Tracey Ramsey

[International Trade, October 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in my question for the minister in May, I highlighted the concerns raised by Canada's tech sector about the impacts of the TPP. Earlier this year, Tobi Lütke from Shopify stated that the deal would undermine Canada's autonomy to adopt its own software patent rules. OpenMedia is mobilizing its members to stop the TPP because of its infringements on digital rights.

Jim Balsillie, former CEO of Research in Motion, a great Canadian tech success story, perhaps the largest we have experienced, is also very concerned about the TPP. In his presentation to the international trade committee, he warned that TPP would lock Canadian innovators into a perpetual second place in the IT sector and the knowledge economy. He said, “I guarantee you there will never be another Canadian tech company like RIM under the framework of TPP.....The best thing for a Canadian innovator to do under TPP is to move to the United States.”

On the west coast, we have a burgeoning tech industry that is constantly losing young people to the U.S. tech sector. The thought that the TPP will cause us to lose talented Canadians and potential innovation to the U.S. or abroad is not a positive for growth in the sector here in Canada. This is a sector we should be focusing on and growing, not signing trade agreements that threaten its viability and future. Indeed, the committee was told that Canada is lacking a cohesive plan. What is desperately needed, as with other sectors, is an innovation strategy.

Jim Balsillie raised a lot of good points in his presentation to the committee. He highlighted how the TPP is not a traditional free trade agreement and that being opposed to the TPP does not mean that one is opposed to the concept of trade. It is simply a bad deal that runs counter to Canadian interests.

I would like to point out some of the issues around the TPP modelling that has been done. Most models show that the TPP will have a negligible effect on growth. We see a lot of flaws with models that assume full employment or that fail to account for intellectual property and ISDS provisions.

I was shocked to see that the government's own long-awaited economic impact study was full of holes. Most of the headlines around the study suggested that although Canada would not gain much from joining the TPP, it stands to lose if we do not join. However, as I said, the study is full of holes. It makes unreasonable assumptions, such as full employment, and does not look at the billions in promised compensation to the supply-managed sectors. It ignores the cost of ISDS and intellectual property changes, and glosses over the potential loss of tens of thousands of good-paying auto jobs across Canada and how deeply that would be felt in communities across my region.

It has been exactly one year since the TPP was concluded. The Liberal Party talks the same as the Conservatives on trade. They criticize me and my party for stating the obvious, that the TPP is a bad deal for Canada. I challenge the Liberal Party for its lack of leadership on this file. It says it wants to study the deal and consult on it. That work is nearly done.

After unloading the task on the trade committee, it spent over $300,000 studying the TPP and over 260 witnesses appeared. It has been a year. The conversations have happened, the money has been spent, but the Liberals still cannot make up their minds about this deal. Both presidential candidates in the U.S. think it is a bad deal. It is about the only issue that we will hear them agree on.

I challenge my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, to push his government to finally show leadership on this file and be up front with Canadians on where Liberals stand on the trans-Pacific partnership.

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, sitting here today, I am struck by the fact that the commitments are not being honoured that were given to Canadians last year in the election. Most Canadians felt like we were going to see something different with the current government, that we were going to see it address climate change in a way that would impact generations to come. I know that the environmentalists in Essex today would join the list of Canadians who are feeling let down by the Liberal government. This new plan for the environment is no different than the old plan, and that was a weak plan to begin with. There is no difference between what we had and what is being presented here today.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has stated several times that the previous government targets were just the floor. However, now the Liberals are backtracking. Suddenly the floor is the ceiling and we are talking about the exact same targets.

Can my colleague tell the House why the Liberals have misled Canadians into believing that they would improve Canada's performance beyond Conservative targets?

[Steel Industry, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have abandoned former Stelco workers, and they failed to stand up for the sector against steel dumping.

China's unfair trade practice is hurting Canada's steel industry and putting tens of thousands of good jobs at risk.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and local chambers, like mine in Windsor-Essex, have urged the government to act, but so far the Liberals have only offered hollow words.

With the Chinese premier visiting today, will the Liberals finally act on unfair steel dumping?

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, September 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the labour critic in the NDP, for her fantastic speech and critique of where the government could potentially be going for working people in Canada. As a union member for 20 years, I know there is nothing more fundamentally important than the right to collectively bargain and the right to strike. Unfortunately, we do not see this being addressed in Bill C-5.

When we look at former Bill C-4, it is a direct threat to collective bargaining rights and the right to strike. Unions such as PSAC, PIPSC, and CAPE recognize this importance. It is the foundation of their ability to protect their rights in the workplace. We need to move collective bargaining back to where it was before the Conservative Harper government created Bill C-4 and essentially took that right away.

Could my hon. colleague give us her thoughts on why the government is not recognizing this and moving immediately to restore free and fair collective bargaining for public service workers in this country?

[Petitions, September 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition calling upon the government to reject the trans-Pacific partnership. We have a lot of petitions that are coming in from across Canada. People are concerned that Canada is giving up too much in this deal, such things as good Canadian jobs. They fear that this could lead to income inequality growing even more than it already is in Canada. They fear the cost of medications and that it could be a barrier to a national pharmacare program. There is a fear of easing the path for foreign takeovers. Also, it contains measures that would stifle Canada's innovation sector.

They also mention that the TPP empowers corporations to sue and obtain compensation from Canadian governments for regulating in the public interest.

I present these petitions and the petitioners are asking for the government to reject the trans-Pacific partnership.

[Softwood Lumber, September 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, a priority? The government has had nearly 200 days to come up with a deal on softwood, and it is breaking its promise.

In less than a month, Canadian forestry companies will be hit with new tariffs and unfair trade measures by the United States. There are tens of thousands of Canadian jobs on the line.

Has the minister thrown in the towel? Has she given up on these workers? What is her plan to protect forestry jobs across Canada?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would like to correct in the member's speech. When he mentioned the chief economist and the report that came out about a week and a half ago, he said that there would be $4.3 billion over one year. The $4.3 billion that was mentioned would be over 24 years, and $4.3 billion is the amount the previous Conservative government, which included the member, actually negotiated as compensation for our supply management sector. Essentially, it is a wash. We would see no benefit at all, according to our chief economist and these numbers, from the trans-Pacific partnership.

While we know that beef and pork would see the benefits of trade with Japan, would the member not agree that we should pursue the bilateral agreements we were previously doing before we entered into the trans-Pacific partnership so that those sectors could see the benefits of that trade?

Ultimately, I want to speak to his piece about our getting in. He said that it is important that we get in so that we have preferential market access. That is absolutely not true. There is a certification process that takes place after ratification by our Parliament, and all the cards are held by the U.S. The U.S. is not going to enter into an agreement where Canada has preferential access to those markets before it does.

Was the member aware of the certification process and the fact that ultimately, whether we ratify it or not, the U.S. holds all the cards in this deal?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is on the trade committee, for her wonderful speech today. My question has to do with the CBSA.

It has been brought up numerous times at the trade committee that there are issues at our borders. Bill C-13 speaks to that as it will require more safeguards in place at the border because we are talking about some dangerous products that will be travelling through those borders. Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague if she believes that the CBSA requires additional support to make our borders more efficient and secure.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch a bit on what the member across the way talked about in terms of hazardous products and pest control products. It is important for us to understand that it is not just that these products travel safely; it is that communities are protected from any potential damage during transport. It is also that the people who work to transport these products across our country are protected and that their health and safety is ensured.

Because Bill C-13 would make some changes in how we would deal with goods in transit and with non-compliant goods, is the member confident that the changes in Bill C-13 would maintain existing health and safety standards for workers who might come into contact with these products?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, something the member brought up in his speech this afternoon is of particular interest to me, that being the CBSA. Amazing women and men work for the Canada Border Services Agency. They protect our borders and are on the front lines of facilitating trade while enforcing regulations and keeping our country safe. They have an incredibly difficult and challenging job and I thank them for the job they do.

That said, it is clear that they bear the majority of responsibility for imports and exports, as they should, but the agency is severely understaffed. The agency needs more men and women at the border to be able to prevent the importation of things like diafiltered milk, and the issue we are having around that in particular. When we are talking about expanding the dangerous goods that will be travelling through our country, we need to ensure that the CBSA has all of the tools it needs to be able to do so safely, as the member mentioned in his speech.

Do you believe that the CBSA requires additional support to make our borders more efficient and secure?