Wayne Easter

[Points of Order, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development might want to reconsider her remarks and apologize for attacking EI recipients for being unable to fill out their forms.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the parliamentary secretary's remarks on the bill, but she failed to talk about the Prime Minister's latest bombshell, which is the government's plan to increase the age that seniors can draw OAS and GIS.

She knows that Bill C-25 only addresses a small part of the problem when it comes to pension concerns. She admitted that for Bill C-25 to work, it needs to be harmonized by the provinces. We know how that is working. Provinces are angered at the downloading of crime costs onto the provinces and the unilateral action of the government in terms of health care costs, so how does the government expect to get co-operation on this?

My question relates to what the parliamentary secretary signed onto in the latest finance committee report, which is that the federal government would not raise taxes or cut transfers to persons, including those for seniors and children. Will she admit that the Prime Minister's current proposal goes against that commitment she signed onto in the report? Will she admit that the Prime Minister's current proposal on increasing the number of years before people can draw those funds will cost families $25,900 per year?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks by the member for Kings—Hants.

There seems to be some confusion around the announcement of the Prime Minister in Davos. It is not unusual for the Prime Minister to show contempt for this place by making fairly major policy announcements outside the country. However, there seems to be a lot of discussion on the OAS and the fact that it seems to be the government's objective to increase the time people can qualify, to move it ahead two years to age 67.

I ask the member for Kings—Hants this. Is it true that OAS and GIS are linked, that if we raise one, we will be raising them both? Is this not really just an attack on the most vulnerable in Canadian society?

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, December 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the government never ceases to amaze me in its attempts to shut down the voices of Canadians. This is just another form of closure, another form of shutting down debate.

As our leader said at his press conference yesterday, we have never seen such dictatorial tactics by a government as it invokes closure and it puts committees in-camera so it can vote down opposition motions to bring in witnesses and hold hearings and thoroughly look at legislation. This chamber is the voice of Canadians. This is where debate is supposed to take place in a transparent and open fashion. This is where we are supposed to get answers from the government but we do not.

I need to ask the member, who put this motion forward, a question. Why is it that the government, which came in talking about accountability and transparency, is now the least accountable government in Canadian history and the least transparent? There is no doubt that the directions are coming right out of the PMO. Why does the government not want to hear the voices of Canadians in terms of debate on very important legislation?

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, December 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I do not often give the government credit but it did have this bill in the previous Parliament.

Much of what we see from the government is smoke and mirrors. This is the world's 90th largest economy, so it is fairly far down the list. The government will go to great lengths to spin the nine trade agreements, while at the same time we are losing the South Korean market, we are falling back in the United States market and we have now had our first merchandise trade deficit in 30 years under the government's watch.

We need to cut through the smoke and mirrors and the spin of the government to get to what the reality really is. Yes, the trade agreement is important, but we should ensure that we secure our current markets and fight for our rights in those markets with the United States and others.

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, December 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, Canada's role in the Middle East is an important one.

I do think that this trade agreement, if handled correctly, could improve conditions in Jordan in this instance. I firmly believe that when there is a trading relationship with a country, staying out of the trading relationship will not do anything in terms of the labour conditions of those people working in the industries in that particular country.

However, if we have a side agreement and if we find ways to make it enforceable, then we can improve the social and economic aspects within the country just by the fact that that is in the agreement. Trade will become important from Canada to Jordan and vice versa. It also gives us more sway in terms of enforcing better labour standards, better safety standards for labour and so on.

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, December 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I cannot question the member's point on the environment and the government.

It is clear, especially in recent days, that it is not only the environmental aspect of agreements that there is some concern about, with respect to the way the government is going, but we have now become the laughing stock of the world in terms of our climate change position with the minister announcing our pulling out of the Kyoto accord.

It is clear that the government, for whatever reason, is not serious about environmental issues. It does make us concerned in terms of the side agreements on labour and the environment, whether it will really put forward the kind of hard position that it needs to ensure that the environment conditions in both countries are similar,

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, December 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, clearly we support rules based trade. We need to have rules. However, one of the problems with many of the trade agreements, the WTO sometimes, is the enforcement of those rules and having them implemented quickly enough. If a business is involved in exports and somebody undermines its product in various ways that are against the rules, and we can look at the country of origin labelling in the United States, by the time the product finally gets through the system, the business has already sustained many losses.

We won the country of origin labelling at the WTO but the damage is already done to our industry. It has lost $5 billion. Many of my neighbours quit the beef industry as a result of, first, BSE and then country of origin labelling. Therefore, the enforcement side of it does not kick in early enough to take on the countries that are breaking those rules. The bottom line is that rules based trading is especially critical in terms of any trade agreement.

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, December 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23. I have noted many times that the government loves to put names to acts that make them sound like they are other than they really are. The government calls this one, in the short title, the “Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act”. I really think it should have a different name, more appropriate to what this agreement really is. I would call it the “trade agreement with the world's 90th place economy”. It is really not huge in terms of the prosperity that it is going to create. It is the world's 90th place economy, so let us put this particular bill in the perspective that it ought to be put in.

When this agreement was originally announced in June 2009, the Arab spring had yet to occur. The instability that has overtaken the region in the past year has been nothing short of transformative. In this climate, the FTA with Jordan is about to unfold. We are supportive of the bill in principle, as we have been of previous trade agreements. However, there are serious areas of concern. My colleague from the NDP mentioned some of those. I would agree with some of them.

These areas of concern should be carefully considered during examination of the legislation before the international trade committee. Among the areas of concern are child labour matters, which have been previously mentioned, and other labour issues. These would best be resolved through an open and transparent agreement. There are side agreements on labour and the environment, but they are really not that enforceable; they are really more of a desire. I do think we have to find ways of enforcing labour and environmental agreements.

Before looking at the agreement and the situation in Jordan, there are some general points that the House must consider with respect to trade generally and the government's actions. The government's mismanagement of Canada's trading relations around the world has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in over 30 years. Under this government's watch, we have seen a merchandise trade deficit for the first time in 30 years.

If we were to listen to the propaganda machine of the government, which is so far from reality, it claims to have negotiated nine trade agreements. The minister flits and flies all around the world talking trade. Yet while he is talking trade around the world he is ignoring the trading relationship with countries where we already have strongly established trading arrangements. We are falling back in those particular areas.

There is no question that Canada is a trade-dependent nation. Eighty per cent of Canada's economy depends on access to foreign markets for Canadian exports. The Liberal Party supports the principle of free trade. We support initiatives that improve market access for Canadian businesses. We want to hear from stakeholders and carefully examine this agreement to ensure it is indeed in Canada's best interest.

Free trade with Jordan will help encourage economic stability in that region. I would go further. If the side agreements on labour and the environment can be engineered properly and some teeth put in them, free trade can even help improve social, labour, economic and working conditions within Jordan.

Pursuing new trade agreements is worthy of support. However, as I said a moment ago, we have to put these agreements in context. While the Conservatives have proclaimed the promotion of trade, it has been under their watch that the mismanagement of the file, in terms of trading relationships, has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in 30 years.

With respect to the United States, we have seen the government “surprised” by increased United States' protectionist actions, and I will list but three.

First, the government was surprised by the initial buy American provisions in the 2008 United States stimulus package, even though for months President Obama projected that he would be looking at strong buy American policies. However, the government was surprised. It was caught not watching the store.

Second, the minister was surprised in the fall of 2011 when buy American provisions returned in the Obama administration's recent job plan efforts. Again, the government was caught short and not watching the store.

Third, the minister was surprised by the announcement of the United States Federal Maritime Commission, at the instigation of U.S. senators, of an investigation into U.S.-bound container traffic being diverted to Canadian ports and whether to impose fees or tariffs as a result of that diverted trade.

Perhaps I should mention one more because this affects Canadians who are travelling by air and sea to the United States, and that is the $5.40 entry fee. In the agreement the United States negotiated, I believe with Columbia, we lost our exception. Again, the Canadian government was caught surprised and disappointed.

My point is this. Not only do we have to look at new trade agreements around the world, which is important, but our biggest market is the United States. However, the United States continues, at every turn, to catch the government by surprise and disappointment. As a result, we see an erosion of our most important economic trading relationship. The importance of that relationship exceeds $1.4 billion of trade on a daily basis.

In terms of the merchandise export rate, in 2010 Canada exported $339.4 billion internationally. However, the vast majority of that trade is with but 10 countries. In descending order, they are: the United States, 74.9% of merchandise exports; the United Kingdom, 4.1%; China 3.3%; with Japan, Mexico, Germany, Korea, Netherlands and Brazil following that. We can see that it is a long way from first place to second place, with the first place trade being with the United States.

According to the International Trade Department, we are currently conducting 75% of our merchandise trade with the United States. According to its documents, by 2040, we will still be conducting 75% of our merchandise trade with the United States.

Let me be clear. While there are all these trade negotiations being talked about, and the minister is going here and there, the Conservatives are not watching the store in terms of our trading relationship with the United States. In fact, as I said the other day, on the areas of conflict with the United States, they give up certain things and get nothing in return. The Canadian Wheat Board is a prime example. It was challenged 14 times by the Americans. They could never win as a violation of a trading agreement, but the Conservatives have given it away and gets absolutely nothing in return.

On the perimeter security deal, what are we getting in return for that? Likely nothing, but we do not really know because the Conservative government, which claims to be transparent, keeps everything secret.

Canada is a trade dependent nation. We do depend on access markets for Canadian imports. However, with respect to Jordan, there are a number of issues that must be kept at the forefront, as with any trade agreement discussion and implementation.

The Export Development Corporation, in its recent export forecast overview, indicated that while the fallout from the Arab Spring had caused political uncertainty in the region, Jordan had managed, to be fair to it, to, “sap opposition movements of their momentum through modest political reform programs and spending promises”.

However, recent indications are that the uncertainty within Jordan had been slowly increasing. A recent The New York Times article referenced the issue of stability within the wider Middle East and the concern with respect to investment pointing out that:

If Middle Eastern governments want to attract foreign investors during the current period of change and uncertainty, then Arab countries need to lead the way by demonstrating faith in the long-term promise of the region’s markets...

The International Monetary Fund has indicated that the situation throughout the Middle East is one of economic certainty. It states:

For many countries in the Middle East and North Africa, 2011 has not been an easy year. The region is witnessing unparalleled uncertainty and economic pressures from both domestic and external sources, which have triggered a marked downturn in economic activity. While the economies of the oil-exporting countries have seen a mild pickup in growth in 2011, oil importers are experiencing a dramatic slowdown.

The IMF report of November 22 went on to state that in countries such as Jordan, high commodity prices were pushing up import bills and “uncertainty has also constrained access to international capital markets and direct investment have fallen off”.

A recent article in the New York Review, entitled “Jordan Starts to Shake”, raises some serious questions with respect to the Jordanian situation. The country is mired in recession and recently King Abdullah has increased the numerous state subsidies by $1 billion. More than 21,000 security positions have been created. The birth rate has been exceeding the ability of the country to create necessary jobs and unemployment exceeds 13%. There are some major concerns within the country.

Canadian merchandise exports to Jordan totalled $66 million in 2010, up from the $30.8 million in 2003. Top Canadian exports to Jordan in 2010 included: paper paperboard, mainly newsprint; vehicles; wood products; pulse crops, mainly lentils and chickpeas; and machinery and electrical and electronic equipment.

Canadian merchandise imports from Jordan totalled $19.9 million in 2010, up from the $5.7 million in 2003. Therefore, it is clear that the trading relationship is increasing and improving.

Top imports from Jordan in 2010 include both knit and woven apparel, inorganic chemicals, precious stones and metals, namely jewellery, vegetables and pharmaceutical products.

Two-way trade between Jordan and the United States in 2009 exceeded $1.77 billion. However, on that point, there is trade with the United States and Jordan and there is now trade between Canada and Jordan. This trade agreement should open up some opportunities.

Again, I want to come back to the government's failure in this area.

One of our most important pork markets is South Korea. The United States has negotiated a trade agreement with South Korea in which tariffs will come down. As tariffs come down, that $1 billion pork and beef market of Canadian producers into South Korea will decrease. We will be non-competitive because the Americans will displace us in that marketplace. The Government of Canada is asleep at the switch in terms of the trade agreement with South Korea.

We had started negotiations. I have to question whether the Minister of International Trade is getting slapped around a little by the Minister of Finance, who seems to be worried about the auto industry in his own backyard. Has he all the power in the cabinet? Could the government not negotiate an agreement like the United States has, which protects its auto industry and allows its pork industry to expand in South Korea as well?

I make that point because the government is talking about all the benefits of this 90th world economy and is ignoring the market we already have in South Korea for pork. The Conservatives are not negotiating or they are just not getting anything done in that area, That is what concerns me.

While I agree with the principle of negotiating with Jordan, we cannot continue to ignore those established markets that we have. Even on the CIDA agreement, where other members of the trade committee and myself spent part of last week in Brussels and in France. That too is an important market, but even if we get in that market in pork and beef, it will not make up for the loss of those pork exports to South Korea, which we are clearly losing on a daily basis because the Americans have negotiated an agreement and the Conservative government seems to be asleep at the switch.

Tariff elimination is important. There would be the elimination of all Jordanian non-agriculture tariffs, which currently average 11%. These include tariffs of 10% to 30% on many non-agriculture products of Canadian export interests, including industrial and electrical machinery, auto parts, construction equipment and forest products, such as wood building materials and paper.

There would be the elimination of the vast majority of Jordan's agricultural tariffs including: key Canadian export interests such as pulse crops; frozen french fries, which is important in my area because we make the best there is; and various prepared foods and animal feeds, which currently face high tariffs as much as 30%.

The vast majority of current Canadian exports to Jordan will benefit from immediate duty-free access to the Jordanian market upon implementation of this FTA. On implementation, Canada will also immediately eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs and imports originating in Jordan, as well as most agriculture tariffs.

As in all of its past FTAs, Canada has excluded over-quota supply managed dairy, poultry and egg products from any tariff reductions, and that is a good thing.

Ratifying this trade agreement appears to have little economic risk for Canadian industry. However, we should keep in mind that Canada's largest import from Jordan is apparel. While it seems, from what we hear and what we have questioned, the Canadian Apparel Federation does not seem to be concerned about this FTA, I think the points made by the NDP critic earlier have a lot of merit. Our apparel industry cannot compete with low-paid labour working as many as 16 hours a day under atrocious conditions. That situation must stop.

We agree with the side agreements on labour co-operation and environment. They are important. We cannot expect our businesses in Canada to be under a high cost labour regime with good safety standards, which is important and we support, to be under tougher environmental regulations, greater costs for industry as a result of meeting those environmental regulations and businesses in Jordan not facing the same situation. In terms of this agreement, we have to find a way to try to strengthen those side agreements.

The bottom line is that, yes, we support this bill going to committee. We believe it needs to be discussed, we need to have witnesses in and we need to strengthen it where possible.

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, December 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the trade critic for the NDP and how he outlined the problems in the labour force in Jordan. Definitely, we cannot turn a blind eye to the rights of labour in Jordan. This certainly has an impact in Canada.

Does he believe that this bill needs amendments to have enforcement areas in terms of labour and environmental rights? I would ask him which way he wants to go in that area. We will be supporting this bill going to committee. We hope the government would see the common sense of allowing some amendments that would strengthen it.

Jordan is the world's 90th place economy. The government talks a lot about trade. The Conservatives blow about their having done nine trade agreements. Yet recently, we had the first deficit in merchandise trade in 30 years. I wonder if the hon. member could expand on why that is. We are holding trade talks around the world but we are losing ground with our main trading partners.