Tracey Ramsey

[Indigenous Affairs, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the national chief of the AFN testified that first nations have serious concerns about the TPP deal, but all he received from the minister was a phone call. First nations have not been consulted.

Liberals have promised to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which means prior and informed consent from indigenous peoples on all decisions that affect them. Why are Liberals moving ahead with the damaging TPP without meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples in Canada?

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is exactly what this particular piece speaks to. It is the fact that it is easier to import and export outside of the country than it is across provinces with these barriers. We certainly see this in the case of Mr. Comeau who was making a purchase for personal use in another province and trying to bring it back.

I think that all Canadians would be very pleased to see these provincial barriers removed and to be able to access beer, wine, and spirits across those borders. Therefore, when they travel to the beautiful regions of Canada, such as mine in Essex where we have a beautiful wine industry, they can go back home and still access those products within Canada, as opposed to having the only option of international products on the shelf.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think that having a collaborative approach is incredibly important. We know that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has said in the House that he has discussions that are ongoing between the federal government and the provinces on this issue. What we would like to see is some transparency. We would like to have a fulsome understanding of what those conversations are so that we can know if interprovincial trade barriers are being addressed in the way the member who presented this particular motion speaks to.

Therefore, we would like to know if the government is considering a phase-in period. The specifics around these conversations that are happening is what we would all like to know. We support any effort that would remove interprovincial trade barriers in Canada.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to today's opposition motion on internal trade. Issues relating to internal trade are important for the Canadian economy, as well as for consumer rights. Businesses and consumers have the right to have access to clear and fair rules.

By now, most of us are familiar with the case addressed by today's motion. In 2013, Gerard Comeau, a resident of New Brunswick, was fined about $300 for buying beer and spirits in Quebec and then taking his purchases home with him back to New Brunswick. According to authorities, he was in violation of New Brunswick's Liquor Control Act, which requires that residents of New Brunswick purchase their alcohol from the provincial liquor corporation.

Mr. Comeau challenged the fine, arguing that New Brunswick's rules violate section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which reads:

All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

The judge in the case agreed with Mr. Comeau, and now the New Brunswick government is appealing that decision.

My colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, is now asking fellow parliamentarians in this place to call on the government to refer the Comeau decision to the Supreme Court for constitutional clarification of section 121.

This strikes me as a pretty crafty move, pardon the pun. We know the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear constitutional order references and provide clarifications, but in this specific instance I have to wonder if this is the best avenue available to us or if it is just the most politically convenient tool at the moment.

I understand that my Conservative colleague who moved today's motion has done a lot of work over the years on liberalizing the interprovincial trade for beer, wine, and spirits. Interprovincial trade has always been a key element of Canada's economic development. The NDP is in favour of reducing artificial barriers and harmonizing regulations, because we know this is good for Canada's small and medium-sized businesses.

To clarify who we are talking about when we say SMEs, let me take a step back. Statistics Canada defines small businesses as those that employ fewer than 100 employees, and these made up a whopping 98.1% of all Canadian businesses that reported having employees in 2014. Medium businesses employ between 100 and 500 employees, and represent 1.7% of Canadian businesses. While large businesses, those that employ more than 500 employees, represent 0.2% of Canadian businesses.

Small businesses create local jobs, support our families, and drive economic prosperity. They are the backbones of our country and the hearts of small towns across Canada, small towns like those I represent in Essex.

It is important that we have this conversation about reducing trade barriers because there are actually a lot of barriers inhibiting Canadian SMEs from greater trade both interprovincially and internationally. We hear a lot about tariff reductions with international trade agreements, but it is also important to look at the range of non-tariff barriers that inhibit trade.

Last spring, the Standing Committee on International Trade undertook a study about the experiences of Canadian SMEs that are involved in international markets, and some of what they learned is also applicable to our conversation today about internal trade. I think Canadians would be surprised to hear of the challenges facing SMEs in accessing international markets.

The committee heard testimony about the strong entrepreneurial spirit that exists among Canadians. This is clearly evident when we look at the explosion of craft breweries operating in communities across Canada.

The committee also heard that the international footprint of Canada's SMEs has not reached its potential. Only 10.4% of SMEs exported in 2011, and most of this trade was done with the United States. They really have not penetrated the high-growth markets we see around the world. SMEs told the committee how they face challenges accessing capital, require deeper levels of support, and experience difficulties and inefficiencies with border clearance.

Many people in my riding of Essex have extensive knowledge of the challenges with moving goods across the U.S. border. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is critical to the success of Canadian SMEs that the federal government act on this report, and that they address the trading challenges faced by SMEs.

Domestically, there is a lot the government can be doing to strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs, such as craft breweries, wineries, and distilleries. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, internal trade barriers cost the Canadian economy more than $14 billion each year. These trade barriers add costs and discourage our businesses, mainly our SMEs, from doing business in more than one jurisdiction and from growing their presence in new markets in Canada.

In addition to addressing internal barriers, we should support talking about other ways the government can support SMEs.

The NDP is a strong proponent of several proposals to help our businesses and interprovincial trade, including restoring cuts to the tax rate for SMEs from 11% to 9%, restoring the hiring tax credit for small businesses, imposing a limit on credit card transaction fees, and facilitating the transfer of family businesses from parents to children. The Liberals' broken promise on reducing the SME tax rate is very disappointing to the many small business owners I represent in Windsor Essex. I urge the government to re-examine its commitment and seriously look at following through on that.

It is important to note that most Canadians support trade within our own provinces and territories. Canadians are quite favourable to the idea of removing internal trade barriers, particularly when it comes to alcohol.

This is an important issue to my riding of Essex, which is home to well over a dozen wineries, including distillers as well as craft beer brewers. They attract a significant level of tourism to our region. I have met with several wineries in my riding, as well as the Canadian Vintners Association. We spoke about the interprovincial trade issues and they are pleased to have an opportunity to export their wines to some provinces. However, only a few provinces have reduced regulations so far, so there is still a lot of work to be done on this file.

I think there is broad support among parliamentarians from all parties for the spirit of the motion. What I would really like to see now is some concrete action. We know what can be done to support Canadian SMEs. We know what can be done to increase internal trade. Now it is on the government to get the job done.

According to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, issues relating to interprovincial trade, including discussions around the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade, would be a priority. He said he has addressed this issue with his provincial counterparts, but once again we have seen no evidence of this.

Now the Conservatives are blaming the Liberals for not being able to reach a new agreement with the provinces and territories on interprovincial trade. It should not be forgotten, however, that the Conservatives had 10 years in office and were not able to settle this issue. I appreciate that some progress was made, but the fact of the matter is that these issues are still outstanding. Now they are trying to go through the Supreme Court for political gain.

I intend to support the motion, but in the same vein, I also want to encourage the government to follow through on concrete solutions for Canadian small businesses. As I discussed earlier, that means reducing the SME tax rate, restoring the hiring tax credit for small businesses, and limiting credit card transaction fees.

I would also like to emphasize that the public system for distributing liquor has been a largely effective model for both consumers and government. Crown corporations such as the LCBO provide significant revenue streams for the provinces, as well as good-paying jobs. The LCBO is globally recognized as an award-winning retailer of beer, wine, and liquor. Recognizing the success of provincial retailers in Canada and the incredible service they provide to consumers is important.

In conclusion, I support reduced restrictions on the interprovincial trade of wine, beer, and spirits, so I will be voting yes to the motion.

[Softwood Lumber, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we are just five days away from the government's 100-day softwood lumber deadline and the minister still has nothing more than empty talking points. Thousands of Canadian forestry jobs are at stake. According to reports, talks have stalled and court battles are looming. The Prime Minister promised action to protect our forestry sector.

When will the negotiators meet again? When does the minister expect to conclude a new softwood lumber agreement?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the parliamentary secretary and his effort on this file. However, strongly recognizing farmers is not enough. This is not enough for our agricultural sector.

At the trade committee, supply-managed farmer after farmer sat before us. They were left wondering where they stood on the promised compensation. Saying that they are moving forward is a positive step, but until we see that compensation, we know these farmers will lose big. This is why we see farmers protest out on the street, like we did last week.

The time for consultations is well past. The Liberals know what is needed. The farmers know what is needed. The government knows what is needed. When it comes to the issue of diafiltered milk, there is a simple solution, and it is time for action. It is past the time for discussion.

Unfortunately, the government did not support the opposition motion that we brought forward on this issue. Therefore, we see farmers once again coming to Parliament Hill in a huge demonstration. They need action now because they are losing money on a daily basis.

This threatens the very health of our family farms and the ability for them to move forward, generation after generation, supplying us all with safe, quality food in Canada.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, near the end of March, I asked the government to explain its broken campaign promises to Canadian farmers.

I appreciate the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's answer and understand that he is excited about the government's efforts to increase the accessibility of broadband Internet in rural regions, something that would be of great benefit to my riding of Essex. However, I remain concerned, because the issues I raised went unaddressed and this directly impacts the livelihoods of family farms in Essex and across Canada.

I asked the minister why the budget slashed agricultural research funding, cut the new CFIA investments, and dropped any mention of the promise of a value-added investment fund. These issues are important to family farms.

While the government's commitment to broadband Internet is appreciated, it falls far short of the support that farmers have asked for. Farmers in Essex and across Canada deserve better. New programs, like the value-added investment fund or increased investment in agricultural research, are the types of initiatives that would have been welcomed. These initiatives would increase the opportunities available in Canada's agriculture sector.

Instead, the value-added fund was completely excluded, and overall investments were shortchanged by $130 million over two years. The government must do more to support family farms. How does the government expect our farmers, some of Canada's most valued small business owners, to be able to innovate and thrive in today's globalized marketplace when they cannot count on their federal government to follow through on simple commitments?

One step that the government must take is to support Canadian farmers by implementing a PACA-like program here in Canada.

Earlier this year, I tabled a motion calling on the government to take action to implement a payment protection system by the end of the year. Canadian produce farmers have already lost their preferential status in the U.S., and now face serious financial risk when trying to collect outstanding payment for their perishable products.

The government's inaction is hurting the ability of family farms to trade with our largest trading partner. These families deserve action. This was also a promise that was made during the election to farmers, and many of the members opposite shared this information throughout the campaign. It is something the government needs to follow through on.

Canadian farmers also deserve more information on another issue that may seriously impact their livelihoods. The previous Conservative government promised $4.3 billion in compensation to egg, poultry, and dairy farmers for losses that will be inflicted by CETA and potentially the TPP. Now, the Liberals refuse to guarantee this compensation and made no mention of it in their March budget. How does the government expect Canadian farmers to prepare for the future under this cloud of uncertainty?

Last week more than 3,000 dairy farmers came to Parliament Hill to protest the government's inaction on diafiltered milk. The government promised a solution for dairy farmers, just like they promised a solution for produce farmers. However, in both cases, time ticks on while the solutions are staring us in the face.

Meanwhile, farmers are losing money, and they are fed up. When it comes to compensating farmers for CETA, implementing a PACA-Iike system, and stopping the import of diafiltered milk, when will the minister finally start delivering the change his government promised?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across for her passionate speech. She mentioned being different and doing things differently. If by that she means breaking promises to Canadians, then I am quite proud to not be different and to not be going down that road.

One of the promises that has been broken in this budget to Canadians is the promise that was made to small business. Small business was promised a cut. We know that without this cut, small businesses will be desperately hurt. We are looking at over $2.2 billion over the next years. It could lead to job losses of 1,240 jobs.

How can the member defend the government's position on breaking a promise to small business?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, short-haul railways are integral to my riding. In particular, there are some that require attention. If we could do some improvements to two particular crossings that have small bridges, it would grow the economies of the small communities they serve. Of course, there is the environmental impact, which is incredibly important to all of us down in the sun parlour of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words about my representation for my riding. I am very proud and I take it very seriously when I am looking at an issue such as this omnibus budget and breaking it down into ways that are relatable.

Small businesses in the community have been seriously let down. I represent five small municipalities. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of Essex. There is absolutely nothing for these folks in the budget. The decrease promised by the Liberal government that did not show up in this budget is a huge letdown for small businesses. I do not know where their future lies without those extra funds, particularly in Ontario, with a Liberal government that is, unfortunately, raising hydro prices that are unaffordable for businesses in my riding.