Debates of May 29th, 2019

International Trade

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I actually feel sorry for the Prime Minister. It is quite clear that nobody in his cabinet, in his caucus or in his office has the backbone to tell him the truth. The truth is that this new deal is not better than the original NAFTA.

Two and a half years ago when the Prime Minister volunteered to renegotiate NAFTA, he promised Canadians he would get a “better deal”. Let us review how we got here, because the Prime Minister's strategy was doomed from the very beginning.

In his very first discussion with the president-elect on election day, the Prime Minister told Donald Trump that he was “more than happy” to start NAFTA negotiations with no preconditions. Rather than aiming for a speedy resolution with minimal disruption as other countries like South Korea did with its agreements with the Americans, the Prime Minister sought a complete renegotiation.

The Prime Minister kicked off his negotiating strategy by highlighting aspects of his agenda, insisting that the new NAFTA be focused on a series of conditions that had nothing whatsoever to do with market access or trade.

In short order, Canada found itself on the outside looking in while Mexico and the United States hammered out a deal, and Canada would only be brought in at the end.

Instead of seeking a few minor amendments to keep disruptions to a minimum, the Prime Minister wanted to completely renegotiate the agreement. The Prime Minister introduced his negotiation strategy by focusing on his so-called progressive trade agenda and insisting that the new NAFTA follow a set of conditions that have nothing to do with trade. Canada quickly found itself on the sidelines while Mexico and the United States reached an agreement. Canada only participated at the end.

What a failure. The Prime Minister tries to call this NAFTA 2.0. Nobody is calling it that. They are calling it NAFTA 0.5.

As a result of this deal, automakers operate under new rules that constrain their content and make them less competitive, and the U.S. has set an upper limit on how many cars can come from Canada in case they impose tariffs.

Canadians will have reduced access to essential medicines and will have to pay higher prices for prescription drugs.

The U.S. now holds unprecedented influence over our future negotiations with potential new trading partners.

American farmers will have tariff-free access to a significant portion of Canada's supply-managed sector, while the United States made not a single concession in their own subsidized and protected dairy industry.

The Prime Minister just said that it was in line with previous trade deals that the Conservatives signed. That is completely false. The Liberals gave away far more. No Conservative trade deal ever agreed to place a limit on our exports to other countries around the world. Contrary to the Prime Minister's lofty promises at the outset, there is quite literally nothing about this deal that is better than the one before it.

The Liberals do like to talk about the ratchet clause. I have no doubt that there were lots of intense negotiations, lots of evenings when the team was assembled and they were all focused on the ratchet clause and were up late into the evening explaining to the Prime Minister what the ratchet clause was before they even started talking about it.

The Prime Minister's only so-called victories from the negotiations are provisions that were already in place that previous Conservative leadership had put into the original NAFTA. Certain binational dispute-settlement processes and maintained flexibility on cultural programs were already there before the negotiations started. The Liberals cannot count that as a victory if all they have done is prevented selling it away. The Americans measured their successes on NAFTA by what they gained. The Prime Minister is measuring his success on what he was not forced to give up.

Let us remember that he agreed to all of this with steel and aluminum tariffs still in place.

Once the agreement was reached, the Prime Minister stated that he would not attend the NAFTA signing ceremony unless the steel and aluminum tariffs were lifted. He was very clear about that.

The Prime Minister promised that his last hold-out and negotiating card was that he would not participate in the photo op at the signing ceremony unless the steel and aluminum tariffs were lifted. In the end, he backed down again, and there he was sitting beside Donald Trump, and steel and aluminum tariffs were still in place. This brings me to the Prime Minister's final capitulation on the deal in regard to the removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs.

Of course, Conservatives are pleased that the tariffs have ultimately been removed. I have met steelworkers, as I have in my riding, who were struggling. I know the pressures they were facing. However, this deal is far from the “pure good news” the Prime Minister has been selling it as. It is in fact not as advertised. “Don't bask in the glory of this one” is how Leo Gerard, the president of the United Steelworkers union, described it. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing.

The deal allows Donald Trump to reimpose steel and aluminum tariffs if there is a “meaningful” surge of imports above historic levels. Who defines what meaningful is? Donald Trump defines it. It gets worse. The deal prevents Canada from responding with retaliatory tariffs targeting key U.S. industries, the best piece of leverage we have. We even had a Liberal MP asking about this during question period, praising the strategy that strategic tariffs on unrelated industries were part of the pressure that finally got the steel and aluminum tariffs lifted. What did the Liberals do? They traded that away.

Usually Canada would respond to tariffs by imposing its own tariffs on products that strategically target important politicians or industrial sectors, such as bourbon, ketchup, yogourt and farm products. The Prime Minister also relinquished that right. Imagine an investor who wants to grow their business in Canada and who needs to make a profit over the next 10 to 20 years to recoup his investment. The Prime Minister not only gave the United States the power to limit our exports, but he also relinquished our best method of retaliation.

Why would anybody take that risk now? We know that the Prime Minister is desperate for anything he can point to as a win, so he has pulled out all the stops to celebrate this new NAFTA as a big victory. However, it is simply not as advertised, and neither is this Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to negotiate a better deal and he failed. He gave Donald Trump everything the President wanted and more. However, this is the deal that we are stuck with.

After October 21, our new government will work to mitigate the damage this deal has caused. As Conservatives have done in the past, we will address things by working in a one-by-one process, addressing the issues like the lingering softwood lumber dispute this Prime Minister failed to resolve, the remaining buy American provisions, and the disjointed regulatory regimes. We will negotiate with the U.S. from a position of strength by emphasizing security and defence co-operation and by imposing safeguards to protect North American steel from Chinese dumping. We will diversify our trading partners, as we have in the past, to reduce our dependence on the U.S.

When Conservatives were in power, we negotiated free trade and investment agreements with 53 countries. We will lower taxes on Canadians and reduce regulatory burdens on businesses so that Canada becomes an attractive place for investors and there are more voices fighting for trade access to Canada and Canadian businesses can compete and win on the world stage.

In short, Conservatives will once again clean up the mess that Liberals leave them.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it boggles the mind how the Liberal government could enter into a trade agreement with a country or think that it was possible to enter into a trade agreement with a country while that country was still imposing illegal trade tariffs on our steel and aluminum. Those illegal tariffs already threatened thousands of jobs. Thousands of jobs were already put at risk for the duration of those illegal tariffs.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of the New Democrats and the United Steelworkers whose members fought so hard to remove those tariffs. Because of the pressure applied by all those champions, the government finally understood this was something that needed to be done and moved to get those tariffs removed. I particularly want to acknowledge our labour critic and our trade critic who worked so hard on that file.

The steel and aluminum tariffs must be lifted. They have already had negative impacts on Canadian industry.

Now we are faced with a major question. There is an agreement on the table. In the United States, the U.S. Congress is working on improving that deal. If attempts are being made to improve the deal for working people, why would the government rush ahead and ratify it? When we know this deal will not even be in a position to be signed, because of the signs we are receiving from the U.S. Congress, it makes no sense to rush ahead with a time allocated motion to ratify something when work is already being done.

The Liberals like to bring forward a number of quotes, saying that this is what needs to be done. Let me read a quote from the USW International president, Leo Gerard. He says that the agreement must ensure stronger enforceable labour and environmental measures. “Until you give the ability to have labour law reforms, and to have it enforced in Mexico, we're not going to be out supporting a trade deal.”

That is from one of the major players in the states, saying it will not to be supporting this deal unless there is some enforcement.

Let us look at the four major concerns.

One is the labour condition. Our Canadian workers can compete with anyone in the world if there are fair and level playing fields imposed. We also need to have protection for the environment. If Canadian workers have to work in a context, rightly so, where we protect the environment, but compete with a jurisdiction where those protections are not in place, it creates an unlevel playing field.

The bill would drive up the cost of medication. At a time when more and more people are relying on medication, at a time when it is out of grasp for so many Canadians and millions of Canadians cannot afford medication, it makes no sense to have a trade deal that will drive up the cost of medication. That is another problem.

Covering all these issues is enforceability. There is some language in the bill, but there is no concrete guarantee that it can be enforced. Therefore, enforceability is a concern.

All of these concerns are being raised in the U.S. Congress right now. They are being negotiated and worked on right now. Why would we ratify a deal when four outstanding key elements are being worked on and improved?

That is the fundamental issue for us. Our priority is jobs in Canada. We want to protect jobs in Canada and the environment. We are not convinced that this agreement will allow us to do both. What is more, it risks increasing drug costs, which will have an extremely adverse impact on Canadians.

We are calling on the Liberal government and the Prime Minister not rush this bill ahead.

United Steelworkers' national director, Ken Neumann, said that it did not support a rush to ratify the USMCA while its steel markets remained susceptible to foreign dumping and illegally traded products and, by extension, the threat of renewed U.S. tariffs, that Canada continued to stand alone in failing to protect its key industries and that the federal government must implement strong measures to protect its markets and defend Canadian jobs and communities.

These concerns are outstanding. Without having addressed them, we should not be rushing ahead. We should take the time to improve the deal. We should support the efforts being made right now in the U.S. Congress to improve it. Improving this deal and ensuring there is enforceability, labour rights, environmental rights and protection against the cost of drugs from going up will help Canadians, Canadian workers and will save jobs.

The New Democrats believe in saving Canadian jobs and working to ensure the environment and workers are protected and the cost of medication is not out of reach.

Once again, our priority is to defend Canadian jobs and the environment. We are demanding that the government let American politicians continue improving the agreement to help out ordinary folks, workers and the planet.

I hope the Liberal government understands its job is not to do the bidding of Mr. Trump. Its job is not to rush ahead because Mr. Trump has requested it. Its job is to defend the workers in Canada, Canadian jobs, the environment and ensure people can afford the medication they need. That is its priority, not getting an award or trophy showing it has signed another agreement. It has to be a fair and good agreement for Canada. As it stands, there is no reason to rush ahead with this. We oppose this idea of rushing ahead. We need to improve this deal.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Joliette to add his comments?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to add her remarks?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For clarity purposes, I did not hear anyone who said no, at least on this side, to allow members of the Bloc or from the Green Party to speak. We would like to hear them speak on the issue.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I did hear noes and that is the end of the matter.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did hear noes from the other side as well. We all heard some noes.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. It was very clear to me that there were noes, so I am carrying on.

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statements, Government Orders will be extended by 27 minutes.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, three reports of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

The first report is with respect to its participation at the annual parliamentary hearing at the United Nations, held in New York, New York, United States of America, on February 21 and 22.

The second report concerns its participation at the parliamentary meeting on the occasion of the 63rd session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, held in New York, New York, United States of America, March 12-14, 2019.

The third report is with respect to its participation at the meeting of the steering committee of the Twelve Plus group, held in Horta and Terceira, Portugal, from March 24 to 26.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report it with amendments.

I want to thank all committee members who put great effort into researching and debating the substantial budget implementation act. I have to admit that sometimes the debate at committee was boisterous.

I also want to thank witnesses who brought forward their concerns and suggestions. Certainly, I must thank the legislative clerk and the Library of Parliament analysts for all the work they did on this matter.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Peacebuilding and Development in Somalia, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Recommendations for Canadian Action”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Religious Freedom

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this petition highlights the issue of religious freedom in Afghanistan.

The petitioners call on the government to do more to support religious minorities in Afghanistan, in particular the Hindu and Sikh minorities. Canada has a special relationship with Afghanistan because of the contributions of our soldiers. The petitioners therefore are hopeful that the government will act to help vulnerable minorities.

Animal Welfare

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the good people of Fundy Royal and on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Health, and the good people of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe to present this petition signed by New Brunswickers.

Over 800 people have signed this petition that calls on the House of Commons to support Bill S-214, which seeks to ban the sale and manufacture of of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients.

I am proud to present this on behalf of New Brunswickers in this great place.

Human Rights

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the eve of White Armband Day, it is time to reflect on the genocide denial that continues to plague our world. Petition e-1837, which has obtained 2,134 signatures, is an opportunity to examine the possible actions and initiatives that the government could take to combat this horrific behaviour.

The House unanimously declared April as Genocide Remembrance, Condemnation and Awareness Month and named genocides that have been recognized by Canada's House of Commons, including the Srebrenica genocide.

It is time for the government to extend resources to commemorate the victims and survivors of genocide, educate the public and to take specific action to counteract genocide denial, a pernicious form of hate which reopens wounds and reinvigorates division. Truth is justice; honesty is the path to reconciliation and peace.

Animal Welfare

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, this petition has a number of signatures from people who believe that cosmetic testing does not require the involvement of animals anymore.

The petitioners ask for support for Bill S-214.

Forced Migration

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition from Development and Peace—Caritas Canada's Laval branch. The petition is signed by 343 residents of Laval.

The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the root causes of forced migration, such as climate change, persecution and armed conflict.

The petitioners are asking the government to support grassroots organizations working for peace and to invest more in diplomatic and peaceful solutions to armed conflicts.

Pay Equity

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition that calls upon the House of Commons to enact legislation and policies that would promote pay equity and pay equality so that women in Canada get the equal treatment they deserve.

Palliative Care

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first one is with respect to hospice palliative care. It is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with a life-threatening illness through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other physical, psychological and spiritual problems.

The petitioners are asking the House to specifically identify hospice palliative care as a defined medical service covered under the Canada Health Act, so that provincial and territorial governments will be entitled to funds under the Canada health transfer system, to be used to provide accessible and available hospice palliative care for all residents of Canada in their respective provinces and territories.

Afghan Minority Communities

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition. I had an opportunity to meet with members of the Sikh community in Ottawa today, as they were lobbying. I am presenting a petition in support of their efforts to press the government to act in support of Afghanistan's hard-pressed Sikh and Hindu minorities. The petitioners are asking the Minister of Immigration to allow members of these communities to be directly sponsored to come to Canada by members of the Canadian community who are ready to provide the necessary support.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today with a petition from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands calling on the government to take meaningful and bold climate action. The petitioners point out that we must ensure that the global average temperature increase remains at 1.5°C and not above. To do this, they recommend a number of steps, including a national price on carbon, stopping any growth in the oil sands, phasing out coal and other immediate steps.

Afghan Minority Communities

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting the same petition as my colleague from Saskatchewan did a moment ago with respect to the very much oppressed Sikh and Hindu populations in Afghanistan. The petitioners request that arrangements be made to allow Sikh and Hindu people from Afghanistan to come to Canada, where there are people ready to help them settle into our society.

Cycling

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

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to present two petitions today.

The first calls upon the government to implement a national cycling strategy. The national cycling strategy would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve the lives and health of Canadians, and lower health care costs and infrastructure costs. The petitioners from my riding of Courtenay—Alberni are calling for a national strategy that would also enhance national safety standards, including mandatory side guards for trucks.

Natural Resources

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

Madam Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is in opposition to the Kinder Morgan buyout. The petitioners are calling on the government to end its proposition to expand the Kinder Morgan pipeline, due to the threat it would pose to jobs in coastal British Columbia.