Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons. I consider it a distinct privilege every time I am given the opportunity to use my voice in this place on my constituents' behalf and on behalf of the country and Canadians. It is also a pleasure to rise on a bill on which I think there is general consensus that, speaking for myself, we should send this bill to committee for further scrutiny. I think we have heard some reasonable concerns so far about this bill. It is important to understand how we arrived here.
I understand there have been many conversations between the House leaders looking for areas of collaboration. If one listens to question period every day, one would hear the government talk only about obstruction, but I think this is an example where at least the official opposition party has offered its support to work with the government, to collaborate on moving and expanding our trading relationships for the betterment of Canadian employees, workers and businesses and our citizens around the world.
It is on this expanding trading relationship that I think there is some agreement to promote rules-based trade, although I would say I had to disagree with the Prime Minister when he gave his speech and said the rules-based trading system is dead. I do not think it is dead; on the contrary, I think it is worth fighting for. In fact, members do not have to take my word for it. The esteemed Christine Lagarde, who is the President of the European Central Bank, was the former finance minister in France and also headed the International Monetary Fund, was asked whether she agreed with the Canadian Prime Minister, and her comment was that she was on a different page than the Canadian Prime Minister. I think the rules-based trading system is worth fighting for.
Canada and Indonesia have had a long-standing relationship dating back at least to 1952, but even before that as it was gaining its independence.
As I mentioned before, while Conservatives generally support this bill moving to committee, we do think there are some issues that require further scrutiny, including those around procurement opportunities. I read the bill. At first glance, from feedback, there were a number of stakeholders who welcomed the bill. There were also a few individuals who highlighted the fact that with respect to procurement, it would appear that Indonesian firms have the access and ability to bid on Canadian government procurement projects; however, that same access is not afforded, by right, to Canadian firms to bid on projects in Indonesia. They would be welcome to indicate their willingness to bid, but they would have to be invited by the government to do so. I think that is an area of the bill that we would seek more information on and discuss in committee, to further scrutinize it to make sure Canadian firms are receiving equal preference.
I as an individual, but Conservatives also, have generally always stood for free-but-fair trade, and that includes reciprocity. We need to make sure that if we are giving market access to one group of producers in one country, we are afforded that same access when Canadian firms are abroad.
I am happy to report that the trade committee is working relatively well at the moment. We have a government bill that we have agreed to move forward in, again, the spirit of collaboration with the government that would allow the U.K. to ascend to the CPTPP, which I think is yet another proof point on how Parliament can work together.
I will remind everyone that we just had an election. About 41% of Canadians voted for folks on this side of the House, a few more per cent of Canadians voted for people just behind me, and just over 41% or 42% voted for people on the government side. I think that was a signal from Canadians that they expect this Parliament to find ways to work together, and I believe we are doing that.
Prime Minister Harper had embarked on an aggressive trade deal expansion, which really set up a number of agreements, including the one with the E.U. and member nations, on which this current government has built.
I do not think we always agree on many things in this chamber. I said to the minister yesterday at committee that I do not agree with a lot of what the Liberal government does: the spending, the overtaxation, doubling of the deficits. The government prefers to spend valuable police resources confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens instead of actually going after criminals, gangs and smugglers of illegal firearms. I am skeptical of the government's decision to get a little closer to the Politburo in Beijing. However, I will not let all of those issues on which I disagree with the government blind me from acknowledging that we need to work together to expand our trading relationships.
On this issue, members can rest assured that because this is on behalf of the benefit of Canadians, because we believe that expanding our trading relationships and diversifying trade is an important step to take for our producers, our employees and our businesses, it is an area on which there is consensus. I offer my support; that is one word to use. I offer my hand in collaboration with the government to ensure we can continue to deliver to Canadians expanded access across the globe. It is an important thing to expand our trade, but we will hold the government accountable when it is making these decisions.
As I mentioned, we have some questions about Bill C-18. We will not just blindly agree and support the government on every trade bill it brings forward. We believe it needs to go through the proper process, but we are here to work with the government.
I have to mention that I do have concerns with the government travelling to Qatar and to China. I think that will have some long-standing difficult situations that we will face ourselves. I think it is an acknowledgement and a confirmation to the CCP in Beijing that its tactics have worked when we have capitulated because of the way it squeezed us on tariffs. I would hope the government is taking some lessons from the way Mexico has been operating.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands recognized that this trade deal will only increase the GDP by, if I am correct, 0.0012%. That is not going to replace the big “elephant in the room” deal with the United States. We had a relationship with Americans and the United States before the current president. We will have a relationship with Americans and the United States after the current president. It is important that we sort out that relationship in a way that benefits everyone in North America, including Americans, Mexicans and Canadians, for the benefit of us all, not just for our economy but for peace and security and for certainty.
That is the primary job of the government. It was elected on a promise to manage that relationship. We are still waiting. Until then, we are happy to support the government as it tries to expand trading relationships across the globe.