House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today as the MP for a rural riding with an abundance of small and medium-sized businesses and plenty of family farms that go back more than 10 generations.

    The work they do contributes to Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup's prosperity and entrepreneurial culture. I want to inform my colleagues that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently named Rivière-du-Loup the top entrepreneurial city in Canada in its fall 2016 ranking, this just a year after it was recognized as the most entrepreneurial city in Quebec.

    There is no doubt that my riding and Rivière-du-Loup in particular are going full entrepreneurial speed ahead.

    As a Conservative, I am proud of the previous government's record with respect to job creators. Our government reduced the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15% and the small business rate to 11%. It also increased the maximum revenue threshold for small business tax rate eligibility from $300,000 to $500,000.

    As an entrepreneur myself who has created 20 or so jobs over the past 25 years in the printing industry in my region, I understand the importance of maintaining a tax system that favours entrepreneurship. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They created over 77% of all new jobs from 2002 to 2012.

    People go into business for a variety of reasons. Some people are motivated by their passion, while others see a service gap that needs to be filled in their respective communities. For the most part, people go into business in order to meet their needs and those of their family. That is what I did myself in 1993 when I started my business.

    We do so with the fervent hope that, one day, our children will take over our businesses, and we are eager to see them make our businesses flourish and build an even better future for our regions.

    In my case, I fully intend to transfer some or all of my family business to my daughter at some point. I am extremely proud of my daughter, who has been working with me in my business for the past three years now.

    I was very surprised to learn that, under Canada's current tax laws, it would be better for me to sell my business to an outside third party rather than to a member of my own family.

    Essentially, when a business is sold to a family member, the difference between the sale price and the original price of the business is considered a dividend and is taxable as regular income at 100%. However, if the sale is between two strangers, the difference is considered a capital gain, only half of which is taxed.

    What is more, in Canada, the lifetime capital gains exemption that normally applies to small and medium-sized businesses does not apply in this case.

    What type of message does that send? Does this not discourage people from starting a business?

    What we want is to ensure that our country's economic growth continues to expand. For that we need to encourage people to get into business. When people who have been in business for 25, 30, or 40 years are ready to hand over their shares to their children, it is not right to put them at a disadvantage. The same advantages should apply whether the business is sold to a third party or a family member.

    An estimated 550,000 business owners are going to want to sell or transfer ownership of their business over the next decade.

    According to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, over $500 billion in farm assets are set to change hands over the next 10 years. That is not to mention the over 8,000 family farms that ceased operations in the past decade. The population is aging, yet only 50% of these farm owners have a succession plan.

    I would like to remind members that the Lower St. Lawrence region has one of the largest aging populations in Canada, which means that there are fewer opportunities to sell our businesses to future generations.

    Given the aging population, three out of four farmers intend to retire in the next 10 years. It is therefore urgent that we correct the discrepancy in the Income Tax Act so that we are prepared for the upcoming demographic reality. That is why I support Bill C-274, which was introduced by my riding neighbour, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

    This bill caught the attention of the Rivière-du-Loup RCM in the Lower St. Lawrence region, which wrote a letter in the fall indicating its support for Bill C-274. The Rivière-du-Loup RCM's chamber of commerce did the same. Support is growing across Quebec. The Association des marchands dépanneurs et épiciers du Québec has spoken out against the existing situation, and the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal have both indicated that they are in favour of this bill. All of the major opposition parties support this bill. It remains to be seen whether the Liberal government will also support it.

    I think this is a good opportunity for the Liberals to redeem themselves after breaking their election promise to cut corporate taxes from 11% to 9%, voting for an increase in CPP contributions, and imposing a carbon tax on a still fragile economy.

    Bill C-274 is an opportunity for the NDP, the Conservatives, and the Liberals to join forces and quickly pass a bill that would recognize that small businesses and family farms are important to Canadian society. I encourage each one of my colleagues to say yes to Bill  C-274.

    In closing, I would like to add that there is widespread support for this bill across Canada and especially in rural areas, where families create small businesses and support them from one generation to the next. I sincerely believe that these families must have this opportunity. Just imagine that I were to sell my business to my daughter. I would have to pay 100% of the tax instead of 50%. If I only had to pay 50% of the tax, I could continue to help my daughter grow her business. That money would certainly go back into the economy.

    Once again, I invite all my colleagues to support Bill C-274.

    Madam Speaker, today I am so very pleased to add my voice to the chorus of those across Canada who support Bill C-274, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation). I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for introducing this bill. I know he worked long and hard to make sure this bill is written in such a way as to protect everything that matters to our small businesses.

    As we all know, our small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of our economy. Whole families make a living thanks to them.

    I am from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, where life can be very different from that in big cities. Many of my colleagues, such as those from Abitibi and the Lower St. Lawrence, as well as some of the other provinces, are familiar with those differences.

    The reality in our regions, in places like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, is that there are often only two, three, or four large businesses that contribute to their economies. Most of the time, small and medium-sized businesses are the main contributors. Many of our small businesses have only three or four employees, but they are what are sustaining our regions. We are seeing this more and more. The men and women of our regions are developing projects and new ideas and are doing their part every day to keep our regional economies going.

    At the same time, our small and medium-sized businesses are facing many problems that make it harder for people back home to succeed. For example, the customer base is much smaller in our region.

    Another problem is the shortage of young people willing to take over these businesses. It is really hard for SMEs to find people to take over, so when an entrepreneur is lucky enough to have someone in their family they can count on to take over the family business, that creates wealth for our communities. When people are lucky enough to have a family member to carry on a family business, it means they can pass down traditions, and for some, even memories. It means they can pass on what they have learned through experience and hard work.

    Unfortunately, there is a great injustice. Federal legislation penalizes business owners and dissuades from passing on their life's work to members of their family. The reason is quite simple: when a business is sold to the owner's children or another relative, the profit from the sale is considered a dividend and is taxed as such under the Income Tax Act. On average in Canada, a dividend is taxed at roughly 35%.

    If the business is sold to someone who is not part of the family, who is not a relative but a stranger, then the profit is considered a capital gain. In that case, there is a lifetime exemption of roughly $825,000 for a business and about $1 million for a farm or a fishing vessel. The remaining capital gain is taxed at about 25%, on average. That explains the difference between the sale to a stranger and the sale to a child or another family member.

    We have to do something about this unfair situation. I have met with business owners in my region. They all agree on this. That is why various stakeholders in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region support Bill C-274.

    I will quote Carl Côté of the Saguenay-Le Fjord chamber of commerce and industry.

    The former president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Yvon Simard, believes that it is appalling that, in 2016, the dismantling and sale of companies to a stranger is subject to less tax than the sale or transfer to a family member, someone who could pursue their parents' dream and continue farming in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.

    When we contacted businesses in my riding, dozens responded and supported the NDP's efforts. Many deplore the current situation and hope that this injustice will be addressed.

    I would like to read a few comments I received about this. They paint a clear picture of the reality facing small businesses and what the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are going through.

    A motel owner said that this is a major problem and that his father thought about selling the business to a stranger because it was more beneficial for him than to sell it to a family member.

     Another business owner said the following: “I co-own a business with my son, so who do you think I will sell my shares to? However, by selling to my son, I am going to lose a lot of money. It is not fair.”

    Finally, the owner of a small business said, “Two years ago, I sold my business to my son. It is unacceptable that I was penalized because of this unfair provision. It is a double standard.”

    It is completely unacceptable for these business owners to be penalized for selling their company to a family member. We are not talking about opening the door to tax avoidance. We are talking about correcting the inequity that exists in the Income Tax Act, which considers the sale of a family business or farm to be a capital gain. Things should work the same whether the business is sold to a family member or a stranger. Bill C-274 simply seeks to correct the inequity, so that the process is the same regardless of whether the company is sold to a family member or a stranger.

    In my opinion, my colleague's bill is well written and prevents tax avoidance. The bill is very clear about that. Our SMEs should not be penalized because of this inequity.

    It is high time we abolished the unfair tax on the transfer of family businesses. When a business is transferred, potential buyers who are related to the owner should have the same rights and privileges as those who are not.

    In closing, I would like to emphasize that all regions will benefit from this. This bill is good for everyone. It is good for our small and medium-sized businesses. In my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, this is the kind of positive change we really need to help revitalize our local economy.

    I invite my colleagues in government and in opposition to consider the economic and social benefits of the bill. Facilitating the transfer of family businesses will help make our regions stronger. Something we talk about a lot in the regions is the retention of young people. My riding, Jonquière, is home to many farms and small businesses. We talk about the exodus of young people, who leave to work in big cities. Bill C-274 will boost local economies. Family farms are usually passed down from generation to generation. I visited a farm last winter, and the owners told me that it had been in their family for four generations.

    I invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-274, introduced by my colleague.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-274, which has to do with the transfer of family businesses, a subject I have been interested in for quite some time.

    The first document I consulted was the December 2010 report by Suzanne Landry for Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, a chartered professional accountants firm. Ms. Landry, who is now a professor at the École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal, identified a number of possible solutions in her report.

    This bill targets one of the most complex parts of the Income Tax Act: the sections about transfers and the capital gains deduction, among others. We are talking about butterfly transactions. This has all kinds of implications.

    Subsection 84.1, which this bill would amend, was included in the Act under tax avoidance to prevent fraudulent transactions involving the transfer of businesses among family members. Caution is vital here.

    I wanted to bring in legislation on this when I was a member of another Parliament, the Quebec National Assembly. The finance minister and I had several meetings on the matter. I decided not to go forward because he told me that it would cost a lot of money and that this was the type of measure that needed to be passed by the Parliament of Canada in Ottawa.

    Fast forward to November 2013 when I arrived in Parliament. I was still working on ways to rectify this injustice. That is why I introduced Bill C-691, but unfortunately, the session ended in June 2015 and we did not have the chance to debate it.

    Let us talk about the impetus for this bill. Let us look at the statistics. We were told that 45% of jobs and 80% of new jobs in the private sector were created by small businesses. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, said that 66% of small businesses would change owners over the coming decade and that a third of small and medium-sized business owners wanted to sell to family members. That is to say nothing of the youth unemployment rate.

    Then there are the reasons why this bill is essential. I can also say that business succession is at the heart of this bill. Business succession represents an economic challenge because it requires a succession plan and choosing the successor. We must encourage the sale of businesses to family members because selling a business to a stranger could result in its relocation, benefiting the strangers.

    The safeguards in this bill will ensure that the ones to benefit will be the middle-class families. Ensuring the sustainability of small businesses is also essential to the job market.

    This bill has an end goal. The concept of transferring a business to a family member is simple, but the solution is complex. When a parent sells his or her business to a person who is not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, the parent can choose to not pay tax on the first $824,000 of taxable capital gains. However, if the business is sold to the son, the parent cannot use the capital gains deduction. This bill will address an unfair element of the law.

    When I introduced Bill C-691, measures also had to be taken to prevent abuse.

    First, I included a gradual cap so that, if a company's taxable capital was less than $15 million, the company would be eligible for the deduction. If the company made between $10 million and $15 million in taxable capital, then the deduction would be reduced because we do not want large companies to benefit from this type of deduction.

    Second, after placing this cap on taxable capital, I introduced a measure that required that an affidavit of the transaction, issued by an independent assessor and indicating the fair market value of the business, be presented to meet the conditions of the transaction. The buyer also had to be over the age of 18. What is more, if the buyer had to resell the shares after less than two years, the initial transaction would be deemed to have never occurred.

    When I introduced the bill, it received the support of my NDP colleague and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which was very important. When I held a press conference about the bill, representatives from the Canadian Association of Family Enterprise or CAFE were there with me to show their support. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is made up of all the main farming associations in the country, and the Regroupement des cabinets de courtage d’assurance du Québec also supported the bill. It is important to mention that, in recent years, the Quebec CPA Order has raised this issue every time it has participated in pre-budget consultations.

    In conclusion, I am certain this bill is the solution. I am glad that both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois decided to reintroduce it. However, there are a number of things to consider when we vote on this bill, cost being one of them.

    I consulted the people at the Library of Parliament, and they told me that, in 2012, transactions involving eligible shares of small and medium-sized businesses amounted to more than $5 billion. In their tax returns, people cannot specify which transactions occurred at arm's length, so the Library of Parliament's findings are based on estimates.

    They told me that, in 2012, transactions totalling $5 billion were carried out by more than 20,000 people. Supposing one-third of the transactions occurred between related individuals, such as 6,000 parents selling their businesses, giving them favourable tax treatment would cost the public purse no less than $300 million.

    The Liberal government stated that it absolutely wants to help the middle class. Bourassa, the riding I represent, is struggling economically. Every month there, 19,000 children collect more than $8 million in Canada child benefit payments. By comparison, the cost of this program is exorbitant because it would cost $300 million to help 6,000 people.

     In conclusion, yes, it is not fair, but present circumstances dictate that we take all of the factors into account to make the right decision. That is what we will do on Wednesday when we vote on Bill C-274.

    Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here this morning to take part in the debate on Bill C-274.

    I want to thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for introducing this bill, an act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding the transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation. The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, from the province of Quebec, is the finance critic for the second opposition party.

    I feel compelled to speak to this issue because many people in my riding, Lévis—Lotbinière, have expressed their concerns about this matter and what the Canada Revenue Agency is supposed to do.

    Furthermore, my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier had intended to move a motion or introduce a bill to change this situation after a number of his constituents expressed their serious concerns and fears. As everyone here knows, all parliamentarians have to wait their turn in order to introduce a bill or motion in the House. Unfortunately, my colleague was 214th in line to be able to introduce his bill, which meant he was very unlikely to introduce it before the end of the 42nd Parliament, which will end in October 2019.

    This bill should go through second reading so that we can study all the tax implications and, most importantly, determine how it will contribute to the economic development of the regions of Quebec and Canada.

    We believe that this government has not done what is necessary to support the economic development of our regions, and here is why. It appointed just one minister to look after Canada's six economic development agencies, when that minister is not familiar with the realities of all the regions of Canada, particularly those of Quebec, and likely never will be.

    The Liberals have been in office for over a year, yet they still have not managed to sign a softwood lumber agreement. They also have not managed to create any jobs in Canada, except perhaps at the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They are setting up an infrastructure bank for projects of $100 million or more. They are even saying that investors would prefer projects of $500 million or more. However, if projects of $100 million or more or $500 million or more are required, the Lotbinière RCM, whose municipalities have an average population of 2,200, will not see a penny of that money for many years to come.

    What is more, the government set up only a modest compensation program for farmers and cheese producers. However, these days, our dairy producers are very concerned, particularly with regard to the new and upcoming NAFTA negotiations. I can see why they are concerned, given the government across the way.

    Let us not forget the most important thing: the government did all of this while completely losing control of the deficit. It announced a $10-billion deficit, which is huge, but now it seems the deficit is going to be closer to $30 billion. What is worse, the budget will not be balanced until 2055. There are many people here in the House who will not even live to see that happen.

    This bill has to pass second reading stage so that we can provide a tool to help protect our seasoned Canadian entrepreneurs. This will also help ensure the prosperity of a business supervised by a parent who is committed to the success of the business. Parents are excellent mentors for the business, especially if they have been working at the business for 40 years. They have weathered a few storms and are certainly able to give the best advice to the future generation, often their own children or grandchildren. These entrepreneurs worked hard on developing their businesses. The least we can do is take the time to address this issue in the House.

    Let us build on what Quebec did when faced with the same problem involving the sale of businesses between members of the same family. In 2015, the finance minister included measures in his budget to ensure that this type of transaction is taxed fairly and equitably for family members of small-business owners.

    We must also encourage family solidarity and in doing so, protect our small and medium-sized businesses to ensure their survival and allow children and grandchildren to take over the operations and maintenance of their family business, both in Canada's cities and its vast rural regions.

    Many business people are not motivated to transfer their cherished business to a family member. Imagine that you had to pay between $250,000 and $1 million more in taxes on a small business. This is quite different than selling the business to a non-family member. That is the lesser evil. What is scandalous is the demise of these businesses, which results in the loss of 15, 20, or 30 jobs in small communities of 1,000 people.

    Future generations work in the family business. However, when the owners want to retire and enjoy a well-deserved lifestyle after having worked to build a good business, they do not want to give their money to the different levels of government. We all know that the best place to invest money in order for it to grow is in the pockets of Canadians and not in those of a Liberal government.

    Anyone who can count and who is an entrepreneur at heart will perhaps prefer, unfortunately, to sell their business to someone else rather than to a family member, because today's tax system is not accountable to anyone and does not respect the contributions of those who have developed these businesses for the past 40 years.

    We believe that the aging of our population will result in increased business transfers, and that most small businesses will sadly not make it out in one piece. The survival of small businesses is vital to job markets all across Canada, especially in the regions. Young entrepreneurs are having a hard time coming up with the capital needed to take over the business, especially since they have to borrow 30% more to ensure that their parents can have a decent retirement. Many entrepreneurs want their children or grandchildren to take over their business, which is only natural. When people invest 40 years of their life in a business, they usually want it to continue after they are gone.

    We believe that horizontal equity, when it comes to taxation, is a fundamental part of ensuring a fair and competitive business environment. It is only fair that all Canadians should be treated equally when it comes to taxation, and not two different ways. It is unfair that there are two separate tax structures depending on whether business owners sell to their children or grandchildren, or to a stranger. We believe that the Income Tax Act penalizes families who want to keep the business in the family.

    In closing, for all these reasons, and more importantly, because this government has not taken the necessary steps to support and develop our regions, which is very important, this bill needs to pass second reading. This tool will help protect Canada's experienced business owners and help guarantee millions of jobs for future generations. This is a good initiative and we will support it.

    Madam Speaker, this magnificent Monday morning, we have the good fortune to be talking about the bill introduced by my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I gather from members' remarks that there is broad consensus around this bill. The only concerns I have heard people express from the start have to do with the cost of the bill. Barring petty partisanship, I see no reason why we should not send this bill to committee after the second reading vote for a closer look at its real costs. This bill is very important to the economy and to the development of both Quebec and Canada.

    Everyone knows our society is aging. We are facing major changes to which we will have to adapt quickly and as best we can. We are used to analyzing health and education issues and changing our policies on the basis of demographic trends, but there is just as much urgency in other sectors that tend to be ignored. That is why I think my colleague's bill, which tackles one of the most significant generational shifts, is so important.

    By 2020, as many as 350,000 business owners will be 50 or more and will be considering selling or transferring ownership of their business to a family member or selling it to a stranger. With the population aging, it is reassuring to see that the next generation of entrepreneurs is available, skilled, competitive, and ready to face the challenges that come with taking over the reins from the previous generation.

    Why are so many businesspeople raising their concerns with me over entrepreneurial succession? Well, they have done the math and they recognize how unfair the difference can be in the sale of a business to a family member or to a third party. Although my colleague's bill is not the first to address this issue, it is by far the most comprehensive and deserves the support of all parliamentarians in the House.

    However, for the uninitiated who are following the debate and who are not aware of the problem, let us try to sum up what it means to transfer a business. If business owners want to get out of the business world, then they have two choices. They can sell their business to one of their children, thereby ensuring that the business remains family-run and deriving satisfaction from the act of passing down the business from one generation to the next. The owner gets to see his or her efforts carry on. The second choice in principle is just as commendable. The owner can sell to a stranger. It is easy to say that this is a personal choice and that everyone is free to make their own decision. However, that is less true when we know that both avenues do not produce the same profits from a sale at the same price.

    At this point in time, if the business person sells their business to a stranger, the difference between the sale price and the original price is considered a capital gain taxed at between 23% and 29% by the provinces and also benefits from a tax exemption of about $824,000. However, if the owner sells his business to one of his children, the same difference between the sale price and the original price is considered a dividend, which is taxed at between 35% and 51%, depending on the province, and does not benefit from a tax exemption.

    To put it simply, the owner who sells his business for $1 million and reports a capital gain, compared to the owner who reports a dividend on the same amount, would come out ahead by about $306,000. We have to admit that makes selling to a family member somewhat less appealing.

    This is what Bill C-274 would do. It would allow the owner and buyers from the same family to enjoy the same rights and privileges resulting from a transaction between two people without any family ties. Consequently, Bill C-274 would help keep businesses in the hands of local people, foster entrepreneurship, and contribute to the creation of local jobs.

    What is more, in order to prevent any type of tax avoidance, an argument that members have been raising since this morning, my colleague had the foresight to include an obligation in the bill under which the family member who purchases the business must remain the owner for five years following the transaction. We are not the only ones who are saying that it is high time to eliminate this unfair business transfer tax.

    Since I am running out of time, I will not read the incredibly long list of people who support my colleague's bill. I must admit that I do not see what reason any member would have to vote against a bill that has garnered so much support. I therefore hope that Bill C-274 will be sent to committee, because we are always open to making necessary improvements. I also look forward to the day when the House will send a clear message to entrepreneurs across the country telling them that they can sell their company to whomever they choose and still pay the same rate.

    Need I mention that I strongly urge all members of the House to vote in favour of the bill introduced by the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques?

    Madam Speaker, today I am speaking on behalf of the government about Bill C-274.

    We all agree that small businesses are key to our prosperous communities. They provide important goods and services, create jobs, and weave themselves into the fabric of our communities, in which they have a genuine interest.

     The Government of Canada wants the small business sector to remain stable and dynamic. Is Bill C-274 in the best interest of small businesses? The government's position, which I support, is this: the bill is well-intentioned, but the government is very concerned about its unintended consequences and whether it will really work.

    The main problem is that it will open the door to tax avoidance. The Government of Canada cannot allow that possibility. The stated purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to facilitate the transfer of small businesses and family farm and fishing corporations among family members.

    To that end, the bill would dilute two long-standing anti-avoidance rules found in the Income Tax Act. First, we must answer the following important question: why are these anti-avoidance rules in place? Their objective is certainly not to discourage the transfer of small businesses to family members. These rules exist because without them certain individuals would have greater opportunities to engage in inappropriate tax avoidance.

    Measures that would introduce tax loopholes would not be consistent with the principles of fairness, economic efficiency, and responsible fiscal management.

    As I mentioned, the bill would dilute two long-standing anti-avoidance rules found in the Income Tax Act; specifically, it would amend sections 55 and 84.1 of the act.

    I would now like to focus on section 84.1. This anti-avoidance rule may apply when an individual sells shares of one corporation to another corporation that is linked to the individual. When an individual sells shares of a Canadian corporation to a linked corporation, section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act deems that the individual has received a taxable dividend from the linked corporation rather than a capital gain, which is taxed at a lower rate in certain circumstances. Why? It is because the linked corporation could use the proceeds of the dividend paid by the Canadian corporation and give it to the individual in exchange for shares.

    In other words, the individual is taxed based on the principle whereby dividends can be extracted from the Canadian corporation in order to be paid to the individual and should be taxable in his or her hands as dividends. Without this rule, such sales between related parties could be used to convert dividends for an individual into capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate, including gains eligible for a lifetime capital gains exemption.

    Bill C-274 proposes narrowing the scope of section 84.1 by removing the sale of shares of certain companies from its application. These companies include eligible small businesses and family farm or fishing corporations sold by an individual to another firm owned by an adult child or grandchild of that individual.

    This change will allow the owner-operator of a family business to convert the dividends of the corporation into taxable capital gains at a lower tax rate. Such conversions of corporate dividends into capital gains taxed at a lower rate could be done as often as the owner-operator wants to extract the corporation's surpluses and receive a fiscal benefit.

    While the main purpose of section 84.1 is to limit the application of the lifetime capital gains exemption, there are similar concerns regarding cases where no exemption is requested because of different personal income tax rates that apply to taxable dividends and capital gains.

    In 2017, the highest combined federal-provincial personal income tax rate on capital gains is roughly 17.8 percentage points lower than the rate applicable to dividends.

    This difference in personal income tax rates means that for every extra $100,000 that is converted into a taxable capital gain, the federal-provincial savings can be as high as $17,800.

    It is important to note that there is nothing stopping a parent from selling their shares of the family business directly to their child or grandchild and claiming the lifetime capital gains exemption on the capital gains, and then claiming as taxable capital gains any other gains from the sale of the shares that are not eligible for the lifetime capital gains exemption.

    The anti-avoidance rule set out in section 84.1 applies when the shares are sold to a company owned by the child or grandchild of that taxpayer. The tax rules already allow for the intergenerational transfer of a business directly to a child or a grandchild.

    Adopting the proposed changes to section 84.1 would open the door to new avoidance possibilities. This would unfairly benefit wealthy individuals instead of members of the broader middle class.

    Based on a series of reasonable assumptions on how Canadians would react to this measure, the Minister of Finance believes that the proposed amendment would cost the federal government between $350 million and $1.2 billion a year. This clearly goes against the government's overall objective to strengthen support for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

    It is also important to point out that, according to analyses conducted by third parties, Canada has a good tax system and is an excellent place to do business. According to a KPMG study, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7 and 48% lower than those in the United States.

    The government is currently making unprecedented investments in infrastructure and innovation that will expand opportunities in the country and result in stronger and more inclusive growth. What is more, the government has lowered taxes for nearly nine million Canadians, and 9 out of 10 families with children now receive higher benefits through our new Canada child benefit program.

    That means more disposable income for middle-class Canadians and a stronger economy, which will benefit small businesses.

    In closing, I understand the reasons behind Bill C-274. We all want the tax rules to be simple, fair, and conducive to small business growth. However, ultimately, the opportunities for tax avoidance that would arise from the passing of Bill C-274 far outweigh any possible benefit.

    Bill C-274 would not make the tax system any fairer. On the contrary, it would give wealthy individuals the opportunity to use private corporations for tax planning purposes. It would result in pressure to weaken other anti-avoidance rules.

    For these reasons, I urge the members of this House to vote against Bill C-274.

    Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of Bill C-274, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation).

    As the small-business critic for the progressive opposition, as a former business owner and executive director of a chamber of commerce, and as the co-chair of the all-party entrepreneur caucus, I am proud to stand today in support of Bill C-274 and speak to its many strengths. I am grateful for the work of my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for putting forward an excellent piece of legislation on tax fairness for Canadian small-business owners.

    In debates, committee meetings, and in legislation, small business is an important focus for parliamentarians. We understand that small-business owners are the real job creators in Canada, as 80% of all jobs are created by small business. Some 30% of our GDP comes from small business. Small businesses are an economic driver of our local economies.

    The bill is about keeping jobs in Canada, keeping our wealth in our local communities, supporting family-owned businesses, and supporting community economic development by plugging economic leakages. It is about fair tax laws for Canadians. It is about correcting an unreasonable provision in the Income Tax Act. It makes no sense that our current laws make it easier to sell a business to a stranger than to a family member. Why would we do that? Let us make it easier to enable Canadian businesses to be passed from generation to generation, not harder. Let us not penalize the very people who have put their heart and soul and a lifetime into developing their local businesses. Let us support Canadians who support their communities.

    I know I do not have time to do a full speech, so in closing, the government has an opportunity to show Canadians it is fighting for working-class Canadians by supporting the bill. The working class is family business. It is hard-working entrepreneurs who are the foundation of our economy and the real job creators. Nobody has a deeper connection to community or understands the importance of keeping the wealth in their community better than family business owners.

    Canadians deserve fair succession tax laws on their family-owned small businesses. We need to make it easier to sell a business to a family member. We need to keep jobs local, and our money in our local economies. We need to give our business owners the tools to thrive in our communities. Right now, the Income Tax Act makes it easier to sell a business, like I said, to a stranger than to a family member. Bill C-274 would correct that mistake. I urge all parliamentarians to support small-business owners across Canada by supporting the bill.

    Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to conclude this debate on my private member’s bill, Bill C-274.

     In each of our ridings, there are small and medium-sized business owners, farmers and fishers. At present, these people do not belong to the wealthiest class, in spite of what the government is trying to say. They are the very definition of middle-class, and people who start up a small business are often people who aspire to join the middle class.

     I am extremely disappointed that the government is opposing this bill. I believe they are opposing it for reasons I think are absurd, and I will explain why.

     First, the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary believe the bill will cost between $300 million and $1.2 billion. I worked with tax experts on this bill to make sure it will not be too costly for the government. We estimated that, in terms of lost revenue, it will cost between $75 million and $100 million. Is that excessive? The goal is to level the playing field.

     In Montreal, the owner of a small window and door business who wanted to transfer his business to his child had to pay over $110,000 more in taxes than if he sold it to a stranger, a person who was not family.

     Obviously, there will be costs in terms of lost revenue, but the goal is to level the playing field and allow these businesses to stay within the family for a second or third generation. The figures the government is suggesting can and must therefore be disputed. They should be examined in committee.

     That is why I am asking the government and all members of the House to adopt the bill at second reading, so that we can analyze these figures and compare the analyses I have done with various tax experts and the figures from the Library of Parliament, the Union des producteurs agricole, and Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton and other accounting firms, with the government’s figures.

    Another argument that the government has made against the bill is the fact that at present, parents may transfer their business to their children and receive a capital gain. That is true, if the child is not incorporated. However, children increasingly are incorporated, since incorporation carries several advantages, including lower interest rates when they borrow and less tax on the amount to be paid to the parents.

     I know there are extremely complex issues and tax policy is complex. Nonetheless, Bill C-274, which I have brought forward, is an appropriate response to the injustice that is an incentive for owners of small businesses, family farms and fishing boats to sell their businesses to strangers rather than to their children. They do not do that because they will get rich; they sell their business so they can retire.

    I would like to reassure the government that my intention is not for the bill to be too costly. The intent is to bring the bill to committee so it can actually be studied and if needed, if it is really too costly, to be amended. I can guarantee every member in this House that with the numbers the government is putting forth, if the bill will be as costly as it is saying, I will volunteer to actually withdraw it from consideration. I am saying that because I am sure it will not be.

    In conclusion, I encourage all members of the House to consider how this bill will affect their constituents. I have the support of more than 150 organizations across the country in Quebec, Ontario, the west and the Maritimes, organizations such as chambers of commerce, municipalities, and organizations that represent farmers and fishers.

    If this bill dies before going to committee for an in-depth study of the costs and impacts, those people will be extremely disappointed. They are not likely to have forgotten this by the time the next election rolls around.

    I therefore urge all members of the House to vote for this bill at second reading so we can study it in committee.

     The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): In my opinion the nays have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 8, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

    Order.

    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons had time left and we were at questions and comments.

    Madam Speaker, in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle, many people often tell me about their concerns with free trade. They believe free trade helps the rich and not those who work the hardest in our society.

    I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell us how free trade helps everyone.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite passionate in wanting to make sure that his constituents are well represented in the House on important issues and raises a valid concern.

    It is important that we recognize that Canada, over the years, has been well established around the world as a trading nation. It is because of trade that we are able to have the type of lifestyle we have, whether it is in urban Canada or rural Canada.

    I would assure my colleague that the best thing to do is to appreciate the jobs we have today. For many of those middle-class, hard-working jobs, whether it is providing a product or a widget, or whether it is a service, Canada is well equipped through our post-secondary institutions and many other training facilities to provide some of the very best products and services in the world.

    The more we are able to reach out into the world, the better we are as a society, in terms of our lifestyle and beyond that.

    Madam Speaker, how would my colleague best describe the importance of trade for Canada?

    Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague would acknowledge that one of the highest priorities we put in place, when we took on the role of government just over a year ago, was the importance of creating jobs.

    One of the things we need to remind ourselves of when we think of trade, as I pointed out in an earlier question, is that Canada is very much dependent on trade. When I talk about some of the best products, I could talk about my home province or even the member's province of Quebec. She would be very familiar with one of the things that Manitoba and Quebec share in common, and that is our aerospace industry. Some of the very best parts and aircraft that are manufactured today come from Canada.

     When we look at ways that we could take down trade barriers and allow for a freer flow of goods, we are allowing opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses to be able to explore other opportunities that go beyond Canada's border.

    When we think about trade and how Canada really benefits, the more Canada can trade, in particular on that export side but trade in general, the more it contributes to our GDP and the more it provides opportunities for those small and medium-sized businesses. That is really what this is all about.

    We recognize that if we can build on trade, we can build Canada's middle class and those who aspire to become a part of it. The healthier Canada's middle class is, the healthier our economy is. Our economy needs to have a healthy middle class. One of the ways we can reinforce that healthy middle class, and have that middle class grow, is to look at ways we can increase trade throughout the world.

    That is why we have seen such a high priority, whether it is CETA we are debating today, or the agreement between Canada and Ukraine which was signed, or even the World Trade Organization legislation that we brought in that allows for a freer flow of services and widgets that, ultimately, all Canadians will benefit from, in particular Canada's working middle class and those who are aspiring to become a part of it.

    Madam Speaker, the House has heard a great deal of debate on CETA. Throughout these discussions, the NDP has pointed out some critical problems with the agreement. It is likely to worsen Canada's trade deficit. It is likely to harm key sectors of our economy. It is likely to make it easier for temporary foreign workers to come into our country. It is going to extend pharmaceutical patents, driving up the cost of prescription drugs for our provincial health care systems as well as for individual Canadians. It will expose our democratic laws, regulations, and public policies to more challenges under the investor-state provisions.

    I do not want to repeat all of those points. What I would like to do in today's speech is look at CETA from a different perspective. I want to look at it from the perspective of its implications for future Canadian negotiations. In particular, I want to look at our likely negotiations with a post-Brexit United Kingdom. I want to look at our potential renegotiation of NAFTA with the United States. Finally, I want to look at the negotiations we have, within our country, with corporate Canada.

    In terms of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, a big question is what that means for CETA. It is a question the NDP has been asking throughout this debate, because of course, the United Kingdom is the one major economy in the EU with which Canada currently enjoys a trade surplus.

    I was interested to note on Friday that a Conservative colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, actually asked that question during question period and did not get much of a response from the government. What the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade said was:

     Here we have the government actually acknowledging that CETA is not a done deal, that it is unclear whether or how it might apply to the United Kingdom, and that in all likelihood, Canada would have to enter into new negotiations with the U.K. after the Brexit process plays out. Why, then, would we want to establish that baseline now? Will this be a baseline from which we make further concessions in negotiations with the United Kingdom?

    It seems to me that after Brexit, the United Kingdom will actually be under pressure to formulate new trade agreements. It will no longer be part of free trade deals through the EU, and the British will be the ones who really need to make concessions to get trade deals. Why would Canada set the baseline now? Would it not be more prudent to see what happens with Brexit and then negotiate with Britain from a position of strength? Agreeing to CETA before Brexit has played out actually puts Canada in a much weaker position for prospective negotiations with the United Kingdom.

    The second thing I want to consider is negotiations with the United States about the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is really important to recognize that under NAFTA currently, there is a concept of most favoured nation treatment, so when we make concessions to Europe through CETA, we are automatically making those same concessions to the United States. Indeed, in Bill C-30, we find that it does exactly that. It provides concessions not just to the EU but to all trade agreement investors. For example, when CETA extends patent protections, it does not just do it for European pharmaceutical companies; it does it for American pharmaceutical companies as well. Of course, we do not get anything in exchange from the United States for that concession. It just happens automatically.

    Another thing Bill C-30 does is raise the threshold for foreign investment reviews of proposed foreign takeovers to $1.5 billion. It does this not just for proposed takeovers by European investors but also for proposed takeovers by American investors. This is a concession we are making to the United States without getting anything back in return on softwood lumber, on steel, on buy American, or on any of the other trade issues we might have with our neighbours to the south. It strikes me that rather than making these concessions to the United States pre-emptively through Bill C-30, it would be far more prudent to see what happens with Trump and with our potential renegotiation of NAFTA so that if we need to make concessions, we can get something for them. We can bargain rather than just give the U.S. these concessions as part of a deal with Europe. That is another reason to defeat this legislation.

    The third type of negotiation I would like to speak to are the negotiations that are constantly going on between the Canadian state and corporate Canada, because one aspect of extending investor-state provisions through these different international agreements is that Canadian companies want to have access to the same special commercial tribunals so that they are able to directly challenge and sue over laws, regulations, and public policies they may not like. The more we extend these investor-state provisions, the more we invite Canadian companies to demand a similar basis on which to challenge our own democratic domestic policies.

    We are starting to see this kind of thinking bubble up in the Conservative leadership race. Just last week, we had two candidates for the Conservative leadership, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the member for Beauce, tripping over each other to try to adopt radical libertarian positions. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said that we should entrench private property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The member for Beauce was very quick to agree with this concept. We can see the linkage of this with trade deals by looking at the way another Conservative MP reacted to this proposal. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston stated:

    We have this argument that because there are investor-state provisions in trade deals, they should be extended to all Canadian companies and property owners. What would that mean in practice? We can forget about any kind of land use planning for starters, but we can also forget about building any type of major public infrastructure that would traverse lots of different property. Imagine trying to build or even twin an existing highway if every landowner along the route essentially could veto it because their private property rights were entrenched in the Constitution. The power of expropriation is an extremely important thing if we want to get infrastructure built.

    We have heard a lot of rhetoric in favour of pipelines from the Conservatives. Good luck building any pipelines after private property rights are entrenched in the Constitution. That is something the Conservative leadership candidates need to think about.

    Bill C-30 would weaken Canada's negotiating position with a post-Brexit Britain. It would weaken Canada's negotiating position on NAFTA with the United States. It would also lead us down this goofy path of entrenching private property rights in the Constitution. For all those reasons, I urge my fellow MPs to defeat this bill.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the concerns the member has, certainly about the private property issue he brought up from the Conservative debate. I thought that was well done, and I thank him for that. However, from the logic of one stronger dominant partner over the other in any particular trade deal, I do not quite follow the logic about the Brexit situation.

    Now that section 50 has been triggered and will, no doubt, come to pass, when it comes into force following a vote in Europe on February 14, I believe, following Bill C-30, if it passes, we will have entrenched quite a bit in a very substantial trade agreement, along with a strategic partnership agreement that is more political in nature but certainly very important. To me, that puts Great Britain on the other side of his logic, where it has to negotiate something with us as it leaves the European Union.

    Perhaps he could explain to me further where his logic prevails over mine.

    Madam Speaker, the member across the way points out that with this legislation, we will already have entrenched many aspects of CETA, and that is precisely my concern. We would be in a much stronger bargaining position dealing with Britain after it is out of the EU and after it is desperate to get into some trade deals than we are in negotiating with the entire European Union, as is currently the case.

    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade said in the House on Friday that CETA would provide a baseline for negotiations with a post-Brexit U.K. I am submitting that it is a bad baseline and that we could do better in negotiating with the U.K. after Brexit.

    Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, because it is clear that the Prime Minister is the foremost proponent of trickle-down economics in the world today. He believes in this ideology of trade, that if we trade away Canadian steel jobs, we will get something better with the Chinese, or that if we allow the Chinese government to take over Canadian tech companies, it will somehow benefit the middle class. Liberals always invoke the middle class whenever they make a cynical decision.

    The government refused to stand up for the farm sector in the CETA negotiations and walked away on compensation, when it knows that dairy farm families are going to take a serious hit. Yet the man they are looking to deal with Donald Trump, Brian Mulroney, is floating the trial balloon that to keep the Americans happy, we have to get rid of the supply-managed sector in this country. This is who the Liberal government seems to be taking its advice from.

    I would ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is that the Liberals put the ideology of these trade deals ahead of our steel sector, our farm sector, and our tech sector every single time to get any kind of deal it can get with anybody.

    Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I will pick up where he left off, which is to observe that the current government, like the previous government, is blinded by an ideology that says that all of these so-called free trade deals are good no matter what and that we do not really need to worry about the details or the specific trade-offs being made.

    It is very true that the Liberal government has made some huge concessions under CETA on supply management and in other areas. One of my concerns is that those concessions are automatically being extended to the United States under Bill C-30, which puts us in an even weaker position in potentially having to renegotiate NAFTA with the Trump administration. I would much rather go into those negotiations without having made these concessions so that we could actually push for the things Canadians want, such as the removal of the chapter 11 investor-state provisions and the removal of the proportionality clause that might limit our options as to where we export our energy resources going forward.

    Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-30 and the comprehensive economic trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA.

    I would first like to congratulate our new Minister of International Trade, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, on his new responsibilities, and recognize the hard work of our former minister, the member for University—Rosedale, for the devoted time she put in on the trade file. She will still be involved with the trade file as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I would also like to congratulate the rest of our team. I am sure we will continue to work with the foreign affairs minister and the trade minister to get more trade agreements that are beneficial to all Canadians. As the Prime Minister stated, we are a trading nation. Our GDP relies on trading. We will continue to work hard to make good deals for Canadians.

    I would also like to recognize our international trade committee, which I sit on as chair and am very proud of. We do a great job, and we work together. We do not always agree, but we work together. We have put a couple of agreements together which were passed in the House, such as the Ukrainian agreement, which was a big agreement. Of course, we also looked at the CETA, which is here on the floor. We work well together and get things done. We are always thinking about Canadians. We are going to be working on future agreements in the upcoming months, especially dealing with the United States and many of our Asian partners.

    CETA is a modern, progressive trade agreement that, when implemented, will generate billions of dollars in bilateral trade and investment. It will provide greater choice and lower prices for consumers. It will create middle-class jobs in many sectors of our society.

    CETA is a product of hard work, frank discussions and negotiations, and a calm commitment by our Prime Minister, Minister of International Trade, Minister of Foreign Affairs, our trade committee, and, of course, countless of Canadian public servants who made this agreement come together. When it comes to negotiating trade agreements such as CETA, we have some of the best negotiators in the world. Whether it is WTO or this agreement, whether it is big or small, we have some of the best negotiators. They stand as an example for the rest of the world when we do our negotiations. We are very proud of them and how they work. No matter what party is in government, they work for Canadians.

    Canadian exports to the EU are diverse and include a significant share of value-added products in addition to traditional exports. These are resource-based products and commodities, whether they are precious stones and metals; machinery and equipment; minerals, fuels, and oils; mineral ores; aerospace products; and, of course, fishing and fish products. These are some of Canada's top merchandise exports to the EU.

    From my perspective in Atlantic Canada, the export sectors that will particularly benefit from CETA are the minerals and mineral products export sector, and the other one which is dear to my heart is agriculture and agrifood. Of course, I think the biggest one in our area is the fishing and fish products sector. We have over 500 small craft harbours in Atlantic Canada, and although we love eating fish, we cannot eat it all. However, the rest of the world wants it, and we want to sell it to them.

    When it comes to exporting our products, Atlantic Canada tops the rest of North America. Atlantic Canada is very well positioned in this agreement for the shipment of products from continent to continent. Atlantic Canada is closer than Montreal, Boston, New York, or any other port in North America and South America to Europe. We are very excited, not only about the products that we have to offer Europeans, but also about being able to trade through our ports in Atlantic Canada.

    I am from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, which will benefit significantly from CETA and the preferential access to the EU market. The EU is Nova Scotia's second-largest export destination and second-largest trading partner, with a large portion of the share coming from my island in Cape Breton. Once in force, CETA will remove the boundaries on Nova Scotia's exports and create new market opportunities in the EU.

    In all of the 28 EU member states, they have approved the conclusion of CETA and have signed the agreement or are in the midst of finalizing it. Trade means growth. Trade means prosperity. Trade means stability. Trade makes good friends. More growth in trade creates jobs, which is what we want in Canada.

    Nova Scotians will benefit from improving exporting conditions, which will provide us with a comprehensive advantage over exporters in other countries who do not have free trade agreements with the EU. As mentioned in this House already today, the United States tried to pull off a deal with the EU but was not successful. We did, and we were successful. We are very proud of it. We see that Canada is an opportunity for an entranceway into the whole North American market through Canada and the EU.

    Nova Scotians will benefit from improved exporting conditions, and, as I stated, it will provide us with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries who do not have free trade agreements with the EU. Between 2013 and 2015, in Nova Scotia alone, merchandise exports to the EU were worth over $465 million, with fishing and fish products holding the largest share of that, 45% of our exports.

    How does all of this translate? Following fish and fish products exports, of course, we have agriculture and agrifood, at 60%. We can grow anything in Nova Scotia. People in Europe love our blueberries. We have great blueberries and apples, and so many different products. We are looking at having more beef in Nova Scotia too. They like grass-fed beef in Europe, and we think we are well positioned in Atlantic Canada to do that. Also on metal and mineral products, the tariffs will go down from 10%. On other exports, such as chemicals and plastics, forest products, and information and communication technologies, tariffs will drop to 12%.

    Most of the tariffs that we have to pay going into the European Union are 10% to 15%, which is significant. For instance, just on fish alone, which is over $465 million, if we take the ballpark figure of $400 million, 10% of that is $40 million. That would be the benefit to Nova Scotia just on fish products alone. These tariffs are on the largest exports, such as I mentioned, fish and fish products. Some of them are up to 25%. It is a phenomenally high tariff going into that trade zone, and we are going to be glad it is gone. Through CETA, these fishing and fish product tariffs will drop by almost 96% immediately, and the remaining tariffs will be phased out over three-year, five-year, and seven-year periods.

    According to Industry Canada, Nova Scotia exports $5.4 billion worth of goods and services outside of Canada, with the United Kingdom being $121 million; France, $81 million; and the Netherlands, $84 million. Of Nova Scotia's $5.4 billion in exports, $1.2 billion comes directly from lobster and crab. In my riding of Sydney—Victoria, the Neil's Harbour co-op fish processing facility has staff from all over Cape Breton, and many of the staff come from Newfoundland to work in the plant. In 2015, the Victoria Co-op Fisheries purchased about $20 million of product from local fishermen. This spans over 100 miles of coastline; seven small harbours, most of which have between 20 and 25 vessels; and sales worth $26 million.

    As with most of the rural and northern communities like Neil's Harbour, in my riding of Sydney—Victoria, the fishing industry is what my constituents rely on for their well-being. Fishing is passed down from generation to generation. Men and women go out to sea for months at a time to put food on their tables and provide fresh fish for the world. CETA will boost the fishing trade in my riding and better the quality of life for hard-working fishers and their families.

    In agriculture itself, as I know was mentioned here, beef, pork, and canola are agriculture products that will go to Europe tariff free. It is going to be phenomenal. I sat on the agriculture and agrifood committee.

    When all other countries are closing the doors to trade and immigration, Canada is opening its doors. The benefits that will result from CETA are on the fishing and fish products in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, the Atlantic provinces, and all over Canada. CETA is a modern, progressive trade agreement that could generate billions of dollars in bilateral trade and investment, provide greater choice, lower prices to consumers, and grow the middle class.

    I would also like to thank the members of the previous Conservative government, because they worked hard on this agreement. We had to take it across the plate and finish it, but they did a lot of work. I am proud that they are on the committee with us and continue to do good work.

    I am open for questions.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chair of the trade committee for his speech. You highlighted a lot of important things, but I do disagree with a few things you said.

    I would remind members to address their questions and their comments through the Chair.

    Madam Speaker, I agree with some of the things that the chair of trade committee talked about, but there are some things I disagree with.

    The member talked about how good the blueberries are. We have saskatoon berries in Saskatchewan, and the people in Europe will enjoy the saskatoon berries better than the blueberries. Having said that, however, they are both excellent.

    We have created the ability to get market access by going around the world, and now we are going to have access to the European market. Canadian companies will want to export their goods to Europe, and companies around the world will be looking at the possibly of getting a facility in Canada because they will have market access in Europe and the U.S. Hopefully, the TPP will go through the House and we will have access to the Asian market as well. It would be a great base for operations.

    One thing that concerns me is our competitiveness. We are adding taxes to things that affect our competitiveness. The carbon tax is an example, when it comes to our fisheries. All Canadian fishers will have to pay a carbon tax, which will provide no return for their investment, and this will make them uncompetitive.

    Does my colleague not feel that it is important to look at competitiveness with respect to trade agreements when it comes to taking advantage of opportunities and growing the business community here in Canada?

    Madam Speaker, let me talk about the berries first. I think my friend is on to something. We could take those berries from Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia and make a blend with them and call it “Canada's finest”. How does that sound? That would be a good idea. People could mix it with their vodka and gin, and everyone would be happy.

    My colleague mentioned a couple of things. He mentioned how Canada could be a point of access to other markets. I am glad he brought this up. I have a window manufacturing company from Germany in my riding. It makes windows mostly for Atlantic Canada, and it does a fine job. The owner is looking at this agreement as giving him an opportunity to go into the U.S. market, depending on the tax rate. It is a fine point.

    With respect to the carbon tax and this agreement, Europe already has a carbon tax. Europe is very similar to us with respect to our social structure, our beliefs, and how we treat the environment. This agreement fits well with us and the Europeans because we are like-minded. As with us, they have a tax on carbon and they are environmentally friendly. We are going to meet with Danish MPs on Wednesday, and I think they are going to be fond of our carbon tax.

    Madam Speaker, I listened with great fascination to my colleague. He is an enjoyable man, who is telling Canadians that the reason the government signed this free trade agreement is to get Nova Scotia blueberries over to Europe. That is one of the more ridiculous examples I have heard, except possibly for the reason given by the member for University—Rosedale, who said that we had to sign it so we could sell mukluks from little stores in Winnipeg to Europe. Do they think we are some kind of political knobs?

    I want to thank my colleague for at least wrapping up his speech by thanking Stephen Harper and his policies for laying out the path that the Liberal government is following. At least we heard a bit of honesty from him. His government is following the same trickle-down economic plans of the Stephen Harper government and they are thankful for it. I want to thank him for his honesty. It was a breath of fresh air compared to all the other stuff.

    I did not hear him talk at all about the fact that the Liberal government is selling out the dairy sector. At least Stephen Harper put the money on the table, because he knew this was going to be a serious multi-billion dollar hit to our farm families. The Liberal government has not put a dime on the table.

    I would like my colleague to move away from blueberries for a minute and tell us what is going to be on the table for our farmers who will be giving up serious market share to the Europeans.

    Madam Speaker, I am not surprised at the NDP. I am not trying to credit the Conservatives for everything. They did do a good job on this agreement, and we finished it up. The NDP is against trade, and I am not surprised.

    Your family is from Cape Breton. Your family are fishers—

    I want to remind the member that he is to address his comments through the chair. My family is not from Cape Breton.

    There is not much time left, so a very brief answer.

    Madam Speaker, the member should think of his relatives in Cape Breton who fish and how beneficial this will be beneficial to them. Every once in a while, he should go back to Cape Breton and get a taste of reality, and find out what real business is all about.

    Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure, and quite honestly, an honour to stand in this great place to talk about something that has great potential, an incredible potential to create jobs, economic growth, and value for our country.

     Bill C-30 is about implementing this great agreement, CETA. I cannot go ahead without recognizing the member for Abbotsford, the former minister of international trade. For six years or so he worked not only with the team on our Conservative side, but also with all members of Parliament to come together on this extraordinary agreement which benefits Canadians from one coast of this country to the other.

    I also want to thank the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the minister of international trade, for taking the agreement forward to this point.

    As my colleague before me mentioned, agreements do not happen in isolation. Our chief negotiator, Steve Verheul, is an amazing guy in his abilities and the things he accomplishes around the negotiating table. I am from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. I farmed. I was involved in municipal government. In fact, when I was in dairy, I bought many of the inputs for my dairy operation from Steve's dad, so he comes from great stock.

    There is a whole host of things that happened to get CETA done. One of them was the unprecedented amount of co-operation and involvement that the stakeholders had in developing this agreement. Whether it was the provinces or the territories, whether it was the stakeholders in the commodity organizations, the businesses, if they were not at the table, they were sitting on the chairs right behind it. That is why this agreement has so much appeal across Canada.

    The text of the agreement was agreed to in August 2014. We all knew it would take a couple of years for the 28 countries to translate it into something like 22 or 23 languages. We are now at the time of implementation not only here in Canada, but also in Europe, which we understand may be happening very shortly.

    What does it mean? As I mentioned, there are 28 countries. It has an impact for Canadian manufacturers, agriculture, education, and for all the stakeholders who were involved in the negotiations. It would provide access to some 500 million people and economic activity of almost $20 trillion. It is estimated it would bring about a 20% increase in bilateral trade, and about a $12 billion increase to the Canadian economy.

    For example, it would leverage about $1,000 for an annual family's income, but we have to understand that could be eaten up, because the Liberals keep bringing in new taxes. They just brought in a new CPP tax on employers and benefits. However, it has the opportunity to increase family incomes, and also create about some 80,000 jobs.

    When CETA comes into effect, about 98% of non-agriculture trade tariff lines will disappear. For agriculture it will be 94% to 95%. Over a short period of time those tariffs will start to disappear.

    One of the great things about trade agreements, and good ones like this one which we negotiated, is that they help to get rid of non-trade tariff barriers, those things that pop up between one country and another which sometimes are not directly related to trade but they become a political inhibitor to moving a product from one country another. For example, a shipment may go over to another country, but all of a sudden, they will find there is something wrong with it and it may be rejected and returned. That is a non-trade tariff barrier, and both sides, whether it is the European Union or Canada, want to try to eliminate as many of those as possible.

    As I mentioned, the trade agreement has an incredible amount of potential benefit to Canadians. However, over the past 14 to 16 months, we have sat in this place, and a new government came in, so some of the advantages will take a hit. The Liberals promised that they would balance the budget in four years, but now that seems to have been misjudged by about 32 years. People who are 18 years old today will be about 56 years old before the budget is balanced.

    What does that mean? That means that all the young people who are 18 or 19 today will be almost at the age of what someone might call “freedom 55” and are now going to be paying for this extraordinary spending of the government.

    When the Liberals got elected they said they would have a $10-billion deficit. However, within a couple of months or so, the amount was out by, I think, 300%. It went from $10 billion to $30 billion. The deficit will be somewhere around $30 billion.

     I think the parliamentary budget officer said it would be $20 billion if the government did not spend the money on infrastructure that it had talked about. The Liberals were going to lower the business tax for our businesses, which very much involved CETA.

    My riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is all small businesses. Agriculture is the dominant one. Those small businesses not only did not get the tax relief they were promised, but there was an additional tax charge for the Canada pension plan and a new carbon tax.

    It comes down to credibility, accountability, and trust.

    The agreement has all the potential of going ahead and being good for our families and our businesses, but if the government is going to bring in a carbon tax, in it will negatively affect every individual, particularly farmers, truckers, and businesses in my riding. For example, a guy who is farming fills up his combine every day. At the end of the day, it will cost him another $100 just for the fuel, not including the tractors that he has running beside the combine, and not including the truck. It is the same with the truckers. By the time they fill their trucks with fuel, it is going to cost them another $100 or so a day, when the carbon tax is in full implementation. In Ontario, of course, we have other costs that are a deterrent, for example, our high energy costs.

    My point is this agreement has all the potential to help keep Canada the strong economic force that it is.

    Agriculture obviously is the key industry in my riding. Whether it is pork, beef, grains, when I was on the international trade committee and the agriculture committee, they told us about the significance of this, as did the dairy sector. We negotiated a true benefit for dairy producers.

    I see my time has just about wrapped up. In closing, I will say that we will be supporting this bill as we move forward on the implementation of CETA.

    Madam Speaker, I have worked with the member and have travelled with him on this particular issue, and I will get to that in a moment. However, I want to address the issue which the member brought up about carbon pricing. The Conservatives seem to be saying that we are the only ones in the world who are doing this right now, that is, carbon pricing to help with the environment, but there is a universal acceptance that all of our current and future trading partners are doing it. I will leave that as it is, because in this case, I think the Conservatives are trying to make something out of what is not there.

    In the case of this particular agreement, the member and I have shared the same table in Europe and we have talked about this. We have also talked about a parallel agreement called the strategic partnership agreement, which gives us a baseline of a political union, in a sense an informal political union, so that our ideologies match, and we are fundamentally agreeing with human rights and all other measures before we launch into the commercial aspect of this agreement.

    I thank the member for his work and, by extension, the member for Abbotsford as well.

    Madam Speaker, the member and I may even have been elected the same year, I am not sure. In this place we do have differences of political opinions, but we do build great friendships. That is why this country is so strong not only in the diversity of the people we meet but in the diversity of the occupations that we come from.

    In this agreement and in every agreement, as my colleague has said, if there is going to be a strategic partnership agreement, we have to make sure, and we want to make sure, we recognize those baseline values of Canadians and of the countries that we build trade agreements with, whether they be human rights or our responsibility to the environment.

    In my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, whether it is the manufacturing industry or the agricultural industry, we are leaders. We can look at the auto industry as leaders in this and see what they have done in their ability to make those great changes in the environment without a carbon tax.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are neighbours, as he is from very close to Windsor where I am from.

    He mentioned the auto industry. One of the concerns about CETA is the issue around the fact that European automakers have massive subsidization, as well as state ownership of their auto industry. I would ask the member a simple question related to that. How do we compete against companies, specifically in the auto sector, that actually have state subsidy and ownership, but that are also violating Canadian laws, for example, most recently Volkswagen, with regard to emissions? What should be the quid pro quo for Canadian manufacturing, given the fact that we compete against other national governments and state subsidies, and also violations of Canadian emissions laws?

    Madam Speaker, I went over the bridge the other day, and there seems to be massive reconstruction on the old bridge. I know the member has worked hard, because he realizes the amount of trade that goes back and forth over that bridge every day. I believe it is $2 billion every day.

    In terms of the auto industry, we always have to be able to compete. Being able to negotiate trade tariff barriers and those tariff lines is an important part for every industry.

    Some of the challenges we have in terms of the auto industry and others are those things I just talked about that, quite honestly, the Liberal Party is doing to every family and every business which is going to make it very difficult to be competitive. The member mentioned some of our major trade partners have a carbon tax. I am not so sure about that. Right now we have NAFTA and the United States of America is not going to have a carbon tax.

    We are going to have to make sure that our government starts to take away some of the impediments that are in place for our businesses.

    Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to participate in this important debate about the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

     Free trade debates are far too often hijacked or sidetracked by hyperbole, misinformation, and knee-jerk distortion of the facts. I still recall being a high school student when our country was immersed in the spirited debate surrounding the free trade agreement with the U.S. in the 1980s, and being struck by the outrageous claims made by the opponents of the agreement at the time.

    As such, I firmly believe debates such as the one today are vitally important. They allow parliamentarians to set the public record straight and counter ill-informed misconceptions and simplifications. It is important that we emphatically underscore the comprehensive and progressive elements of the EU trade deal and highlight the tangible benefits that the agreement will provide the Canadian middle class, consumers, and exporters.

    Prior to serving as the member of Parliament for Willowdale, I served in both the public and private sectors as a lawyer focused exclusively on international trade law. In that role, I gained valuable first-hand knowledge of the tangible benefits well-crafted trade agreements provided us each and every day. It is from that perspective that I approach today's remarks.

    Before I begin, however, I would be remiss if I did not thank the former minister of international trade for her hard work on this file. I would also like to congratulate the incoming minister and parliamentary secretary on their new roles. I am confident they will navigate this file with expertise and great dedication.

    Finally, allow me a shout-out to the hard work of countless Canadian departmental officials and negotiators. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their tireless efforts. In that, I obviously am echoing the sentiments of the member for Sydney—Victoria, who talked about how we had some of the greatest trade negotiators in the world.

    As any student of Canadian history knows, our great country in many ways was shaped and founded by trade. To this day, over 40% of our GDP and fully 20% of Canadian jobs are directly tied to exports. This side of the House has long recognized the role of trade in fostering economic growth and creating Canadian jobs, while at the same time recognizing the need for progressive and comprehensive trade deals that truly work to the benefit of all Canadians and all stakeholders.

    Our government understands that increased trade leads to economic growth and that economic growth leads to jobs for the middle class. This simple fact, however, is currently under siege. As the world slides toward protectionism and isolationism, a regression apparently favoured by some of my colleagues across the aisle, it is vital that Canada remains an open society and a champion of open global markets.

    As the first and most ambitious trade deal of its kind, CETA would provide Canada with an unprecedented competitive advantage in an era of short-sighted protectionists. As Mr. Brian Kingston of the Business Council of Canada stated when discussing CETA before a committee earlier this fall:

    Just as Canadian leadership on the Syrian refugee file and infrastructure spending have served as beacons for the rest of the liberal world, our ambitious and balanced approach to trade provides an encouraging counter to closing borders and closed societies.

     To quote a recent article found in The Economist, “Bucking the protectionist mood, Canada remains an eager free-trader...In this depressing company of wall-builders, door-slammers and drawbridge-raisers, Canada stands out as a heartening exception.”

    In that spirit, our government recognizes that CETA represents a tremendous and unprecedented opportunity for Canada. The EU, a market of 500 million people and $20 trillion, representing nearly 17% of global GDP, is the world's second largest economy, second largest importing market, and Canada's second largest trading partner. By removing 98% of tariffs between Canada and the EU and by making Canada the first G8 economy with preferential access to the unified European market, CETA would open a range of possibilities to Canadian exporters, businesses, entrepreneurs, workers, and service providers. A joint Canada-EU study, for example, found that CETA would increase Canada-EU trade by 22%, thus providing the Canadian economy with a 0.7% boost in GDP, or roughly $12 billion per year, with similar gains in job numbers and household incomes.

    Following a decade of anemic growth under the previous government, we simply cannot afford to walk away from this type of amazing opportunity. To illustrate this, allow me to name just a handful of concrete benefits that would be brought with the implementation of CETA.

    First, CETA would allow Canadian goods and services to reach European markets faster and more efficiently through the reduction of border processing times by providing access to advance rulings on the origin or tariff classification of products. It would also provide for the automation of border procedures and the creation of transparent systems to address complaints about customs rulings and decisions.

    Second, CETA would mark the first Canadian bilateral trade agreement that would include a stand-alone chapter on regulatory co-operation to promote enhanced regulatory practices. This would include a protocol on conformity assessment that would allow Canadian manufacturers in certain sectors to have their products tested and certified in Canada for sale in the EU.

    Third, through mechanisms such as the most favoured nation provisions, Canadian service providers, an ever-growing segment of our modern economy I might add, would benefit from unrivalled access to the European Union, which acts as the world's largest importer of services and represents a market worth an astounding $12 trillion.

    CETA is an inclusive and modern trade agreement that would greatly broaden Canadian access to the European markets across a wide range of sectors, from aerospace to agriculture to infrastructure to green technologies, and beyond.

    We know Canadians demand trade agreements that not only advance our economic interests but also reflect our values. These are not contradictory aims, but rather mutually reinforcing goals. For example, allow me to outline just a few of the elements that make CETA not only the most comprehensive trade deal ever negotiated but also the most progressive.

    CETA includes a robust right to regulate, allowing democratically elected governments the ability to regulate on important policy issues, such as the environment. CETA also includes a strengthened dispute resolution process, which makes the CETA agreement regime fairer, more ethical, and transparent. CETA also includes stand-alone chapters on environmental protection, sustainable development, and labour. Finally, CETA contains explicit safeguards regarding health, safety, and environmental protections, and provides for the necessary exceptions and reservations for social services. Furthermore, nothing in the agreement prevents governments from providing preferences to aboriginal communities, or adopting measures to protect or promote Canadian culture.

    If any of my colleagues cannot support this trade agreement, it leads us to wonder what free trade agreement, if any, they would ever support. CETA represents a unique, pragmatic, and progressive trade agreement for the 21st century.

    From day one, our government has made it clear that our priority is helping and growing the middle class and those working hard to join it. From cutting taxes for those who need it, to creation of the Canada child benefit, to boosting CPP for Canadian seniors, we understand that a thriving middle class benefits us all. Our approach to trade underscores that simple fact yet again. By finalizing the most important trade deal in a generation, our government has renewed its commitment to Canadian jobs, Canadian growth, and Canadian values.

    

    Madam Speaker, that was a very interesting speech. The member talked about walking away from opportunity. I agree that we should not walk away from this opportunity, which is huge for all Canadians. In fact, the benefit in this agreement is about $1,000 per family, so we know there will be a distinct benefit there.

    What really concerns me is the fact that the Liberal government is taking that $1,000 out of the pockets of families and spending it elsewhere. More payroll taxes and a carbon tax are the types of things that make our business community uncompetitive. Even though businesses have gained market access to sell all over the world, to Europe in this situation, if they cannot produce effectively and efficiently in Canada at a price that people will pay, then they will have to look at the location of their businesses, which maybe is not in Canada.

    While the Conservative government was very active in pursuing market access and keeping taxes low, why are the Liberals doing only half of a deal? If they are so concerned about the middle class, why do they not let the middle class keep that $1,000 and allow businesses to have a competitive field in Canada, so they can take advantage of the market access they will receive?

    Madam Speaker, we are very much concerned about the middle class and the economy. For that very reason, despite what my learned friend is telling us, we have cut taxes for the middle class. We have provided benefits under the Canada child benefit program. We understand we have to help the middle class. Therefore, I cannot agree with some of the things to which my friend has alluded.

    Madam Speaker, my region has seen raw log exports go up tenfold in 10 years. The government has just removed a 25% tariff for ferries to be built in Canada so they can be built in Poland and Turkey. The Coast Guard is now looking to refit, for the first time ever, outside of Canada. CETA, for the first time, will legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports, which is known as cabotage. This will cost us 3,000 really good Canadian seafaring jobs.

    When I talk to the people in my community about free trade, they get pretty nervous about it. They feel like our resources and their jobs are disappearing for free, and no one is looking out for them. Part of a parliamentarian's job is to safeguard jobs in communities, especially coastal communities, where jobs have disappeared.

    In the previous Parliament, the Liberals agreed with the NDP that there were many outstanding concerns with CETA. Now the Liberal government is ignoring these legitimate concerns. Will the member stand up for coastal British Columbians and people who are worried about cabotage?

    Madam Speaker, in response to my friend across the aisle, I will remind him of the debate on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in the 1980s. He will recall that, at the time, a lot of critics of that agreement told us the sky was falling on our heads. Unlike my colleague, every time I have spoken with constituents about free trade, I think they have understood full well that trade means jobs, better wages, and something of which we should take advantage.

    We are now talking about a market of 500 million people, a market worth $12 trillion. Canadians are happy to see that. They want us to improve our export sector.

    Madam Speaker, it is true that in the debate about NAFTA, the single biggest damaging feature of NAFTA never got mentioned in the debate, which is chapter 11. That same sleeper element of investor-state agreements rests within CETA in Bill C-30.

    Has my friend actually studied the effect of foreign corporations having the right to bring multi-million dollar cases against Canada for actions we take that are not in the interest of protectionism, but are all about the protection of health and safety, and the environment?

    Yes, Madam Speaker, I have examined chapter 11. The member can rest assured that not only NAFTA but the CETA provides government sovereign powers to protect the environment. There is nothing in these agreements that undermines the government's ability to introduce progressive environmental policies.

    Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join this debate. If you will indulge me briefly, I know that my soon to be four-year-old daughter is watching at home, and I want to wish her a happy birthday on her upcoming birthday.

    With respect to the subject at hand, this is a very important agreement for those of us alive today, and indeed for future generations, in terms of the economic opportunities and prosperity it will create. However, I want to speak to the non-economic arguments for free trade in my remarks today.

    We speak often, and many good speeches have been given, about the economic benefits of free trade. Maybe I will have a chance to return to that in the questions and comments period. One of the things we have discussed less and that we should remind ourselves of is that free trade is not just about the economic benefits it creates but also about the opportunity for community that is facilitated by economic exchange, with community among nations, and for the benefits that creates in terms of creating a more peaceful world, and also facilitating more open societies. I believe that open and pluralistic societies should also include economic openness in their understanding of societal openness, and that the kind of openness that is created through free trade reinforces a broader spirit of openness.

    In that vein, I want to introduce for members a bit of the history of, as I see it, trade in the European Union and how that relates to the agreement that is in front of us today.

    John Maynard Keynes, I would argue, is one of the most abused economists in that he is often used as a justification for positions that he did not take. John Maynard Keynes was at the peace agreement at Versailles in 1919. He was there advocating his view that the peace needed to be more generous to Germany but also that it needed to focus on different issues. Many of the powers in Europe at the time were focused on a conversation about borders and security, which entailed an assumption that there would be ongoing competition among nations with respect to things like territory. Keynes' view was that there needed to be a reorientation of the discussion, that rather than this kind of zero-sum game over territory there needed to be a focus on economic prosperity. He thought that having free trade within Europe was critically important because it would create the conditions for a cohesive community, for a community of nations working and prospering together, despite following immediately on the heels of a catastrophic war. This was a very prescient point. He argued that a focus on borders, on security only, without emphasizing the economic dimension, could well create the conditions for what had been history for hundreds of years in Europe, which was ongoing conflict and the harsh and negative manifestations of competition. He advocated free trade. He also advocated a credit program similar to what was brought in after the Second World War in the form of the Marshall Plan. He was quite prescient insofar as he understood that the heavy demands for reparation would lead to inflationary policies. They would lead to inflation as nations tried to respond to the requirements that were put on them.

    During the interwar period, because of a lack of emphasis on the economic dimension, we had serious inflation, we had a decline in trade, and that really set the stage for the rise of totalitarianism and subsequent conflict. Keynes saw these things coming, which is why right after the First World War he wrote a book called The Economic Consequences of the Peace, where he specifically made this argument about the relationship between peace and trade.

    Right after the Second World War there was finally a recognition of some of the insights that Keynes had advocated. What he had proposed in the aftermath of the First World War, what he had proposed in terms of freer trade, as well as a credit program to help European nations get back on their feet, was implemented. This was the basis for the European Union coming out of the Second World War, the sense that a community of nations, especially a trading community, would help ensure peace in Europe.

    There are various other factors that contributed to the period of peace that has existed since the Second World War in Europe, but in general, we can see the wisdom of emphasizing the economic dimension and realizing that free trade creates the conditions for greater peace. This was Keynes's insight, and it is behind a lot of arguments for freer trade today.

     I am not worried that in the absence of this deal we are about to have some kind of military conflict with Europe. However, the point is, as we pursue the expansion of trading relationships between nations, and as part of larger trading blocs, this establishes the conditions in which individuals can focus their passions on economic matters, and there is not the focus instead on the kind of territorial competition that historically was the basis for a lot of warfare in Europe.

    This was the insight, and this is why coming out of that discussion we can see the importance of trade based on that history for two principal reasons: one, that we have a more peaceful world; and two, that there is this relationship between an open economy and open society. A society that is open to economic exchange is also one that is going to have a greater sense of solidarity with people in other countries.

    In terms of this connection with peace, it is a fairly obvious point, but economics is not a zero-sum competition. Canada doing better economically does not mean someone else is doing worse economically. In fact, all of the nations of the world can do better economically together. This is really the advantage of what one might call the valorization of economic success. It is not that economic success should be seen as the most important thing in life, but to the extent that our polities are oriented towards trying to improve economically, those are the kinds of improvement that do not put us into conflict with other states. In other times, in other places, the primary objectives were seen as being territorial expansion, which obviously creates inevitable conflict, because control of territory is a zero-sum game. Also, warfare becomes more economically costly when there is economic interdependence and exchange between countries.

    For Keynes to make these points right after the First World War, I think we can see that he was right to make those points. We can also understand why many in his own time would have been immediately skeptical. Why are we immediately jumping to the discussion of economics rather than looking at the factors that brought us here? Actually, highlighting trade even in the midst of a conflictual world, even in the midst of present tensions, I think is necessary for creating conditions that will build and ensure a lasting peace.

    I want to speak to the relationship between an open economy and an open society. It is fascinating to me that there are members in the House and voices elsewhere who believe very much in an open society and the importance of people from different kinds of backgrounds living together, working together, yet when it comes to economic exchange between people from different kinds of communities and different nations, all of a sudden, that is a problem. It strikes me that there is this clear inconsistency between advocating for open societies, pluralistic societies, but on the other hand always being pessimistic about the prospects of people from different kinds of national communities trading together.

    I am really perplexed by that, especially when we consider that pluralism and multiculturalism are facilitated by trade. The ability to trade with other places really helps facilitate the kind of diversity that we have. Also, by the way, the diversity that we have, the open society we have, creates opportunities for trade, because we have people here who have close connections with nations all over the world. This creates renewed opportunities for economic exchange around the world that benefit our interests.

    These are some of the clear non-economic benefits that come with trade and that are associated with these kinds of trade deals. Because of this, I think it is important for Canada to be a strong voice on the world stage for the open economy. For those of us who believe in the value of peace and open societies, we should also be strong advocates for open and free trade, because that creates the conditions under which nations can prosper together, can see their success invested in the success of others, and indeed develop a deeper sense of solidarity.

    In my remaining time, I want to follow up on some of the comments I have just heard in the debate because we have had some interesting comments from the government members, talking about the importance of opening ourselves up to competition. We have members of one party, the NDP, who do not want to open us up to competition. I get that impression from the kinds of comments that the New Democrats make.

    Madam Speaker, am I out of time? I will have to come to that later.

    I am sorry about that. I should have given the member the one-minute mark.

    Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member across the way has made. I want to underline the importance, and maybe get the member to provide his thoughts, in regard to why we have this wonderful opportunity with this particular pact in passing the legislation, especially given what has been taking place over the last number of months with respect to the U.S. Canada can play a strong leadership role in bringing down barriers in the European Union or the United States. At the end of the day, if we continue to be successful at doing that, we all benefit from it, economically and ultimately socially.

    Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely right that we are at an important time in terms of the global debates around trade, and also global discussions around pluralism and international harmony as well. We have to recognize the connection between those things and yes, Canada can be a strong voice for all of those things, including the open economy.

     I have to say that is why I was somewhat disappointed that immediately after the current President was elected, we had the Prime Minister saying sure, we will renegotiate NAFTA. We need to hear stronger statements from the Prime Minister about the benefit of open trade in the European context, but also how well we have been served by trade over the last few decades here in North America. I know some members of the government are very supportive of that. Other members of the government have made the suggestions of greater skepticism, especially around deals like TPP and the Asia-Pacific. I think trade in the Asia-Pacific as well as with Europe and North America are all very important for ensuring the kinds of benefits that I have talked about.

    Madam Speaker, in the NDP, we actually do support trade. We understand the importance of trade but we want to get it right.

    I live in a rural community, and for decades we have seen wealth and jobs leave rural communities, so we want to get it right this time. To do that, we need to do an economic impact study and a proper analysis so that we can protect communities. We have seen communities disappear along our coast. I talked a bit earlier about the 25% tariff on ferries and how that was just removed with absolutely no economic analysis, no impact study of what it will do for coastal British Columbia.

    Does the member not agree that now is the time to have serious conversations about what it means to pursue trade deals that serve the people's interests over corporate interests, or is it just trade at all costs?

    Madam Speaker, my friend said at the beginning of his question that he is supportive of the idea of trade. Then he criticized this deal on the basis that from his perspective there are some unknowns. A lot of analysis has been done, a lot of conversations have happened and we see a clear benefit in terms of job creation and in terms of benefits to consumers. The reality of open trade on the other hand is that yes, there is a situation created in which there is competition, in which tariffs are removed. We cannot have a trade deal without removing tariffs and therefore there is competition. There is an opportunity for Canadian companies to compete against European companies and benefit from that to the greater benefit for job creation and for consumers.

    It is a bit rich for the New Democrats to say, on the one hand, that they are supportive of trade but, on the other hand, that we cannot possibly have any kind of unknowns or that we cannot possibly expose ourselves to increased competition. It is just part of the reality of a trade deal that those things are necessary.

    Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan gave a very erudite speech and I appreciate his resurrecting of John Maynard Keynes from the Conservative caucus.

    I just wonder if the member distinguishes for himself, as perhaps Nobel Prize-winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz do now, the difference between trade deals that were about breaking down protectionism to allow trade in goods and the new era of deals, like the TPP or CETA, that are more about managing trade, reducing the power of sovereign nations, and expanding the power of transnationals.

    The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, a very brief answer, please.

    Madam Speaker, I am in favour of trade, generally speaking, that is as free as possible. Obviously, I guess the member is getting at the fact that some of these trade deals leave certain barriers in place and have certain exceptions to them. Of course, that is the reality. It is part of the process of negotiation. I think the point has been made about the degree to which certain kinds of deals are as free as they possibly could be.

    However, any time a nation, or really any time anyone, makes a deal, it involves some degree of ceding discretion. If a nation signs on to an agreement, that means it does not have the same level of discretion it had in place. People can hold the provisions of the deal out against them. I think that is just, and that is why we obviously evaluate the provisions of a deal.

    However, the objection of the Green Party is that somehow, when we have an enforcement mechanism in a trade deal, it is a fatal flaw. I just do not agree. I think if we are going to—

    I am sorry. The time is up. It was a brief answer we were looking for.

    Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

     Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their hard work in moving this vital legislation forward.

    The Canadian agriculture sector contributes over $100 billion to Canada's gross domestic product. It generates over $60 billion in exports, and creates one in eight jobs.

    Canada’s food processors employ more Canadians than any other manufacturing industry in the country.

    When it comes to Canada’s trade in agriculture and food, I would like to focus on three key areas: the importance of trade to the sector; export opportunities; and investing to grow markets.

    Canadian farmers and food processors depend on trade. About half of the value of agricultural production in Canada is exported. This includes two-thirds of pork, 80% of canola, and 74% of wheat.

    Canada is the world’s top exporter of canola, flax, pulse crops, and wild blueberries. It is also a top-three exporter of wheat and pork.

    Last year, Canada’s agriculture and food trade hit a new record of over $60 billion.

     Trade helps secure jobs, growth, and opportunities for Canadians and more great food choices for consumers around the world. Trade is a priority for our government, which continues to work hard to open new markets for our farmers and food processors.

    The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently returned from a trade mission to China, along with one hundred industry and government leaders. They were there to promote Canada’s world-class agricultural products and food. China is Canada’s second-largest market for agriculture and food products, valued at over $6 billion.

    Just before the visit, we had tremendous news when the Prime Minister announced an agreement with China to expand market access to frozen bone-in beef from animals less than 30 months of age, ensure stable and predictable Canadian exports of canola to China on an uninterrupted basis through early 2020, and support trade in Canadian pork, bovine genetics, and processed foods.

     Canada and China have set a goal of doubling trade between the two countries by 2025. All of this is great news for Canadian agriculture and great news for Canada. It is the result of a lot of hard work at all levels, by the Prime Minister, by our officials, and by industry. The mission focused on the growing trade in e-commerce, which is a powerful tool for Canadian industry to expand markets in China and build the Canada brand.

    Canada renewed our strategic agreement with JD.com, one of the major platforms for food sales in China. We will keep building the Canada-China relationship. We are also reaching out to other key markets in Asia.

    Asia is an important market for Canadian agriculture and food products, and especially for consumption of animal protein. With over half of the world’s population, these are large economies where incomes, urbanization, consumption, and population are all on the rise. Last year, Canadian agrifood exports to Asia were worth almost $17 billion, close to a third of our total exports.

    Building on our success in China, we have re-established access for Canadian beef in South Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico. We obtained new access for Canadian pork in India and restored access in Russia and Ukraine.

    We are also working closely with Argentina to complete the final steps to regain access for our pork products, as the Prime Minister announced in the fall.

     We will work unstintingly to ratify the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, to diversify trade opportunities and export destinations. The economic agreement will create new markets for our high quality Canadian agrifood products.

     While we support the economic agreement, I can assure you that we understand the situation of Canadian dairy producers who will be facing heightened competition for cheese on the Canadian market. As the father of a young dairy producer, I can assure you that I am very sensitive to that issue. Our government will always stand up for supply management and our milk producers. In fact, that is why the minister and I have announced a $350 million investment to help Canadian dairy producers and processors invest in innovation and make sure the industry stays competitive.

    Our government supports supply management. We have taken steps to address concerns around import predictability and the effectiveness of border controls for supply-managed commodities, while at the same time making sure that Canadian processors who use dairy and poultry inputs stay competitive on export markets.

     The first thing we need, in order to develop new markets, is a world-class product. We also need investments and resources. That is where we have played a role, opening doors for our agrifood product exporters.

     The money we have invested will enable a whole range of industries to capture new global markets, whether for blueberries or for bovine genetics.

     In addition to investments, we are allocating key resources to trade. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s market access secretariat is working with the industry to target priority markets. The trade delegates in the agriculture sector are working non-stop on the ground to promote and develop Canadian trade in the agriculture and food sector. Investments in innovation are also essential, to open and expand markets and meet global demand. In the future, the world’s population will continue to grow and demand for Canadian foods will only continue to rise.

     To help industry seize these opportunities, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is working with his colleagues and the industry to prepare the next strategic framework for agriculture, which will take effect in 2018.

     Together, we are preparing a plan that will allow us to expand agricultural and food exports, create jobs for the sector, including the middle class, and grow Canada’s economy.

     I am optimistic about the future of the agriculture and agrifood sector, an industry with tremendous economic potential. Canadian agrifood exports continue to hit new records every year. Over the next 30 years, global demand for food is expected to grow by 60%.

    Somebody is going to meet that demand, and we want it to be Canadian farmers and food processors. CETA will help us do that.

    The sector projects that CETA will boost our agricultural exports by $1.4 billion per year. That means more money for Canadian farmers and families. We are very proud of this achievement.

    Madam Speaker, I am encouraged listening to my colleague across the aisle talk about agriculture and trade. We have not heard the Liberal Party in years, if not centuries, actually talk about and acknowledge the importance of trade to the agriculture sector.

    I am a little confused. He talked about trade with China, and he talked about CETA and how good that would be, but he did not talk about the TPP or trade with the Asian countries, like Japan, where the TPP would actually gain us market access.

    He may know that the Liberal Party has been involved in stalling the actual signatories to the TPP in this House and in the committee for the last year. Can he tell me if he is ready to go to his party and push forward the TPP so we can actually get more benefits for Canadian farmers?

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

    We are here to debate Bill C-30. What I would like to say today is that the previous government negotiated agreements with respect to the TPP, but that is it not currently working on the file.

    We are ready to listen to farmers and work with them regardless of which opportunities come up in the future. Our government is transparent.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for La Prairie for talking about areas of the Canadian economy that might benefit from this trade deal.

    However, he did not talk about how CETA will, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports, which is called cabotage, and will open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers. This will lead to an estimated loss of 3,000 coastal jobs, high-quality, well-paid jobs, and will indirectly affect 250,000 people. Competitors could come in and undercut Canadians, paying their employees $2 an hour, with low safety standards and poor working conditions.

     In coastal B.C., we have lost tons of jobs. We are seeing communities disappear with the decline in the forest sector. Where are our Liberal MPs in demanding an analysis and a proper economic impact study to protect coastal communities and mariners? We need them to stand up right now. If we do not stand up, we might as well get an eraser and start erasing coastal communities.

     These jobs are important. Would the member talk about what he is going to do, and what the Liberals are going to do, to fight for coastal British Columbians and these important jobs?

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

    As members of the House know, a great deal of trade is going to happen thanks to the comprehensive economic agreement. Of course, we are also listening to certain sectors that might have a different experience than other sectors. As I said, these agreements will boost exports by $1.4 billion and help us create good jobs in this sector.

    Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could continue on the point that there are industries that will in fact benefit.

    One of the industries I have talked a great deal about is the aerospace industry. We have bus manufacturing industries. There are many products, widgets, we will call them, in Canada that will benefit immensely from a broadened market. The EU will in fact broaden the market.

    Would the member provide his thoughts on the benefits of having a larger market for those companies that produce and manufacture products and provide good-quality jobs? We will see better and more opportunities for many of those companies, both small and large businesses.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

    Indeed, thanks to this agreement, many jobs will be created in the sectors my colleague just mentioned.

    I would like to come back to agriculture. We know that Canada will be importing a little more cheese, but we will be exporting huge amounts of pork and beef. We have some agricultural products that my not be well known but are appreciated all over the country. I used the example of maple syrup and wild blueberries. These are going to be value-added products with access to a much larger market.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about CETA, the Canada-European comprehensive economic and trade agreement.

    I would like members to think about 500 million people, a $20 trillion economy, and the opportunity this agreement is presenting to Canada right now. If there was ever a time to diversify, to reach out to the rest of the world, to open up new trade agreements, this is the time. I am delighted that we are doing this.

    I was lucky to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade through its review of Bill C-30 and heard from a variety of stakeholders. While expanding trade to create new opportunities for Canadian businesses abroad, this agreement is about more than just trade and investment. The Canada-EU agreement, CETA, is a major landmark in the development of a progressive trade agreement, which our government is firmly committed to advancing. Notably, CETA includes robust commitments to promote high environmental and labour standards, and promote sustainable development, as Canada and the EU benefit from increased economic activity flowing from a liberalized trade zone.

    Let me begin by speaking about the environmental provisions in CETA.

    Canada's rich natural resources and environment are essential to our high standard of living and quality of life. Our government is firmly committed to the principle that a clean environment and a strong economy must go hand in hand.

    Trade liberalization and environmental protection should be mutually supportive. Fostering robust environmental governance as our trade relationships expand is critical to ensuring long-term sustainable economic growth and well-being. This is all reflected in CETA. Underpinning this is the fact that we have many shared values with the European community, the shared values of freedom, democracy, peace, and human rights.

    Specifically, through ambitious and comprehensive environmental commitments set out in the trade and environment chapter, Canada and the EU agree to pursue high levels of environmental protection to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws and to not relax or derogate from such laws in order to encourage trade or investment. Canada and the EU have also agreed to ensure transparency and public awareness and engagement in the development and implementation of environmental laws and policies. In addition, the environment chapter requires that each party ensures that appropriate and effective domestic processes and remedies are available to address any violations of its domestic environmental laws. A public accountability mechanism also allows for members of the public to raise concerns and make submissions related to the trade and environment chapter.

    Recognizing the value of international co-operation, and in addressing environmental challenges, Canada and the EU reaffirmed their commitments to implement the multi-lateral environmental agreements that we have ratified, such as the historic Paris agreement to combat climate change.

    In addition, CETA includes provisions to reinforce the relationship between trade and the environment. For example, Canada and the EU undertake to promote trade and investment in environmental goods and services. This includes special attention to goods and services of particular relevance for climate change mitigation. Moreover, the trade and environment chapter includes specific commitments for Canada and the EU to promote sustainable forestry and fisheries management. This includes co-operation to address issues such as illegal forestry and illegal unreported fishing.

    To build on and strengthen our bilateral relationship, the trade and environment chapter establishes a framework for co-operation between Canada and the EU on trade-related environmental issues of shared interest. Should any issue arise under the trade and environment chapter, a dedicated government-to-government mechanism has been created to address the matter through consultations and dispute settlement. This includes review by an independent panel of experts whose recommendations would be made publicly available.

     With this robust and high-quality trade and environment chapter, Canada and the EU have demonstrated our shared commitment to upholding and strengthening environmental protection as we enhance our trade and investment partnership.

    For Canada, this reflects the strong priority that this government places on protecting and conserving the environment both at home and on the global stage. For example, we are very proud to have recently ratified the historic Paris agreement to address climate change. Closely following this, together with our international partners, we came to an important agreement to amend the 1987 Montreal protocol to phase down hydrofluorocarbons, which represents a significant step in combatting climate change.

    At home, our government is working with the provinces and territories to develop a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This represents our strong commitment to taking action for a sustainable future and transitioning to a clean-growth economy. The trade and environmental chapter in CETA advances the objectives of Canada's progressive trade agenda. The implementation of this chapter will promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth as we continue to facilitate opportunities for Canadian businesses abroad.

    Likewise, the trade and labour chapter of CETA reflects Canada's commitment to progressive trade policies. Canada and the EU have committed to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1988 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which covers the elimination of child labour, forced labour, discrimination, the respect of freedom of association, and the right to bargain collectively. Canada and the European Union have also committed to effectively implementing the fundamental ILO conventions that each has ratified, and to make continued, sustained efforts toward ratification of fundamental conventions that have not been ratified to date.

    To further protect the rights of workers, Canada and the EU have also committed to ensuring acceptable protections in regard to health and safety at work, acceptable minimum employment standards, and non-discrimination in respect of working conditions, particularly for those migrant workers. The chapter also includes provisions that enable members of the public to submit complaints concerning perceived failures to respecting labour obligations. This is a very progressive move, one that sets a gold standard for the rest of the world to look to.

    These important commitments to CETA's environment and labour chapters are complemented and reinforced by a trade and sustainable development chapter. CETA marks the first time that Canada has negotiated a chapter on sustainable development in a free trade agreement. It is the first time. This chapter highlights Canada and the EU's shared objective that international trade should be developed in a way that promotes sustainable development and its environmental, social, and economic aspects. In support of this goal, it establishes commitments in areas such as encouraging businesses to adopt voluntary practices of corporate social responsibility. The trade and sustainable development chapter also commits the parties to review, monitor, and assess the impact of the implementation of CETA on our sustainable development. As well, it establishes a committee on trade and sustainable development to oversee the implementation of this chapter, as well as those on the environment and labour.

    Finally, recognizing the importance of public participation and consultation, Canada and the EU agreed to innovative approaches to engaging with civil society through the creation of a joint civil society forum. This forum will conduct a dialogue on issues related to trade and sustainable development in the context of CETA.

    This is an ambitious and comprehensive commitment that we have made on the environment, on labour, and on sustainable development. CETA marks a key milestone for progressive trade. This agreement supports this government's firm resolve that free trade must not come at the expense of high environmental and labour standards, but rather advance sustainable and inclusive growth and development for all Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech, his hard work on the international trade committee, and for talking about public consultation.

    The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party often talk about there being no relationship more important to the Government of Canada than that with Canada's indigenous people. They promised that they would do all economic development on the condition and on the foundation of principles of consultation, accommodation, and consent.

    Has the Government of Canada had consent from Canada's aboriginal people on this trade deal?

    Madam Speaker, I am so proud of this agreement. The reason I am proud is that we have worked with all of our partners. We have worked with indigenous peoples. We have worked with the provinces and territories. This is the way to construct an agreement, by bringing everyone on board. That is why it has been so comprehensive.

    We have heard from all stakeholders. That is very unlike the way things worked with the TPP. This is the way to construct an agreement, by listening to all people. The indigenous peoples have been listened to at the provincial level and the federal level.

    I spoke to the labour standards, the environmental standards, and the sustainable development standards. This is the type of agreement we can all be proud of and will be moving forward with.

    Madam Speaker, in general thrust, I agree with the member, although it is interesting to hear the Liberals try to twist themselves in contortions talking about how the Canada-EU trade deal we negotiated was good, but on the TPP deal we negotiated, we are actually not sure what they think.

    Many members of the government have talked about the importance of more open trade. What is the member's view of trade in the Asia-Pacific? Does the government have a plan? Does it have an agenda when it comes to increasing our trade relationships with like-minded democracies in the Asia-Pacific area, like Australia, New Zealand, and Japan? Does it have a plan, and what is that plan?

    Madam Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-30 and CETA. The member brought up the TPP. The former regime did not consult when it brought forward the TPP. It was very closed in the exercise of working on the TPP. We took a different approach. It was one of transparency, of openness, and of reaching out to stakeholders.

    As I mentioned in my previous answer to another member, this is the way to do things, in an open and transparent way, speaking with all stakeholders, with the provinces and territories, and with indigenous peoples, rather than, as the previous government did, in a cloud of secrecy. It ensures that Canadians know that whatever decision we make in the House is to the benefit of all Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, it is very common in this debate to hear members proclaim, as though it were an actual fact, that investor-state agreements do not challenge the environment and do not erode our environmental laws, but the reality, the track record, is entirely to the contrary. We have had laws that protected us from toxic gasoline additives actually repealed in the House of Commons based on a chapter 11 investor-state dispute, when Canada did nothing wrong in terms of the evidence, the science. We just cost profits to a U.S.-based corporation.

    Because of that agreement, this deal will continue to face opposition in the European Union. I ask the hon. member if the government would consider, even at this point, recognizing that passage of the trade elements of CETA will continue to be impaired by the presence of investor-state dispute resolutions, which would give corporations superior power to government.

    Madam Speaker, the member is quite right. In the past, many times, investor-state dispute mechanisms have been done very poorly. Many stakeholders, individuals, corporations, and countries have been caught on the short end of the stick. That is why so much time and effort was put into a progressive approach, which has been deemed the gold standard of investor-state dispute mechanisms, within CETA. It was one of the things Canada and the European Union grappled with, ensuring that this would be a standard that all could look to. We feel we have struck the right balance.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on a previous question about the issue of consultation. We are talking about the Canada-EU free trade deal, but I know, if he does not, that the structure for consultation for trade deals is fundamentally the same across trade deals. It involves inviting stakeholders to have an opportunity to have input, provided they do not release information publicly while those discussions are going on. Obviously, it involves negotiations not taking place in public.

    If the member is comfortable with the amount of consultation that happened under the Canada-EU free trade deal, but is not comfortable with what happened under the TPP, does he not acknowledge that the process followed was actually the same?

    Madam Speaker, if the member were to do a study on the TPP from start to finish, and we are not sure where that finish will be, and the CETA agreement, and did a compare and contrast, he would see that they are night and day.

     With the TPP, it was very much behind closed doors. It was an agreement that was done, for the most part, in secrecy. CETA was open to the public. The public was quite aware of what was going on with CETA. There was much more partnership with the provinces and territories. Everybody had to come on board with this agreement to bring this agreement to fruition. That was not the case with the TPP.

    Madam Speaker, today Canada celebrates Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's Sapphire Jubilee and Her Majesty's outstanding service to the Canadian people.

    Today we are honouring a sovereign who inspired hope and confidence in an entire population at a very difficult time during the post-war period. Her Majesty's reign has been exemplary for the past 65 years, the longest reign in the history of the British Crown.

    Each visit by Her Majesty to Canada touched the hearts and minds of millions. Along with my fellow Albertans, we will always remember Her Majesty's 2005 visit to Alberta to mark the province's 100th anniversary.

    As we reflect on our history throughout Canada's 150th birthday, we also mark and honour the story of our amazing monarch. God save the Queen.

    Long live Her Majesty the Queen.

    Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to some regular folks who, once again, rose to the occasion and showed the very best of what it means to be Canadian.

    During a two-day blizzard in the middle of December, the Trans-Canada Highway was closed, and dozens upon dozens of travellers and truckers were stranded in the town of Virden. After the hotels were full, the town opened its doors and provided food and shelter to those in need. In fact, one of those stranded travellers was renowned Canadian artist Tom Jackson, who put on an impromptu concert to make the best of a bad situation.

    In particular, I would like to recognize the mayor and town staff, Westman Emergency Group, the Virden RCMP detachment, the Wallace District Fire Department, Prairie Mountain Health, and especially, people in the town of Virden, who showed great compassion to those who were stranded.

    On behalf of all members in the House, I salute each and every one of those people who helped and for proving, once again, why the word “friendly” is not just another word on a licence plate in Manitoba.

    Madam Speaker, I am rising in the House today to recognize a young man from my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets, who, at 11 years old, started a charity to raise money and distribute supplies for people experiencing homelessness and precarious living situations.

    Adam Graves, of Brookside, Nova Scotia, spearheaded an effort to raise almost $2,000 and distribute 175 gift bags and Christmas gifts to people in vulnerable situations across Halifax at the beginning of the winter. He was supported by Hope Cottage in Halifax. Adam does not do this for the recognition, but I hope that his actions can inspire others in our communities to see what a difference one person's actions can make.

    I ask the House to join me in congratulating Adam and all young leaders across the country working hard and volunteering to make a difference in other people's lives.

    Madam Speaker, February marks the beginning of the Nisga'a nation's new year. The Nisga'a Ts'amiks Vancouver Society hosted the Hobiyee festival at the PNE in Vancouver East in celebration of the waxing crescent moon this weekend. Hobiyee is celebrated wherever Nisga'a people live.

    Over 650 performers from eight large first nations dance groups came to celebrate the strength, beauty, and diversity of indigenous cultures. It was a magnificent sight to behold: to feel the beat of the drums, to see the silhouettes of the dancers, and to listen to the power of the traditional songs. Hobiyee in Vancouver allows aboriginal peoples living in a concrete jungle to connect with their culture and traditions. Chief Joe Gosnell opened the festival.

    The Nisga'a people's journey to reclaim their right to self-govern exemplifies the first people's resilience. As we celebrate our nation's 150th birthday, would it not be something if Parliament also adopted Bill C-262, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act?

    New beginnings, Hobiyee.

    Mr. Speaker, during this Teacher Appreciation Week in Quebec, I would like to thank all the educators in my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis for their dedication to providing our West Island youth with the knowledge, skills, and vision needed to build productive lives and make meaningful contributions to our community and country.

    It quickly becomes apparent to anyone who is concerned about the problems in the world today that education is key to solving them.

    Teachers not only share and imbue important facts and ideas, they encourage critical thinking so that their students can be equipped for the road to intellectual discovery and self-knowledge, but first, they create a passion for learning.

    I sincerely hope that this week will give all teachers in Quebec the well-deserved opportunity to reflect, with pride and satisfaction, on the important role they play in the everyday lives of students and their families.

    I am proud to have been a teacher at one point in my career, and particularly proud that we have a former teacher leading our Liberal government as Prime Minister of our great nation.

    Mr. Speaker, last week one of the local journalists in my riding asked in his column, “Do you really think our communities would be better with no newspapers, TV or radio news? Do you really want our only news authority to be click bait?”

     I, for one, do not. Frankly, I miss our local Kamloops Daily News. It was one of many long-established small-town newspapers that disappeared overnight after more than 83 years.

     Along with the death of the local paper, we have seen the consolidation of major national papers, local TV news vanishing, and respected journalists leaving the profession entirely. The direct correlation between digital technology and the death of quality journalism cannot be understated.

    We are at a crossroads. Technology will not be reversed, but the important role journalists play in our society can no longer be diminished. It is time for all of us to spend some time thinking about how government, society, and our democracy will be held accountable in the era of fake news.

    Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of the 27th International Development Week.

    This week is an opportunity to communicate with our constituents about how Canadian investments are making a difference in the lives of the most vulnerable in our society, to highlight the program partners, and to speak to local development organizations in our ridings.

    Our borders do not shield us from climate change, disease and epidemics, or the fallout from conflict. However, our assistance does help developing countries and fragile states to better protect the environment, strengthen health systems, and limit the flow of refugees and displaced peoples. The countries that we support today will be our economic partners tomorrow.

    Throughout the week, we should highlight Canada's work via the hashtags #WhyitMatters and #IDW2017.

    Happy International Development Week.

    Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick was hard hit by an ice storm that left over 133,000 people without power at the height of the crisis. The bulk of the outages occurred in my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, more specifically in the Acadian peninsula, where over 23,000 people were left without electricity, many of them for more than 12 days.

    I am extremely pleased to rise in this House to inform all members of some very good news. As of today, power has been restored to every home in the province of New Brunswick.

    I particularly want to thank the line workers from NB Power and those from other provinces who came to help out, the Emergency Measures Organization, the municipalities, the local service districts, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Province of New Brunswick for its leadership, the neighbouring communities for their assistance, and the many volunteers who helped all those in need.

    I have never been more proud of the people of New Brunswick, and specifically my riding. I was overwhelmed to witness such generosity.

    Mr. Speaker, as we mark Black History Month here in Canada, we consider and celebrate the contributions of black Canadians, and we also recognize the suffering and the challenges confronting black people throughout the world.

    Today, I draw the attention of members to the situation in Sudan, where religious and ethnic minorities continue to face severe abuses. In January, President Obama announced a plan to lift some sanctions and start to normalize relations with that country, in spite of the fact that the Sudanese president is wanted by the ICC for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

    Some take the view that “progress” has been made in Sudan; however, the ongoing persecution of minorities stands in stark contrast to these claims. Sudanese pastors Hassan Abduraheem Kodi Taour, and Kuwa Shamal, along with Abdulmonem Abdumawla Issa Abdumawla, and Czech national Petr Jasek, were recently given long prison sentences in response to their Christian activities.

    The international community must hold the line on human rights in Sudan until we see real change. Releasing these four men would send a very positive signal.

    Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Canadian School Counselling Week, I acknowledge and express my gratitude to an important group of dedicated people who work tirelessly with children, youth, and their families.

     Approximately one in seven Canadian children and youth suffers from some form of mental disorder that diminishes his or her opportunities for educational success. Fortunately, there are professional people who interact every day with our youth and work to improve scholastic performance and the overall mental health of our youth.

     I urge members of this House to join me in celebrating Canadian School Counselling Week and to recognize the work of school counsellors at learning institutions all across Canada, including schools in my riding of Richmond Hill, namely, Alexander Mackenzie High School, Bayview Secondary School, Langstaff Secondary School, and Jean Vanier Catholic High School.

    Our children and youth owe these counsellors our heartfelt appreciation.

    Mr. Speaker, on June 13, 1898, the great Yukon Territory was created, becoming one of the 13 provinces and territories that form our Confederation.

    This week is the annual Yukon Days, where along with the cultural component, Yukon ministers, chiefs, and other leaders come to Ottawa to meet their federal counterparts. I extend a huge Ottawa welcome to the premier, grand chief, ministers, and chiefs who are here today, and a big shout-out to all of the federal ministers who have been able to schedule appointments with them.

    The Yukon government and chiefs should be commended for their innovative, pioneering leadership in having these meetings together with a one government approach.

    For those Canadians who cannot enjoy the great Yukon hospitality at the big bash tonight, I encourage them to come to Whitehorse in 17 days to enjoy the greatest winter carnival, the Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous. Barring that, they should come next summer to enjoy the culture of our 14 first nations, the highest mountains in North America, many museums, the Klondike gold rush, the world's longest salmon run, and many music festivals and races.

    Mr. Speaker, victims of human trafficking, mostly women and girls, are coerced into providing sexual services while their perpetrators profit.

    The Harper government implemented a national action plan to combat human trafficking focused on prevention, the protection of victims, and the prosecution of offenders. The Liberals have allowed this plan to end without as much as a whimper. Now the Liberals are preparing to remove much needed safeguards by repealing the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.

     How can the Prime Minister claim to be a feminist while considering legislation that would lead to the exploitation of the most vulnerable? The Liberals should not be thinking of repealing legislation that protects vulnerable women, but should be giving law enforcement across the country more tools for apprehension and conviction. Victim services need more resources, and the government needs to fund safe houses and long-term restoration if it really wants to demonstrate that it cares for these victimized women and girls.

    Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege of visiting the communities of Pond Inlet and Iqaluit, Nunavut. There I met with Inuit youth at the Piruvik Centre, and Nassivik and Inuksuk schools, outstanding youth leaders and mentors such as Shelly Elverum from Ikaarvic, Maatalii Okalik, and Prime Minister's youth council member Rachel Smale.

    I also met with young entrepreneurs like Michael Milton, a former Inspire Nunavut program participant. All of these young people shared their thoughts on the challenges facing youth in the far north and the innovative ways that we can work together to overcome those challenges.

    I was also privileged to see first-hand state-of-the-art research under way by the incredible team at Memorial University's SmartICE project, who are developing groundbreaking new ways to monitor and map sea ice, a technology which members know is invaluable to northern communities.

    For their warmth and hospitality, and the fact that they broke out a highly prized stash of caribou meat, I say qujannamiik, and I hope to see them again soon.

    Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the middle class. Every time the Prime Minister has to defend a cynical decision, he brings up the middle class.

    He sets up billionaires' special access clubs for the middle class. He supports a Saudi arms deal for the middle class. He gives tax cuts to bankers and cabinet ministers for the middle class.

    Is the Prime Minister oblivious to what is happening to the middle class? Where is the plan to deal with higher student debt, the lack of affordable housing, or the decline in the number of permanent jobs? Those are the real needs of the middle class.

    The middle class is being had by this government's economic policies. We are going to provide the middle class and the working class with a real alternative.

    Mr. Speaker, on Friday night, I attended an event at the University of Toronto, highlighting the plight of Canadian resident Saeed Malekpour. Saeed has been imprisoned by the Iranian regime for over eight years after he travelled to his birthplace to visit his dying father. He has been threatened with violence, tortured, and humiliated. His basic human rights have been violated, and continue to be violated.

    Sadly, the Liberal government, in its rush to legitimize this criminal rogue state, has forgotten this Canadian resident, whose liberty has been stolen. In the past year, the previous minister of foreign affairs did nothing to move his case forward. According to his sister Maryam, he has been able to keep himself busy with art and exercise. However, the lack of action by the government is deafening.

    As we wait to see whether the new minister, like her predecessor, will rush to appease Iran, she needs to remember that Canada has always stood up against those who violate human rights. Will she commit to making the opening of relations with Iran contingent on the release of Mr. Malekpour?

    Mr. Speaker, 400 years ago, Mathieu da Costa was the first black man to set foot on what is now Canadian soil.

    From that day to this one, from forced to free migration, black Canadians have contributed greatly to the cultural, social, and economic prosperity of Canada.

    I rise today to invite all Canadians to learn more about our country by taking part in Black History Month activities. Today, a delegation of black leaders is joining parliamentarians of all political stripes to ensure that black people may continue to leave their mark on Canada and around the world.

    Tonight, hundreds of proud black Canadians will gather at the Museum of History in my riding of Hull—Aylmer to celebrate the long road from which we came, and the even longer and wider roads ahead. Tonight, we may celebrate the past, but let me assure members that the best is yet to come.

    I wish everyone a happy Black History Month.

    Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, research revealed that when a woman or girl was raped in our country, her chances of being believed or being able to pursue justice were inadequate.

    I volunteered at a rape crisis centre, and one of the most difficult decisions a woman makes is whether or not to go to the police. We need to make that decision easier.

    Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that RCMP front-line officers have the training needed to give these women and girls confidence to pursue justice?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. Gender-based violence and sexual assault is unacceptable. We are doing everything we can to try to change something that is, as was pointed out, as we have known for a long time, far too pervasive in our society.

    The way we support victims and survivors of sexual assault, the way we fight against gender-based violence, the way we change our institutions are all things that we are working on, not just with the Minister of Status of Women but indeed all of government, in an approach to make sure we put an end to this.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an uncertain time for our economy and an anxious time for our workers.

    The U.S. President is looking to renegotiate NAFTA. By cutting regulations and lowering taxes, the Americans are putting their companies and workers at a competitive advantage over ours.

    The Prime Minister's current plans to raise taxes and increase regulations will send our jobs south. Will he change course in the budget?

    Mr. Speaker, we have lowered taxes for the middle class by raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We have put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families by giving monthly child benefits that are non-taxable and more generous than what the previous government did, by not sending child benefits to the wealthiest families.

    We continue to look for ways Canada can create good jobs by engaging in the global marketplace, creating opportunities for our young people, and creating the kind of economic growth that Canadians did not have for too many years under the previous government.

    Mr. Speaker, three-quarters of everything we make and sell goes to the United States. The Prime Minister keeps saying that everything will be okay, but the truth is millions of jobs are being targeted by the U.S. administration: our farmers, our forestry workers, and our steel manufacturers.

    When will the Prime Minister show us a plan to protect our workers?

    Mr. Speaker, for the past months, we have been engaging with the new American administration to highlight that, yes, millions of Canadian jobs depend on a close relationship with the United States, but also millions of American middle-class jobs depend on a close trade relationship with Canada. Thirty-five different American states have Canada as their number one export destination.

    Our economies are integrated like no other two countries in the world. We will continue to defend Canadian jobs, defend opportunities for the middle class on both sides of the border, and create a better future for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, as we know, the new U.S. President is going to cut red tape and taxes to help boost his country's economy.

    The Liberals can talk about what they did last year, but we know that their efforts did not yield results because no full-time jobs were created. What will the Prime Minister's real plan for the future be? I am not talking about what has been done, but what they are going to do given the new government in the United States.

    Mr. Speaker, for many months, we have been in contact with the new government to point out just how integrated our two economies are and how millions of jobs on both sides of the border depend on open trade between our two countries. We will continue to work hard to create opportunities for small, medium-sized, and big businesses, and to have success in research, innovation, and green energy in Canada. We know that Canada faces enormous challenges in the years to come, but it also has considerable advantages. That is what we are working on.

    Mr. Speaker, according to an internal document by the new U.S. government transition team, Canada and the United States are far from reaching a deal on softwood lumber. We know that the United States needs to import wood. It is not self-sufficient. It needs 30% more wood to keep building its houses and keep its own carpenters, electricians, and plumbers employed. That should not hurt Canada.

    Why is the government unable to get that message across? Because this government is unable to prove to the United States that it needs that wood.

    Mr. Speaker, we came to power 15 months ago, and every time I have met with the U.S. president since then, we have talked about this issue. In recent months, with the new U.S. government, we have continued to pay special attention to this issue and the good jobs that depend on forestry across the country.

    We will continue to work with the Americans on this important issue to ensure the stability of jobs in communities across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, we all remember when the Prime Minister, hand on heart, looked longingly into the eyes of Canadians and promised them all that he would be different, that he was not like the old Liberal Party, promising anything to get elected but then once in, betraying that very promise. What ever happened to that guy? We hardly even got to know him.

     All the evidence shows that proportional representation not only ensures that every vote counts, it helps elect more women and encourages parties to work together in the national interest.

    When will the Prime Minister finally stop all the fearmongering and admit what everybody knows to be true, that the only reason he broke his promise to Canadians on electoral reform was because it was not in the interest of the Liberal Party?

    Mr. Speaker, we took this issue very seriously and consulted broadly with Canadians. We talked about this issue, and saw the extent to which there were very many strongly held, divergent views on this issue. We worked very hard on this, but it was clear there was no consensus, that there was no responsible path forward. That is the decision we have made.

    Mr. Speaker, we would think the Prime Minister would at least have the decency to blush when he is breaking his promise to Canadians so blatantly, and could at least take that slightly smug look off his face. The way I was raised was that when people broke their word to Canadians, they would find the courage to apologize, which the Prime Minister has yet to do.

     Just eight weeks ago, the Prime Minister said, “I make promises because I believe in them”. On consensus, he said that he had heard “loudly and clearly that Canadians want a better system of governance”.

    After such obvious deception, how can anyone believe the Prime Minister ever again?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians want improvement in their democracy, absolutely. That is why we are moving forward on many things to repeal sections of the unfair elections act brought in by the previous government, why we are making sure that we are protecting Canadians from cybersecurity attacks, and why we are moving forward in many ways to improve our democracy.

    However, on changing the way we vote in elections, it was clear there was no consensus. There are strongly held, highly divergent views. There was no responsible way to move forward, so we are looking for other ways to improve our democracy.

    Mr. Speaker, here is a quote for you: “I make promises because I believe in them. I’ve heard loudly and clearly that Canadians want a better system of governance, a better system of choosing our governments, and I’m working very hard so that 2015 is indeed the last election under first-past-the-post. Canadians elect governments to do hard things and don’t expect us to throw up our hands when things are a little difficult. No, I’m sorry, that’s not the way I was raised.”

    Who said that? It was the Prime Minister, on December 2, 2016.

    Has he forgotten how he was raised?

    Mr. Speaker, I was raised to consider what is best for the country, to serve it and its citizens in the way they deserve to be served.

    That means growing the middle class and helping those working hard to join it. That also means improving our democracy. We have put forward a number of things that we are going to do to improve our democracy. The reality of electoral reform is that it is clear that there was no consensus and no responsible way to move forward with this commitment.

    Mr. Speaker, if you smell something burning, do not worry; that is just the pants of the Prime Minister on fire.

    Since the Prime Minister has gone back on his word on electoral reform—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please. Members are certainly entitled to ask difficult and tough questions, but they know they cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Therefore, I invite the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to rephrase his question.

    Mr. Speaker, I will gladly rephrase my question.

    Since the Prime Minister broke his promise on electoral reform, many people have reacted with indignation, which is perfectly normal. People are feeling duped. A lot of people are saying they will never vote for the Liberal Party ever again. That is not surprising.

    However, what is even more troubling is that young people who voted for the first time last year are saying that they will never vote again, because they are disgusted by politics.

    Was that the Prime Minister's plan all along, to make young people even more cynical?

    Mr. Speaker, we are doing things for Canada's youth that have never been done before by any government. For instance, we are increasing funding for post-secondary scholarships so that young people do not have to pay back their student loans until they are earning at least $25,000.

    We are transforming the way we are preparing our young people for the future. That is what young people talk to me about when I visit them and during town hall meetings.

    Mr. Speaker, last year, I filed an Order Paper question, asking if Finance Canada had an analysis of the impact of the carbon tax on low-income families. The department responded with nothing, suggesting it had done no such analysis.

     However, a note to the deputy minister of finance, obtained through access to information, refers to a table that estimates the impact of the carbon price “across earnings groups”. That table is broken down by income quintile, however, all the numbers are blacked out.

    Why is the government blacking out and covering the impact of its carbon tax on the poorest Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about the impact of the taxes we have actually reduced for Canadian families. I am pleased to talk about the impact on Canadian families of the introduction of the Canada child benefit. Those specific numbers are important: for the single family, with a reduction in middle-class taxes, $330 more for that person this year; for the family, a $540 reduction in taxes; for the nine out of 10 families that got the Canada child benefit, an average of $2,300 more per year after taxes.

    These are very important measures. We know that together with the efforts we are making on the environment we can make a real difference for Canadian—

    The hon. member for Carleton.

    Mr. Speaker, the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. That is why I asked how this carbon tax would impact the poorest Canadians.

    At first, the government said, “No such data exists.” Then it said, “It exists; we just don't want to tell you what it says.” Is that the current position of the government, that it wants to keep secret from Canadians, the most vulnerable Canadians, those with the least, the impact of this heavy new carbon tax on heat, hydro, gas, and electricity? Is that what it meant when it promised it wanted to help those trying to join the middle class?

    Mr. Speaker, we meant exactly what we said. We want to help those trying to join the middle class and those in the middle class. That is why our policies have been specifically directed to help those who are most vulnerable in our society, to help middle-class Canadians to be in a better situation. We have done it in myriad ways. We have done it through tax reductions. We have done it through the introduction of the Canada child benefit.

    We have helped lower-income and middle-income students to have 50% more money for grants for university. Also, we have helped those most vulnerable in our society, seniors who are below the poverty line, with a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors.

    We are making a real difference, in particular, for those most—

    The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

    Mr. Speaker, for more than two months, we, the Conservatives, have been pressing the government to not tax health and dental insurance.

    Tomorrow, in a vote, the Liberal government will have the opportunity to acknowledge that we are right. However, there is still cause for concern because the government is eyeing other things with its voracious appetite, such as pension splitting. For Conservatives, this is non-negotiable because it affects 2.5 million Canadians.

    Can the Minister of Finance give us assurances today that he will not touch this vital policy, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, in our 2016 budget, we introduced our plan to improve the situation of the middle class and those who want to join it, and that plan has all the measures that really help Canadian families.

    In budget 2017, we will continue with our plan. It will be very important for us. We will find ways to strengthen the middle class and our budget will contain very important measures to that end.

    Mr. Speaker, the question was crystal clear. Yes or no? Again and again, the minister dodges the issue. This is the House of Commons. This is not the Los Angeles Dodger Stadium. Could he answer that?

    The question is quite clear. I will ask it in English this time. Would the minister indicate to the House that 2.5 million Canadians will not be touched because the government does not intend to cut the pension income splitting, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much clearer I can be.

    Our first budget reduced taxes on Canadians, helped middle-class Canadians, helped those most vulnerable. That is our program.

    As we move forward with our budget 2017, which I remind members is not actually today, we will be talking about how we can continue in our efforts to help Canadians, to help middle-class Canadians, to help those most vulnerable.

    It will be a meaningful continuation of our agenda, important for Canadians across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, last week the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the Liberals were short-changing communities across Canada by $9 billion in infrastructure and 96% of the announced projects were not under construction. Now we learn that construction companies are shutting down. The CEO of Keystone Excavating said, “2016 was the worst year we've ever had in 35 years.” The projects are not being built and the jobs are not being created.

     Will the minister commit today to getting the money out before the spring construction season begins, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, we have approved more funding in the last year than the previous government did in five years combined, 1,200 projects with a combined investment in partnership with municipalities and provinces, $14 billion together, and almost 60% of those projects are currently under way, creating opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

    Mr. Speaker, this is the Liberal logic: they put Canadians' money into different programs and they tell themselves that, like the budget, it will all balance itself out. That is not how it works. After the government announced with great fanfare that it was going to invest $13.6 billion in infrastructure in 2016, we have now learned that the Liberals invested only $4.6 billion. My question is simple.

    Where is the $9 billion that was supposed to be invested in infrastructure projects for municipalities across Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, let me quote some figures: 83 projects for British Columbia with a combined investment of $2.4 billion; 57 projects for the province of Quebec with a combined investment of $1.5 billion; 127 projects for the province of Alberta with a combined investment of $4.2 billion, and the list goes on.

    As I said earlier, we have approved more funding for provinces and municipalities in the last year than the previous government did in five years combined.

    Mr. Speaker, an internal U.S. briefing note indicates the Trump administration will target Canada's dairy supply management system and our softwood lumber industry. Instead of assuring Canadians that jobs in these key sectors will be protected, the Liberals have sent Brian Mulroney to act as Canada's intermediary. Mr. Mulroney is the architect of the flawed NAFTA deal and just last week he called for the elimination of supply management.

    Will the government stand up to Trump and fight for Canadian jobs? Will it commit today that supply management will not be on the table?

    Mr. Speaker, our government fully supports our dairy farmers and our supply management system. It is our party that fought hard to implement supply management and I can assure the House that we will protect and defend it. Canada's supply management system is a model for the world.

     I can assure the House that there is a great future in the dairy industry and the manufacturing sector with the investments this government is making.

     Mr. Speaker, the Liberals asked Brian Mulroney to open a dialogue with the Trump administration for the renegotiation of NAFTA.

    In 2014, the former prime minister gave a really frightening speech in which he recommended that our supply management system be dismantled and abolished. Last Thursday, he gave another similar speech saying that we should learn from New Zealand and Australia.

    Canadians want the government to defend our supply management system. Can the government confirm today that it will defend our supply management system, and will the government tell us why it is sending a Conservative who does not believe in our supply management system—

    The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    Mr. Speaker, it is hard to say it much more clearly. We have consulted dairy farmers and dairy processors around this country for the last number of months. We have invested $350 million to make sure that dairy farmers and the processing sector in this country are innovative.

    The Liberal Party worked hard to put the supply management system in place and this government will make sure that we support the supply management system.

    Mr. Speaker, everywhere the Liberals go they create chaos and corruption. The Ontario Liberal energy policy has devastated investment in Ontario. It has become so bad that even rich Liberals cannot stand it any longer.

    We have learned that the federal agriculture minister's chief of staff is turning her back on Ontario. She is building her new egg operations in Quebec because energy costs are half as much.

    With this kind of impact on agriculture, why is the Prime Minister forcing Kathleen Wynne's disastrous energy policies on the rest of Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, I answered this question many times in the House. My chief of staff is a very well-recognized lady, well respected in her community and honoured in her community. I hope and I am sure that the member does not want to indicate to the House or to this country that my chief of staff does nothing but promote agriculture in this country.

    Mr. Speaker, chaos and corruption follow them. The Grain Commission is an important part of western Canadian agriculture overseeing grain quality. It has always been run by appointees who knew and understood agriculture. Now the Liberals are making it a dumping ground for patronage. The latest appointment is noticeable only for his lack of qualifications. Lonny McKague's credentials are that he knows the public safety minister and he is a failed Liberal candidate.

    Why is the minister putting Liberal patronage ahead of western Canadian grain producers?

    Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware and the House is well aware, this government took a new approach to Governor in Council appointments and we are putting in place new Canadian grain commissioners who would benefit the sector, stand up for grain farmers, and deliver results to the industry. My hon. colleague is well aware of who was appointed. He also is well aware of how qualified the people who were appointed are and will do nothing but be an asset to the Canadian Grain Commission.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised an open appointment process. In that spirit of openness, the Minister of Justice has appointed guess who to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It is none other than her former chief of staff. By openness, did the Prime Minister mean open to Liberals and closed to everyone else? Or is this just another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken?

    Mr. Speaker, I take very seriously the appointments process and the fact that it should be and must be open and transparent. My former chief of staff has been appointed to the Human Rights Tribunal because she is entirely qualified to fulfill that position and I look forward to her contribution to the tribunal as we move forward.

    Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party is not throwing money out the window on useless renovations or giving subsidies to Canada 2020, it is doing what it has always done: rewarding its cronies.

    We recently learned that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture were only too happy to appoint friends of the Liberals, namely a former chief of staff and a defeated Liberal candidate, to important positions.

    When will this government stop putting the Liberal Party's interests first and finally look out for the best interests of Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, as you know very well and as all Canadians know, we have committed to a more open, more transparent appointment process. We are proud of the process that we have undertaken. Canadians are able to apply for these positions. They are openly declared so that all Canadians can participate. We are proud of the appointments we are making and I am sure the member knows very well that they are good appointments here to serve Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, according to a University of Ottawa study, the provinces will not be able to maintain current services in the coming years if they accept the federal government's proposed health funding deal.

    The parliamentary budget officer also sounded the alarm because of rising health costs due to, among other things, the aging population.

    Will the government give the provinces the money they need to give people the services they need?

    Mr. Speaker, our government is investing in health care in numbers that have never been seen in Canada before. We made an offer to provinces to grow that investment in the Canada health transfer such that it will outstrip provincial spending, it will outstrip GDP growth, and it will outstrip the rate of inflation. In addition to those increases in the Canada health transfer, we are investing $11 billion in home care and mental health. This will support Canadians and make sure that Canadians receive value for money spent.

    Mr. Speaker, this report shows that the federal government's health care offer falls far short of the provinces' increased costs. Already we are seeing the direct impacts of that underfunding like the horror stories coming out of Surrey, British Columbia, where a quadriplegic home care patient is forced to choose between a meal and a change of clothes.

     Why have the Liberals broken their promise to properly fund health care and what the heck ever happened to the Liberals' campaign commitment to immediately invest $3 billion in home care?

    Mr. Speaker, it is well known that Canadians pay some of the highest per capita costs for health care in the world. It is important that Canadians get value for the money invested in health care. That is why we are taking a new approach.

    In addition to increasing the Canada health transfer, we are making targeted investments in the areas of home care and mental health, so that people like the woman to whom the member has referred will get access to home care, and we will transform health systems across this country.

    Mr. Speaker, Security Awareness Week starts today. This is an opportunity to make sure all Canadians feel safe.

    Unfortunately, in the wake of the tragic shootings at the Centre islamique culturel de Québec, we can understand why many Canadian Muslims and members of other minority groups might feel vulnerable.

    Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell us what the government is doing to help these communities protect themselves?

    Mr. Speaker, we all grieve with our fellow Quebec City Muslim citizens.

    We are extending to March 31 the deadline for our security infrastructure program, which helps communities protect against hate-motivated crimes. This is on top of other enhancements to the program to cover a greater variety of security measures and to make it more widely accessible.

    Most important, we must all continue working together to foster respect, solidarity, cohesion, and inclusion. There is no licence for hate in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, it was revealed that the Super Hornets the Liberals are purchasing would be operational for only 12 years. It is unbelievable that the Liberals would waste $7 billion on an aircraft that they have already planned to mothball.

    As we know, finance is not the Liberals' strong suit, but let us give them a hand. That costs over $300 million per jet. That is a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. That is a colossal waste of time for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

    Why will the Minister of National Defence not quit wasting time, resources, and money and move immediately to an open competition?

     Mr. Speaker, our government will take no risks with our ability to simultaneously meet Canada's NORAD and NATO commitments.

    That is why we are exploring the acquisition of an interim fleet of 18 Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18 fleet until the permanent replacement arrives.

    These measures will give Canadians the assurance that our defence needs will continue to be met in both the short and the long terms. We will launch an open competition.

    Mr. Speaker, I feel I have to tell the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that that purchase has been proven to be useless and that there is no capability gap.

    The Super Hornets are going to cost between $5 billion and $7 billion, a price range that has been confirmed by Boeing officials. For 18 aircraft, that is highway robbery. It works out to between $277 million and $388 million per plane.

    Is the Minister of National Defence still saying that this is the best deal for Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, we are not going to wait to mitigate the risks associated with Canada's dependence on our CF-18 fighter fleet, which is over 30 years old.

    We need a fighter jet that allows us to reduce our dependence on our current fleet of CF-18s as quickly as possible, so that we can continue to live up to our national and international obligations. In the end, the 18 new Super Hornets will mean that our military personnel can count on more advanced fighter jets to defend Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' approach for replacing our fighter jets makes absolutely no sense at all. The sole-source Super Hornet deal will cost up to $7 billion for only 18 jets for only 12 years of service.

    This week, Boeing's competitor announced a price drop that puts the F-35 at the same price as the Super Hornet.

    Will the Liberals finally listen to our air force and our defence procurement experts and start an open competition today to replace our aging F-18s?

    Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has begun discussions with the U.S. government and the Boeing corporation for the possible procurement of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets.

    Discussions with the American government and Boeing will allow us to determine whether Boeing can provide an interim cost-effective solution within a time frame and with a capability level that are acceptable to Canada. In order to ensure that Canada gets the best value for money during future discussions and negotiations, we will not comment on the budget at this time.

    Mr. Speaker, not only is the cost per plane excessive at between $277 million and $388 million, but the minister indicated in the House in a written response that the outdated Super Hornets would be in operation for only 12 years. That makes the annual cost quite high, specifically between $23 million and $32 million a year per plane. Clearly, there are no savings to be had here.

    Why is the government insisting on sticking with this plan instead of launching an open process to replace the CF-18s? We know that this agreement benefits Boeing, but how will it benefit Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces does exceptional work managing the risk related to concurrently respecting our commitments to both NORAD and NATO.

    The government thinks it is unacceptable to manage such a high level of risk. The current fleet of CF-18s was acquired in the 1980s and honestly should have been replaced long ago. The government no longer wishes to rely exclusively on a fighter fleet that is over 30 years old. That is why we have to act now.

    Mr. Speaker, Katimavik is an organization fighting for its survival. The program has trained close to 35,000 young people with the goal of promoting reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

    If the Liberals continue to do nothing, the organization could close its doors in a few weeks. The Liberals promised to create a volunteer youth service program during the campaign and in the last budget. However, there has been no mention of it in the past 18 months.

    Will the Prime Minister, who is also the minister of youth and former chair of Katimavik, finally release emergency funds to save the organization?

    Mr. Speaker, helping young Canadians gain valuable work and life experience is central to the focus of our government. It is absolutely a priority. Our Prime Minister and the government are proud of reversing 10 years of cuts to youth programming by the past Conservative government.

     We continue to engage with Katimavik. If I could take the opportunity, I want to recognize the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, who has done excellent work on this file. We will continue to engage with Katimavik. Stay tuned. Hopefully, we will have a great resolution forthcoming.

    Mr. Speaker, it has been over three months since the government's own deadline to fix Phoenix, and 7,000 cases from the original backlog still have not been fixed, leaving Canadians waiting to get paid. In addition, there have been 185,000 Phoenix complaints in the last six months.

    The government refused to delay implementing Phoenix until it was corrected. When will the government end this boondoggle and pay our federal employees properly and on time?

    Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague's question. Resolving the ongoing service pay problems remains a priority for our government. That is why we have taken so many additional measures to respond in a quick manner. The reality is, we do have a number of outstanding issues. We are working very hard. We are working with our employees and we are working with the unions to try to find a speedy resolution, but we have encountered some complex cases. We are now going to shift to focusing on those priority cases to get them resolved as quickly as possible.

    Mr. Speaker, last week the Liberals told the House that Canadians would not be affected by the U.S. executive order on immigration. However, we found out that NEXUS memberships have in fact been revoked from all Canadian permanent residents with citizenship in any one of the seven countries affected by the U.S. travel ban. I think that would be the definition of “affected”.

    When did the minister become aware of this new issue? Was it after the assurance or before? More importantly, what steps is he taking to stand up for Canadian interests?

    Mr. Speaker, all Canadian citizens with a valid Canadian passport should be treated at the border in the same way as before the executive order. It is our passport, not our NEXUS card, that establishes our status. NEXUS is a discretionary program to expedite processing. Each country has the right to withdraw the privilege. There are about 1.5 million people with NEXUS privileges. About 200 have been affected by the U.S. revocation. To the best of CBSA's information, none of them are Canadian citizens. We are working with our American counterparts to make sure that all Canadians are treated fairly.

    Mr. Speaker, that is not what CBSA told CBC on the weekend. More importantly, when I asked the minister this question on Friday, he said “If people feel that they have..., been unfairly treated by the process... there is an appeal process and there is an ombudsman.”

    Canadians do not want an ombudsman. They want their government to stand up for their interests. When will the Liberals stand up for Canadians and get these revocations reversed?

    Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member does not seem to acknowledge is that NEXUS, on both sides of the border, is a discretionary program, entirely under the control of one government or the other, depending on which country they are in.

    We are in the process of making sure, to the very best of our ability and capacity, that Canadians are treated fairly in all circumstances. Canadians themselves do have the benefit of the appeal procedure. They should avail themselves of that. However, they can be sure that their government is fighting for them too.

    Mr. Speaker, Saeed Malekpour, a Canadian permanent resident, who is a computer programmer, was arrested on a visit to Iran in 2008 on trumped-up charges.

    After conviction on a confession obtained through torture, Mr. Malekpour was sentenced to death. That sentence, after protests by our Conservative government and human rights organizations, was reduced to life in prison.

    The Liberals promised that their muted criticism of Iran and reduced commercial sanctions would get results. Can the minister update the House on efforts to gain Mr. Malekpour's release and his return to Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, we are clearly concerned about the well-being of Mr. Malekpour.

    I had the opportunity to meet with his sister. I committed to her that our government was following his case with great concern. Obviously, members of the opposition know that the lack of diplomatic presence in Iran has posed challenges for us. That is why our government is committed to re-engaging with Iran, making sure that we defend the interest of Canadians, and building on people-to-people relationships with Iran.

    Mr. Speaker, in early 2017, the government announced drinking water and waste-water treatment projects under the bilateral agreement with Quebec. Two weeks ago, five projects with $6.4 million in funding were announced for the Eastern Townships, 16 projects worth $82.9 million were announced for the Mauricie region, and 19 projects worth $61.3 million were announced in the Montérégie region, including four in my riding of Shefford.

    Could the government provide an update on this program?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, in collaboration with the Government of Quebec, we have approved 57 projects for a combined investment of more than $1.5 billion.

    Just today, we announced an additional three projects for the region of Abitibi. These projects will provide safe, clean drinking water for the region.

    We continue to work with our partners to approve even more projects to grow our economy and create opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.

    Mr. Speaker, we learned after Christmas that since gutting the Financial Transparency Act, the compliance measures, of course, the reporting rate has gone down. The minister had to know that was going to happen. It is no surprise.

    The National Post wrote that about 90 bands had not been fully compliant with the act, and, of course, for the community members, that is 90 too many. It has been over a year. First nations communities, 90 of them across this country, do not have access to basic information.

    When will the minister listen to the grassroots band members and respect them, and enforce the act?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House many times, first nations governments, and everyone, want increased transparency and accountability.

    We will achieve this through working in full partnership with first nations leaderships and organizations. We are currently engaging first nations leadership, communities, and organizations to identify a way forward that is based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind must lobby each year for funding in the form of government grants.

    Given the crucial services provided by the CNIB, like making sure literature is available in accessible formats, stable, predictable, and ongoing funding is required. Funding would allow the CNIB to provide Canadians with visual impairments the programs and services to which they are entitled.

    Will the government commit to ensuring that funding for the CNIB will be in the next federal budget?

    Mr. Speaker, I know the member shares the passion for inclusion and accessibility for people with disabilities that our government does.

    I have experienced first-hand the great work that CNIB does for the visually impaired community in Canada. I was proud to work with them over the last year to celebrate Canada's accession to the Marrakesh Treaty. I am proud of our government commitment of $3 million to ensure we can meet the demands for alternative format materials.

    Our government's disability program has been undergoing a transformation aimed at providing greater certainty and efficiency to organizations. We are indeed exploring whether or not we can provide multi-year funding.

    Mr. Speaker, like many ridings in Canada, Oakville North—Burlington is made stronger because of its diversity. Our post-secondary institutions, like Sheridan College in Oakville and DeGroote School of Business in Burlington, rank among the very best in the world, attracting students from around the world. However, our immigration system has made it difficult for those who wish to stay in Canada.

    Can the minister please update this House on what the government has done to make it easier for international students to live and work in Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington for the question and for her hard work.

    Our government strongly supports the attraction and retention of international students to Canada. This is why we made changes to our express entry program, which has made it easier for international students to stay in Canada. It has led to them creating economic growth, jobs, and spurring innovation in our country.

    I also want to take this opportunity to thank my officials for processing 367,000 international student visas last year, which is a 22% increase over the previous government.

    Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that Liberals are good at, it is breaking promises and wasting hard-earned tax dollars. They promised a deficit to pay for infrastructure, and while the deficit just keeps growing, there are still no shovels in the ground. They promised to balance the budget by 2019, but now it will not be until 2055. We have heard the Liberals make promises of electoral reform, but then all Canadians got was a $4 million bill for a muddled personality survey.

    While Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, what other broken promises can taxpayers be expected to foot the bill for?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that Canadians can expect this year in our budget, as they saw last year, and as they will see in years to come, that we will have a focus on helping those most vulnerable. We have demonstrated that so far, and we will continue to do that, with a focus on improving the lives of middle-class Canadians through lower taxes, through more opportunities for themselves and their children in future because of the investments we are going to make.

    That is what Canadians can expect, and we are pleased to be able to deliver for them.

    Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, while all of Quebec was mourning the victims of the Quebec City shooting, the Washington Post published an article written by J.J. McCullough that constituted an unprecedented attack on Quebec's international reputation. An excerpt from the article reads: “And now, [Canadians] have good reason to observe that the province [of Quebec] seems to produce an awful lot of lunatics prone to public massacres”.

    Will the Prime Minister rise now, with all the dignity of his office, and unequivocally condemn this attack on the Quebec nation?

    Mr. Speaker, the comments made in the Washington Post op-ed are unacceptable and we denounce them. Quebeckers, like all Canadians, are open and welcoming. The surge of solidarity following the terrorist attack in Quebec City made that very clear. It is up to all of us to speak out against discrimination and injustice.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is refusing to rise as a statesman, and his silence, like that of the Conservative Party on Friday, encourages derogatory Quebec bashing. While all of Quebec is mourning its dead in the wake of the terrible attack at the Quebec City mosque, people are insulting Quebec and attacking and besmirching its reputation. Meanwhile, neither the official opposition nor the Prime Minister wants to condemn this disgraceful rag.

    How can the Prime Minister, the self-proclaimed Quebec lieutenant, justify remaining seated and remaining silent?

    Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the comments made in the Washington Post op-ed are unacceptable. We strongly condemn them. As my colleague mentioned, we firmly believe that we must speak out against all forms of injustice and discrimination. That is why we condemn the statements that were made and support the Bloc Québécois's motion in that regard.

    Mr. Speaker, provinces representing 90% of the population are standing united, but the government is forging ahead with the Conservative cuts to health transfers and the NDP conditions.

    The Government of Quebec, the Council of the Federation, The Conference Board of Canada, and the parliamentary budget officer all said it, and now the University of Ottawa has found that Ottawa's contribution must at least keep pace with rising costs to ensure the future of our health system.

    Will the Minister of Finance bring the health system to its knees, or will he listen to the people, reconsider, and restore the 6% increase?

    Mr. Speaker, the federal government's $11-billion offer has the potential to be transformative and to make life better for Canadians with respect to home care and mental health. This investment is in addition to legislative commitments through the Canada health transfer, which will continue to grow every year. This year alone, funding will increase by almost $1 billion. We are ready to collaborate with the provinces and territories to improve the health care system.

    I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Sandy Silver, Premier of Yukon, and an accompanying delegation.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

    The Committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the items added to the order of precedence as a result of the replenishment of Tuesday, December 6, 2016, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the report is deemed adopted.

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.

    If the House gives its consent, I move concurrence in the report.

    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition signed by hundreds of Winnipeggers condemning the systematic and state-sanctioned organ harvesting by the Chinese government.

     The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to take concrete action to bring an end to the practice.

    Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House to present two petitions.

    The first is from residents throughout my constituency. I know the hon. minister is interested in pursuing more affordable housing through the federal government. The petition asks the government to look at the proposals from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to create a national affordable housing program.

    The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is one on which thousands of Canadians have sent me petitions. These come from Leamington, Ontario; Surrey, B.C.; Langley and Vancouver.

     The petitioners call on the government to put in place labelling so Canadian consumers will know whether the products they buy and consume contain genetically modified organisms.

    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.

    First, I am pleased to present a petition from hundreds of constituents in Victoria, calling on the government to repeal a new clause in the Criminal Code, restricting those seeking medical assistance in dying only to those whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable. As members will know, many of us question the constitutionality of that. It is now before the courts as well in the case of Lamb v. Canada.

     The petitioners say that their charter rights are affected. They call on the government to repeal the clause.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from hundreds of constituents in Victoria, calling on the government to keep its promise on electoral reform, and implement a fair proportional voting system.

     The petitioners say that they have devoted hundreds of hours to organizing and engaging with the government on this issue and deserve an explanation as to how the government can believe there is insufficient interest from Canadians in improving our voting system.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions from Canadian historical societies, stating that they want history to be respected and celebrated during the 150th anniversary of Confederation. As part of the Liberal war on history, neither history nor Confederation is a permitted theme.

    The township of Tiny's heritage advisory committee presents one of those petitions. The township of Tiny has its own unique history rooted in the unification of cultures. The township's founding cultures of French and English mirror the goal of Confederation, to unite these two distinct cultures in a single country.

    The second petition comes from the Cornwall Township Historical Society, which has restored historical sites and landmarks throughout South Stormont township since 1978. The explorer Simon Fraser, one of the first men of European descent to explore western Canada, lived in Cornwall much of his life, and is commemorated by a historical monument. Ontario's first premier, John Sandfield Macdonald, is also buried in the region and represents Cornwall's own connection to Confederation.

    The third petition comes from the Upper Ottawa Valley Genealogical Group. The members of this organization are exploring and celebrating their own family connections to Canada's past. The organization is collecting the stories of ancestors and members, and assisting in the research of ancestors of other members.

    The petitioners all call upon the government to reverse its decision to exclude Confederation as a theme of the 150th anniversary of Confederation and to pay respect to Canada's history by making it a theme of the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

    Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents in my riding, many who are concerned about a lack of funding for refugees and other immigrants with respect to official languages training, I am pleased to table several petitions with the names of over a hundred concerned Canadians.

    The petitioners want the government to ensure that when people come to Canada, they have access to proper language training so they can fully participate in our economy.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in the Ottawa Valley riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to participate in today's debate, ushering in the peace and prosperity agenda that represents the cornerstone of successive Conservative policies that have been the envy of the rest of the world.

    The trail that leads to today's debate for a Canada-EU trade agreement began with our previous Conservative government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, and was concluded before the last general election. Conservatives recognize that international trade initiatives generate increased economic activity, drive prosperity and job creation, as well as foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies. The Canada-EU agreement will emphasize the importance of secure access to international markets through a rules-based trading system.

    Canada must trade. Jobs in Canada depend upon the ability to export what we ourselves do not consume. In turn, the world needs what Canada produces. Conservatives believe that Canada should strive to maximize the benefits we have as a free trading nation. We understand clearly the need to diversify markets as competition promotes fairness. The need to establish trading relationships beyond North America is exactly what CETA accomplishes. This landmark trade agreement is the result of sound Conservative trade policy and years of hard work. I welcome the opportunities in employment and wealth creation of bringing this deal into force.

    I ask all Canadians to recognize the hard work over the past decade by our world-class trade negotiators, the ministers who led them, and the prime minister whose vision led Parliament to pass a record number of free trade agreements. The path to reaching the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU began nearly a decade ago under our previous Conservative government. Negotiations were formally launched in 2008 by then minister of international trade, my good friend and former colleague, the Hon. Stockwell Day. Talks continued under my friend and colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, who also found time to launch trade talks with India, the world's largest democracy, and trade talks, now finalized, with Ukraine, a democracy under siege. However, we would not be here today if it were not for the hard work and heavy lifting by Canada's longest serving and, easily argued, best minister of international trade, the hon. member for Abbotsford. As minister, he ushered through Parliament trade agreements with Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, and Korea, all while completing negotiations with the 28 countries in the EU. Canada's consumers, entrepreneurs, farmers, miners, and manufacturers will benefit under this agreement, thanks to the hard work of the member for Abbotsford.

     I recognize the present federal government in moving forward in the best interests of all Canadians by supporting trade liberalization with the ratification of this trade agreement. With the decision to walk back on a number of Conservative policies, like tax reduction, reducing the federal deficit, and balanced budgets, Canadians are breathing a sigh of relief that this federal government is not following the regressive left trade policy of isolationism by trying to undo our previous Conservative government's accomplishments on trade. I will only be confident when CETA is finalized.

    Canadians will see significant economic benefits from free trade with Europe. Perhaps this will inspire the current government to support free trade between provinces, and free the beer. Like NAFTA, CETA was negotiated under a Conservative government and ratified by a Liberal government. My hope for Canadians is that we will see similar economic benefits from CETA as we have under NAFTA.

    My constituents are concerned the Liberal government's anti-business policies and reckless deficit spending will wipe out any economic benefits Canadians might see under CETA. NAFTA helped our economy grow. It helped businesses expand and hire more employees. By expanding the Canadian economy with trade, a previous federal government was able to finally wrestle down the reckless deficit spending launched in the 1970s under Pierre Trudeau.

    Now, in what might be the most ironic case of history repeating itself, we have another Liberal Prime Minister whose reckless spending has led us into structural deficits that will far outlive many of the majority of the current generation of taxpayers.

    When this trade deal with Europe starts to provide a boost to our GDP, I am concerned that the government will use it as an excuse to keep on its reckless spending record.

    It is important to remind Canadians that after the government broke its promise on the annual deficit, and then broke its promise on the total amount it would borrow, any fiscal credibility rests on keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio the same. As Canadian employees and employers work together to open new markets for the products and services in Europe, their creativity and drive will increase our country's GDP. This does not justify larger deficits. The debt-to-GDP ratio should decline over the long term as it did when our Conservative government was in power.

    Expanding the Canadian economy with trade and reducing debt is the right policy for Canadians. By expanding the Canadian economy, CETA represents an opportunity to get federal spending under control without the cutbacks of the 1990s that resulted in cuts to health care and the decade of darkness for our military and the nuclear industry.

    In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, we have some of the most innovative and productive farmers in the world. Young farmers are looking forward to seeing 94% of EU tariff lines on Canadian agricultural products becoming duty-free once CETA enters into force. This duty-free access will give Canadian agricultural goods preferential access to the EU market at a time when their American competitors are sidelined, waiting on a stalled deal between the United States and Europe.

    With the passage of CETA, I am looking forward to going back to my riding and telling farmers that if they hurry, they can capture new markets and increase their sales. It is important that they increase their sales, because under the Wynne Liberals, their electricity costs have skyrocketed with the hidden carbon tax called the “global adjustment” on consumers' hydro bills. It is important they hurry because the federal Liberal government has implemented a massive carbon tax on all of their energy costs, to be collected by the Toronto Liberal Party.

    CETA will be good news for the farmers and manufacturers in my riding, but they use a lot of energy, so any gains they make will be taxed away by the Liberal government.

    With the elimination of tariffs between Canada and Europe, combined with our country's vast natural beauty, we could expect to see more European tourists seeking to explore our wilderness. For Europeans watching this debate, whitewater rafting in the upper Ottawa Valley is world class and a lot of fun.

    Sadly, when they come this spring, some smaller family-run campgrounds will not be reopening because of the government's relentless attack on small business, and in particular, its attack on family-run campgrounds. Like many European tourists, my colleagues across the aisle may not be aware the government thinks that if campgrounds have fewer than five full-time year-round employees, they are too small to qualify for the small business tax rate and should therefore pay the same as large companies, and in many cases, even more.

    Urban MPs do not represent a lot of campgrounds downtown, but when thousands of their constituents leave the city to go camping across Canada this summer and find out their favourite little campground closed because of the Liberals' borrow, tax and spend policies, I expect they will hear a lot more about this issue. In short, CETA is good for tourism, but Liberals are bad for business in the tourism industry.

     Again and again, it is the same story. The gains Canadians made from the hard work by our previous Conservative government to cut taxes for all Canadians and successfully negotiate favourable new trade deals is being undone by the Liberal spending government.

    Madam Speaker, I find it is kind of tough to follow along when some members speak, but one thing I will say about the member is she is consistent. I do applaud her on that. That is the nice thing I have to say, I guess.

    The question I would have for the member is, on a number of fronts, she just throws something into the air that gets recorded in Hansard and I do not quite understand the logic behind it. Let me give an example. The member continually makes reference to deficits and reckless spending. One would think she was talking about the Harper government, which had the largest, most significant deficit in the history of Canada. That is Stephen Harper, the former prime minister.

    She talked a great deal about trade and how Canadians are going to benefit from it. It was Stephen Harper who brought us to the deficit side of the trade balance.

    Yes, the Conservative government did do some work in bringing forward an agreement, but it was our government that brought it across the goal line.

    I wonder if the member might want to address some of those points in the best way she can.

    Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite has been believing the fake news that he generates. In the Liberals' zeal to undo our Conservative legacy on justice for victims, funding for our military, and cutting taxes for low-income Canadians, first and foremost, the Liberals embraced our health care funding formula while sowing divisions between the provinces. They embraced our carbon targets, but imposed a carbon tax on everything. With CETA, they embraced our Conservative legacy on trade, but of course, being Liberals, they perverted CETA to their own end.

    Madam Speaker, one of the things that was mentioned in my colleague's speech was the Liberals being bad for tourism, in general, and the cost on tourists. I would like to ask the member about her comments with regard to adding new taxes for tourists and the subsequent policies that were done under the Harper administration, in particular, the HST. The HST was introduced during a time of deficit.

     I had an independent study from the Library of Parliament to examine the borrowing costs during the deficit of the $4 billion that we had to provide for Ontario and $2 billion for British Columbia, at that time, and the interest over a period of time to pay that off as we continued to stay in deficit actually ranged from an $8-billion to a $10-billion deficit.

    I would like to ask the member about the deficit increase that was created by the HST, an ideological tax which the Conservatives, under Harper, brought in at that time, and the mere fact that it has cost consumers more money.

    Madam Speaker, the member is spewing alternative facts. Everyone knows that the HST, what was taxed and whether or not to go ahead with it, was the decision of the provinces.

    Our Conservative government pursued trade deals with our allies and developing democracies with so much energy because of former prime minister Harper's vision for Canada and the confidence that Conservatives have in Canadians.

    Our Conservative caucus is confident Canadian companies can compete with the best in the world and win. What we do not need is a Liberal promise-breaking and spending government taxing Canadians in order to give handouts to their friends.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be part of this debate on CETA. Having listened to the previous speaker, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I was disappointed, but not surprised, by the partisan and inaccurate sound bites with respect to the current government. However, I want to thank her for having given credit to members of the previous government and their work to build this very important trade agreement, especially the member for Abbotsford. It is always important to recognize that we are building on the work, over the long run, of members on all sides of the House.

    I am going to talk about small and medium-sized businesses in my remarks, for the simple reason that I was the founding owner of a business that went from small to medium-sized. I have not been involved with that business since I entered politics in 2001. There were more than two decades during which I dedicated my efforts and talents to developing that business, so I understand not just the importance of small and medium-sized businesses but the challenges they face.

    Canada needs to increase its competitiveness and productivity. We know that, and an important way to do that is to support small and medium-sized businesses. In my riding of Vancouver Quadra, there are many clusters of emerging innovation in clean tech, biotech, innovative arts and culture, and information technology. In innovation, there is the University of British Columbia, which has a world-leading cluster of innovation. Workers and owners and their families, like in Vancouver Quadra, would benefit from the support CETA would provide to small and medium-sized business groups.

    Exports play a very important role in the Canadian economy, as we know, contributing to growth, productivity, and employment. Overall, exports of goods and services are the equivalent of just under one-third of Canada's GDP. Either directly or indirectly, export enterprises employ one out of every six Canadian workers. Small businesses alone make up 90% of Canadian exporters and, in 2011, were responsible for $68 billion, or 25%, of the total value of exports.

    Small and medium enterprises, or SMEs, are about people. SMEs employ some 10 million Canadians, or nearly 90%, of Canada's total private-sector workforce. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada released a report last year profiling SMEs and their characteristics as Canadian exporters. The report found that 10% of Canadian SMEs exported goods and services in 2011, with export sales accounting for about 4% of total company revenues. We can and need to grow that.

    The report also points to superior financial performance by exporters compared with non-exporters. Specifically, exporters generated higher sales, pre-tax profit margins, and returns on assets, on average, compared with non-exporters. As well, exporters are more research and development intensive than non-exporters, spending 8% of annual revenues on R and D, on average, compared with 6% for non-exporters. Exporters are also more growth oriented than non-exporters, with a higher percentage growing their sales by 20% or more per year compared with non-exporters.

    SMEs clearly have a significant role to play in Canada's future prosperity, and our government certainly believes in supporting our hard-working SMEs in succeeding in this role, leading to more jobs, a strengthened middle class, and more tax dollars for our important social safety nets.

    One way to support SMEs is by ensuring that there are accessible export markets abroad, with advantageous conditions within these markets for them to compete. The findings of the report I mentioned support the government's continued commitment to advancing an SME growth and export agenda through the establishment of new trade agreements.

    Currently, Canada's SME exporters continue to focus predominantly on the U.S., with 89% of exporters selling to the United States and 74% of the value of exports generated by U.S. sales.

    With CETA, we will see SMEs diversify their exports and pursue opportunities in the European Union, the world's second-largest market for goods. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's entire GDP. The EU is also key for global supply chains, with more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else in the world. This important access to supply chains is an important avenue of opportunity for the global ambitions of many Canadian people and their families. Of the EU's more than 9,000 tariff lines, approximately 98% will be duty free for Canadian goods when CETA comes into force, with more eliminated, over time, when the agreement is fully implemented.

    As well, there are innovations within CETA that will save companies time and money, such as the protocol on conformity assessment, which will allow Canadian manufacturers and certain sectors to have their products tested and certified in Canada for sale in the EU. This kind of regulatory alignment can be particularly useful for SMEs, avoiding the need to set up testing operations outside the country.

    CETA will open opportunities for Canadian businesses, including SMEs, in the EU's estimated $3.3 trillion government procurement market. Once CETA enters into force, Canadian firms will be able to supply goods and select services to all levels of EU government, including the EU's 28 member states and thousands of regional and local government entities.

    CETA will also provide Canadian SMEs with a first-mover advantage in the EU market over competitors from markets, like the U.S., that do not have a trade agreement in place with the EU. It will allow Canadian businesses to establish their customer relationships, networks, and joint projects first.

     Canadian businesses need to be aware of the benefits CETA will bring. We cannot assume that this is always the case. As I remember well, small businesses often lack the time and resources to inform themselves of game-changing international business developments such as free trade agreements.

    Plans have been developed to promote recently concluded agreements, including CETA, with SMEs specifically in mind. First, our government is undertaking proactive initiatives to reach out to Canadian businesses across the country and through our missions in the EU market. There is a new CETA web page geared toward Canadian businesses, with links to information and export opportunities. In co-operation with our provincial partners as well as Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada, our government is launching a series of business outreach events featuring technical experts who will be reaching out to small businesses. Outreach is very important to our business community.

    Second, we are ensuring, through training, that our teams support international business development through trade commissioners, in Canada or abroad, so that they are fully familiar with the technical aspects of the agreement and can advise their clients about the opportunities they bring. One example is the work the government has done to ensure that trade commissioners can properly advise their business clients on CETA by holding training sessions.

    Third, following a detailed assessment, the government will work with specialized industry associations in priority sectors, with a focused, hands-on approach to helping potential exporters.

    CETA is an agreement with progressive countries, many of which have strong, or stronger than Canadian, environmental and labour conditions. The inclusion of strong labour and environmental side agreements is very important to Canadians and to our government. As well, CETA's benefits for the Canadian business community are very important to our government. This range of opportunities in the EU and its market of more than 500 million consumers is critical for our country's jobs and the economy.

    What a positive initiative this is, and how appreciative I am that our government's former trade minister managed to take this stalled agreement, work with her partners in the EU, and bring the agreement to a close. Our families, our workers, rely on these kinds of jobs.

    This is good for Vancouver Quadra, for British Columbia, and for Canada. It is a landmark agreement with our European partners. It needs to be implemented as soon as it can.

    Madam Speaker, there is another part of this deal that is very troubling to my constituents, the residents of Vancouver Island. It is the maritime section of CETA.

    The International Longshore and Warehouse Union released a statement about this portion of the trade deal. In that statement, they said, “The maritime section of CETA will destroy the Canadian maritime industry as it exists today by ending what is known as cabotage.”

    Some members might ask “What is cabotage?” Cabotage is the protection under the Coast Trading Act. It is a measure that protects our coastal trade by requiring any vessel trading within Canada to be Canadian owned, operated, and crewed.

    Cabotage protects jobs, our environment, and our economic health. If CETA goes forward, it will destroy the protection of cabotage. It will allow foreign-owned vessels to work the coastal waterways they are currently banned from. It will allow cheap foreign labour from foreign countries to run their ships, putting our Canadian seafarers out of work. These foreign countries' ships will not pay taxes in Canada. This is an unfair labour advantage.

    Will this coastal MP from Vancouver Quadra stand up for coastal British Columbians, stand up for seafarer jobs, and stand up for B.C.'s economy?

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern for his constituents, and for the environmental and economic health of coastal British Columbia. As the member is very well aware, a huge part of the economic vitality of British Columbia is completely dependent on trade.

    This is an agreement with partners that pay wages that are, in many cases, higher than we pay in Canada, that have environmental standards, and measures such as carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that are more robust than we have in Canada.

    Trade is important in British Columbia and on our coasts, and those principles of environment and labour health in Canada are being advanced.

    Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned positive aspects of CETA, and I would agree with most of them.

    I am just wondering what the member's thoughts are in terms of the TPP and how we are moving forward on that, if we are going to move forward on that?

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the positive comments by the member opposite about this Canada-European Union free trade agreement, which both the former government and our government have worked so diligently to bring to fruition.

    As the member is likely aware, our government did not take a position on the TPP because we wanted to consult Canadians. We have done that, very fully, over the period that we have been in government. That is a key, I would say a seminal, difference between our government and the former government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. There tended to be a lot of decisions made by government for Canadians without consulting with Canadians.

     This has been an important initiative on our government's part, to hear from Canadians, the stakeholder groups, the interest groups, and individual citizens before taking decisions on major initiatives that may well affect them.

    Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for the work she has done and for standing strongly with British Columbians and coastal communities, as well as for her passion on the environmental file.

    My question is on the environment. When we signed a free trade deal with Colombia, we had a parallel agreement on the environment. I would like to ask the hon. member if we need a parallel agreement on the environment, the way we had one with Colombia.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Surrey—Newton reminding me of that initiative of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement as we travelled together as members of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Indeed, having a side agreement on the environment was a very important aspect of entering trade with a country like Colombia. In fact, it is important for any country that we do trade with, and that began with the North American Free Trade Agreement. It continues and is improved in agreement after agreement today.

    It is hugely important to Canadian citizens to know that our protection of the environment will not be weakened in Canada as a result of a free trade agreement and, in fact, the agreement itself may serve to strengthen protection of the environment in our trade partners.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate CETA. It is good that we are talking about other trade agreements.

    I was going to start off with something different but I want to address a bit of the previous conversation that has been taking place with respect to trade agreements in Colombia, and trade agreements in general. It is correct that we do have side agreements with Colombia on environment and labour. The problem is that they are not enforceable. Those non-enforceable trade agreements have been the hallmark of Canadian trade agreements for a number of different countries. If we want to use Colombia as an example, what is interesting is that it was argued that the free trade agreement with Colombia would open up all kinds of jobs and investments in Ontario. It would also invest in other places across Canada. We are supposed to have those benefits. Therefore, I do not understand why they are not being referred to in this debate.

    If we want to look at Canada's past trade agreements, the most recent being Korea, there has been no indication coming back to the House of Commons with respect to any benefits that have been accrued. That was done in 2015. It was supposed to be an earth-shattering, groundbreaking advancement for Canadians in particular for the separate industries of agriculture, and other investments in canola and other things. Where are those jobs? It was argued that they would be good, full-time, free-trade jobs that would be supported by all Canadians. We were going to break down the barriers, our lives would get better, and the improvements would be there. Where are they? Nobody knows. They are not here.

    We had warned that there would be a loss of jobs in the auto sector related to it. We still have the same problem because of non-tariff barriers. For example, good luck to anyone who is trying to sell a vehicle in Korea, and if one tries to open up a dealership there to service it, one cannot do that because of all the problems, so one could buy a vehicle that cannot be serviced by a dealership. Who wants to do that? Therefore, what we have is a loss of jobs and unfair competition.

     Where are all of these jobs in South Korea or in Colombia? It continues to go on.

    If we look at Panama, which is known for harbouring money, and fugitive money, those things continue to exist. In fact, we have had the Panama Papers since we signed the agreement on April 1, 2013. I remember standing with others in this chamber to talk about our exposure to encouraging offshore tax avoidance, which sometimes occurs in our country, as well as across the world. We have a free trade agreement that was supposed to bring all kinds of jobs and accountability. That has not happened. We would not have even known about those things if not for the Toronto Star and the CBC doing investigative reports on the leaked Panama Papers from time to time, which led to the exposure of many of these problems that we knew were there because we had evidence. However, that was another trade agreement related to creating jobs.

    We have the Honduras trade agreement. Where are the jobs and the examples from the government on Honduras? They were supposed to be here in 2014. The trade agreement was supposed to lift Honduras to other levels and create jobs for us here. We have not heard anything about that.

    It is the same with Peru. That trade agreement happened, but where are all those jobs? Again, we have not heard.

    We have signed these agreements and we have not heard about any measurables.

    This is the important part that connects to CETA, and I will get into it more specifically after this. We have side agreements on the environment and labour. The real connection relating to what we see happening with the disturbance of a number of patent and trade agreements right now is the United States clamouring over NAFTA. Most of it is related to environmental and labour subsidies coming from what it says is Mexico, despite the fact that thousands of people per day cross over and work at Walmarts, factories, and so forth in the United States. We will not talk about that, but that is the reality, and the hypocrisy, of it. However, that comes from side agreements.

    What is the difference between a side agreement and having something inside the agreement? Inside the agreement, it is manageable and measurable, and part of the agreement. It becomes synonymous with the agreement such that one cannot use human beings in a deplorable fashion, one cannot use children, and one cannot exploit labour. None of these things could be done. It is similar to the environment. One cannot use the environment to subsidize the impact of the cost of production in competition without a challenge, and that can be in the agreement.

    In CETA, we will have a better example with the European countries that are involved in it, and it is something very serious to consider, given that with NAFTA the biggest thing pulling at us right now is the fact that we did not include labour or the environment. It festered for a couple of decades to the result that we see right now. Trump and other Americans are complaining about it, but some of these things would have been controllable in a labour agreement. They could have been there and would have been measurable. It could have been addressed. However, we are not doing that under CETA.

    With CETA, the interesting thing to consider right now, as it is on the table, is that we have Brexit. Let us talk about Brexit with regard to how important it is to CETA.

    Obviously, the United Kingdom is a very close ally and trading partner. It is part of the foundation of our modern society here. However, it has decided to exit from European trade. When we sat down to look at this agreement and started working on it, this was not the case. It has taken so long to get here that it has gone from being a partner in the agreement, to actually holding a referendum, and now to exiting from the arrangement.

    Some members may think that, oh, it is just the U.K. Do not worry about it. It is just one nation over there. However, that is 42% of our trade with Europe. Therefore, 42% of the deal is off the table and has been cast to the wind.

    If one were to negotiate the sale of one's house, or purchase a house, and all of a sudden 42% of the house was no longer saleable, it would probably change the way one would go about business. If one were to buy a car but it was 42% different than what one actually wanted to buy in the first place, one would probably look for a different car. This 42% is a significant amount. It actually creates an opportunity that the government does not even realize with regard to trading.

    The Liberals always say that NDP members are against trade and all that kind of stuff, which is absolutely ridiculous. Humans have been trading from the beginning and continue to trade now under different types of agreements. However, we disagree about the fact that we do not have labour and environment in those agreements. When we create a partnership, the partner should not use child labour or subsidize the environment, like dumping oil, chemicals, and so forth in the water. In fact, we have enough of our own domestic problems with that stuff, and perhaps some competition would do us some good.

    The reality is that under CETA right now, 42% of the agreement has been blown up, it is out the window, and we are going to have to create a separate binational agreement with the U.K. I see that as an opportunity. I see that as a possibility, and those elements are being sought out right now. Instead, we are going to grind ourselves away into an agreement that will still take years to be ratified. Not only will it take years to be ratified; it is different than when we started.

    In fact, one of the major objections we have is the investor-state provision in CETA, which is huge. It is related to the controllability of the public sector versus that of the private sector. We see chapter 11 under NAFTA where we gave it up, having so many lawsuits.

    To conclude, even by us approving CETA, our partners in this will approve something different, because they actually stood up for their communities and their people, and they got a better deal than what we are willing to even talk about at the table.

    Madam Speaker, the member has indicated that because England has pulled out of the agreement, Canada should pull out as well. The United Kingdom makes up 42% of trade, but according to my math that still leaves 58%, which is a significant amount of trade. It takes time for these things to evolve.

    Is the government to believe that the position of the NDP is based strictly on the fact that the EU has broken up because of England and therefore we should not pass this trade legislation? We know that 58% or more of our exports cross the Atlantic, and we benefit immensely from that. This agreement will enhance the amount of trade between the EU and Canada. Why would we tear up the EU agreement because one of the countries has left, albeit a significant one?

    I did not say that, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member asked where all the jobs are that the previous Conservative government promised when it dealt with free trade. I am proud to be part of the party that managed to sign 42 free trade agreements around the world when it was in government. We were able to watch our country flourish under those agreements. Our Conservative government grew the economy by 1.2 million new jobs.

    There are jobs to be had. Is the member in favour of free trade or not?

    Of course I am in favour of trade, Madam Speaker. We have supported all kinds of trade agreements, but there were others that we did not support.

    What is interesting to note about all of those trade agreements that the member has mentioned is that Canada's employment rate and its export elements were poorly reflected in them. Those agreements have not led to the panacea for human rights and other environmental improvements that were sought with regard to trade and were profoundly mentioned. We were promised those things. We were promised that the government would lift the boat up, so to speak.

    If jobs were created, they were likely created from the incredible historic deficits that the Harper administration carried. That deficit spending came in two ways, the first being corporate tax cuts, often to some of the most affluent businesses that did not need them at the time. That resulted in very little job creation. Some jobs were created in relation to infrastructure, as some tangible targets were reached. The government at that time does deserve some credit for those.

    At the same time, the poorly administered massive deficit is historic in nature, and we are going to continue to pay for it, especially with the Liberals piling on expenses for things we cannot calculate because they were not done in the proper way.

    Madam Speaker, when I hear my colleague from Windsor West speak, I hear someone who has wisdom and understands the issue. He lives on our border with the United States and deals with trade every day. He sat for many years on the all-party committee for Canada and the United States. I appreciate him talking, not just about free trade, but about fair trade and agreements that work for everyone. I am from a rural community, and I have seen wealth leave and jobs disappear. This is happening in many rural communities.

    The member wants trade. Could the member talk about how we could move forward with trade deals? We want trade, but we want to do these deals right and get them right for people in all communities.

    Madam Speaker, British Columbia is known for its excellent wines and wineries. Under the EU deal, we fought to get it to keep certain areas that are branded. The EU has been able to do that. For example, we cannot call champagne “champagne” anymore, because it has been branded in the EU. We expected some reciprocity to call certain zones under the Canadian flag that way, but that was not permitted. It was not even supported by the government of the day.

    Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on trade and the benefits of CETA.

     The reality is that anti-trade sentiments are rising around the world. There is an increase in protectionist attitudes in the U.S. and other countries previously seen as welcoming to global commerce, which could make it challenging to progress in negotiating trade deals, and there are a lot of misconceptions about free trade.

    Canada is a nation that was built on trade and continues to rely on it heavily for our continued prosperity. Our predecessors knew that opening borders and exchanging with our neighbours was a pathway to strength and security for our nation and its citizens. Our government supports this long-standing practice of opening foreign markets through trade agreements.

    Through the years, the process of trade has evolved, with innovation leading to faster, more reliable, and more efficient exchanges across borders. For example, technological advances have helped overcome barriers of time and distance and have made it much more of a reality to find trading partners throughout the world.

    Concretely, it means that many of the burdensome and costly processes required to explore, pursue, and deliver on international business opportunities are now easier for Canadian companies.

    As a side note, the changing accessibility of markets highlights an important challenge for many business owners and entrepreneurs in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets, as so many businesses rely on quality high-speed Internet in order to communicate with suppliers and expand trade opportunities around the world. I was thrilled with the announcement by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development of the connect to innovate program, which invests $500 million over five years to support the development of broadband infrastructure. I have spoken with many organizations in my riding that are considering putting forward applications for this program. I hope that this will be a great first step in getting more reliable Internet to rural parts of my riding. Our government is actively working to address these barriers to trade and business expansion.

    However, to get back to CETA, trade is fundamental to the prosperity of Canada, just as it is for the world economy. Canada is among the most open of the G7 countries, ranking second in terms of both trade and foreign direct investment as a share of GDP. In Canada, one in six jobs is related to exports. Canadian exports of goods and services are equivalent to just under one-third of our GDP, and Canada's total trade is equivalent in size to nearly two-thirds of our GDP. There were more than 43,500 Canadian goods exporting companies in 2014, most of which are small and medium-size enterprises.

    As a medium-sized economy, we depend on trade to increase tax revenues to our public accounts, so we can invest in Canada's physical infrastructure, security infrastructure, and public services. Increased trade means increased job creation, increased income, resulting in a higher standard of living. Canada is ranked high in all of these categories, thanks in part to our trade around the world.

    Open trade benefits Canadian consumers by increasing product selection and lower prices resulting from the elimination of unnecessary trade barriers, be they traditional, such as tariffs, or technical, such as having heavy bureaucratic burden. It benefits Canadian businesses by opening up new markets and opportunities for our world-class workers, producers, and manufacturers.

     Trade agreements open international markets to Canadians goods and services and help counter protectionism. These agreements improve operating conditions for our firms by committing countries to transparent, predictable, rules-based systems. This helps establish a more stable environment for trade and investment and is especially important for middle-sized economies such as Canada's.

    The context of international trade is changing. In light of this change, and in order to counter rising anti-trade sentiments, the government has moved above and beyond the traditional model, policies, and mechanisms to pursue trade, becoming a leading force in certain fields. It is the government's progressive trade agenda policy that I am referring to.

    We have recently witnessed the success of progressive trade with CETA. Our government has made enhancements to CETA in order to strengthen and introduce progressive elements related to environmental protection, workers' rights, consumers' health and safety, and the government's right to regulate. These were key issues that needed to be addressed properly in order to gain the support of some member states within the EU before we signed CETA, permitting the ratification of this progressive agreement in the Council of the European Union.

    Nova Scotia's aging population, jobs, and economic growth and challenges, matching those looking for work with the vacancies available, are issues I hear about every day. However, we are not elected to just talk about challenges, we are here to talk about and find solutions.

    As members may be aware, the federal government and provincial governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador have launched the Atlantic growth strategy, which is in response to some of the systemic issues we have seen in Atlantic Canada for some time. We have not seen a lot of progress on these issues under previous governments, unfortunately. What we Atlantic Canadian MPs can see clearly, which I think many business owners can see clearly, is that Atlantic Canada is home to some of the highest-quality products in the world and that there are markets that are willing to pay for our high-quality products.

    As a government, it is our job to reduce those barriers to get our products to their markets, to help our small, medium, and large-sized businesses succeed. CETA is a pathway to achieving that end. By removing some of the barriers to trade, it means we can get lobsters, wines, tires, airplane parts, fruit juices, Christmas trees, and many other goods to European markets more easily and at more competitive rates than they are right now.

    We have the CanExport program, announced in January of 2016 by our government, which is designed to provide up to $50 million over five years in direct financial support to small and medium-sized companies to access new export opportunities, as well as The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service's network. It is not just goods. Implementing CETA will mean that innovative and entrepreneurial Canadians would be able to offer their services more easily to European businesses and governments. As former American President Obama said on his visit to Ottawa, “the world needs more Canada”. CETA is one way to help grow Canadian businesses and help them create jobs while sharing what Canadians have to offer with the world.

    My message today is a simple one: free trade has and will continue to transform the world for the better. We should be confident about what can be achieved through trade. Trade means economic growth and job creation in Atlantic Canada. In pursuit of prosperity, we should continue to challenge those who oppose trade. We should welcome a golden opportunity like CETA and other free trade agreements to forge a new role in the world, one which puts Canadians first.

    I encourage all hon. members to support this bill. Their support would indicate to Canadians that we want to succeed in today's globalized world while staying true to our core principles.

    Madam Speaker, in my riding in northern Alberta, there are a number of key industries. The forestry industry is a major player, the agriculture sector is a huge employer, and the oil and gas sector is the number one employer. They very much value the increased market access that comes with CETA.

    They are also looking forward to the ratification of the TPP. I was wondering if my colleague could provide her insights on the TPP and how that deal is progressing, particularly in light of some of the other comments that have been made earlier today.

    Madam Speaker, when we talk about free trade, we have made it clear that we support trade on this side of the House. It is important to note that all agreements will be debated in their own time. Right now, CETA is top of mind, and one that I am hoping all members of the House will support.

    Madam Speaker, what is sometimes frustrating when we have debates on trade in the House is trying to work our way through the barrage of suffocating platitudes about free trade to talk about particular agreements. It seems to me, having listened to the member's speech, that she does not believe it matters, when we are on the cusp of signing a major multilateral treaty with a number of major partners, that one of the major partners is pulling out of the deal.

    Let us say that one was planning one's family's financial future. Assuming that one partner had a job with a certain income and the other one had a job with another income, the two decide what they can afford in purchasing a home and are keen to sign the mortgage. In the meantime, both lose their jobs and their financial situation totally changes. The current government would walk right in there and sign the mortgage anyway.

    We are living in a turbulent time. The conditions surrounding CETA have changed dramatically. Canada's trade position with respect to the United States is in the process of potentially changing. There is a lot of uncertainty. It seems like a bad time to jump into a trade deal that we do not even know Europe is going to agree to.

    Why is it that the government and the member feel it is so urgent to sign this deal when we do not even know the context in which we are signing it?