House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nafta.

Topics

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The House has heard the terms of the the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

(Motion agreed to)

Pacific Herring FisheryPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and table a petition on behalf of constituents of Courtenay, Hornby Island, Denman Island and Oceanside.

The petitioners call upon the government to suspend the Pacific herring fishery in the Salish Sea for 2020. They highlight that DFO's practices and guidelines around the fishery led to overfishing in 2019. They also say that the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities and Islands Trust's near unanimous call on the government to suspend this fishery would be in light of the government saying that it supports local knowledge and local decision-making. Also, the Qualicum First Nation has asked for this fishery to be suspended and the K'ómoks First Nation has asked for it to be curtailed.

Herring is critical for the food web for salmon, southern resident killer whales and shore birds, and are important to the whole ecosystem on the west coast. They are also noting that DFO has cited that the overall risk the fishery poses to the stock has changed to high. Therefore, the petitioners do not understand why the minister would allow this fishery to be opened next month.

Animal WelfarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to present two petitions.

The first petition is from Canadian residents who point out that animal testing is unnecessary to prove the safety of cosmetic products, whereas a ban on cosmetic animal testing would not impact current cosmetic products for sale in Canada. Also, the European Union already bans the testing on animals for cosmetic products. As we have a trade agreement with the European Union, it only makes sense to make things similar to promote trade.

The petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to ban the sale and manufacture of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients in Canada.

PharmacarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have two second petitions that are the same.

The petitioners draw the attention of the government to the fact that the cost of prescription medications and necessary medical supplies are excessive and that many Canadians cannot afford the cost of these prescription medicines.

The petitioners therefore request the Government of Canada to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian, single-payer, universal program that ensures all Canadians are able to access prescription medicines regardless of their ability to pay.

Rail TransportationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present my first petition to the House on behalf of not only 691 residents of my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry but also of people across the country. It is in regard to the CN rail strike. Constituents and farmers in rural communities want to ensure we have an end to that.

I acknowledge that while the strike has ended, it certainly raised awareness of the necessity for Canadians not only in rural areas of this country but in every part of the country to have access to natural gas. The petitioners want to make sure that this does not happen again.

I am pleased to present this petition today.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, marine protected areas are really important to my riding as part of the 25-25-25 agenda of the Liberal government.

I have a petition to present today signed by constituents who request that the federal Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard work with all relevant government branches to simplify multilateral communication and responsibilities on the subject of marine protected areas. We want to see some of these areas protected as soon as we can.

Carbon PricingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today from constituents in my riding.

The first petition is signed by 27 of my constituents, who remind the government that the Alberta government repealed the carbon tax and also that the environmental tax known as the carbon tax is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan that will raise the cost of everything from gasoline to groceries. The petitioners state that the carbon tax will be very destructive to Alberta families and will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to scrap the punishing federal carbon tax.

Natural ResourcesPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is signed by 26 of my constituents.

The petitioners call upon the federal government to repeal Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. They draw the attention of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to the amount of pipeline built in the previous government being substantially lower than previous ones. They state that we have lost over 7,000 kilometres of proposed pipeline and well over 125,000 jobs. The petitioners also point out that $100 billion in energy investment has fled the country.

Bee PopulationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by constituents throughout my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The petitioners are concerned about the global crisis in the threat to pollinators. We are losing bees, and the evidence, particularly from the European Union, which has taken action, is that this is largely due to the pesticides based in neonicotinoids.

The petitioners are asking that Government of Canada apply the precautionary principle, follow Europe's lead and take action to ban neonicotinoids.

HealthPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Mr. Speaker, this petition is around reproductive justice and ensuring that the Government of New Brunswick repeal paragraph (a.1) in schedule 2 of Regulation 84-20 under the Medical Services Payment Act, creating a billing code that adequately reflects the provision of services by the provider and facility, thereby meeting the Canada Health Act's requirements of accessibility for residents of New Brunswick to publicly funded abortion services in medically and regionally appropriate settings.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure for Votes in ChamberPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I am ready to make a statement regarding the question of privilege raised on January 29, 2020, by the member for Chilliwack—Hope concerning the statement that the member for Vimy made about her vote on the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne held on January 27, 2020.

What troubled the member for Chilliwack—Hope was that the member for Vimy repeated on two occasions, on January 27 and January 29, that she was present in the chamber during the reading of the motion, while that was clearly not the case. He felt that the member for Vimy was in contempt of the House because she had deliberately misled it, both during the initial statement after the vote was held and during her second intervention two days later, which sought to clarify the situation and to ask that her vote be withdrawn.

While the question of the validity of her vote was settled after the second intervention, the intervention by the member for Chilliwack—Hope stressed that the substance of her words was still in doubt.

In a third intervention on January 30, the member for Vimy explained the circumstances surrounding the events decried by the member for Chilliwack—Hope. She then indicated that she had not fully understood the nature of the objections raised and apologized for the confusion that her initial remarks had created. In fact, in her final intervention, she recognized having made a mistake due to her misunderstanding of the rules and procedures that govern our work. Her apologies reveal that she had realized the gravity of the situation, although she said she had not acted deliberately. Thanks to that third intervention, as a result of the vigilance of the member for Chilliwack—Hope and the leader of the official opposition in the House, we were able to shed some light on this matter and arrive at a common understanding of the facts.

This incident demonstrates the extent to which it is incumbent on all members, new or not, to respect the practices and procedures that govern our deliberations. There is a panoply of resources to assist members in that regard: their more experienced colleagues, the table officers, the procedural authorities. and I could go on. It is also imperative that members always weigh their words so as not to inadvertently raise doubts about their sincerity or their integrity.

As for the recorded division in question, the rules should now be known to all: A member must be present in the chamber from the time a question is being put on the motion. The division bells are rung expressly to allow members to return to the chamber before the question is put by the Chair.

When a member is not present in the chamber in time to hear the start of a question being read, it is expected that they will admit it. Assistant Deputy Speaker Devolin said it well in a ruling on June 5, 2014, at page 6257 of Debates:…there is an onus on the members not only to be on time but, if they are not here on time, to own up to that and to either not participate in the vote or, if it is pointed out, to subsequently say that their vote ought not to be counted.

Moreover, members must be in their seats when voting begins and remain seated until the results are announced if their votes are to be recorded. Since the member for Vimy acknowledged that she was not in the chamber when the motion was read and that she took her seat during the vote, her vote was withdrawn and will no longer appear in the Journals of January 27. However, our procedures and practices were respected in this regard due to the interventions of vigilant members, and not owing to this explanation provided.

It was upon her third intervention on the matter that the member understood which rules were at issue. After realizing that her misunderstanding had led her to inadvertently mislead the House, she expressed her deep and sincere regret. The final intervention was complete and contrite. In light of the member for Vimy's apology and the fact that the incident seems to have arisen from a misunderstanding of parliamentary terminology rather than a deliberate act, I consider that this matter is now closed.

As a final comment, let us consider this event as an opportunity to remind the House once again that its honour depends on the integrity of each and every member.

I thank the members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand to talk about the new NAFTA and speak on behalf of the concerns of the good residents of West Nova, and by extension Nova Scotia generally.

It could be my Maritime sense of humour, but we keep calling it CUSMA, or the Canadian-U.S.-Mexico agreement. Quite honestly, “NAFTA” meant that the North American population was benefiting, but we know now from the things we have been seeing and hearing that Canada is not necessarily benefiting from many of these concessions.

Maybe we should change the name to the organization or country that is making the most out of this. Then it would be the USMCA, because it seems that the Americans ran the gamut here and won all the concessions they needed. Let us just call it the new NAFTA in the hope that North Americans are benefiting from this new Liberal trade agreement.

This debate has been going on for a long time and as an agreement such as this one is very complicated, our partners have their own outcomes, making negotiations challenging.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment. I want to remind hon. members that eating in the chamber is not permitted. I can see a few people chewing and eating something. I just want to point that out and make sure that we are all aware of that. I am sure the member who is eating will move out of the chamber or stop.

The hon. member for West Nova.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that intervention. These are all learning experiences for us, especially for those of us who are new to Parliament.

As I said, it makes our outcome for negotiating challenging. We find ourselves in the last two weeks toward final ratification of this agreement. Mexico did all its work ahead of time and the U.S. spent a number of weeks ratifying its side of the agreement. Here we are on February 3 and we find ourselves trying to ratify the Liberals' agreement as brought forward. It is only through this process that the Liberal government has realized that it is a minority government and it needs the opposition to support and pass the bill.

I was asked several questions about the new NAFTA during the election, as many of us were. Most of them revolved around the dairy industry or supply-managed commodities and I will get to that in a few moments, but first I would like to underline some statistics about Nova Scotia's exports to the United States. The numbers I have are from 2015, 2017 and 2018.

In 2015, the United States was the destination for 69.39% of Nova Scotia's international goods exports. The U.S. by far is Nova Scotia's number one trading partner. Europe, at about 10%, and other countries, at about 20%, received the balance of Nova Scotia's exports in 2015.

Four U.S. regions received about 85% of Nova Scotia's U.S. trade in goods in 2015. About 37% was sent to New England, as one would expect, on the eastern side of the country. About 24% went to the southeast region, 15% to the Great Lakes region and about 8% to the mid-east region. The remaining 14.77% was distributed among other regions in the U.S.

In 2015, rubber or tires from Michelin and fish products added up to about 55% of the total exports for Nova Scotia. They were the main domestic exports to the United States. Another 17% of exports to the U.S. were paper, mineral fuels and plastics. The remaining 28% consisted of other miscellaneous goods.

In 2018, fish products accounted for 24%, or $883.5 million, of total exports from Nova Scotia to the U.S. Crustaceans, lobsters, crabs and others, represented about 69%, or $605 million, of this product group.

Nova Scotia's exports continue to diversify by destination, with declining exports to the U.S. They were down about 0.6% when comparing January and February 2018 with January and February 2017. Exports to other destinations rose and were up about 31%. This is also the case for many other provinces in Canada. Exports from New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, where growth in exports to the U.S. outpaced growth to other destinations, grew more concentrated in the U.S.

Nova Scotia's exports to the U.S. were down by about $3.4 million as declining values for energy, forestry, electronics, motor vehicles and parts, aircraft and other transportation equipment and consumer goods more than offset the gains in farm, fishing, intermediate food, metal ores, metal, mineral products, chemicals, plastics, rubber and machinery equipment.

As an aside in this discussion, the coronavirus is creating tremendous challenges for our exporters. China is Nova Scotia's second-largest export destination. Comparing January and February 2018 with the same months in 2017, Nova Scotia's exports grew by about $36 million, mostly on gains in forest products and consumer goods.

To say that U.S. trade is important to us is truly an understatement and the trade deal that supports it is paramount.

I spend a lot of time talking about the fishing industry in the riding of West Nova which, as we can see, exports almost all its products outside the country, so I thought I would spend the remaining time talking about the agricultural industry. It may not export quite as much, but it was affected quite substantially by the changes in protections pertaining to supply-managed commodities. It seems that every time Canada negotiates a free trade agreement, those commodities take a hit.

A few years ago, in 2005, when I was a provincial minister of agriculture, I attended the WTO negotiations in Hong Kong. At that time there was a protracted discussion on Canada's continued support of supply-managed commodities, pressure from the European Union and the U.S. The Liberal government of the day was ready to allow access to other countries at that time.

It was not until the provincial ministers, Liberal, Conservative and NDP, came together, supported by the national commodity associations, that the negotiating team finally took it off the table. Since that time, and before that time, I have been a supporter of our commodities. Now that I represent the largest agricultural area in Nova Scotia, that support has become even stronger.

Nova Scotia's agricultural community is small compared to those in other provinces, but the backbone is dairy and poultry. Without those, the other commodities would have trouble existing. That is why any loss of market affects Nova Scotia more than others. A 3.6% loss of the dairy market truly affects the small farms in Nova Scotia, which is why the adjustment payments are important to allow better cash flow due to these market changes.

I am a big believer in grassroots government. We must listen to those in our community. I therefore want to underline what we have heard from others.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, or CAFTA, stated:

CAFTA welcomes the announcement that negotiations have concluded on updating the CUSMA.

We look forward to receiving confirmation that the changes don’t negatively impact our members.

Since the initial negotiations concluded well over a year ago, the prolonged discussions required to secure support in the U.S. Congress have undermined business certainty.

CAFTA is waiting for answers on what the final decision is going to be.

Pierre Lampron, president of Dairy Farmers of Canada said that in a parliamentary system, “all bills, including those aimed at ratifying international agreements, are subject to a legislative process designed to improve them, and it’s important not only for the dairy sector, but also for aluminum workers, that this agreement be put through that process.”

I hope that everybody has the opportunity to talk to the dairy farmers who will be coming to Parliament Hill over the next number of days.

The North American free trade agreement is extremely important to producers in my riding, but not any old deal will do. We need one that benefits our industries and which does not take one area of the country for granted, as we are looking at with the aluminum issue. The government must prove to us, and better yet, prove to Canadians, that it is getting it right. That is in the court of the government today.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I know that the dairy farmers are in Ottawa this week. I am hoping to meet with some tomorrow morning. I am sure many of my colleagues on all sides of the House will be engaged with the dairy farmers in the coming days.

Having said that, whether it is this trade agreement or previous ones, one of the issues has always been supply management. Our negotiators on the Canadian side, along with politicians on all sides of the House, and perhaps some more so than others, have always had a strong sense of compassion and emotion in ensuring we maintain supply management. The dairy sector is probably one of the best examples as to why it is important we do just that.

In the Liberal caucus, there is very strong support for supply management and there always has been. Perhaps my colleague could provide his personal perspective, and possibly even the perspective of his caucus, on supply management.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS

Madam Speaker, we have heard the continued support for supply-managed commodities on a number of occasions when different members have spoken of the new NAFTA. We talk a lot about dairy because that is the one area that seems to be hit the most, but we also heard about chickens and other poultry coming across our border. We will continue to be supporters of free trade, but at the same time, we understand the challenges we have in our supply-managed commodities.

As I said, in Nova Scotia, without dairy, without the monies that come in because of that protection, if we want to call it that, they are the ones who have the money for tractors and new equipment, which falls into support for the rest of that industry.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to draw my hon. colleague's attention to one particular section in the agreement that places threshold limits on dairy exports, notably milk protein powders and infant formula. This agreement would establish export thresholds whereby if Canada goes beyond them, we have agreed to slap on punitive tariffs, basically pricing ourselves out of the market. I would like to know what the United States got in return for our agreeing to this.

Does my hon. colleague know of any other example around the world where a country has so ceded its sovereignty over its ability to determine where it wants to sell its exports? Just what kind of economic damage might this mean for our important dairy producers across the country going into the future?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I had to cut my speech a bit short, but one thing we have been wondering is what the government got in exchange for forfeiting our sovereignty over our exports of milk protein concentrate, skim milk powder and infant formula.

Even within our caucus, we have the same questions as the member just asked, namely what the government offered up in exchange and how it is going to fix this situation.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, the member has spoken about what would happen with the supply management system with this accord. We know there have been some compromises made by the government in order to get this on the table. The issue was not just the fact that this was there, but in the shadow of the agreement that preceded it, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, some room was ceded by the supply-managed industries to foreign powers. No expectations seemed to arise when the government met with the other parties to the NAFTA that this would also have to be offered to our strongest trading partners.

Would the member like to comment on the lack of preparation and the lack of reality which the government entered into these negotiations with, as opposed to our previous trade agreements when we actually walked in from positions of strength so we were able to negotiate give and take with our trading partners? I look forward to that answer.