Garnett Genuis

[Food and Drugs Act, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about free trade in general and Bill C-13 in particular.

Our caucus is of one mind on this bill. We agree on the importance of free trade in general, and we believe that these agreements benefit Canada in many ways.

This bill ratifies the multilateral agreement on trade facilitation. The agreement on trade facilitation breaks down non-tariff trade barriers and informal barriers. This is of vital importance. If all countries ratify the agreement, it could generate an estimated $1 trillion in new economic activity.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-13. I always have to double-check when I find myself agreeing with what members of the government are doing just to ensure I have not missed anything. However, it is a pleasure for me to speak in favour of the bill. I do not know if the government will like everything I have to say in my speech today, because I will be somewhat critical of some of the things the government is doing with respect to trade. However, when it continues with good work that was started under the previous government, it is always worth recognizing that it is not all bad.

Broadly speaking, I want to do two things in my speech today. First, I want to speak specifically to some of the technical issues around the trade facilitation agreement, Bill C-13, and trade more generally. I also want to comment on our strategic situation in terms of trade, such as where it seems the government is going and where we should be going when it comes to our approach to trade.

Let me first speak to the technical side. By way of background, Bill C-13 would implement the trade facilitation agreement. Negotiations on the trade facilitation agreement started back in 2001. The agreement was completed at the WTO ministerial conference in December 2013.

This is the first multilateral agreement since the creation of the World Trade Organization. We deal at times with bilateral trade agreements, which are trade agreements between Canada and one other country, or we deal with multilateral trade agreements that involve regional or perhaps like-minded blocs of nations. This, however, is a truly multilateral agreement that could include the full membership of the WTO if all of the nations involved choose to ratify the agreement. It is an important step forward.

This trade agreement deals with the issue of trade facilitation. We are all familiar with what a formal barrier would look like to trade, for preventing countries from trading, or a tariff barrier, which is a tax on imports that a country might impose. The trade facilitation agreement seeks to deal with non-tariff barriers, or more informal barriers to trade, its regulatory misalignments, perhaps differences in regulations or administrative rules that have the effect of being a trade barrier. Perhaps they are not intended to be trade barriers and certainly are not advertised as such, but they end up preventing international commerce. This is a major issue for many businesses. If a company is seeking to trade with another country and it has to go through a detailed process of learning completely different regulations on relabelling then it becomes much more difficult for that company to do business.

What the committee heard when it studied this issue was something we had heard before. These non-tariff barriers in particular impose an additional and a unique burden on small and medium-sized businesses. A large corporation would have the capacity, the relationships in place, to understand what different regulatory regimes are and the effects of them and would have an easier time navigating these things. I do not want to suggest there is no impact on larger businesses, which employ many Canadians and many people around the world as well, but small and medium-sized businesses often have a much harder time responding to these non-tariff barriers. We know the importance of small business. It is the primary engine of growth and job creation in our country. Therefore, with respect to the impact on small business in particular, it is important we be concerned with non-tariff as well as tariff barriers on trade.

We have some information in terms of estimates from the World Trade Organization about what the impacts of this trade facilitation would be. If all countries ratify, global merchandise exports would be up by $1 trillion, and trade costs for World Trade Organization members would go down about 14%, and 17% for least developed countries. Therefore, we see significant benefits from the trade facilitation agreement. Of course if not every country ratifies, the agreements will be less, so we hope all countries ratify. However, the benefits will still be in place even if the two-thirds threshold that is required to bring this deal into force is met but not all countries involved signed.

I have a couple of other notes on trade facilitation. It provides business with predictability. One of the issues with non-tariff barriers to trade is that even if trade is possible, if trade can occur, non-tariff barriers, or arbitrary different regulatory structures can create uncertainty, which makes it much harder for importers or exporters to manage in the context of international trade. Therefore, it smooths out and aligns these regulations, and also establishes a consistency in place, a predictability for businesses to rely on to facilitate that trade to its full potential.

I also want to identify for members of the House that the requirement is that two-thirds of World Trade Organization members sign on in order for this deal to take effect. That requirement would be 110 members of the World Trade Organization. Currently, we are at 92. Some of our major trading partners, the U.S., China, the EU, Japan, have all ratified the agreement already. Therefore, we are very close to that 110 mark. With Canada taking this important step forward, a step that began in 2001 with negotiations, in 2013 with the signing of the agreement, and now moving forward for ratification, it is a step that will pay substantial dividends for all businesses but especially for our small and medium-sized businesses.

The good news is that most of our laws already comply with the trade facilitation agreement. However, Bill C-13 completes those legislative changes that are required to facilitate the full implementation of it. In particular, it makes two amendments that accord with different provisions of the trade facilitation agreement. One of those provisions is article 10.8.1 of the trade facilitation agreement. The amendment in Bill C-13 would give Canada the authority that we need to deal with goods that are brought into Canada that are non-compliant. This gives us the ability to respond to problems that come up, and opens the door for us to implement this agreement.

The other one is from article 11.8 of the agreement, which gives Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada the legislative authority to exempt certain goods from certain Canadian requirements if those goods are not destined to end up in Canada, but would transit through Canada. Therefore, if Canada is a transit point for certain goods and the requirements we have in Canada for those goods are not exactly met, perhaps from an environmental or health perspective, they can still transit through Canada, but only on the basis of regulations and exceptions made through those departments. At least there is a provision for those carve-outs to be made, but also there are protections in place to ensure that those goods do not end up in Canada.

This provides a good mechanism for complying with the requirements of the trade facilitation agreement for getting the benefits of it for our economy and for our job creators, especially for small business. Also, it does not negatively affect the health and safety of Canadians or the environment. Therefore, the legislation is good, it strikes a good balance, and it is one that I and my colleagues will support.

I want to talk as well about the importance of international trade. This is a positive step as a new international multilateral trade deal. Our support for it underlines our belief on this part of this side of the House that Canada is a trading nation, that we benefit from international trade, and further that there is solid economic science behind the idea of international trade. This is something that most economists agree has clear benefits.

It is not a commitment to trade, it is not a government agreement that governments will trade, but it opens up the freedom for individuals within different countries to freely exchange, to make mutually beneficial exchanges, with people in other countries. We know that the common effect of that is greater degrees of specialization and it allows partnerships to be forged between countries, which can lead to more efficient production, the realization of new markets, and the creation of new wealth.

Our country clearly has seen the benefit of international trade. Of course at the time when it was a Conservative government that pursued free trade with the United States, trade was opposed by both the Liberals and the NDP at that time. However, at least the Liberals have come to recognize the wisdom of that approach. Under the previous Conservative government we were very bullish in recognizing the benefits of international trade and moving forward with trade agreements.

We understood this basic economic science of trade, that giving people the freedom to make mutually beneficial exchanges was good for everyone. It would not make much sense to say that I cannot shop at certain restaurants because of what side of town I live on. Exactly the same principle applies for international trade.

There is that technical basis for international trade that we can prosper together as a global community and that we can draw on the wisdom of economics in terms of understanding those benefits.

On the other hand, there is a strategic dimension of trade. We do not just unilaterally open ourselves up to international trade, but we do proceed in a methodical way with negotiation with other countries to try and open up markets in a reciprocal way, but also to align ourselves as much as possible when it comes to human rights, protection of the environment, and labour. It is worth underlining why we do this. It is because we know trade allows us to prosper nationally and together with other countries, but trade also is an opportunity to build strategic partnerships with specific nations to deepen our friendship, to deepen the sharing of ideas and of commerce between those nations. As such, it is important that we approach trade in a way that reflects our values.

With regard to the trade facilitation agreement, it is very positive from a strategic perspective that we are able to move together as a relatively united global community on this, that this reflects a consensus of different countries. In our other trade dealings, it is important for us to move with this thought out strategic lens on the point of trade as well, and I say this with respect to the trans-Pacific partnership.

To its credit, however, the government has moved this particular issue fairly quickly through the committee. This was an issue that there was an ability to move forward in a thoughtful but time-sensitive way on it.

On the other hand, the trans-Pacific partnership has been sitting on the government's desk for a full year tomorrow, since the election. The government has not even taken a position on that issue. I and other members have spoken before about the economic benefits, we could perhaps say about the technical side in terms of the benefits of the trans-Pacific partnership, but it also has great strategic significance. This was a key part of President Obama's foreign policy in terms of aligning with other democratic nations throughout the Pacific region, nations which share our values, by and large, and establishing a trade agreement that would set the terms of trade in a way that was aligned with our values.

It is Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, among other nations, coming together with an agreement that provides those robust protections that reflect our Canadian values. It is a mechanism, yes, for pursuing economic prosperity, but also for achieving a strategic advantage that reflects our values.

It is no secret, of course, that the kinds of values that are reflected in the trans-Pacific partnership are different from the approach taken by a country like China, which is also seeking dominance in the Asia-Pacific region with a different approach when it comes to human rights, the environment, labour rights. I would passionately say that our approach is more in line with an understanding of universal human values and an appreciation of universal human dignity. It is not a particularly western or exclusive approach. It is not an approach in terms of the human values that we emphasize as particular to one community or one culture. It is a set of values that we have that are worth using the mechanism of trade deals to strategically advance in that region.

I will just say, perhaps pre-empting a question from my friends in the NDP caucus, that they have been right to raise human rights issues in Brunei, which is part of the trans-Pacific partnership. There are human rights issues in some of the countries involved; there is no doubt about it. I think the situation in Brunei very well deserves the attention of members of the House. However, being a relatively small player in the scheme of the overall agreement, the agreement still very much reflects the values that we have here in Canada, the values that nations within our community of partners and allies of like-minded nations share together.

Yes, for economic technical reasons, but also for strategic reasons, it is important that we prioritize the trans-Pacific partnership. It is important that we move forward with that in order to set the terms of trade in the Asia-Pacific region in a way that reflects our values. Of course, we know that the government has a different approach when it comes to this strategic approach to trade. In the last year, it has not stated any kind of position on the trans-Pacific partnership, but it has talked in a very bullish way about moving forward with free trade with China on a bilateral basis.

My view is that we can be stronger in terms of our strategic interests when we work with our allies. When we do not, instead, we put ourselves in a position where we could very well be at a real disadvantage in terms of negotiations with China. It gives China an opportunity to try to set the terms of trade when it comes to human rights, when it comes to the environment, when it comes to labour rights and other kinds of issues.

We can benefit economically from trade at every level; there is no doubt about it. However, from a strategic perspective, would we not be wise to first move forward with the trans-Pacific partnership and continue to pursue trade arrangements with Europe? Hopefully, we will soon see the full ratification of the Canada-EU free trade deal, successfully negotiated as well under the previous government but continued with by the current government, to its credit. We should start by nailing down those trade deals with like-minded nations and then proceed collaboratively with those like-minded nations when we approach countries like China that do not share our fundamental values. We need to approach trade in a strategic way.

I think the trade facilitation agreement reflects our values. It is a positive step that the world is able to come together on, but we need to prioritize the advancement of our values and be strategic. That is why I really hope that at some point at least we will hear an answer from the government on TPP, and hopefully in the not-too-distant future, recognizing as well the technical benefits of trade, the economic benefits that I have spoken about, specifically for the trade facilitation agreement, but also the strategic benefits.

I am pleased to be supporting the bill. Hopefully, we will see its passage very soon and be able to move forward on some of these other trade issues that I have raised as well.

[Physician-Assisted Dying, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government's euthanasia legislation was supposed to restrict the practice to a narrow set of cases, not simply to legalize death on demand. However, a physician's recent harrowing accounts of abuses of the euthanasia bill, just published in The Huffington Post, show very clearly that the safeguards in the law are not working.

In one of the cases recounted, a Vancouver physician declared a depressed person eligible for euthanasia even before examining that person, because the patient “could easily get bed sores and then die of infection”. A person's death was, prior to examination, declared reasonably foreseeable because the person could theoretically die from an as-yet uncontracted bedsore infection. That is the reality of legal euthanasia right now in Canada: people who meet no credible criteria are doctor shopping and then finding someone who will sign off.

To mitigate these egregious cases we are already seeing, something as simple as better definitions would go a long way. In light of these emerging case reports, I call on the government to fix this alarming problem as soon as possible.

[Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law), October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as tempted as I am to respond to my colleague on the issue of trade, that would not do justice to the important subject in front of us.

I want to again congratulate my colleague for bringing forward this important legislation, what we are calling Cassie and Molly's law, Bill C-225.

For those just joining the debate or watching, it is very important to underline what this bill would do and what it would not do. The bill would create a circumstance under which if a pregnant woman were attacked, killed, or assaulted, and her unborn child was harmed or killed in the process of that assault, then a separate offence would now exist under the criminal law which would punish the person who committed the offence for the attack on the unborn child, as well as on the mother. Punishment is not the core of it. The core of it is a recognition of the impact that this has on not just one, but on multiple people. That is what the bill would do.

It is very important to underline that the bill would only apply that offence in the case where another offence already exists. There is no possible way, under this legislation, and it is very well written and clearly put, in which a person could be charged for an offence against an unborn, preborn child if there were not also an offence against the mother.

I know that any time, in this place or elsewhere, we have this discussion that involves preborn, unborn children, there is a whole other debate that stirs in the minds of some people. However, because this only applies in the case where there is an offence against the mother, there is no possible way in which this bill could be twisted, or honestly there is no way in which it could be reasonably inferred to in any way inform a kind of legal change on an issue like abortion. It just is very clear there in terms of the way this bill operates.

If we were just isolating the question of the bill as it actually exists, I do not think anyone here would disagree with the principle, that when there is an offence against a mother and an unborn child, there is an impact, and two beings are involved. The suggestion by some members that we cannot pass the bill because it somehow, linguistically, indirectly, seems to invoke another controversy, I find unfortunate.

Obviously we know the question, for instance, of abortion is a challenging and divisive one. Can members who disagree on that question not come together on something that I think we should all agree on, which is combatting violence against women and which is the impact that this also has on another life.

I know some people object to the terminology. They do not like the term “unborn child” or “preborn child”. They would rather use the word “fetus” or something else. My understanding is that fetus is just a Latin word for the same thing. I try to avoid Latin ceteris paribus, but it really does not matter what terminology is used.

The point is that we have legislation which is just eminently sensible, which responds to a reality that if a woman loses a child because she is attacked, that she feels that loss in a particular way. To suggest that she does not, to suggest that this, for the person who is attacked, is simply akin to another kind of assault, or to suggest that there is not an added impact or added element calling out for some kind of justice really ignores the lived experience and the testimony of people who have brought forward this issue, and who have said that this is a priority for them.

The bill is named after real people who have real experience with this, who have spoken to my colleague and to other members, who have asked that we respond to it in this way, and who have asked that, hopefully, we come together as a House, across party and ideological lines.

I would encourage my colleagues, if they are hearing different things about this bill from different places, to take the time to have a look at the legislation and decide for themselves.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that I am not at all critical of the idea of having a warm relationship. Obviously, warm relationships, in terms of international diplomacy, can have positive effects on Canadian interests. The point is that it should not be an end in and of itself. The relationship between leaders should be a means for advancing Canada's national interests.

There has been much discussion about our relationship, yet when we do not see results in terms of the interests of Canada, it makes us wonder whether the relationship actually is what it is made out to be, or if it is, why we are not using that relationship in a way that reflects what should be the job of our leadership.

In terms of concrete ideas, my colleagues have proposed a number of different things. Part of the challenge we have is that the discussion is happening very much in secret. We have to sort of rely on assurances from the minister that we are doing this or doing that. What we can say from the outside is that this certainly needs to be a priority. The government should have been able to get a deal by now, looking at the results the Conservatives were able to achieve when we were in government. It is important also to get an update, at least, in terms of where we are going with it and then to hopefully see some movement forward.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the opposition motion on the softwood lumber agreement, and more generally on Canada-U.S. relations. I want to congratulate my friend the international trade critic for bringing the motion forward. He is a former agriculture minister as well, someone who certainly knows the intricacies and complexity of the issue.

I want to start my remarks today by setting the stage about Canada-U.S. relations and then I will move specifically to the motion and softwood lumber within that.

Canada and the U.S. have an important and strategic military, political, and economic relationship. On the economic side, the Canada-U.S. trade relationship is the largest trading relationship in the world. In terms of economic volume, economic value, it is the largest trading relationship between nations in human history. Our trading relationship is facilitated by our shared democratic values and, obviously, a shared desire for prosperity and for working together to achieve that end.

While there is a lot there in terms of our shared values, there are substantial differences between the way our political systems work. The way in which we have to engage each other should reflect an understanding and appreciation of those differences.

Canada as far as democracies go is a relatively centralized system within each level of government. We have a federal system, and provincial governments where a lot of power is exercised as well. With respect to the process of international deal-making, the federal government has the power to negotiate, to sign, and to ratify agreements, but it needs to engage the provinces on certain details that may touch on their jurisdiction. Effectively, our Constitution gives that power to the federal government. Unlike perhaps in the United States and other countries, if Canada signs a deal and the government is in favour of the deal, there is rarely any doubt, at least in a majority Parliament, about the deal not being ratified.

When we in Canada look at the situation in the United States, we can make the mistake of assuming that its system works exactly the same way, that the president is the only decision-maker involved. We know that the American system is very different and, therefore, to protect and advance Canada's economic interests, we really have to be engaged at all levels. We have to be engaged in a much wider and deeper way with the United States, not just with the president's administration.

We saw that under the previous government. We saw a real appreciation of the need for a depth of engagement that went not only across parties but also across individuals. We had a prime minister and ministers who were engaged in those relationships. Former MP Rob Merrifield worked as a legislative liaison person. He built relationships directly with legislators. We saw from that kind of negotiations and the kind of success we achieved generally that this approach paid substantial dividends. One example is country of origin labelling, which was basically at the finish line at the time of the last election. We achieved that success by working legislator by legislator, vote by vote, to build a consensus and the support we needed to advance Canada's position. That was an important part of the approach we took.

In addition to talking to legislators, especially in the context of the United States, we also have to be engaged in public discussion. We need leaders in this country who are prepared to speak to the broader global discussion, the public discussion, about the importance of trade, leaders who are willing to make public arguments in favour of the open economy.

We have heard the Prime Minister talk publicly at the United Nations and elsewhere about the success of Canadian pluralism, and I certainly applaud that. However, just as we agree with the principle of social and cultural openness, the open economy has been the foundation of our success. We need to be willing to speak in the international debate around that. We can speak about the benefits of international trade.

We see in the United States that the basic understanding of the value of the open economy is now up for debate. It is being attacked by people on different sides of the political spectrum. On the Republican side, a party historically in favour of free trade, the nominee is advocating tearing up most of the major trade deals already in place, but within the Democratic party on the other side there is some strong criticism of trade as well. We see this emerging anti-trade discourse and it is important that we have leadership in Canada that is prepared to talk about the value that trade has produced for both countries.

We are speaking today about a specific trade issue that is happening in a context in which American elites are questioning the broader value of trade. I think many of the elites understand the arguments in favour of trade at a deeper level, but they are being pushed and pulled away from these kinds of common-sense positions by certain political forces.

If we believe in the value of trade, one of those core principles of political discourse is that we cannot win an argument if we are not prepared to make it. Unfortunately, right now we do not have a Prime Minister who is prepared to stand up and make the arguments for the open economy. Whether it is being bold on the trans-Pacific partnership, actively prioritizing and addressing the softwood lumber issue, or talking about the larger benefits of trade in our relationship, it is a missed opportunity that we do not see this happening in the way and the degree to which it should.

Let us remember that, despite what we are hearing in the political discussion in the United States, all of the opinion data that I have seen suggests that many Americans at the ground level really understand and appreciate the value of the trading relationship. That is something that we can tap into. I have quoted these numbers in the House before. However, a recent Gallup poll found that only 33% of Americans view trade as a threat, down from a peak of 52% in 2008. That is a historic low in terms of Americans seeing the trade deal as a threat.

In general, the government's approach to the Canada-U.S. economic relationship has created some significant problems because the government has been unwilling to make those arguments for the open economy. We know where we stand. We know where the NDP stands. The government kind of blows in the wind when it comes to trade, but it has not been clear in terms of making these strong arguments.

We hear a lot of talk, especially on this issue. In this place, the Prime Minister used the word “bromance” and “dudeplomacy” when he was talking about the relationship with the United States, yet we do not see the use of that supposed relationship in advancing Canada's national interests. We should be using whatever cachet we have there to advance the open economy and Canada's interests. Unfortunately, all of the evidence seems to suggest that this bromance is a bit one-sided and that the dudeplomacy is not happening and is not moving the results forward.

In the midst of this relationship, the Americans have not been shy about pushing forward their interests. The President spoke in this place about suggesting that Canada spend more on its military and that we support the trans-Pacific partnership, things that incidentally would probably be in Canada's interests as well. Therefore, it is important that we take advantage of the opportunity as well to advance our own interests in this relationship, that we are talking at a multi-dimensional level, that we are engaged with different levels, and that when the Prime Minister goes to Washington he brings the relevant ministers, such as the natural resource minister, not prioritizing the personal and glitzy parts of it but working to achieve results. If we had an emphasis on results, we would be further ahead on the softwood lumber deal.

Many of my colleagues have spoken specifically about the importance of the softwood lumber industry. Canada's largest export market for softwood lumber is the United States, as 96% of all softwood lumber imports into the United States come from Canada. Therefore, it is a relationship that is important to Canada as well as the United States and it needs to be a focus. Rather than focus on the optics and the media spectacle parts of the relationship, we need the government to dig in deep and say that it is not just about one person, it is not just about photos and about the public niceties, but that it is about how we advance Canada's national interest.

If we look at the absence of the mention of softwood lumber in the Liberal platform, in the throne speech, and in the mandate letter for the minister, this is reflected in the way the government has acted. When we were in government, within three months the Conservatives had a deal in place. That was because our former prime minister always emphasized Canadian values as well as Canada's national interests in international relations. It was not about the spectacle part of it. It was only that to the extent that it made a difference to the lives, well-being, and prosperity of ordinary women and men here in Canada because that is the first job of the government. It is not to promote its own individual brand. The first job of the government is to advance the interests of Canadians.

That is what we need to be doing with respect to our relationship with the United States. We need to go deep. We need to engage multiple people. We need to focus on substance. It needs to be the kind of negotiation that for the people at home, the Marthas and the Henrys who are watching that discussion, things are happening that matter for them and make their lives better. That is where we should be focusing. That is why the motion is important.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her speech, but we have heard this narrative from the government side. It wants to tell us that it has turned the corner on the relationship with the United States, that it has a great relationship with the United States, and that apparently the previous government did not.

None of that is really true. If we look at the results, we would expect, if that were the case, that it would have been able to achieve results on this deal. After three months when the Conservatives were in power, we achieved results. We got a deal done. The Liberals have had a year; they still do not have a deal.

I want to ask the member, if the relationship with the United States is such that the Prime Minister and others have said it is, then why can they not effectively advance Canada's interests in the context of this relationship? Why are we not using that relationship to actually get results for the Canadians we are supposed to be representing?

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Essex for her speech. I am pleased to hear that the New Democrats are going to be supporting the motion.

One of my colleagues reflected earlier on the fact that we did not see a mention of the softwood lumber issue at all in the minister's mandate letter. We did not hear discussion of it in the throne speech. In fact, we barely heard discussion at all of our vital primary industries in this country. I wonder if my colleague can just reflect on the absence of emphasis, at least in terms of the stated priorities of the current government, on softwood lumber and on our primary industries in general, what that says, and what that suggests about the obligation we have to continually hold the government accountable on this to make sure it is actually doing what is so important for this industry.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think we see a concerning trend in the government's relationship with the United States. It is prioritizing the glitz, the photo ops, rather than advancing Canada's interests. We saw this when the Prime Minister went to Washington. He chose to bring members of his family when he should have been bringing key government ministers responsible for important files that are in our interests.

I wonder if the member would talk specifically about the importance in our relationship with the Americans of making sure that our focus is on advancing Canada's national interest.

[Excise Tax Act, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill, which I have not had a chance to do yet, and again to congratulate my friend from Saskatoon—Grasswood for bringing forward this great piece of legislation.

In the House, we are always looking for ways that we can help education and our schools, which I hope we all believe is important. But sometimes we do not look for the ways we can help through simplification. This is what I particularly like about my friend's bill. He is not trying to add an additional tax credit here, but would in fact leverage the existing system. He is saying something sensible, that it does not make much sense for governments to try to collect substantial tax revenue from other levels of government.

What the bill before us today would do is to provide for an increased GST rebate back to school authorities. Right now it is at 68%. This bill would move it to 100%, given that schools are paying 100% GST. This would be useful for schools in my constituency and those across the country, because it would save their having to give money to the federal government that they would otherwise have to give. The bill would be a simplification, but it would also make a practical difference, no doubt about it. It would give money back to schools they could use to invest in vital things that are important to them, whether school supplies, infrastructure, additional services for students, or simply reducing the fees that parents have to pay, or freeing up resources that could be used, or other kinds of things at the school board level. There is a lot of value in that money going back to schools.

Deeper than that, though, we can ask what is the sense of the existing system in which we have different levels of government charging tax on each other. I will just say as well that we have a government that rather than reducing taxes on other levels of government actually wants to increase the taxes on other levels of government. We have the imposition of a carbon tax, with the federal government trying to require the provinces to impose that tax. In the case of many jurisdictions, that tax would affect other levels of government. It would affect school boards. The purpose of carbon taxation on other levels of government is supposedly to create an incentive for less use of carbon, but I have to say that in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the school buses are going to keep running regardless of the taxes levied. There is no logical way this would change behaviour. We cannot have children walking to school from acreages or, generally speaking, in a geographically larger community. There is just a disconnect in terms of practicality.

However, we are levying taxes on other levels of government that school boards are then paying to the federal government, at the same time as the federal government is transferring resources to the provinces and the provinces are transferring resources to school boards. Every time we have this back-and-forth transfer of resources, it imposes an administrative cost and burden. So we in the House should always look first for ways to get resources to that local level where the services are actually delivered.

In practice, it is our local communities and our school boards that are most likely to be interfacing with people in terms of the practical services they use on a day-to-day basis. We should be looking for ways of getting resources there. These are levels of government, by the way, that have far fewer taxing powers than the federal government or the provincial governments have. We can collect taxes in all sorts of different ways. Although our local governments are the level of government that people are most likely to interact with, these governments have much less ability to raise or control their own budgets. Yet we have this process by which the federal government, with the current GST rebate system, is taking money from those levels of government.

There are two things. It is about giving more authority, resources and ability to those local levels of government, in this case school boards. The same principle perhaps would apply to municipalities. However, it is also about simplification. It is about stepping back and looking at why we have this back-and-forth of money and looking at whether we can find ways of simplifying the transfer system.

Again, I want to congratulate my friend, the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. This is an excellent bill. It speaks to something we should be trying to do at a broader level, which is provide more support to our local communities, our school boards, and our municipalities, given how important they are, practically, in the lives of people in our constituencies. It is also about trying to do that in a more efficient way.

I am very pleased to support the bill. I am really surprised that we do not see support from government members. I would encourage them to talk to schools and parents within their communities, and be willing to step out from the line that perhaps is being directed. All of us have individual responsibilities to our constituents. We all have a responsibility to vote based upon what we think the people within our communities would like to see and what is in their best interest. That is our primary responsibility, not to some recommendation we might get.

These are private members' bills. Despite the direction we may see some in the government wanting the party to go, I hope government members will take a look at what is in the bill, at the value that it would have to people in their community, and that they be willing to step out beyond that line and say that it is good legislation, that they will support it even if that maybe not what those around them do.

Quite obviously this is a good bill. It is the kind of bill that all of those watching, whether they are parents, students, or people involved in local governments, would say that it makes sense, but that it does not make sense for the federal government to take money from school boards that they could use and go through this administrative process of back-and-forth.

The bill would significantly improve upon the current system. I am proud to support it on behalf of my constituents in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I hope we will see other members line up behind it as well.

[Salaries Act, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear again. My argument was specifically about the importance of regional representation, especially in the context of economic development agencies.

I raised the issue of the minister in question, the Minister of Innovation, because he is the minister who now is, unfortunately in my judgment, responsible for administering all of these different economic development agencies. It is not a comment on the job he is doing, but a comment on the reality that he is not from western Canada, nor Atlantic Canada. He represents a constituency in Mississauga. I do not think it is any personal insult to the minister to point out that reality.

I would not make a very good regional minister for Atlantic Canada because I represent a constituency in Alberta. To suggest the importance of regional representation at the cabinet table in the context of economic development and political accountability, that is not a personal insult. It is a reality. It would be better for the government members to actually engage with that argument and try to explain to us why regional representation is not important. However, they have not even acknowledged that aspect of the bill. We have not heard any acknowledgement or arguments as to why it is okay to not have regional representation through these particular mechanisms.

Rather than pleading personal insult, hopefully, going forward we will hear some actual arguments as to why someone who is not from western Canada, nor Atlantic Canada, nor from the north should be administering all of the economic development agencies for the whole country.