Richard Cannings

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this important subject, Bill C-30, regarding the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

Canada is a trading nation. As we have heard so many times in this debate, we need good trade agreements, and we need to diversify our trading markets. Trade is too important to get these agreements wrong, especially with such an important partner as the European Union. We have to take the time to get it right. However, the Liberal government seems to be in a real rush to get this treaty ratified. The government signed CETA on October 30. The government has a set policy for the tabling of treaties in Parliament. That policy states that the treaties must be tabled with explanatory notes 21 days before the enabling legislation is presented. What happened with CETA? Bill C-30, the enabling legislation, was put on the Order Paper two days before the agreement was even signed, and it was tabled in Parliament on October 31, the day after the signing. What is the hurry? The European Union nations will be taking their time to make sure that this deal is good for them. Why are we giving them that advantage when we should be taking our time to make sure we get it right as well?

There are obviously good things about freer trade with Europe. We are happy to see the reduction or elimination of tariffs on Canadian industries, particularly those in the agricultural sector, such as beef, pork and canola. We like free trade when it is fair trade.

There is a forest products mill in my riding called Greenwood Forest Products, which creates laminated pine shelving and furniture parts. It sells its own products across western North America, but to serve eastern Canada and the eastern United States, it imports finished products from Romania. It is cheaper to do that than to ship products across Canada. That is another story. Therefore, it depends on trade with the European Union to survive. It does not pay any tariffs on products coming from the EU now, so CETA will not directly benefit it, but it does appreciate any strengthening of trade ties between Canada and Europe. It may likely have to do more business in Europe in the near future because it is deeply concerned about the direction that the softwood lumber agreement is taking with the United States. Its products have never been hit by countervail duties or tariffs in the past with the U.S. However, the recent moves in the United States between the U.S. lumber industry and the U.S. Department of Commerce have apparently expanded the number and types of products covered under the industry complaints to include a wide variety of value-added products, instead of being restricted to the dimension lumber, as it has been in the past. Therefore, it is very disappointed with the Liberal government's inaction on the softwood lumber front.

That is a good example of why we need to diversify our trading relationships. We need good trade deals with other nations and other regions. However, we do not want bad deals that will result in decreased market share for Canadian companies, unfair competition, reduced sovereignty, and significant job losses.

We are particularly worried about the investor-state dispute provisions brought in by this agreement. Under similar trade agreements, Canada has become one of the most sued countries in the world, winning only three of 39 cases against foreign interests, as we try to maintain our sovereignty in legislating protections for the environment, health, and other social interests.

I would like to quote something from the Canadian Environmental Law Association about this. It states:

[CETA] will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, the liberalization of trade in services, and the deregulation of government procurement rules will impact the federal and provincial governments’ authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.

Yes, there are carve-outs for some of these categories, but that will not stop corporations from initiating litigation, forcing us to prove that we are protected, and putting a regulatory chill on governments across this country, stopping them from enacting progressive legislation as they fear possible litigation. Since some European regions are clear that they want this provision removed, why does Canada feel compelled to insist on this part of the agreement when it is clearly not in our national interest?

I am also concerned about what CETA would do for drug costs in Canada. Changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals under CETA would be expected to increase drug costs by more than $850 million annually. This would not only be harmful to individual Canadians and their families who are struggling to get by but would make it increasingly difficult to bring in a national pharmacare program in Canada, something this country desperately needs.

We in the NDP are also concerned about compensation for sectors that would be negatively impacted by CETA. The dairy industry was promised compensation by the previous Conservative government, but the current Liberal government is now offering dairy farmers less than 10% of the amount previously on the table. There are other sectors that would be directly or indirectly affected by this agreement.

As many members know, my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay produces the finest wines in Canada. I will admit that good wines are produced across the country, from Vancouver Island to Nova Scotia. I have sampled a nice wine produced from grapes grown by the President of the Treasury Board, and I hear that the member for Brome—Missisquoi makes a great late-harvest Vidal.

The Canadian wine industry is a very important sector in the Canadian economy, contributing $8 billion to the national bottom line. It almost died after the free trade agreement with the U.S. in 1988, but through hard work on the part of a few small wineries, a long-term vision, and attention to high-quality products, the industry survived to live another day and now produces some of the best wines in the world.

In 2004, Canada signed a wine and spirits agreement with the European Union. Since that time, imports from the European Union to Canada have increased by 40 million litres to 180 million litres a year, valued at $1.16 billion. This compares to Canadian exports to the EU of only 123,000 litres, valued at $2.7 million. It is a significant imbalance.

Canada has one of the fastest-growing wine markets in the world. More and more Canadians are drinking wine, but three-quarters of that growth has gone to imported wines. The Canadian wine industry is not asking for protection or tariffs under CETA. Members of the industry are in favour of continued free trade in wine with Europe, but they are asking for help from the federal government to build the domestic industry to a level at which they can fairly compete with Europe and other wine regions of the world. The Canadian wine industry, through the Canadian Vintners Association, is asking the federal government to implement a 10-year wine industry innovation program to support the growth of this industry and to create jobs across Canada.

We need to be supporting Canadian industries at this time so they are not unduly harmed by these trade agreements but can truly take advantage of them.

To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of trade. We are very much in favour of good trade agreements. We simply want to ensure that these agreements are in the best interests of Canada, that they help grow local industries, and that they support job creation across the country.

[Fisheries Act, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for bringing this important bill to this place. I am very happy to speak to it and express my strong support for it.

As others have mentioned, the bill proposes to move open-net salmon aquaculture pens to safe, closed containment systems over a five-year period. This will have significant beneficial impacts on the survival of west coast salmon and Pacific ecosystems in general.

The five species of Pacific salmon are a keystone of aquatic ecosystems in British Columbia. Salmon mature in the open Pacific then migrate hundreds of kilometres inland to spawn.

I want to mention, even though it has already been mentioned today, that the sponsor of this bill has swum the length of the Fraser River twice, 1,400 kilometres each time. He knows what the salmon have to go through. Admittedly, he has only done it downstream, so he has not fought the currents all the way. However, it is still an impressive feat and a real testament to his efforts to save wild salmon.

As the salmon fight those currents, they are bringing rich nutrients from the ocean into the interior rivers, lakes, and forests. One simply has to witness the spectacle of wildlife around a salmon spawning ground to understand the significance of this. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of bald eagles gather at the spawning sites to feast on the spent spawners, moving from river to river as the different spawning events unfold throughout the summer, fall, and winter.

These eagles comes from all over western North America, from Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Alberta, and Northwest Territories. The salmon runs are an essential part of their winter survival, as well as the survival of a myriad of other species, including bear, waterfowl, and others that rely on salmon, including the orcas that feed on them as they come back out of the ocean through the narrows of Johnstone Strait and other places on the coast.

The young salmon swim downstream to the Pacific, usually spending time in the rich estuaries of the river mouths, which act as nurseries. Estuaries in B.C. have been prime locations for industrial activity: port facilities on the tidal flats of the Fraser estuary, logsorts up and down the coast, and recently a new proposal for an LNG port on one of the most important ellgrass beds at the mouth of the Skeena.

First nations have also relied on salmon for millennia. For many indigenous communities across British Columbia and Yukon, salmon are the centrepiece of their food supply throughout the year, and have always been central to their culture. They were an abundant, predictable, and easily preserved resource.

In my riding, first nations have travelled each year to significant concentration sites, such as Okanagan Falls and south of the border at Kettle Falls. In the Okanagan Nation, or Syilx culture, salmon, or Ntytikxw , is one of the four food chiefs, along with Skimxist, bear; Speetlum, bitterroot; and Seeya, Saskatoon berry.

However, salmon populations have suffered greatly over the past century. Heavy fishing in the early 1900s significantly reduced many stocks. Clear-cut logging along streams degraded spawning habitat. Hydroelectric dams have wiped out 20 salmon stocks in British Columbia, most of them on the Columbia River. Climate change threatens to diminish stocks further, as spring freshets come earlier and weaker, and summer droughts become longer, drier, and hotter. Salmon die in warm, oxygen-poor waters.

When I was young, there were few salmon that returned each year to the Okanagan River to spawn. Although the Okanagan was one of the last two viable sockeye runs in the Columbia River system, only about 5,000 fish came back each fall. Chinook salmon were even more endangered. One population estimate of the Okanagan spawning population from about a decade ago was only seven individuals.

Some years ago, serious efforts began to restore the sockeye populations of the Okanagan. In the last decade, these efforts have been spearheaded by the Okanagan Nation Alliance. Through its efforts to rebuild the spawning channels of the Okanagan River, sockeye now number in the hundreds of thousands in good years.

Last year, a half million sockeye entered the Columbia destined for the Okanagan, all but 10,000 died in the warm-water pools below the 11 dams they had to deal with on their way upstream. This year was cooler and wetter, and the return was good.

It is clear that salmon populations on the Pacific coast of Canada face a multitude of challenges, and any addition to these cumulative stressors could tip populations over the edge, sending them into decline and local extinction.

Bill C-228 would remove one of those challenges, a significant one. We know that open-net salmon farms have impacts on wild salmon populations, through disease, parasites, pollution, and escapement. Remember, these are Atlantic salmon in these pens and when they escape and try to spawn in the local rivers, it is a serious problem for wild salmon populations. We know that the aquatic ecosystems of British Columbia and much of the terrestrial ecosystems around spawning rivers are being degraded because of this situation. We know there is a problem, and we know the answer. We know what we have to do. We simply have to have the political will to fix the problem.

In the past, when we have faced similar situations, we have been successful. In the 1960s and 1970s, we discovered that DDT was causing dramatic declines in the populations of birds of prey around the world. Eagles and falcons were disappearing. We knew the cause. It was DDT, so we banned that pesticide, even though it was costly in the short term for the agricultural industry. I know that impact. I grew up on a small apple orchard and saw what my father had to do in buying new equipment to deal with the new pesticides that replaced DDT. However, we fixed the problem, and have seen eagle and falcon populations rebound in spectacular fashion over the past 40 years. The agriculture industry has not only survived but has flourished.

We can do the same for wild salmon. The bill calls for a shift from open-net salmon farms to closed containment systems. That is the right thing to do. We can still have a successful salmon farming industry on the Pacific coast, one that is based on sound environmental principles, and one that could command higher prices for its product because of those principles. Canada can become a world leader in closed containment systems as the world makes this shift.

I urge every member of the House to support Bill C-228 and save our wild salmon.

[Foreign Affairs, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Columbia River Treaty is nearing the end of its 60-year term, and needs to be brought up to date with 21st century needs and to ensure that Canada is receiving the benefit it deserves.

A renegotiated treaty would better address the protection of the river's ecosystem; issues around climate change; and first nations' rights, which are completely ignored in the current treaty.

When will the government truly begin renegotiation talks, and will it ensure that local voices are heard at the table?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about how the government likes transparency. We all know that the government loves consultation, but I wondered if she could comment on the fact that the Liberal-dominated trade committee has ruled out any possibility for concerned and knowledgeable Canadians to make written submissions to it unless they are among the few who are already appearing at the committee, unlike with the TPP, on which the trade committee received thousands of submissions. Is that because most of those submissions had negative things to say about the TPP. Is that what the Liberals are afraid of happening in this case?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said we do not want to be hindered by the treaty, yet this is a treaty that was negotiated by both the previous Conservative government and this Liberal government. It was predicated on the belief that the United Kingdom would be part of this treaty as part of the European Union. Now, with Brexit, we see that that may well not happen. I wonder if he has any concerns that the government does not seem to have done the analysis of what this would mean for the treaty.

This was a treaty we thought we were getting into, because almost half of our trade with Europe was through Britain, and now that may not be covered. I wonder if he could comment on that and the fact that the government does not seem to have done that analysis.

[Health, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, ANKORS is an HIV/AIDS outreach and support society in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

For many years, ANKORS has been providing prevention and harm-reduction services to at-risk populations, in 24 communities in the B.C. interior. However, they have just been informed that their federal funding will not be renewed. This will devastate HIV/AIDS outreach services in the B.C. interior.

Will the Minister of Health reverse these cuts and ensure that the people in the Okanagan and Kootenays have access to these vital services?

[The Environment, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday over 1,700 young Canadian scientists sent an open letter to the Prime Minister expressing their concern that recent government decisions have not been based on science. The letter stated:

Hundreds of scholars have decried weak Canadian environmental assessments and regulatory reviews and cautioned about the risks involved in large-scale energy projects. Environmental and health tragedies (e.g. Calgary floods; Mount Polley dam, asbestos) show that incompletely evaluated or mitigated risks have real consequences for Canadians, our environment, and the legacy we leave future generations.

These scientists have obviously lost faith in the government's ability or commitment to make transparent decisions informed by the best available evidence. They simply ask that the government act on science, that it assess cumulative impacts, and that it prevent conflict of interest through full public disclosure. They, and all other young Canadians, will have to live with the consequences of this government's decisions.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member the same question I asked his colleague for York Centre regarding the fact that this budget does not do anything for the middle class. We have a so-called middle-class tax break that only kicks in for people making more than $45,000 a year.

I have looked up the data for Surrey, and 75% to 80% of the people in Surrey make less than $45,000 a year. It is not going to help anyone there. It is not going to help families who need to have both parents working, because they cannot afford child care.

There is no affordable child care in this budget. The child benefit will not come anywhere near to paying for that kind of child care. I do not know if the member is waiting for a new NDP government to be elected in British Columbia next year that has promised to bring that in, but I think it behooves the current federal government to help Canadians.

If the Liberals want to help the middle class, what have they done in this budget if they are not bringing in tax benefits for them and are only helping the wealthy?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been asked this question again and again. If they wanted to help middle-class Canadians, why did they choose income tax changes to help wealthy Canadians?

More than half the people in the member's riding make less than $45,000, so they are not going to benefit at all from this so-called middle-class tax benefit. The child benefit the Liberals like to talk about will not help those families get the child care they need.

How is this budget going to help middle-class and lower-income families in the member's riding?

[Natural Resources, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting to hear about the naming of new commissioners and this opportunity we have to get a new culture in CNSC.

I am glad to hear that the employees of CNSC are highly qualified. It is important in any organization that there are employees with the highest qualifications, but certainly in a nuclear power plant that is even more important.

However, what is as important or more so is the culture of the workplace in these organizations. This is what we really need to see change at the top in CNSC and to get a sense from the new commissioners that we need a new culture. Canadians expect safety in any workplace, but these are nuclear power plants. We really expect the very best.