Randy Hoback

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague on the trade committee on this file, and I am curious. Looking forward, we do not have cargo included in this piece of legislation. I understand the minister has said to the media that the government will include cargo somewhere in the future.

Can the hon. member give us an idea what that may look like, and roughly the time schedule before we see that before committee?

[International Trade, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, NAFTA has been a successful agreement for Canada, but the Prime Minister has offered it up for renegotiation. Since it came into force, we have gained over $5 trillion in direct investment, and millions of high-paying jobs. Now, the Liberal government is putting all of this on the table.

Canadians want to know, when the Prime Minister committed to renegotiating NAFTA, what specific elements of the existing agreement did he believe were problematic?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting when NDP members talk about getting more consultations, if we can talk more, or if we did this or that. At the end of the day, when we do all of that, they are still are not in favour of the deal.

The reality is, NDP members will never be in favour of a deal like CETA. They look at all the negatives in it. Even though every province is comfortable with the pharma side of things, even though in NAFTA we had $5.3 trillion worth of investment and only $140 million in ISDS pay-outs, they would still see that as a negative. Therefore, it does not matter what we say, as they will just view CETA or any trade agreement as negative.

My question to the member is: What would it take for the NDP to actually say, “Yes, this is a good deal”?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be able to ask my colleague a question. I really enjoyed his history lesson. I cannot believe the 39-year old has that much knowledge about history. However, I want to use that advantage and that wisdom wisely today to talk about the fact that, historically, when we looked at the first free trade agreements, when we look at NAFTA and agreements like that, there were all these naysayers who said that we would lose our wine sector. For example, I remember that the B.C. wine industry would disappear off the map and it would never survive.

I would like the member to comment on how many times we have heard the NDP and other parties talk about how trade is so horrible, that it will basically ruin Canada, and on what we have heard in today's debate.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the member's comments in regard to CETA, or any other trade agreement. The only trade agreement that the New Democrats ever did support was one with Korea. I think they thought it was North Korea, and that is why they were in favour of it. There should be no surprise on this side or the other side of the House that the NDP would be against this.

The reality is that I cannot understand the New Democrats' logic. They talk about all these things that they want to do. They want to build the economy and the middle class so they have jobs and growth. They talk about all this stuff. I guess they know that they will never be seriously considered for government. When they were the opposition party and the South Korea trade deal went through, they thought they had a chance to maybe one day be in government. Then all of a sudden they showed up on the trade file. Now they know they will never have a chance to be in government, so they have retreated to where they have normally been, and that is basically anti-trade, anti-development, anti-growth. Anything that is positive, they are anti.

I ask this to the member. Why should we take her seriously now on the trade deal of CETA? Why should we listen to what she has to say when the New Democrats have not been constructive in anything in regard to trade in the past?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged listening to my colleague across the aisle talk about agriculture and trade. We have not heard the Liberal Party in years, if not centuries, actually talk about and acknowledge the importance of trade to the agriculture sector.

I am a little confused. He talked about trade with China, and he talked about CETA and how good that would be, but he did not talk about the TPP or trade with the Asian countries, like Japan, where the TPP would actually gain us market access.

He may know that the Liberal Party has been involved in stalling the actual signatories to the TPP in this House and in the committee for the last year. Can he tell me if he is ready to go to his party and push forward the TPP so we can actually get more benefits for Canadian farmers?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, that was a very interesting speech. The member talked about walking away from opportunity. I agree that we should not walk away from this opportunity, which is huge for all Canadians. In fact, the benefit in this agreement is about $1,000 per family, so we know there will be a distinct benefit there.

What really concerns me is the fact that the Liberal government is taking that $1,000 out of the pockets of families and spending it elsewhere. More payroll taxes and a carbon tax are the types of things that make our business community uncompetitive. Even though businesses have gained market access to sell all over the world, to Europe in this situation, if they cannot produce effectively and efficiently in Canada at a price that people will pay, then they will have to look at the location of their businesses, which maybe is not in Canada.

While the Conservative government was very active in pursuing market access and keeping taxes low, why are the Liberals doing only half of a deal? If they are so concerned about the middle class, why do they not let the middle class keep that $1,000 and allow businesses to have a competitive field in Canada, so they can take advantage of the market access they will receive?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I agree with some of the things that the chair of trade committee talked about, but there are some things I disagree with.

The member talked about how good the blueberries are. We have saskatoon berries in Saskatchewan, and the people in Europe will enjoy the saskatoon berries better than the blueberries. Having said that, however, they are both excellent.

We have created the ability to get market access by going around the world, and now we are going to have access to the European market. Canadian companies will want to export their goods to Europe, and companies around the world will be looking at the possibly of getting a facility in Canada because they will have market access in Europe and the U.S. Hopefully, the TPP will go through the House and we will have access to the Asian market as well. It would be a great base for operations.

One thing that concerns me is our competitiveness. We are adding taxes to things that affect our competitiveness. The carbon tax is an example, when it comes to our fisheries. All Canadian fishers will have to pay a carbon tax, which will provide no return for their investment, and this will make them uncompetitive.

Does my colleague not feel that it is important to look at competitiveness with respect to trade agreements when it comes to taking advantage of opportunities and growing the business community here in Canada?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chair of the trade committee for his speech. You highlighted a lot of important things, but I do disagree with a few things you said.

[Health, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the MS Society prairie president Erin Kuan stated in January that it did not matter to her if MRls were offered privately or publicly, as long as patients had access. Saskatchewan currently has an estimated 3,700 people with MS.

Instead of congratulating Saskatchewan for successfully providing more MRI options, the Minister of Health attacked Saskatchewan for modernizing health care services. It does not make sense.

Why are the Liberals punishing my province for not signing on to the Prime Minister's carbon tax?