Debates of June 13th, 2019

Bill C-100—Time Allocation Motion

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted. We have had more than 70 closure debates in the House this Parliament. This is from a government that said using closure and time allocation was not the way to go. It said it would not introduce omnibus bills, and it has done that.

We are supposed to be debating the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, but it is afternoon now and we have not said a word on it, because we have had a series of closure and time allocation motions. We went to orders of the day and nobody could present petitions. If people had wanted to move private members' motions, they could not have done that either. Now we are shutting down debate on the biggest trade deal Canada has ever contemplated signing.

This is important to Canadians. A big part of the bill would increase drug costs. Yesterday, a report was released noting that we needed universal pharmacare. Bill C-100 would make it more difficult to implement that.

I am wondering why we are hurrying on this very important subject. Why are we sitting here going through time allocation debate after time allocation debate, and not debating the important things Canadians want us to talk about?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the CUSMA is excellent for Canadian jobs and for certainty in the Canadian economy. It is important for Canadian workers, consumers and businesses. It safeguards more than $2 billion a day in cross-border trade between Canada and the United States. For the national economic interest, we should move forward on this new deal, because it actually provides certainty to Canadians.

NDP members talk a big game. They talk about their support for workers and their support for the automotive sector. However, they never talk about support for a trade deal. They refuse to accept that Canada is a trading nation. We are huge in terms of our land mass, but we are really small when it comes to our number of people.

The border between Canada and the United States is the longest border between any two countries, and our supply chains work really closely together. To provide the member with some reassurance regarding the legislation, I note it was tabled in December. New Democrats have had more than ample opportunity to look at the wording within the deal. They have refused to do so, because, as they have stated, their position is that they oppose trade.

That is the NDP position, and it will always remain the NDP position. I encourage New Democrats to support Canada's role as a trading nation.

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

Madam Speaker, I would love to have more time to debate this trade agreement in Parliament. It is really important to have these discussions so that Canadians can understand the implications of these agreements.

I am glad to see that the investor state dispute settlement portion of this trade agreement has been eliminated. ISDS undermines our sovereignty and democratic authority. Canadians have had trade agreements and foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, like the Canada-China FIPA, foisted upon them. The Stephen Harper government rammed through the FIPA agreement with China and basically turned Canada into a colonial state of China. Canadians need to understand better what investor state means to our democratic authority.

There are things in this agreement that need to be improved. I am opposed to extending patents on pharmaceutical drugs, but we need a more fulsome debate on what investor state dispute settlements mean and how we are going to get rid of these ISDS agreements in our foreign investment promotion and protection agreements and our other free trade agreements. I am glad it is gone from NAFTA. Let us get it out of the rest of them.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the discussion does not end here. We are suggesting that this legislation be sent to committee. In committee, members are able to call witnesses and scrutinize legislation better than they can in the House. In the House, only elected members of Parliament can speak. I am sure the member wants to represent his constituents and would agree that there is a lot of intel across this country. That is exactly why we set up a table, with experts and people from different sectors and of different stripes, to support the government and take a team Canada approach. That is why we were able to advance a good bill.

I know the member is new to the House, and I welcome him here, but the ISDS clause costs Canada hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is why it was important to remove that clause.

The member should be pleased to hear that we have an environmental chapter to the trade dispute mechanism within this legislation, which is unheard of, and I hope he recognizes the importance of Canada being a trading nation.

The text of the agreement has been available since November 2018, and the text of the bill has been public since May 29. Everybody has been able to see it, whether they are in the House or not. It has been available to Canadians. Let us move this to committee.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the most important question at this moment is around the exact roles of Parliament and of debate in this House of Commons. It sounds like the government House leader is trying to convince us that because we have known about it, because it was available to the public and because it has been on the table, we in the House of Commons have absolutely no role, so we do not need to have a debate in the House of Commons. That is egregious.

Eighty per cent of Canada's GDP is trade; 70% of that trade is with the United States, and this is the most significant trade agreement we have with the United States. It is not a free trade agreement; it is a managed trade agreement. It is now compromising our sovereignty, and this bill is going to give unlimited access to the Prime Minister to do whatever he wants and further undermine the role and responsibility of this House of Commons.

We are in a majority situation; members do not always have the opportunity to vote the government down, but we do have the opportunity to debate in this House. The more the Liberals constrain us, the more they undermine Parliament and everything about this deal.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have good news for the member. What we are saying today is that we should not only have debate on this legislation but also put it to a vote. After we vote on this legislation, it goes to committee. That is how the process works. Members of Parliament sit on committees. The committee to which we send this legislation will be able to continue studying it.

The member has spoken on numerous occasions about her oath to office and about how her oath is to serve her constituents. The very statistics she just provided are all the more reason this legislation should be sent to committee for study. It should be sent back, and we should be able to advance a trade deal for Canadians. Canada is a trading nation. Rather than talk about it, like the Conservatives are now wanting to do, let us actually act on it. Let us deliver for Canadians, to satisfy that very oath the member took for her constituents: Queen and country, I believe, are the words she repeats.

I will remind everyone that the Conservatives chose not to discuss the legislation during the debate on Tuesday, June 11. The member for Niagara West spoke about the carbon price, Bill C-48 and others, but refused to talk about CUSMA. The member for Calgary Forest Lawn spoke about China and foreign policy rather than about the CUSMA legislation. They have had ample opportunities, but they are trying to stop us from advancing this legislation. That does not sound like a party that supposedly supports Canada being a trading nation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are still a lot of individuals who want to ask questions. I will be cutting off the questions and comments as well as the replies at one minute.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we started negotiations with our partners in the United States and Mexico, we appointed a panel to provide advice. The panel consisted of former members from all different parties.

We have come to an agreement now with our major trading partners, an agreement which provides certainty. It provides certainty for businesses. It provides certainty for businesses in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, many of which are interconnected with the United States economy. They create and provide jobs for middle-class Canadians in the area that I represent. That certainty is so important. Now that we have reached an agreement, we need to move forward with this agreement. We need to send the bill to committee.

I was wondering if the member for Waterloo can comment on how important it is to provide certainty for Canadian businesses and, more importantly, certainty for Canadian families that are working hard. Everyday middle-class families are working hard, saving for their kids' future. They need to know that the trading relationship is intact.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for the exceptional work that he does for his constituents.

His question really speaks to his knowledge on this file. It is so important to understand the wording of the text. What we need to do as parliamentarians is to study the legislation, really get to know it, so that we can strengthen it and ensure that we are delivering for the very people that he and every member in the House represent.

Canadians definitely saw how hard it was to negotiate this new agreement and to achieve the lifting of tariffs. This was a task that all of our country was involved in. During that time, unfortunately, many Canadians had real worries about whether they would lose their jobs or not. This legislation provides certainty to those very workers and their families.

Canada did its job. We have a new NAFTA deal, which is a win-win-win outcome. We have a full lift on tariffs. Unions and auto workers support this deal.

It is important that we move this legislation to committee. That is why we need to call it to a vote, but we still have a little bit of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government House leader suggests that the NDP does not support trade. That is absolutely incorrect. It is false. We support fair trade. Perhaps that is the point that government members do not get.

The government House leader said that we do not have to have this debate here in this chamber, because it could go to committee. Not all members sit on that committee. A limited number of people can participate at committee. We all deserve to engage in this democratic process, to engage in a debate with respect to this trade deal.

This is the second time just this morning where the government is bringing in closure. For a government that said it would do things differently from the Harper government, how is that going? How is that going with the sunny ways and with the number of closure motions the Liberals have brought in that is proportionately higher than that of the Harper government?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would not state anything that is actually not valid and does not have facts to support it. When it comes to members of the NDP, I would love for them to name one trade deal that they support. Canada is a trading nation. We have trade deals with every other G7 country and the NDP has not supported a single one. If the NDP members could just name one trade deal that they support, I would be more than willing to change my statement. However, they cannot because they want to talk a good game. They do not want action.

We are saying that we are going to have debate and then we are going to call the question on the legislation. Then it can definitely advance to committee.

We are the government that has actually increased resources to committees. If the member wants to be on that committee, I am sure that she can talk to her House leadership team and be able to participate on that committee. If she has questions, what I often do with questions that I want posed, I actually work with my colleagues on our benches to see if we can get an answer to them. I actually go to ministers directly to see if we can get an answer.

There are different ways to obtain information if members want to. What is clear is that the NDP does not want to and does not want to call it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As I said, I am giving signals as to when the time is up and I would ask members to respect that so other people can ask questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals make things so tough for themselves, it is unreal. The hon. government House leader said it was tabled in the House in December. She could have actually brought the legislation forward in plenty enough time for us to have a good debate here in the House and plenty enough time for the committee to do a thorough review of the bill.

I have two questions for the government House leader. One, will she assure us that if it goes to committee, the committee can hear from as many witnesses and take as much time that it needs to actually go through this legislation? Two, will she also assure us that if any changes in this legislation should happen in the U.S. this summer, the committee will have a chance to look at them before it finally votes on it and bring it back to the House?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question.

In response, I was reminded by colleagues that when it comes to members of Parliament, as part of the work that we do and the privileges we have, we can actually appear and be part of any committee. I would like to reassure the other member that she is able to participate at committees.

As for the member's question, he was part of the previous government, so I can understand why he is concerned. Stephen Harper used to tell members what to do at committee. The Conservatives had a rule book to shut down committees, so I can understand why he is concerned.

I do not intervene in the committee process. Committees have the resources and they should be able to do the work. It is clear why the Conservatives did not want to debate this legislation earlier this week. The member is already providing excuses that the Conservatives are going to use to ensure that we do not advance it.

Rather than providing excuses, let us work together to find a way forward. We are a government that works on finding solutions. The Conservatives remain a party that works on finding excuses.

[Tony Clement, Independent, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the strategy that is being deployed by the government, the government House leader did mention that there have been talks with Mr. Lighthizer and also with Mr. Pompeo. However, all of us in this place and those who are watchers of the American scene know that Speaker Pelosi has a lot to say about this as well.

I want to know whether there have been consultations with the Speaker's office in the House of Representatives in the United States. They are going to be driving whether there is actual passage of the trade deal. Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have been opposed to the trade deal.

Have there been discussions? Can the government House leader assure the House that there is actually going to be a tandem approach here? In fact, in the U.S. House of Representatives, there is a lot of opposition to this particular trade deal.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the hon. member to be careful about what he reads on the Internet, because it does not always turn out to be what he might think it is.

I would like to reassure the member that we are working in tandem with the United States, as well as Mexico. I would like to reassure him that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is definitely working closely with her counterparts. Not only is she having conversations, but we also set up a table to ensure that people from coast to coast to coast, people from all stripes and sectors were part of the team Canada approach to ensure that we had a good deal.

I would encourage the member to be careful about what information he is obtaining. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is always available and will continue to provide reassurance. We will work really hard for Canadians to ensure that we have a good deal, not just any deal like the Conservatives were asking for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that I do have a clock in front of me.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government House leader does not know what legislation has been passed in this House.

I can reassure her that in this Parliament, and she could go back and look it up for herself, the New Democrats supported the Canada-Ukraine deal and other deals as well. If she would correct her statement, I would appreciate that.

The other thing is the Prime Minister and the minister promised that we would have a full debate, not the closure we are seeing today. Again, Liberals are not being truthful and not just with parliamentarians but with all Canadians.

At the committee on TPP, we had over 400 witnesses. We have two meetings left in this Parliament and we will be lucky to get 16 people through there. This is the most important trade relationship that we have. We cannot afford to have this messed up.

I want to say one other thing about what is happening in the States. This is not moving in tandem. The Democrats have not put this on the floor and will not put it on the floor until the provisions on labour, the environment, the cost of medications and the enforceability are improved. This is something they have done. It is not a Pandora's box. They have a precedent for it under Speaker Pelosi.

The Liberals are not being truthful here today. I want to know why the Liberals have been misleading Canadians and saying that they are allowing debate, when they are shutting it down and there will not be enough witnesses at committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she cannot say indirectly what she cannot say directly.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have been very truthful with Canadians, and that is exactly why we had a table set up with people from all sectors, all stripes, experts, economists and the list goes on.

When it comes to the member's comments, I would like to say, the NDP supports trade with Ukraine. The New Democrats supported a trade deal. Canada is a trading nation. I cannot even say how many trade agreements we have. We have at least 75 trade agreements, and the NDP supports one out of 75 trade agreements. We should definitely do the math on that. I guess the NDP now supports trade deals. What those members should—

[An hon. member]

That's not true. There is more than one.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the member for Essex that she had an opportunity to ask her question without being interrupted, and I would hope she would afford the government House leader that respect as well, even though she may not like the answer.

The hon. government House leader.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to Canada and the United States, as the member knows very well, we have the largest border of any two countries. We have a really important relationship. It is really important to our economy and the workers the member represents and fights for.

The NDP and the Conservatives do not really have a lot of interest when it comes to the actual bill, because not a single Conservative or New Democrat MP showed up to the technical briefing we hosted on June 11. If they have concerns and questions, why did they not show up? Sorry, I would like to correct myself: I think one of the members in the official opposition sent a staff member.

However, what I am saying is that MPs want to debate but MPs are not showing up. Let us call a spade a spade and say that the NDP does not want to see this legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Niagara Falls.