour consistency plan with Malaysia and Brunei in an effort to ensure that both countries lived up to fundamental labour standards. Canada was not able to maintain those.

It seems as though when we went back to the table for the CPTPP, we made zero effort to improve this deal for Canadians. That was a missed opportunity, because essentially what the Liberals picked up was a Conservative negotiation.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair again.

I would like to comment on the speech by my friend from Essex. Last fall, when the Liberal government did not mention the auto industry and its importance in NAFTA for six months, it was actually that member and I who were pushing from both sides of the opposition, as part of Team Canada, to say that the auto industry, the hundreds of thousands of jobs, needed to be the centrepiece of NAFTA.

Why can the member now say that the auto manufacturing jobs in Windsor are not going to benefit from the TPP? If we are not part of the TPP, we will not be able to compete with Mexico and we will not be able to compete with the global auto industry. We cannot choose only one deal and not others. We have to have confidence in our auto supply sector and in our auto assembly sector.

Why does the member for Essex not have that confidence?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have complete confidence in our Canadian auto sector to be able to compete globally, absolutely, but when we are setting up trade deals where it is actually identifying to us that this is not the case, we need to listen. On the CPTPP, the auto sector was not part of the consultations under the Conservatives nor under the Liberals.

It is not me as the member for Essex who is saying that this deal will harm auto. It is the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. It is the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association. It is Unifor. It is the Canadian Labour Congress. This is not a reflection of me and what I think will benefit my region. This is what we are hearing from the stakeholders. It is baffling that in NAFTA all of these stakeholders are in the room and are part of the conversation driving where we are going to potentially go in a better NAFTA, but in the CPTPP, none of that happened under the Liberals or the Conservatives.

It is not me who is creating these questions of what is going on in these trade deals. It is the behaviour of the Conservatives and the Liberals in their negotiations and forgetting about the people who need to be in the room when talking about the jobs that they represent.