Tracey Ramsey

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

Mr. Speaker, I can only extend to the member down the bench that I am more concerned about our Prime Minister looking at this trade deal. I am more concerned about his lack of leadership with respect to this trade deal than I am about what is happening with our neighbour to the south. Our trade with the U.S. is incredibly important. I come from a region that relies on that. I certainly understand the benefit of that, but we need to look at this deal.

When we look at the report that came out a couple of weeks ago, we see that we already have TFAs with countries that are in the trans-Pacific partnership. Even the chief economist said that trade with those countries will go down. We will actually see a loss in trade with countries we already have TFAs with.

It is time in Canada to look at the way we are engaging in trade. We have heard the minister opposite mention a progressive trade agenda. I would love to explore that further and understand what exactly she means by that. We need to look at these trade deals, on balance. There have been 60,000 jobs lost in our country, and negligible growth, by all reports. Regardless of who we are looking at on the economic impact study, it shows negligible growth for our country. Yet we will see a depletion of jobs, which is something we certainly cannot have happen in our communities. I would venture that the member down the bench cannot afford to have those jobs lost in his community, either. Therefore, I encourage him to have a town hall in his riding. I will be following up to ensure that he does so, so that he can actually engage with people in his riding on the trans-Pacific partnership. I look forward to hearing the results of that town hall.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear that my colleague is in favour of this deal, because essentially, this is a Conservative deal that was negotiated behind closed doors and that did not include large numbers of groups. There were many people in Canada who were not included. Labour was not part of the conversation, nor were environmentalists, seniors, or our youth. The list goes on. Those who protect public health in our country were not part of the conversation on the negotiation of the trans-Pacific partnership.

It is not good enough for Canada to sit and watch what is happening in the U.S. We need to take leadership on this. We need to ensure that we are protecting Canadian jobs.

At the end of the day, what we see of this trade deal is 60,000 jobs lost. We have the economic impact study that came out last week. Again we see negligible growth being projected for the next 24 years. If the amount promised to our supply management sectors, $4.3 billion, is actually realized, we will see no net benefit from the trans-Pacific partnership, according to the report that was released.

Again, the report released by our own government says nothing about jobs. It actually says in the study that it does not take labour into account. It does not talk about digital rights. It does not talk about many of the chapters included in the trans-Pacific partnership that need to be part of the conversation Canadians are having.

I can also let the member know that I travelled across this country this summer talking about the trans-Pacific partnership, and I have yet to find an average Canadian who thinks that this trade deal is good for our jobs, our economy, and our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, some examples of the goods in transit that the member is speaking about in Bill C-13 appear when we talk about enabling Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to comply with article 11(8) of the TFA, which essentially prohibits the application of technical regulations to goods moving through the WTO member's territory. It definitely speaks to transit through Canada of goods that do not comply with Canadian technical regulations, and Bill C-13 would create the legal authority to allow the government to exempt goods in transit through Canada through these technical regulations.

At the end of the day, we want to identify that the goods in transit are safe. We want assurances from Health Canada that we will not be endangering any Canadians in the transit of these particular goods through our country. That is incredibly important to the NDP. Again, we will be watching closely the study that will happen at the committee level.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude my remarks on Bill C-13, a bill we began debating before the summer about implementing a WTO agreement on trade facilitation, or the TFA as it is called.

This agreement is largely about harmonizing border rules around the world in order to expedite the flow of goods and to give businesses greater certainty. We know how important it is to Canadian producers that they have predictability when exporting their goods. Many of these producers are the small businesses that create jobs and drive our economy.

Canadian SMEs stand to benefit from this TFA through greater predictability of customs and border procedures for exports to developing countries. It could increase Canadian SMEs' access to markets in emerging economies, assuming they are equipped to do so. We want to see the government assist SMEs in realizing the potential benefits of the TFA, as well as address other weaknesses in Canada's SME export performance. With a sluggish economy, it is absolutely imperative that the federal government be looking at ways to better support Canadian small businesses.

The Liberal government made a lot of promises last election to small businesses. It promised to reduce the tax rate to 9%, but broke that promise in its first budget.

There is a lot the government can do to support SMEs who export their goods abroad. In the previous Parliament, the Standing Committee on International Trade adopted an NDP motion to undertake a study of the global markets access plan and how the government can better support Canadian SMEs with accessing international markets. The committee's report outlines recommendations for how the federal government can pursue consistent and ambitious policies that further secure SME success in international markets. The NDP wants to see the government implement the study's recommendations and the recommendations outlined in the NDP's supplementary report.

The committee heard that Canadian SMEs have not reached their full potential in terms of accessing international markets. Only 10.4% of SMEs exported in 2011, and most of this trade was done with the United States. There is so much opportunity for them to increase trade with emerging economies, which is what we are essentially talking about today. However, our SMEs face a lot of challenges in terms of difficulties and inefficiencies with border clearance, as well as accessing capital to expand and grow.

In my riding of Essex, so much of our economic prosperity depends on the ability to move goods efficiently through the border with the United States. Having the necessary infrastructure in place is critical, which is why the NDP is such a strong supporter of the new bridge crossing between Windsor and Detroit. For people in Windsor-Essex, a strong Canada-U.S. relationship is a big priority. We're directly impacted by border and customs issues. We watch closely when the Prime Minister and the president meet, as we have a lot riding on seeing concrete outcomes from these meetings.

Last time the leader of the Liberal Party went to Washington, he met with the president about pre-clearance at the border, which is welcome but is not new. The general agreement on this was signed a year ago.

Earlier this year, I participated in the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance conference. There were a lot of excellent discussions focused on how to make cross-border trade more efficient and streamlined. With increasingly integrated supply chains, we know how important it is for Canadian businesses to have simplified, harmonized, and standardized controls to govern the movement of goods across national borders. Canada is on the cutting edge of these discussions, because we are a trading nation. Many of our livelihoods depend on trade.

Around the world, we are seeing growing criticism and dissatisfaction with the kinds of lopsided trade deals many right-wing governments have been focused on negotiating. This rising anti-trade sentiment can be extremely hurtful for Canada, but I also understand that some of this sentiment is rooted in the realities we see around the world. The gap between the world's wealthiest and everyone else is bigger than it has ever been before, and the world's trade and investment liberalization agenda is not trickling down the way we were all told it would.

Deals like the TPP are not focused on creating jobs for the working class. They are focused on granting corporate rights and privileges that trample on the public good. We know that if the TPP comes into force, it would cost Canadian jobs. It would create a culture of fear among our governments of legislating in the public interest. It would hurt our ability to legislate action on climate change. It could mean no national pharmacare program in Canada.

Over the summer, I held a series of town hall meetings on the TPP. I also spoke with a lot of people in my riding about the kind of trade they want to see.

Canadians want to see solutions to the trade issues that matter in their communities. Steelworkers want to see an end to the unfair steel dumping practices that directly threaten good Canadian jobs. Forestry workers want a solution to the softwood lumber issue, not a renewed trade war. Farmers want a payment protection program so they can export with confidence. Dairy farmers want a fair system in place for dealing with improperly labelled imports. Grain farmers want greater access to markets such as Japan, and canola farmers want to export to China with confidence.

These are the bread and butter trade issues that matter to working Canadians, and I will be working hard to hold the Liberal government to account. I believe strengthening trade opportunities for Canadian SMEs is a bread and butter issue too. It matters to a lot of Canadian families and communities.

I will be supporting Bill C-13 at second reading, and I want to hear more at the committee about how Canadians might benefit from the TFA.

According to the WTO, the TFA could boost global merchandise exports by around $1 trillion, with up to $730 billion accruing to developing countries. It also estimates that the agreement will benefit women entrepreneurs in developing countries who head up many of the SMEs that could benefit from the TFA. The average growth of women-run enterprises is significantly lower than those run by men. I would like to hear more about how the WTO will support developing countries in implementing the TFA and how it will support women in the least developed countries as beneficiaries of increased trade.

The WTO makes big claims about how beneficial the TFA will be. It seems quite common for proponents of trade deals to produce extremely optimistic studies. Just the other week, the Liberal government released a TPP economic study that many say overstated the benefits and understated the losses.

In conclusion, I see some potential benefits in this agreement for Canadians, including for the people in my riding of Essex. The bill deserves further study at committee, which is why I will be supporting it at second reading.

[International Trade, June 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, after hearing from over 20,000 people, it seems that the Liberals just do not like what they have heard about the TPP. The fact is, Canadians have delivered a message loud and clear: the TPP is a bad deal for Canada. It will kill jobs and damage our economy.

Our allies are already talking about getting a better deal. Why are not the Liberals? Will they now agree to go back to the table and negotiate a better deal for Canada?

[Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-221, also called the safe and regulated sports betting act.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague and neighbour, the member for Windsor West, for introducing this bill. It is an important piece of legislation. It seeks to delete paragraph 207(4)(b) from the Criminal Code, which explicitly prohibits wagering on any race, fight, or single sports event or athletic contest.

The bill may sound familiar, and for good reason. It was previously introduced by my friend, Joe Comartin, the now retired member for Windsor—Tecumseh. He did more than just introduce it, though. His bill was debated in this place, passed in a vote at third reading, and sent to the Senate. Unfortunately, it languished in the Senate for years before dying on the Order Paper with the dissolution of the 41st Parliament.

It is shameful that the Senate did not do its job and that it prevented the passage of legislation that was passed by elected MPs in the House. Therefore, I thank the member for Windsor West for choosing to reintroduce his former colleague's bill and for his continued work serving his community in the region of Windsor-Essex.

As I mentioned, Bill C-221 would remove the clause in the Criminal Code that prohibits betting on “on any race or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest”. Betting on sporting events is not illegal in Canada. Since 2005, Canadians have spent around $500 million annually betting on sports legally. What this bill would do is make betting on a single event legal.

Right now, individuals are required to bet on at least two events. In Ontario, the minimum is three. This so-called parlay system is under the jurisdiction of the provinces, as is all operating, licensing, and regulating of legal gambling. Bill C-221 would simply allow for single sports betting to come under the purview of the provinces as well.

The safe and regulated sports betting act is very relevant to the people who live in my riding of Essex. A large employer and attraction in our region is the world-class Caesars Windsor casino. People come from all over southwestern Ontario and the American Midwest to visit Caesars, both for its entertainment purposes and to enjoy the many other tourist attractions of the Windsor-Essex region. Local residents know how much Americans love coming over to Caesars. All anyone has to do is look at the border traffic on any weekend in Windsor.

Americans choose to come to Windsor-Essex even though Detroit casinos may be more convenient for them. They like coming to Canada, especially now with the lower dollar. The legislation before us today would give casinos like Caesars a competitive advantage over their competition south of the border. This is good for Canadian jobs, tourism, and economy.

Currently, only Las Vegas, Nevada, offers legal single sports betting in North America. Think about that. If people want to place a legal wager on the Super Bowl, the Grey Cup, or a Stanley Cup finals game, the only place they can do so is Las Vegas. For the Super Bowl weekend alone, there are estimates that nearly $116 million were generated.

There is tremendous economic opportunity here. Gaming is the largest sector of the entertainment industry. It directly supports more than 128,000 full-time jobs and generates $8.7 billion in revenue to governments and first nations groups. A Canadian Gaming Association study estimates that the introduction of single sports betting would generate $70 million in revenues and nearly $31 million in ancillary revenues to the Windsor-Essex region. Other border regions with casinos would similarly benefit.

Many communities stand to gain from this new source of revenue that would be returned, in part, to the community. It has been estimated that allowing single sports betting could create 100 direct jobs at Caesars Windsor. This is huge for my region, which has stubbornly high unemployment rates. Over the past decade alone, it has lost well over 10,000 good manufacturing jobs. The region needs new opportunities. This is why my colleague's bill has widespread support, including from the city of Windsor, the city of Niagara Falls, the Canadian Gaming Association, and the Windsor-Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce.

A delegation came to Ottawa earlier this year to encourage parliamentarians to support this bill. Representatives came from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Gaming Association, and others. Despite the bill's broad support, the government has said it opposes Bill C-221 because it could potentially have negative impacts on those who struggle with gambling addictions. This is a serious concern and something to which I am very sensitive. Addiction is a serious problem, one that can destroy the lives of people and families in our community. Let us not underplay that.

However, I do not see any evidence put forth by the government to support its claims that Bill C-221 would encourage gambling problems. It is important to note that single sports betting already happens in Canada, but it is illegal and unregulated. In fact, it is estimated that the size of the market is in the $14 billion to $15 billion range. It is operated by illegal offshore gaming companies or organized crime rings. These are unregulated and unsafe venues. Yet, every day, people hand over their credit card information to these offshore websites and incur big amounts of debt. These organizations will not hesitate to prey on the vulnerable and they do not help to provide services that benefit the public.

Simply continuing the prohibition on single sports betting, as the government seems to favour, will do nothing to stop these organizations from profiting off of Canadians. According to reports by the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, bookmaking exists in all regions of Canada, and gambling, including sports betting, is used as a funding tool for organized crime. A legal and regulated single sports betting industry would undermine the client base of illegal gambling venues. Legalization would not only reduce their profits by providing customers with a legal alternative, but it would also protect law-abiding citizens.

For those who currently participate in single sports betting by dealing with criminal groups, a regulated industry would provide a safe alternative. This safe alternative would be of greatest benefit to those suffering from an addiction to gambling. As I have said, we need to support those who need our help, and continuing this prohibition on single sports betting impairs our ability to do this. Instead of being exposed to the opportunities and services available to them in a safe, legal, and regulated environment, those suffering from gambling addiction are forced to interact with predatory and criminal enterprises. This is dangerous to their personal safety and financial health, and also detrimental to their ability to heal. Do members think organized crime groups are contributing money to anti-addiction efforts, supports, or services? Of course not. The provinces do this.

Measures are in place to support people with gambling addictions. In Ontario, there is a Responsible Gaming Resource Centre operated by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. The one in Caesars Windsor is open seven days a week between 10 a.m. and 2 a.m. These centres provide people with information about community services available to help them fight addiction and also help them learn about safe gaming practices. According to the website rgrc.org, over 170,000 people receive services from these centres.

There are other resources available to those who wish to seek help with their addiction. These include Ontario's self-exclusion program, where individuals can request to be denied access to OLG facilities; and also the playsmart.ca website, which is full of excellent resources. It is incredibly important to have a strong network of services to support people with these addictions.

Bill C-221 would not legalize something that does not already happen. Single sports betting happens every day in Canada. What we are talking about here is providing the opportunity for the provinces to be able to regulate and co-ordinate in a safe environment. We know and believe that moderation is the key to responsibly enjoying other forms of gaming. This principle should be applied to single sports betting.

Let us take the money out of the hands of criminal groups and put it to work for our communities. Providing a safe and legal environment for Canadians and providing the vulnerable with better addictions services absolutely deserve all of our support.

I want to encourage my colleagues to give serious consideration to supporting this bill at second reading. I urge all members to vote in support of the safe and regulated sports betting act.

[Food and Drugs Act, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that wonderful compliment to the House this afternoon.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

As we know, the legislation before us today would enable Canada to implement the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade facilitation, the TFA.

Bill C-13 will bring various acts it seeks to amend into conformity with Canada's obligations under the TFA. There are about 71 clauses to this bill, not including related and coordinating amendments. It will be important to carefully look at each clause. However, I will not focus my remarks today on attempting to provide a detailed clause-by-clause analysis.

I would like to thank the department officials for providing me with a helpful briefing on the bill.

I would like to discuss more broadly what a trade facilitation agreement is, how it will impact global trade, and it what it means for Canada.

The TFA is the first multilateral agreement concluded since the creation of the WTO in 1994. It emerged from the WTO Bali ministerial conference in 2013, and it was a priority for developed countries. It aims to liberalize trade by harmonizing customs and border procedures among all 162 WTO member states. This could lower trade costs and boost trade. It makes sense that developed countries would want to see greater trade facilitation as it could provide greater opportunities for our companies to do business abroad.

Developed countries, such as Canada, are already in vast compliance with the measures proposed in the TFA. We have modernized customs and border procedures with a highly skilled and professional workforce at the Canada Border Services Agency.

On the other hand, developing countries may require a lot more changes to both their legislation and practices in order to implement the TFA. These costs are difficult to estimate. It is important to acknowledge that TFA implementation could divert resources and energies away from other development priorities.

The TFA has two main sections. Section I is about how the TFA will expedite the movement, release, and clearance of goods in transit. Section II sets out how developing and least developed countries will implement the TFA. It stipulates that they should receive assistance and support for capacity-building. I wonder what this would mean in practical terms, and I would like to hear more from the government on what mechanisms will be in place and what role Canada may play in this.

Overall, Canada should support the promotion of a more level playing field at the WTO that encourages sustainable, inclusive development.

There are two specific articles in the TFA that Bill C-13 addresses, Article 10.8.1 on rejected goods and Article 11.8 on goods and transit.

On rejected goods, TFA Article 10.8.1 requires that a country must allow importers to return to exporters goods rejected when they do not meet prescribed sanitary, phytosanitary, or technical regulations. A set of criteria outlines how these rejected goods should be dealt with. They can be returned, reconsigned, or handled in other ways, for example through seizure, detainment, forfeiture, or disposal.

Five of the six acts being amended by Bill C-13 are in relation to the issue of rejected goods and how Canada deals with them. Bill C-13 would give Canada the authority to take action on non-compliant goods and avoid having to maintain indefinite care and control of non-compliant goods.

In the bill we see some examples of what these goods could be, such as products with improper labelling or products that may contain certain hazardous materials. In some cases, if attempts to locate the rejected goods' owner are unsuccessful, the WTO member may now have the option to destroy the rejected goods.

The second TFA provision addressed by Bill C-13 is article 11.8, which states:

Members shall not apply technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures within the meaning of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade to goods in transit.

In order to comply with article 11.8, four federal acts require amendments, as follows: the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999.

Currently, certain Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada statutes prohibit the transit through Canada of goods that do not comply with Canadian technical regulations. This restricts food, drugs, cosmetics, or devices that are not compliant with Canadian regulations from passing through our borders.

Bill C-13 would create the legal authority to allow Canada to exempt goods in transit from the technical regulations outlined in these four acts. I would like to see some close study of these amendments at committee stage and look at some examples of what could be allowed to transit through Canada under these new provisions.

For some statutes under the administration of Health Canada, Bill C-13 would impose conditions that identify goods in transit that may not comply with Canadian technical regulations, so that in case these goods are diverted into the Canadian market, we know what they are.

Conditions would also be imposed under Bill C-13 that would provide oversight on products, such as certain pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs, not captured under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1992, which are currently not permitted to transit through Canada but will be once this TFA is implemented.

The government asserts that this oversight maintains safeguards that protect the environment, health, and safety of persons who may come into contact with such goods. I am interested to hear more from witnesses at committee to ensure that this is the case, as the health and safety of workers is of paramount concern, as is the protection of our environment.

On the surface, many of the changes we see in Bill C-13 are seemingly minor, but we need to hear from experts in order to fully understand that this is the case.

For example, Bill C-13 would make changes to the product safety information section of the Pest Control Products Act, section 8.3. While much of the language remains the same, it deletes specific reference to a requirement to provide material safety data sheets, or MSDS. I wonder why this is the case, as we all know the importance of MSDS for workers who handle potentially hazardous products.

I talked about the TFA and its specific articles, and now I would like to discuss the potential benefits of the TFA to Canadian exporters.

We often see in trade agreements the tendency to overstate the potential benefits and understate the potential costs. We certainly see that with the trans-Pacific partnership. Initially, the previous Conservative government touted the benefits of the TPP. However, when we look at the studies conducted so far in this agreement, we see a different story.

On the one hand, we have a study by the Peterson Institute, which predicts a 1.3% rise in the real income of Canadians, but this is only a modest increase, and we have to question some of its assumptions, such as the assumption that we have full employment. In contrast, several have predicted negative or negligible impacts.

The independent study by the researchers at Tufts University actually criticizes other studies for using unrealistic assumptions in their TPP analysis. The Tufts study predicts that Canada will lose 58,000 jobs by joining the TPP. Negligible GDP growth for Canada is also reported in this study, and the same is true for the results produced by the World Bank, and the C.D. Howe Institute.

There are many reports, some suggesting gains and some suggesting losses; however, none of these reports are replacements for a full economic impact analysis that we are still waiting on the minister to provide.

At trade committee this week, we again heard calls for an impact study, and first nations groups also called for a human rights impact assessment. The government needs to provide this analysis to Canadians and their elected representatives so that we can get a better understanding of the potential benefits and costs of the TPP.

In the same vein, I wonder if the government has done any modelling or deep analysis of the trade facilitation agreement. Therefore, I approached the WTO numbers on the potential gains of the TFA with some caution, but let us talk about them—

[Food and Drugs Act, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for his wisdom and insight. Being a former minister on this particular file, he certainly has some insight to bring to this House. I want to let the member know that the trade committee is working extremely hard, not only on the TPP and the pre-study that we are doing but certainly on every endeavour that we undertake.

When we talk about trade, we must talk about the responsible approach and look at the way that it is going to impact Canadians. There is a group of people who are often left out when we are talking about the types of changes to our trade facilitation that we are talking about today. They are the ones who are most responsible for its implementation.

I am talking about our Canada Border Services Agency people, who do an incredible job every day to ensure that our borders are safe. These people are on the front lines of facilitating trade while enforcing regulations and keeping our country safe.

Does the member believe that CBSA requires additional support to make our borders more efficient and secure, in particular when we are looking at expanding the ability of things to move through our country?

[Food and Drugs Act, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the trade committee for his hard work on this file, although we fundamentally disagree, certainly, on the TPP.

I think it is interesting that the member mentioned his own stock portfolio and worrying about that. Most Canadians do not have the luxury of worrying about whether their stock portfolio is doing well, and the TPP would severely impact these people's lives.

Getting back to this particular piece, he spoke a bit about the challenges we have here in our own country. Really, the inability of small and medium-sized enterprises to actually access these market is a huge problem. We have heard this on the trade committee. We are talking about over 80% of Canadian businesses. They are simply unable to get into other markets and get into an export situation.

I am confident that the hon. member believes, as I do, that the government has to focus more of its efforts on improving opportunities in trade for SMEs, such as the tax reduction that all three parties agreed to during the election campaign, which unfortunately, we have seen the Liberals fail on. That will end up costing small and medium-sized enterprises in our country millions of dollars that they simply cannot afford.

I wonder if the hon. member could actually speak to some ways we could improve trade avenues for small and medium-sized enterprises, such as things that have been identified at the committee.

[Food and Drugs Act, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the hon. parliamentary secretary across the way on this file. These are the types of trade changes, the facilitation that we are talking about here, that we in the NDP can get behind as well.

Bill C-13 makes some changes to how Canada deals with goods in transit and non-compliant goods, including hazardous products and pest control products. It is very important to Canadians that they are assured that they are safe within our country and that these ingredients and products will not harm our environment. Therefore, my question to the member is this. Is he confident that the changes to Bill C-13 maintain existing health and safety standards for workers who may come into contact with these products?