Debates of Sept. 18th, 2018

Second Reading

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question. In my riding, in the town of Creston and area, dairy farming is a very important part of the agriculture industry and the economy. It seems like with every trade deal that gets signed dairy is sacrificed. I would like to hear from my colleague across the floor why it is okay to continually sacrifice our dairy farmers in these trade agreements.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, this is the party of supply management. We firmly support and will continue to defend supply management.

With regard to the CETA agreement, I was part of the cheese quotas and the compensation out of regard for supply management. There is no doubt in my mind we will continue to defend it strongly.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the parliamentary secretary's speech about the CPTPP, an incredible agreement that will open a market of 500 million people.

I would like my hon. colleague to talk about the spinoffs that this agreement will have in her riding, particularly for SMEs, but also for women entrepreneurs. That is a very important aspect.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for women entrepreneurs is a key aspect of the CPTPP. While I had the honour of serving as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade, I spent quite a bit of time in countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Singapore, convening round tables of women entrepreneurs. That has been very well received. Canada is seen as a leader in supporting women in small business, and certainly the CPTPP is evidence of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has not talked about first nations and how they are affected by the CPTPP.

The member's party recently indicated its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, yet the government has failed to consult indigenous peoples on the CPTPP.

Does the member not believe that consultation with, and consent by, indigenous peoples is critical for reconciliation, and that there should be a chapter and provision in this deal that ensures that is reflected?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship that is more important to the government than with indigenous peoples, Métis, and Inuit, first nations.

This is an opportunity to discuss the new position of the ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility, because it takes into account the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly in the countries of the CPTPP and globally. Furthermore, with regard to culture, it is very important to our country to defend our unique and inclusive culture.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree]

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about the significant benefits of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP. I want to talk specifically about the Canadian fish and seafood sector.

This agreement is extremely important not only for Canada, but also for Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It is also important for us to have access to those markets.

The Canadian fish and seafood sector is vital to our economy and essential to maintaining a solid employment base in a diverse economy. We are fortunate to have a very prosperous fish and seafood sector. It contributes more than $2 billion to Canada's GDP annually and provides more than 76,000 jobs for Canadians.

Regionally, this sector offers economic opportunities to countless communities both on the coasts and even in Canada's interior.

In the west, employment in British Columbia's fish and seafood industry accounts for approximately 12% of all jobs in this sector across Canada. In the Maritimes, more than two-thirds of the entire Canadian fish and seafood sector is employed across the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Fishing is also important in Quebec and our northern communities in Yukon and Nunavut, while freshwater fishing is notably important for Manitoba.

Commercial fishing is a valued industry in Manitoba. For over 100 years, Manitobans have been commercially fishing and harvesting fish. The majority of production comes from Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba, but seven smaller lakes in the south and northern Manitoba are also fished. The resource is managed through the use of quotas, the mesh size of gillnets, by season, and by regulation of the number of licenced fishers. The management tools allow fish populations and the industry to remain viable. They also ensure that resources are shared equitably on all the lakes with not only non-indigenous people but also treaty indigenous people and Métis people. Since almost all of the commercial production is sold out of the country, the $30 million in annual sales represents a significant and important contribution to the livelihoods of Manitoba fishing families.

In Manitoba, it is also important to maintain high quality. Manitoba is the only jurisdiction in the western hemisphere with an eco certified freshwater market. We have achieved a Marine Stewardship Council certification and are very proud of that. Now, 85% of the total fish harvested in Manitoba is exported to other markets. There are 3,155 licenced fishermen in Manitoba and 83% of these are of indigenous descent. They help support many indigenous communities and help provide a good livelihood and support for many families. There are 46 communities and first nations who are involved in this fishery and 294 resulting direct jobs that have improved people's quality of life from their involvement in the fishery. Many Canadians' jobs and livelihood depend on this sector, which is the economic mainstay of approximately 1,500 communities in rural and coastal Canada.

I will now focus on why free trade agreements and the CPTPP in particular are necessary to sustain and develop Canada's fish and seafood industry.

Simply put, Canada's fisheries and aquaculture industries produce high-quality, sustainably sourced fish and seafood that help feed the world. The Canadian fish and seafood industry is export-oriented and depends on international markets. In Asia, increased demand from the region's growing middle class represents enormous potential for Canadian exporters of high-quality fish and seafood products.

Once the CPTPP enters into force, it will provide Canadian fish and seafood exporters with preferential access to one of the largest trading blocs in the world, representing close to 500 million people and 13.5% of global GDP. Altogether, Canadians exported an annual average of $732 million in fish and seafood products to CPTPP markets from 2015 to 2017.

Japan is one CPTPP market where Canadian companies can expect huge growth opportunities. Japan is the third-largest economy in the world and imports more than 60% of its food on a caloric basis, so its demand for imported foods is high.

Right now, Canada's ability to compete in the CPTPP markets is hindered by the high tariffs imposed on fish and seafood products like frozen snow crab, lobster, salmon, fish fillets, and oysters. These tariffs can range from 3.5% to 34% in CPTPP countries like Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and New Zealand.

When the agreement enters into force, more than 90% of the fish and seafood tariff lines will immediately become duty-free for Canadian exports, which had an average annual value of $647 million between 2015 and 2017. The remaining 10% will be phased out within 15 years.

For example, close to 66% of Japan's fish and seafood tariff lines will be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement, providing preferential market access for Canada's premium fish and seafood products, such as lobster, crab, shrimp, salmon, herring roe, sea urchins and halibut. Eighty-three per cent of Vietnam's fish and seafood tariff lines will become duty free upon entry into force, while all Canadian fish and seafood exports to Malaysia will become duty free on day one. Enhanced market access for Canadian companies through the CPTPP will create the conditions for increased exports and will contribute to the vitality of the sector and its greater long-term prosperity.

Additional rules for streamlined customs and administration procedures, as well as enhanced regulatory co-operation, will also help Canadian exporters and suppliers save time and money at the borders of CPTPP countries. With increased access and less red tape, these products will gain an advantage over those of competitors from countries that do not have preferential access to CPTPP markets. At the same time, each CPTPP party will maintain the right to take measures necessary for food safety and to protect against risks to animal or plant life or health while helping to ensure that market access gains are not undermined by unnecessary trade restrictions.

The CPTPP's clear rules on developing, adopting and implementing measures for food safety and the protection of animals, plant life and health ensure that any measures will be science based, risk based and transparent. Ultimately, these provisions will create a predictable training environment for CPTPP members, giving manufacturers and exporters a leg up in prospective markets. Consultations with the fish and seafood industry have been overwhelmingly positive. The feedback from Canadians making a living in this sector is that the fish and seafood industry stands to benefit from the elimination of tariffs, and they are excited about this agreement.

The CPTPP also includes an environment chapter that addresses a number of important global environmental challenges with binding commitments from CPTPP members to, among other things, combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and promote sustainable fisheries management, including through obligations to prohibit subsidies that negatively affect fish stocks. The environment chapter also establishes a framework for co-operation in areas of mutual interest. This includes, for example, working together to mitigate the impacts of climate change, promote and conserve biodiversity, address the illegal wildlife trade, combat invasive alien species and promote sustainable fisheries practices. By maintaining policy flexibility in areas, including fisheries and aquaculture, Canada will ensure the sustainability of our valuable fish resources now and into the future.

By increasing and diversifying Canada's presence in major seafood markets in the Asia-Pacific region, this trade agreement has the potential to provide significant benefits to thousands of Canadians. By providing duty-free access to this huge market, CPTPP will help put more of our country's world-class fish and seafood products on more dinner plates and tables around the world. The fish and seafood sector contributes greatly to Canada's economic prosperity and standard of living, especially our coastal regions, but also to indigenous communities in the interior like Manitoba, and is vital to long-term growth.

I am fully committed to supporting this sector and to ensuring that it remains a vibrant and integral part of Canada's culture and economy. That is why I encourage all members of the House to vote in support of this bill, to allow us to implement the CPTPP in order for Canadians, including indigenous fishermen and all fishermen in Manitoba, to reap its benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canada has lost billions of dollars in legal fees and payouts due to the investor-state provisions in NAFTA, so I wonder why the government is continuing to push trade deals that entrench these provisions that will continue to undermine our sovereignty and ability to regulate in the best public interest.

We know that indigenous communities have raised these concerns repeatedly. The member's party recently indicated its support for UNDRIP and the government still has failed to consult indigenous peoples on the CPTPP. Why is the member supportive of this trade agreement when the government has not consulted indigenous peoples? We know how critical consultation is for reconciliation and building trust with those communities, as well as ensuring that they have the sovereignty to protect themselves.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in many consultations working with first nations communities in Manitoba talking about the importance of the fisheries. For instance, with respect to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, the Conservative government in Manitoba actually removed Manitoba from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act and essentially caused a bit of chaos in the freshwater lake fisheries in Manitoba, which impacts indigenous fishers. Eighty-three per cent of the fishers in Manitoba are indigenous.

I spent a long time talking to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and other groups, like the Manitoba Metis Federation, as well as other colleagues in the Manitoba caucus. We discussed how these fishers could eventually buy the corporation so they could be the owners not only of this resource but of how they market the fish and where that fish eventually goes. They could be real true partners in what actually happens. This is part and parcel of the things I am working on in Manitoba.

Obviously, there are a few other questions and ideas the member raised related to chapter 19 of NAFTA, as well as other things, like how we resolve disputes. These are very important considerations. However, if we do not have those agreements and someone puts tariffs on our products, how do we then resolve that question? Do we start a trade war or do we have a mechanism where we could actually have an agreement and come to some sort of conclusion about unfair trade practices which may be on both sides?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech on this second day of our return to Parliament. His support for this very important deal is clear.

We are looking at GDP increasing by $4.2 billion in the first year. We are talking about Canadians having access to half a billion people who can purchase products. We are also talking about the Canadian economy and the small business community and the middle-class being able to import various products tariff-free. I would like my colleague to share his opinion on small business and the middle class and how his community and surrounding areas would benefit from this very important deal that would improve access to products and markets for our products, because we are the richest country in the world in natural resources.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his question.

I heard a Conservative MP from Edmonton speak French for the first time. He gave a big speech in French. I also want to mention that I am a French-speaking indigenous Canadian. Yes, we do exist in Canada. I am very proud to be able to speak the language of Molière.

It is important to really grow our GDP. Manitoba's fisheries are suffering because some fish are not considered economically viable in certain markets. There may be a solution to this problem. For example, there is a Vietnamese dish called fish floss that is popular in Asia. The fish being thrown back into the lakes in Manitoba could be used to produce a food that Asians would enjoy. We could even develop our markets and sell products that people want in Asia, Vietnam, or elsewhere.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in the House, to see my colleagues again, and particularly to participate in the debate on Bill C-79. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Yesterday, we began the debate about the ratification of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Yesterday, we spent five and a half hours debating this important bill. This morning, a time allocation motion was moved. The Liberal Party, the government, worked with the Conservative Party, the official opposition, to fast-track Bill C-79.

It is disappointing not to have time to rise to express the concerns of the people we represent concerning an important bill like the ratification of this agreement. It is frustrating and disappointing. I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to express Canadians' fears and concerns about this bill.

I would first like to set the stage by providing a bit of context. The Prime Minister made a statement during the election campaign. On October 5, 2015, he said:

The government has an obligation to be open and honest about the negotiation process, and immediately share all the details of any agreement. Canadians deserve to know what impacts this agreement will have on different industries across our country. The federal government must keep its word and defend Canadian interests during the TPP’s ratification process—which includes defending supply management, our auto sector, and Canadian manufacturers across the country.

That was in 2015. It is now 2018, and it is clear that the Prime Minister has kept neither his word, nor his promise.

The Standing Committee on International Trade held consultations, and I want to thank our critic who worked very hard in committee. We are proud of what she has been able to accomplish. These consultations were not very accessible to members of the public wanting to participate. The public did not get much warning that consultations on the TPP were being held. People did not have much time to prepare, get to, and participate in the consultations. Members of the public had one hour to make submissions and give testimony. In Montreal, 19 members of the public opposed the agreement. Three individuals in Quebec City opposed the agreement. The committee received more than 8,000 submissions from Canadians.

We had a very hard time getting them translated and reviewing all of the submissions properly. There was no comprehensive consultation like the one the Prime Minister promised in 2015. The committee is supposed to be independent, but its consultations were strongly influenced by the government.

I remind members that the Standing Committee on International Trade held dozens of meetings, heard from more than 400 witnesses, and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians, 95% of whom opposed the bill and the ratification of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, whom I am proud to represent. I had the honour of sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food since 2012. In January I took on new responsibilities, but I follow the committee's work closely.

All of the agreements that the government has signed since I entered politics in 2011 have chipped away at our supply management system. Every agreement signed gives greater access to our dairy, poultry, turkey or egg markets.

Every agreement we sign opens up more of our market. The Conservative government said it would support and defend our supply management system, but what it actually did was negotiate agreements that allowed greater access to our market. The Liberal Party, with its majority, is doing the same thing. Despite the Liberals' insistence that they support our supply management system, they are continuing to poke holes in it.

Canadians are entitled to a government that respects the will of the people and does not negotiate agreements behind closed doors. Experts tell us that ratifying the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership will cost between 60,000 and 80,000 jobs in Canada because of concessions affecting the auto sector. How disturbing that the government is so willing to jeopardize those jobs.

Concessions in the CPTPP are keeping dairy, egg and poultry producers up at night and could cost 26,000 jobs in Quebec alone. Dairy producers say that giving up 3.25% of the Canadian market will likely cost them about $250 million in annual income. Should our supply management system disappear entirely, the poultry sector would lose 60,000 to 80,000 jobs. That does not even take into account concessions in the Canada-EU agreement.

All the agreements Canada has signed recently represent a 15% increase in access to our supply-managed markets. The government kept saying that it would protect our supply management system, but it has never said that it will fully protect it, so naturally, farmers have some fears and concerns.

We also have to think about timing. Right now we are debating ratifying the trans-Pacific partnership, and yet Canada is still negotiating with the United States. Several experts and groups have urged us to be cautious.

By going ahead with this and supporting the trans-Pacific partnership, we will be giving other countries greater access to our supply-managed market. This could send Mr. Trump and our American friends a clear message: we are prepared to grant them even more access to our market.

These market losses will cause Canada's GDP to drop by between $4.6 billion and $6.3 billion. The study also found that dismantling our supply management system would provide no real benefit to Canadian consumers.

According to the Éleveurs de volailles du Québec, across the poultry industry the implementation of the trans-Pacific partnership will result in the loss of more than 2,200 jobs and cut $150 billion from Canada's GDP.

It is true that our supply management system was created by the Liberals, but here it is being greatly weakened once more. We are witnessing its death by a thousand cuts. We are weakening our system to the point that it will no longer be worthwhile to keep it in place.

The government is telling us that there is nothing to worry about and that there will be a compensation plan for producers, but producers are not interested. They do not want to hear about compensation. Canadian producers want the federal government to do its job. Promises need to be kept. We hope the government will hold its own in the NAFTA renegotiation. That said, up to now, it has not been able to stand up for producers.

We could talk about other problems with the trans-Pacific partnership. For example, there is the auto sector. Many people work in the auto and parts sector.

These people and a number of unions are strongly opposed to the CPTPP because it will not do much to help them. It is still causing a lot of uncertainty. Less stringent rules of origin expose Canada to competition with Japanese vehicles that have a lot more components from countries that are not members of the TPP, such as China, Thailand, and Indonesia. However, Canada is maintaining its commitment to gradually eliminate its tariffs in the auto sector over a short period of five years.

There are a number of reasons why we do not support the TPP. It jeopardizes jobs. The government is telling us that it is protecting jobs and will create jobs for the middle class, but it is putting these jobs and these workers in jeopardy.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech.

She talked about her colleague who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I had the opportunity to serve with that member on the committee. We also went to Asia to meet with people in Malaysia and Singapore who are part of the TPP. These people are thrilled with the agreement. The member mentioned job losses. Since 2015, we have created 500,000 jobs. The member talked about the consultations that we held. There were open mic consultations across Canada. We heard from representatives of unions, civil society, and the business community. The Canada brand is seen in a very positive light everywhere we went. I hope that the member's colleague told her about what we heard.

One thing that was mentioned that will have a particular impact on the member since her riding is in Quebec is that we managed to get a letter containing the cultural exemption under the TPP. It is very important for the economies of Quebec and Canada to be able to promote culture.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The Standing Committee on International Trade held consultations across Canada. From what I understand, public notices were issued and there was not much time to announce the consultations. It took some time, and not everyone was able to attend in person. The committee received about 8,000 briefs. They had not been translated, so we did not necessarily get to read every single brief that was submitted to the committee.

With regard to culture, many experts expressed concerns about the trans-Pacific partnership because the cultural exemption it contained was the weakest such provision to have been negotiated in a free trade agreement. It was not something Canada could be proud of. It was not worth bragging about, because it was not a step forward.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for her speech.

I would like to remind her of the motion that was unanimously adopted by the House on February 7, 2018:

That this House calls on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management as part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Bill C-79 proposes 3.25% for the dairy market, 2.3% for eggs, and 2.1% for poultry, which would supposedly be protected. I would like to point out that we, the legislators, the elected officials, are the bosses. We are the ones giving orders to the government. We adopted a unanimous motion. I recall that the two ministers of trade were present in the House and supported the motion. Now we get a bill that contains a major breach in supply management. In my view, the government is acting like a poor student with a bad attitude.

I would like to hear my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's thoughts on this.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Joliette for his question.

The House voted unanimously in favour of the motion to ensure that any agreements we sign do not open a breach in our supply management system. Unfortunately, unanimous motions do not force the government to take action. That is sad because each new agreement we sign chips away at supply management.

In 2014, I even moved a similar motion calling for financial support and demanding that the government fully protect supply management in the Canada-Europe agreement, but we all know how that turned out.

Benoit Legault represents dairy farmers in the Outaouais-Laurentides region. This is what he had to say:

All countries subsidize their agricultural sectors to ensure food sovereignty. However, our dairy farmers have never needed subsidies because production is tightly controlled. There is no surplus, prices do not go down, and there is no need to subsidize our dairy farmers. Then the government came along with compensation...

He was talking about the investment plan, which never materialized. These farmers do not want subsidies. They do not want money. They just want the government to do its job, keep its promises, and protect our borders like it said it would.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in the House and speak to this very important issue. I had the privilege of being the New Democratic Party official opposition critic on international trade for four years in the last Parliament.

Of course, the agreement that is the subject of discussion today that was known then as the TPP or trans-Pacific partnership, now renamed the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership, was very much in the public domain at that time. I followed the details as that agreement was being negotiated fairly carefully at that time. Essentially, my concern comes down to a number of basic points.

First of all, New Democrats have long been concerned by the secrecy surrounding the TPP and the CPTPP negotiations. Despite direct promises by the Prime Minister during the last election to be transparent on trade deals, the Liberals continue to give Canadians vague updates and mixed messages. Today we faced the shameful action by the government that brought in time allocation to limit debate on this very important subject. The previous government did this almost 100 times and the present Liberal government seems to be trying to match it. That shuts down democratic debate. It prevents us from speaking our minds and representing our constituents, which we were elected to come here to do. I think it is deplorable and it ought to be condemned.

Second, we have to recall that the trade committee held dozens of sessions, heard from more than 400 witnesses and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians. The overwhelming consensus was that 95% of those people, those good people who took the time to make their views known, were against this deal. Experts also point out that Canada under the CPTPP would lose 58,000 jobs due to concessions that would damage our automobile industry and our supply management system. I will explore that in a few minutes.

This deal also contains troubling provisions on foreign control of Canadian businesses, rights to privacy and intellectual property. This agreement contains extremely weak labour and environment standards. I would say they are virtually absent. The so-called side letters are almost toothless, not only because they are not in the main agreement but because of the language contained in them.

The New Democrats have, for decades now, been strong proponents of fair trade and fair trade deals that seek to raise the labour standards, improve environmental protection, protect our public services and culture, and increase jobs in the Canadian economy.

I want to stop for a moment because I have heard, unfortunately, from the Liberal side of the House, some words that I think typify a very unfortunate approach to politics. We saw this in the last Conservative government under then Prime Minister Harper where if one was not in agreement with the government, then one was subject to a very simplified wedge politics approach that completely misrepresented one's position. It was repeated endlessly, so for instance if one did not stand with the Conservatives' tough-on-crime legislation, somehow one was on the side of child molesters. That approach to politics is deplorable in this House. I think Canadians reject it. We reject it. It does not do anything to advance informed political debate.

I am hearing the same thing from Liberals in this debate that, because we are not in favour of this agreement or are doing our job as opposition by critiquing this agreement, we are opposed to trade. That is absurd and it is nonsense, yet the Liberals keep saying that. Every Canadian understands the importance of trade. Every Canadian wants Canada to be a positive trading nation. That does not mean that we will sign any piece of paper put in front of us. That does not mean that we will be in favour of any agreement, no matter how many jobs it costs Canada or how harmful it is to the Canadian economy.

I want to state for the record that New Democrats are proud supporters of trade. We are strong supporters of Canadian champions and we want to build a strong trading nation in Canada that protects our environment, that supports labour and human rights and that also supports Canadian champions on the world scene.

The only major change that appears to be positive about this whole deal is that the Liberals put the word “progressive” in the title. This is a cynical and very transparent ploy that progressive Canadians will not accept. There is nothing progressive about this deal.

I want to talk for a few minutes about why this agreement is troubling and will start with the auto sector.

The auto sector in this country is extremely important. Canada is the 10th largest vehicle producer in the world. The auto sector is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada. Over 120,000 employees are directly employed in the auto and auto parts sector and it is responsible for about $100 billion in factory sales and related economic activity.

What will the CPTPP do? Industry and labour groups in the auto and auto parts sectors that will be most affected by this and have been carefully monitoring this agreement over the last number of years are strongly opposed to it.

The auto industry is already in the crosshairs of the NAFTA negotiation and facing punitive U.S. tariffs. The industry does not believe the Liberals' claims that the CPTPP will open up markets in the Asia-Pacific, particularly Japan. In fact, anybody who watches auto industry patterns and trends will realize that by reducing tariffs in this country, we are going to see a flood of automobiles and automotive parts coming in from jurisdictions, and not the other way around. It will only increase the auto trade imbalance and further de-harmonize the Canada-U.S. auto industry. Why? Let us look at the rules of origin.

Under the CPTPP, in order for a vehicle made in a TPP country to come into Canada tariff-free, 35% to 45% of it has to be made within a TPP country. Imagine that. If a car manufacturer sets up, say, in Vietnam or Malaysia, in order for one of its cars to come in tariff-free, only 35% to 45% of it has to be made in Vietnam or Malaysia. The rest of the car can be made outside of either of those countries in low wage jurisdictions like Bangladesh or India, or any other low wage jurisdiction that has no environmental standards and very poor labour and employment standards. Even if 35% to 45% is made in the low wage jurisdictions of Malaysia or Vietnam, 55% to 65% of that vehicle, the rest of it, will be made in an even lower wage jurisdiction.

How on earth are major vehicle manufacturers centred in Canada that pay good wages, that pay workers' compensation benefits, that pay for health and welfare benefits, and that pay good taxes or support social programs in this country supposed to compete with that? Yet the Liberals expect us to believe that under this deal we are going to be making vehicles here and will be sending them to Malaysia. If anyone believes that, we have a bridge for sale.

I want to talk about supply management. Supply management is made up of three pillars: price controls, production controls, and import controls. The Liberals continually say that they stand up for supply management in every trade deal, but what they do not tell Canadians is that in every trade deal they have signed, from CETA to the CPTPP, and probably with NAFTA today, they are chipping away at the import controls and letting each one of those great deals let more and more dairy products come in, 3% for Europe, and another 3.5% for the TPP countries. Who knows what we are going to give Donald Trump?

That means that as they sit here and pretend to support supply management, the Liberals are eroding or sawing off that third pillar of supply management. Eventually it will be 15%, 20%, 25%, 40%, 50% of import controls and by that time supply management will have been killed from within.

We saw what happened with Brexit in England. We saw the election of Donald Trump. What happened? Workers around the world have perceived that over the last 30 or 40 years under so-called globalization business has achieved everything it wanted, such as lower labour costs, deregulation, and liberalized trade so that global capital could move around the world. What has happened? The benefits of that have not been shared equally.

That is why the British and American working class have rebelled against neo-Liberal trade deals, all of which have only done one thing: increased GDP for the top 1% to 10%, while 90% of the rest of us end up having poor jobs while we watch our manufacturing sector get hollowed out and good middle-class, family sustaining jobs sent to low wage jurisdictions.

That is what has happened under the Liberals, it is what happened under the Conservatives, and the New Democrats are the only ones who will stand in the House and fight for Canadian jobs and a strong Canadian economy here at home for everybody. We will stand against these lousy trade deals every time they are put before us in the House. That is what the CPTPP is, a lousy deal, and we will continue to fight against it until we can stop this agreement.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague.

Whenever the New Democrats talk about free trade agreements, the same question always comes to mind: has there ever been one they supported? For two and a half years, I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, and they never supported a single one. Some 500,000 jobs have been created for the middle class in Canada since 2015.

Earlier the member mentioned auto parts. Consultations on the trans-Pacific partnership were held in every town and city in the country. We met with representatives of automakers and auto parts manufacturers associations, not only from the U.S., but also from Japan and Korea. Our government also listened to what Canadian auto sector workers had to say, and we made their concerns a priority. As part of the negotiations, Canada signed bilateral side letters with Australia and Malaysia, but there is also Japan.

What do all these jobs mean for the middle class in my colleague's riding? I hope he knows what this means.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard this the other day in the House and I am going to repeat it, that the only thing consistent about the Liberals on trade is their inconsistency. I was carefully following the debate in 1988 when the Liberal Party opposed the free trade agreement with the United States. In 1993, I saw the Liberal Party campaign against NAFTA and say that it would pull out of it if it were elected. It was elected, but what happened? As is often the case with the Liberals, they campaigned from the left and governed from the right. They suddenly forgot that promise. Then they were for NAFTA. In terms of inconsistency, for the Liberals I guess it just depends which way the wind is blowing, and then they will determine their trade policy.

I forgive my hon. colleague for not knowing this as I do not think she was present in the last parliament, but the NDP has supported two agreements. We supported an agreement with South Korea and an agreement with Jordan. We supported those agreements because we analyzed them and determined that the countries we would be trading with would be of benefit to Canada. We read the agreements and made sure that overall they would be of benefit to this country. The Liberals should try to do that sometime.

Finally, on auto and auto parts, if we go back and look at the facts, ever since we signed NAFTA, the auto plants in Canada have gone down and the auto plants in Mexico have gone up almost exactly in proportion. We have lost manufacturing jobs. Everybody who watches knows; it is common sense. If one signs an agreement with a country that pays one-third the wages we do and does not have any of the social programs we do, capital will likely go to that jurisdiction for it to operate its manufacturing plants there and then just ship the goods back to us. That is exactly what was done, and that is what this deal would do too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have seen New Democrats perform inside the House of Commons for many years at the provincial level, and one of the things that really strikes me is the fact that they are somewhat consistent. When the member talks about trade and trade agreements, for all intents and purposes they do not support trade agreements, period. They might cite one or two, but when it comes to actually doing the assessment, we know that they do not do one. This very piece of legislation is a good example of it. They opposed this agreement before the details of it were even known. Once they received the actual agreement, then they justified their position. Their position was known before the agreement. Everyone knew that. Thomas Mulcair was going around saying that they opposed the agreement, yet he had no idea what was in it.

The NDP does not support trade or trade agreements, yet Canada's economy and middle class are very dependent on these. Trade realizes real tangible jobs, jobs that Canadians want. When will the NDP take a position in support of Canadian jobs? I was at a Canada Goose factory last week, which is exporting and creating hundreds of jobs. There are over 500,000 jobs—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to me how the member always confuses volume with logic. I cannot compete with logic like that.

He said that the NDP does not support trade agreements, but that we might support a couple. Of course we support trade agreements. I have cited two that we support. Once again he has repeated that old canard that the NDP does not support trade. I have defied him to find one comment ever made by any New Democrat in the history of our party that indicates we do not support trade, yet he repeats his claim here. That is just misleading Canadians.

Here is an interesting thing. Speaking of suppositions, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, when she was the critic for international trade, said this when the CETA text finally came out. Members can read it in the newspapers. She said she was looking forward to finally seeing the deal that she has been supporting all along. That is what the Liberals said about CETA. They supported CETA before they actually knew what was in it. Maybe that is why my hon. colleague has such projection on this issue, because what he is accusing the NDP of is really what the Liberals are guilty of.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I should advise the House that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round. Consequently, all subsequent interventions shall be limited to ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-79, a bill to implement the new incarnation of the TPP without the United States.

The Bloc Québécois is sincerely and seriously concerned about supply management and the breaches that are included in this new version of the agreement. The government gave up 3.25% of the dairy market, 2.3% of the egg market, and 2.1% of the poultry market.

The Liberals and Conservatives, who boast about being the great defenders of our farmers and supply management, just voted in favour of time allocation in order to pass this bill quickly. Last spring, they tried to have a motion adopted unanimously to pass the bill immediately. Obviously, we were there and voted against the motion.

There is quite a disconnect between what they say and what they do. They say they want to defend supply management in its entirety, without any breaches. Now that there is a tangible case in front of them, they are changing their tune and cannot pass this new version of the TPP, with all its breaches, soon enough. That does not add up. There is a major lack of credibility here.

On that note, I would remind the House that whenever there is a by-election, big promises are made. During the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean, the Prime Minister said, "We will not make any concessions when it comes to supply management."

He said this about the TPP on October 19, 2017, in Saint-Félicien, as reported by the Journal de Montréal. I was there too, and I heard it. We were happy at the time, but we now know how much his word is worth.

Just before the last election, on October 4, 2015, the Prime Minister gave an interview to Radio-Canada, which is still available online, in which he said that the Liberal government would not make any concessions on supply management in the TPP. There was even a unanimous motion passed on February 7, 2018. The motion stated:

That the House call on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management as part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.

My colleague from Mirabel moved this motion, which passed unanimously. The two Liberal international trade ministers were in the House, and they agreed.

I remind members that we, as legislators and elected officials, are the government's boss. We asked the government, including all of the Liberals and all of the Conservatives, to ensure that there was no breach in supply management in the new version of the trans-Pacific partnership. We ended up with a significant breach nonetheless. I repeat that his word and his promise are worthless in my eyes.

I would remind members that we are talking about 3.25% for milk, 2.3% for eggs, and 2.1% for poultry. These are all supposedly protected by a quota system that is very costly for farmers. In total, to have a protected market, we are talking about approximately $33 billion in quotas, including $20 billion just for the dairy sector. That is not peanuts. We should respect that.

This is the current explanation for the breach. The Americans wanted concessions with respect to supply management. As they no longer want to be part of the new TPP, they are being enticed with concessions to come back to the table. So what do President Donald Trump and the Americans do? They say they do not want the new TPP, but they want these types of concessions in NAFTA renegotiations. Since we made them in the TPP, we can make them to the Americans, as well. That makes a breach in two agreements for our farmers, who are paying for absolutely nothing.

I will draw a parallel to NAFTA. On June 7, the Prime Minister stated in a Radio-Canada article that if Donald Trump wants to attack supply management, there would be no NAFTA, that they would not sign NAFTA. Given that the government's credibility and the worth of its word have been seriously tainted, there may be some doubt about that.

On September 26 of last year, we were proactive and passed a unanimous motion:

That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.

There is an election campaign underway in Quebec. All party leaders are asking that supply management remain intact in NAFTA. However, it seems that this is not as important given the comments made by Simon Beauchemin, the Prime Minister's advisor in NAFTA renegotiations, who wrote an open letter in La Presse calling for the abolition of supply management.

On that topic, last winter I asked him if he wanted to abolish supply management and how he planned to reimburse the $33 billion worth of quota once supply management is abolished. Farmers are borrowing from financial institutions to cover that. All he did was chortle at me before taking off.

I would remind the House that back when the majority of seats in Quebec were held by Bloc Québécois members, supply management was respected, and those sectors were automatically excluded from the 10 trade agreements signed by Canada, including NAFTA.

At the time, Quebec had more of a voice and Canada listened. Since 2011, that has no longer been the case. Consider the Canada-EU agreement. The bargaining chip that Canada gave up was a new breach for the dairy and cheese sector.

The Harper government had not only promised but even budgeted $4.3 billion in compensation for our dairy producers. The Liberals came to power and tore up that agreement, and instead created a mini program worth $250 million. The first part was gone in a matter of minutes. It was heavily criticized and not suited to our farmers. That is unacceptable. Our farmers were used as a bargaining chip in the Canada-EU agreement. The same thing happened with the TPP and now the CPTPP.

The government has not announced any compensation for our farmers. Once again, farmers are being used as bargaining chips. We are worried about the NAFTA renegotiation because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have changed their tune. We get silence, or they talk around the issue. We have real concerns that there could be another breach in supply management.

This is in addition to all of the tricks, which I consider illegal, that American producers use to try to break into our market and that take an awful lot of time to address. I am talking about milk proteins, diafiltered milk, and misuse of the duty deferral program. There is also the spent fowl scandal, or the distributors that throw in a couple packets of sauce to bring in chicken wings and bypass supply management. Another example is how pizza kits are used bring in grated cheese, and I could go on.

Up until 2011, the government made its position clear to other countries. If they wanted us to make changes to supply management, they would have to eliminate their subsidies and other protectionist mechanisms. That used to be a prerequisite for negotiation, but not anymore. The government gave an inch, and now it is open season.

A C.D. Howe Institute study showed that, in its first year, the TPP's impact on the GDP would be 0.01%. That is negligible. Any benefit will go mainly to Ontario and the west. Quebec is too far from the Pacific nations to benefit much at all. Nevertheless, the things Canada gave up in order to join the partnership are things that matter to Quebec. That is deplorable and unacceptable.

The supply management system works. The United States has a number of protected sectors such as cotton and sugar, but also dairy, eggs and poultry, same as here. All of the agreements that have been signed include very high tariffs to protect domestic markets. Most, if not all, industrialized nations have mechanisms to protect agriculture. Agriculture is an important sector, one vital to any country's national security and to feeding its people.

Apparently Canada's government is the only one prepared to sell out its farmers time after time. That is unacceptable.

We do not want to see the kinds of megafarms that have been popping up in the United States in recent years. Some of those farms have 10,000 cows. Megafarms account for 30% of milk production. Here, farms typically have about 50 cows. I am talking about a family farm land use model. If we did things here like they do in the United States, my entire riding would have a single producer. That is unacceptable, and we want nothing to do with it. An American magazine called Quartz reported that the suicide rate on American family farms is one a week.

That is not what we want, so we will vote against this agreement because of the major breach it creates in supply management.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. He represents a riding in Quebec. My riding is also in Quebec, in a suburb north of Montreal.

As far as the TPP is concerned, I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade for two and a half years and we held consultations across the country. We heard from labour unions, civil society, auto parts manufacturers and automakers.

My colleague did not touch on the cultural exemption. There are side letters and that is very important for Quebec's cultural industry, but he did not mention that. I did not hear him talk about the increased number of job opportunities for the middle class in his riding. I would like him to say a few words about that.