Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his gracious final remarks.

We believe that in order for trade deals to be successful, they need to be inclusive. They need to bring onside the majority of the population so that all people benefit, not just the large multinational corporations.

Which of these provisions does the member find to be virtue signalling? Is the labour chapter in the NAFTA deal virtue signalling? Is the chapter that promotes gender equality virtue signalling? Is the chapter that enforces environmental standards virtue signalling? How about the committee that includes SMEs in the trade implementation? Is that virtue signalling?

Mr. Dan Albas

Madam Speaker, I will just go back to my speech.

Again, it is about putting forward values that may be important to the Prime Minister, that may be important to Canadians. He tried the same approach with China. China rejected that.

I would just ask it the other way around. If the leader of China came to Canada and said, “We want a free trade agreement, but here is what we want to see” and put values in it that are contrary to Canadian values, Canadians would rightly say that we were not in support.

In the case of Mexico, Mexico was laser-focused on where it could win. When we asked the government where it got any wins, the Liberals said that we kept chapter 19. If they cannot say where their wins are and can only say that they kept one component, it is not much of a win.

There was concession after concession, not to mention the steel and aluminum tariffs that kneecapped many in our industry. That was the wrong approach.

In my speech, I gave an alternative view. We should not have allowed Mexico to isolate Canada in those bilateral talks that ended up being trilateral ones. That was a key error, regardless of what the government says. I know there are Liberals on that side who would agree with that assessment.

Mr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP)

Madam Speaker, I have a question about how the member feels about investor state dispute settlements being removed from the agreement, and also about article 22, which limits state-owned corporations.

In light of that, how does he feel about the Canada-China FIPA? It was an investment treaty, not a trade agreement, that was pushed through by the Harper government without any debate in this House, whereby Chinese state-owned corporations can use investor state dispute settlements to seek compensation for the loss of potential profit when our laws and policies get in the way of their profitability.

I am just curious about how the member feels about investor state agreements in trade agreements, about state-owned corporations, and about the Canada-China FIPA in light of those things.

Mr. Dan Albas

Madam Speaker, the member seemed most offended by the Canada-China FIPA, so I will address that straight away.

First of all, the member should review the Constitution. It is the executive, in this case the Prime Minister and cabinet, that has the authority to enter into agreements with other countries. It was actually the Harper government that made changes that allowed those agreements to be tabled for 21 days here so that parliamentarians could review them.

If the member and his leader want to win enough seats to form an official party, they can make that the question on their opposition day.

When we push Canadian companies to sell their products and services abroad, and they choose to enter a place like China, they may not feel that they are going to be treated the same way they are in a rule-of-law country like Canada, like the United States and like many in the European Union, where there is due process and similar values in that due process. They would ask how they were going to protect themselves in case there was confiscation without compensation. Having that process in place in places like China allows some protection.

I would be happy to speak with the member further about his views.

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the new NAFTA. Before I start, I would like to point out that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Let me take the time to highlight, first and foremost, our government's record on international trade. Consecutive governments have talked about trade diversification and trade expansion, but most governments have failed. I acknowledge that the previous government, under Mr. Harper, had started some negotiations, but unfortunately, it was not able to close the deals. When it came to the free trade agreement CETA, while the Conservatives started the negotiations, they could not close the deal. When it came to the CPTPP, the Conservatives negotiated the previous agreement known as TPP, but it failed. It took our government's leadership and our Prime Minister's leadership to renegotiate it to include progressive, inclusive elements and revive it, improve it and ratify it.

Canada is a trading nation. One out of six Canadian jobs is related to trade. Our government has recognized the value of trade. However, we also know that it is really important to make sure that when we sign trade agreements, they are inclusive. We keep in mind our middle class, we keep in mind small and medium-size enterprises and we keep in mind gender equality. Those issues are not virtue signalling. Those issues are economic issues. Those issues benefit all Canadians. They help lift many people out of poverty and invite them into our labour force to ensure that everyone is benefiting from those free trade agreements.

I want to talk about how we were able to close the deal on CETA, sign it and ratify it here in the House of Commons. We were able to renegotiate and improve the previous agreement known as the TPP, the CPTPP, sign it and ratify it here in the House of Commons. In fact, we were one of the first countries to ratify the CPTPP. We were also able to renegotiate NAFTA, and now we are in the midst of the ratification process.

If we add all that up, that is 1.5 billion new customers for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. Today Canada is the only member of the G7 that has a free trade agreement with all other G7 nations. These are not just any free trade agreements. They are fair, inclusive trade agreements that keep in mind the interests of all Canadians, particularly our middle class.

I also want to highlight our investment in expanding trade. Our government has put the largest investment into trade infrastructure and trade support systems in Canada's history. We have invested over $1.2 billion in expanding our trade corridors, including ports, roads and rail. We have invested in the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service, which is our best asset. It is our Canadian businesses' and Canadian workers' best asset. It is Canada's global sales force. It is present in 160 countries around the world, promoting Canadian businesses and promoting Canadian interests, and we are proud to invest in it and to expand its presence around the world.

We are creating programs that support small and medium-sized businesses that are looking to expand and trade, because we know that small and medium-sized enterprises that trade pay better, are more resilient and are more profitable. It is in our best interest, if we want to continue to create more jobs, that we support small and medium-sized enterprises that export. Today only 14% of our SMEs trade, and we want to increase that number.

We have created programs such as CanExport that help small and medium-sized enterprises that are thinking about trade but are worried about the upfront costs. We are providing support to those SMEs all across our great country so that they are able to take advantage of those new markets that are available to them.

It does not end there. In 2018, foreign direct investment in Canada grew by 60%. Why? Canada is receiving an unprecedented level of foreign investment, because the rest of the world is noticing that Canada has access to an incredible array of markets. The U.S. market does not have the same access to foreign markets as Canada does.

International businesses are noticing. International investors are noticing. That is why we have seen a 60% increase in foreign trade investment. Direct investment from countries other than the U.S. has increased by 300%. Those investments bring jobs to our middle class. Those investments bring wealth to our businesses. This is good news for our country and good news for Canadians.

Let me take a moment to talk about NAFTA.

We had to renegotiate NAFTA when the current President of the United States campaigned on tearing up NAFTA. He told U.S. citizens that NAFTA needed to be torn up.

We started the negotiations with the new administration in good faith. We wanted to keep an open mind. NAFTA was over 20 years old, and it needed an overhaul. It was a tough negotiation process.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge how Canadians of all political stripes and Canadian businesses rallied around our government as we were in the midst of a tough negotiation with our partners.

However, many on the Conservative benches, and other Conservative voices, were asking us to capitulate. The Conservative Party loves to brag about Stephen Harper's record. Here is a direct quote from a memo written by Mr. Harper in 2017. He wrote, “it does not matter whether current American proposals are worse than what we have now.” He wanted us to capitulate, and he was encouraging people to put pressure on the Canadian government to capitulate.

My colleagues on the Conservative benches were asking questions in question period, and this is on the record. They were demanding that our government capitulate to U.S. demands. I am glad, and I am proud, that our Prime Minister, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, and our team did not capitulate. We stood firm for Canadian values. We stood firm for what made sense for Canadian businesses. We ended up with a great deal.

We did face a challenge with steel and aluminum tariffs, unjust and illegal steel and aluminum tariffs, but we hung in. We pushed and we advocated. At the time, my colleagues on the Conservative benches again asked us to drop our tariffs. They called them “dumb”. Our retaliatory tariffs worked, and we were able to negotiate the elimination of those tariffs with our partner, the United States.

My friends say that we were virtue signalling. I would like to know from them what part of this new NAFTA is virtue signalling. Is the new labour chapter virtue signalling? Is the new chapter on the environment virtue signalling? Is the new chapter on gender equity virtue signalling? These inclusive chapters will benefit all Canadians and will raise their wages. They will make sure that we have more productive jobs for the middle class.

I am disappointed in the Conservatives. I am relieved that they will be voting for this agreement. It does not make sense to me, but still I am relieved that they will be voting for it. I ask them to join us and agree that those provisions and this deal are good for Canadians and good for middle-class Canadians.

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Madam Speaker, I need to straighten out the record. The parliamentary secretary said that his government saved the TPP. The reality is that it was signed, and if we had passed it, we would not have had to renegotiate NAFTA. What happened? The government stalled. The Liberals dragged their feet. They kept hesitating. They kept making it impossible for the U.S. to move forward. If the Liberal government had embraced it and ratified it, we would not be talking about NAFTA today. That is the reality.

The Liberals have upset many of our trade partners around the world: China, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines. Which country has the Prime Minister travelled to where he has not upset someone?

The reality is that this agreement is not perfect, but it would provide stability, and business communities want stability.

Our structural steel is going to face tariffs in August. Our softwood lumber has tariffs right now. What are the Liberals going to do to solve those problems once they ratify this deal?

Mr. Omar Alghabra

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but I find it interesting that he is doubling down on the old TPP. I find it interesting that he has taken the side of the Saudi Arabian government over the Chinese government. I find it interesting that he is saying that we should not be upholding our own laws or values. I am really—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

The hon. member for Prince Albert had an opportunity to ask the question. If he has other questions or comments, then he should wait for the opportunity to be recognized again.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Omar Alghabra

Madam Speaker, when we are defending Canadian interests and values around the world, my hon. colleague should support us in that effort. Yes, we have disagreements domestically, but I wish he would not take the side of the Saudis or the Chinese government's side.

Our government has proven that we will continue to defend Canadians' interests. We will continue to defend the interests of the middle class. All of our trade negotiation results have proven that. We have a million jobs to speak for that, we have the lowest poverty rate in Canada's history to speak for those results and I am very proud of our government's record.

Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP)

Madam Speaker, for some time now, the NDP has been calling on the government to establish a national pharmacare program that would cover everything.

However, the agreement we are currently discussing, and that the government wants to get signed quickly, includes patent extensions that would make pharmacare even harder and more expensive to implement.

Does my colleague not think that this kind of clause in the agreement with the United States and Mexico will hinder the implementation of a pharmacare program?

Mr. Omar Alghabra

No, Madam Speaker, I disagree with my hon. colleague. We have seen this before. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, the New Democrats were dead set against the original NAFTA. They said the sky was going to fall and that we were going to lose so many jobs. It has been proven that free trade is good for Canadians. Today, once again, they are trying to scare Canadians, again claim that the sky is going to fall and that drugs are going to be so expensive. It is not true. The short answer to her question is no.

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the same question my colleague asked. He was quite right.

I am going to read from an article by Bill Curry on November 19, 2015. This was 13 or 14 months before Mr. Trump was even sworn in. Mr. Obama was in Manila and stated, “We are both soon to be signatories of the TPP agreement.” In other words, as my colleague said, we would not have had these problems if the Liberals had actually moved ahead on it. Mr. Obama was the most progressive president around and now, by doing this, there seems to be no leverage for the outstanding issues, like my colleague said, on steel, softwood lumber and the Buy American clause.

Could the parliamentary secretary please let us know how he is going to resolve those issues now that he has given away this leverage?

Mr. Omar Alghabra

Once again, Madam Speaker, I find it strange. Regardless of what Conservatives think of the TPP, and I disagree with him, the U.S. pulled out of the TPP. The claim is that if we had ratified the TPP, it would have solved so many problems, but the U.S. pulled out the TPP.

To answer his question, I can point to our record. Our Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade Diversification, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have proven that we will stand firm to defend Canadian interests and Canadian jobs.

Mr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP)

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and engage in the debate on NAFTA.

Many of my constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith will know that I am very passionate about trade issues and concerned about international trade and investment agreements.

First of all, I want to say that the Green Party of Canada supports trade. We think it is a vital part of our economy. However, what we want to see in trade agreements is respect for environmental regulations, labour standards, health and safety standards, and consumer protections. These things should be increased in trade agreements, the way that the European Union does. Countries that enter the European Union must increase their standards and regulations to meet the highest standards in the union. We think that those kinds of approaches to international trade are important.

About 15 years ago, I was focused on a lot of local issues and worked on films about local water. Somebody had asked me if I knew anything about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the SPP,, and I did not. Therefore, I went off to Ottawa to go to the people summit and learn about the SPP.

I went to Montebello to document the protests that were happening there, and I happened to videotape three police officers who were dressed as radicals with masks on who were attacking their own riot squad. They were unmasked in the process, and all of their boots matched with those of the riot squad. This raised questions for me about why the police would be involved in this kind of incitement, and I have footage of them banging rocks into shields, etc. I wondered why they would be involved in this kind of incitement at a peaceful protest, and they were later proven to be police officers.

I became interested in the Security and Prosperity Partnership and started to dig in. What I found was that in this process there was a deep integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico as part of a fortress North America after 9/11. It also included integration of our regulatory standards. I looked into who was negotiating on behalf of Canada for these regulatory standards. There were 20 corporations for each of three countries, Mexico, the United States and Canada. There were some great Canadian corporations representing Canada in this negotiation process, such as Home Depot Canada, Walmart Canada, Chevron Canada and Ford Canada.

I started to study trade agreements a little more and found that there really was no involvement of civil society in these agreements. These were corporate agreements. Therefore, I really appreciate in this new version of NAFTA that the government has involved labour organizations and environmental organizations as part of the negotiating process, and I see that as progress. This is what we need to be doing in our negotiations on international trade and investment. They cannot just be secretive processes where only the corporations and the bureaucrats are involved. We need people who represent consumers, workers and environmentalists so that we have a fair process that can look at all aspects of trade and make sure that our regulations and standards are protected.

One of the others things I learned working on this film was about investor-state dispute settlements. Chapter 11 in NAFTA was the first time that a developed country had signed on to this process. It was something that the Europeans had used with their former colonial states to kind of keep corporate control over mineral extraction, etc. However, when I looked into Chapter 11, there were cases such as Ethyl Corporation, which got $5 million when Canada blocked the use of MMT, an additive that was a neurotoxin in gasoline. Ethyl Corporation said that it was an unfair trade practice to ban it. There are also things in these investment chapters such as indirect expropriation, and we all know what expropriation is; national treatment; as well as most favoured nation status. These are all things that are used by corporations to challenge our laws and policies. Therefore, I was really happy to see that the investor-state dispute settlement was taken out of the new NAFTA.

Let us look at cases like Bilcon, where a foreign corporation is challenging our environmental assessment process and getting $7 million for doing nothing. It is not a process that makes sense. We see this used as a big stick by mining companies to get developed countries to accept mining and extraction projects.

We need to do something about softwood lumber. That is an important issue in my community.

I am also concerned about the extension of patents for pharmaceuticals from eight years to 10 years for biologics and how that will affect the cost of drugs. We see many people, seniors in particular, who are having to make decisions about what they spend their money on: rent, food or pharmaceuticals.

Article 22, the state-owned chapter, has a carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion project. That is a concern for me as well.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota)

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith will have four minutes coming to him when we come back to the debate later on this evening. He will have five minutes for questions and comments as well.

It being 5:30, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Hon. Lisa Raitt (Milton, CPC)

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) rights of victims deserve proper consideration in our criminal justice system; (b) the parole system must avoid unnecessary revictimization; and (c) the government should amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act prior to the next election, so as to provide victims with an explanation of how dates are determined for offenders’ eligibility for temporary absences, releases and parole.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of how important it is to advance the rights of victims in a timely manner, I will be very brief in my intervention today, given the fact that we are in the last hours of this House sitting in this session.

Earlier today, I introduced a bill that would make it a requirement that victims be provided with an explanation of how dates are determined for their offender's eligibility for temporary absences, for release or for parole. This is a simple change that would ensure victims are given information up front, rather than finding out through some other channel that their offender was returned to society.

Mr. Speaker, I should be clear that I introduced a bill, and that today we are debating a motion.

This simple change could save a lot of heartache and unnecessary revictimization for the victims of crime. As such, I would suggest that if the government wants to demonstrate that it cares about victims, it can adopt the bill as its own. The official opposition is prepared to support it, at all stages, before this House rises, to ensure that victims are provided with the information that they need.

I have waited 11 years to be able to stand here and introduce my very first private member's bill and my first motion on the floor of the House of Commons. This is an issue of victims rights that is very near and dear to my heart. I am grateful for the opportunity and for the support of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Oshawa, in bringing this moment to today's floor.

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, Lisa Freeman is a constituent of mine who has worked years to advance this motion about the parole system.

To provide a bit of background, Lisa's father was brutally murdered. At the age of 21, she had to identify her father's body. His murderer was sentenced to 25 years without parole. Lisa, like many victims, found out that he was going to be let go early. This happened out of the blue. There was no transparency.

Passing this motion is a very simply thing the government could do to give more transparency to the system. It would treat victims with dignity and give them timely and accurate information.

I cannot overemphasize that the system is rigged toward the rights of criminals versus the rights of victims. To give an example of how bad this is, Lisa's father's murderer was transferred to a correctional facility within 10 miles of where Lisa's sister lived. She only found out about it 24 hours after he was transferred.

The motion proposes a very simple change and it would give more transparency. The government has run on transparency. Does the member see any reason that an initiative like this could not get unanimous consent of the House?

Hon. Lisa Raitt

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate all the work the hon. member for Oshawa has done on this file and for bringing Lisa Freeman's story to our attention and to my attention in the House.

Fundamentally, he government and the rest of the House could pass pass this motion very quickly, as we stand here today. It is a very simple amendment. It would add one single line, asking for an explanation as to why parole would be given parole in a certain way.

Transparency for victims in these matters is incredibly important. It helps them to understand how the system works.

In the case of Lisa Freeman, they were part of the system for at least 20 years. They should have the ability to understand, at the very end of their journey through the system, exactly what happened. It is an ask for the government from this family, and many other families in Canada, that makes sense and can easily be done.

I would ask that the government consider this so we can give some comfort to families like Lisa Freeman's and other families experiencing the same confusion and lack of transparency with respect to dealing with the corrections system as it currently stands.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the issue of victims. Over the last number of years, we have tried to come up with thoughts and ideas on how to prevent people becoming victims in the future.

I realize this may not necessarily be on topic, but could my friend provide some thoughts on tangible actions that could be taken to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place, actions to which individuals could relate?

Hon. Lisa Raitt

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question relates to a broader and larger discussion that we will probably have in the next Parliament, should we be so lucky to be returned to this place by our constituents.

That being said, one concrete thing we can do to prevent re-victimization is to have the government adopt the motion and ensure it passes here and makes it to the other place. People become victims in the moment and the instant that horrendous crimes happen to them. However, they are re-victimized and they continue to be victims for the rest of their lives, as the process unfolds through incarceration, corrections and then further into parole.

This one tiny aspect of at least understanding the reason parole is being granted at early stages would be extremely helpful for the Freeman family in particular, and I am convinced for the rest of Canadians as well. I hope the government continues to consider it.