Mr. Speaker, while I have spoken many times in committee of the whole, while presenting petitions and when asking questions during question period, so far in this parliamentary session, I have not participated in Government Orders. To that end, I would like to thank the voters in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for giving me an overwhelming majority to represent them in the people's House of Commons in the 45th Parliament.
It is the honour of my professional career to be a hometown boy representing his community. I thank the people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. I thank my family for supporting me. I do not take this job lightly, and I will work tirelessly on their behalf.
This was a different election. To go back a few months, former prime minister Trudeau resigned and the Prime Minister was elected, by Liberal voters, to lead the Liberal Party of Canada. In April, the Liberal Party put forward a platform called “Canada Strong”, a plan to unite, secure, protect, build. The language in this platform is very important. In fact, it led to the Liberals winning the most seats in the House of Commons again. On page one, it states:
America’s unjustified and reckless trade war threatens Canadian jobs, businesses, and our way of life. They are trying to weaken us so they can own us. In the face of this threat, we have a plan to build the strongest economy in the G7.
I outline that point because there was a lot of fear in this election, and rightfully so, about what Canada's relationship would be like with the United States. It came up at the doorstep every day, especially, I will note, among baby boomers. The first page of the Liberal platform goes on to state that a government, led by the current Prime Minister, “has a plan to remove barriers to internal trade.” It goes on to states that the Liberals “will reduce internal trade costs by up to 15% and expand our economy by up to $200 billion, that is up to $5,000 for every Canadian.”
In British Columbia, this was talked about a lot. It was actually a platform commitment to remove internal trade barriers to have free trade in Canada. It was a platform commitment shared with that of the Conservative Party of Canada. This brings us to the fourth sitting week of Parliament since the election, and today we are debating Bill C-5, a free trade and labour mobility act. However, when we look at the bill, there is a problem because the rhetoric in the Liberal platform does not match the reality in the legislation before us today. In fact, the bill would really do nothing to meet the expectations of what Canadians expected from Parliament. I will explain.
Bill C-5 does not address any of the key promises made by the Liberal platform. It would not enforce mutual recognition across provinces and territories. It does not address and would not dismantle provincial trade barriers. It does not include any binding timelines or enforcement mechanisms. It does not establish “buy Canadian” procurement standards. It would not fund or prioritize infrastructure needed for free trade between the provinces and territories. It would not protect or support Canadian industries under foreign trade attacks. It would not create the promised centralized one window for major project approvals. I will note, as a British Columbian, that it would not remove the internal trade barriers between provinces and territories for B.C. farmers, such as our wine growers, to sell their products, barrier-free, across our great nation, which needs to be pointed out.
As I mentioned, we have no idea what the economic consequences of this bill would be. The Liberal platform, as I just outlined, said that, by breaking down internal trade barriers before July 1, there would be massive economic development in Canada and $5,000 more in the pocket of every Canadian. I am stating this point again because I do not believe that is the case. I look forward to the Parliamentary Budget Officer giving a clear breakdown on what the economic positives or negatives of this bill will have on Canada's economy.
Another massive and glaring omission in Bill C-5 is its failure to address another key thing Canadians wanted this election, and that was credential recognition for health care workers. In my province, we are facing a health care crisis. In fact, I receive more calls about hospital closures than almost any other subject in my constituency office. I have had constituents die because the health care centre in one town is too far away from the hospital where they could have received the medical treatment that used to be available in their community. There is broad consensus in Canada that we need credential recognition, that we need to allow the foreign-trained nurses and doctors who we permitted into Canada under our immigration point systems to do exactly what they intended to do when they got to Canada.