Bill C-30 (Historical)

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures

This enactment implements the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, done at Brussels on October 30, 2016.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 14 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Agreement and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenses associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and for the power of the Governor in Council to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.
Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement and to make other modifications. In addition to making the customary amendments that are made to certain Acts when implementing such agreements, Part 2 amends
(a) the Export and Import Permits Act to, among other things,
(i) authorize the Minister designated for the purposes of that Act to issue export permits for goods added to the Export Control List and subject to origin quotas in a country or territory to which the Agreement applies,
(ii) authorize that Minister, with respect to goods subject to origin quotas in another country that are added to the Export Control List for certain purposes, to determine the quantities of goods subject to such quotas and to issue export allocations for such goods, and
(iii) require that Minister to issue an export permit to any person who has been issued such an export allocation;
(b) the Patent Act to, among other things,
(i) create a framework for the issuance and administration of certificates of supplementary protection, for which patentees with patents relating to pharmaceutical products will be eligible, and
(ii) provide further regulation-making authority in subsection 55.‍2(4) to permit the replacement of the current summary proceedings in patent litigation arising under regulations made under that subsection with full actions that will result in final determinations of patent infringement and validity;
(c) the Trade-marks Act to, among other things,
(i) protect EU geographical indications found in Annex 20-A of the Agreement,
(ii) provide a mechanism to protect other geographical indications with respect to agricultural products and foods,
(iii) provide for new grounds of opposition, a process for cancellation, exceptions for prior use for certain indications, for acquired rights and for certain terms considered to be generic, and
(iv) transfer the protection of the Korean geographical indications listed in the Canada–Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act into the Trade-marks Act;
(d) the Investment Canada Act to raise, for investors that are non-state-owned enterprises from countries that are parties to the Agreement or to other trade agreements, the threshold as of which investments are reviewable under Part IV of the Act; and
(e) the Coasting Trade Act to
(i) provide that the requirement in that Act to obtain a licence is not applicable for certain activities carried out by certain non-duty paid or foreign ships that are owned by a Canadian entity, EU entity or third party entity under Canadian or European control, and
(ii) provide, with respect to certain applications for a licence for dredging made on behalf of certain of those ships, for exemptions from requirements that are applicable to the issuance of a licence.
Part 3 contains consequential amendments and Part 4 contains coordinating amendments and the coming-into-force provision.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

We put Bill C-30 through immediately and own-motion powers.

Transportation Modernization Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-49 and the motion put forward by the government.

The message I want to get forward today is really about what brought us here and whether Canadian agriculture had to go through all this pain and suffering when we really did not achieve much at the end. What is disingenuous with the entire process is that over the last several months the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture were telling our producers, stakeholders, and shippers to hang on and be patient, that once Bill C-49 was passed it was going to resolve all of their problems and we would not have a grain backlog in the future.

I am going to speak more on the agriculture side than I will on some of the other elements of Bill C-49.

The inaction by the ministers and the government on this issue for almost a year has been mind-boggling. Last June my colleague, the shadow minister for transportation, put forward a list of amendments that would have addressed many of these problems we are facing, but they were turned down. Now we have them back on the table from the Senate. They went through the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and again through the Senate. Now they are here, and the Liberal government is saying it will be supporting a number of those amendments. I am not sure what changed over those 10 months; the Liberals could have supported those amendments last June, but they did not.

It was the start of time after time when the Liberals were given numerous options to get Bill C-49 through the process as quickly as possible, as well as to address many of the problems that our grain farmers across western Canada have been facing. Every time the Liberals were given an option to address the situation, which became a crisis in January and February, they did nothing.

Last summer, we encouraged the government to extend the provisions of Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, which extended interswitching and mandatory minimum volumes, a process that we had in place in 2013-14 when we went through the previous grain backlog. This addressed many of those problems. Our stakeholders, producers, grain terminals, and shippers were satisfied. They were quite pleased with that process. It gave the rail lines some accountability to ensure that they were able to move grain as well as other products, whether it was lumber, mining, or oil and gas. We want to make sure that all our producers have an opportunity to get their commodities to market.

In the fall, when Bill C-49 was first brought to the House, we saw that it was a massive document and that it was going to be extremely difficult to get any sort of consensus on a bill that dealt with everything from video recorders and locomotives to an air passenger bill of rights to interswitching. How were we possibly going to be able to find some sort of satisfaction among all stakeholders and within all the different points of view in our industries, let alone here in the House of Commons or in the Senate?

At that time we saw that this was going to be an issue. With the size and the scope that Bill C-49 entailed, we knew that getting it through that process with any sort of expediency was going to be nearly impossible. Once again we provided what I thought was a thoughtful resolution to the Liberal government, which was to split Bill C-49 into two bills. We would take many of the aspects of the bill that had to do with grain and grain transportation through the process as quickly as possible. Some of the other contentious issues that had to do with airline rights and other issues would take longer to go through the process, but we knew there was no time crunch or time sensitivity of the kind that there was on the grain side.

Last fall, with a larger-than-average harvest and the challenges CN and CP were facing in terms of meeting the contracts, we saw the rail line numbers dipping with each weekly report that was coming out.

We raised the alarm bells last fall that this was going to be a problem. We encouraged the government to split Bill C-49. I recall being in this House last October making almost the same argument that we were not going to get Bill C-49 through this process in a timely fashion to prevent another grain backlog. Again, it fell on deaf ears.

The result of that inaction last October, before we got to this point, was rail service that put us in a grain crisis. It is a crisis that still exists today. I do not think we can miss that point. Although we are here now, no problem has been resolved. We have road bans across the western provinces. We have more than 30 transport ships off the coast of British Columbia waiting for product. Those demurrage costs of $10,000 a day and up are now being passed on to the producers. Who will pay those additional costs that are now being passed on to our farmers across western Canada?

We have to keep that in mind as we have this discussion and this debate today. The crisis our farmers have been facing since last fall is still there, and it is not going away anytime soon. It is going to impact their fall season. They cannot move grain right now. Many of them are finally in the fields seeding. Road bans are in place in many of the western provinces, inhibiting their ability to actually transport grain to the terminal.

They are watching us today with a lot of focus on the decision we will be making in this House. How are we going to address the problems they are facing? The crisis has become so bad that our most recent report says that almost half a billion dollars' worth of grain is sitting in storage bins across western Canada. That is grain that our producers and our farmers cannot sell. They are unable to sell their product and get it to the terminal and then to the coast.

These same farmers who are unable to sell their product still have bills coming in. There are mortgage payments, lease payments on land, equipment purchases, and input costs as they try to get ready to start seeding. There are programs in place through Farm Credit Canada and the advanced payments program, essential programs that are in place to help in these times of extenuating circumstances.

I know that our producers do not want to have to rely on those assistance programs for a product they work hard all year to plant and harvest and are now trying to sell, but are unable to because of logistics.

As my colleague from Guelph said, we had an emergency meeting of the agriculture committee. I want to commend my colleagues on that committee for agreeing to have that emergency meeting with many of our stakeholders.

One of our witnesses at that meeting was a young farmer from Saskatchewan. I thought he put it quite well. He said, “We have to face so many uncertainties when we are in agriculture: uncertain weather, uncertain input costs, uncertainty when it comes to the commodity prices. The one thing we should be able to rely on is a reliable transportation system, which we do not have right now.”

One of the key issues with Bill C-49 is that it does not resolve those problems. We have gone through this entire process. As I said earlier, the Liberal government, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, through this entire process, have said that we should be patient, because Bill C-49 would address all the problems. Then just a few weeks ago, we had both ministers admit publicly that Bill C-49, indeed, will not resolve a lot of the problems that have been raised.

The government is asking our producers to suffer through yet another grain backlog, which should never have happened. The government had all the tools in place to address this problem, yet it did nothing. I can understand the frustration of our producers across the western provinces. They are looking at us today to take action to ensure that they never have to face this sort of issue again.

We have had many of our grain, barley, and pulse growers here over the last couple of weeks as they have had their days on the Hill. They have raised some other points that I do not think we have talked enough about as we have gone through this process. Not only is this grain backlog causing them to suffer because they are not able to sell their product, it is tarnishing our reputation as a reliable trading partner around the world. A lot of our producers are not getting a premium price for their product, because for all intents and purposes, Canada does not have a reputation for being able to get their contracts out in a timely fashion. We cannot meet our commitments to other countries. When prices are high in the fall, in October, November, and December, we should be selling our crops. We are not getting them to market, to the terminals, and to the west coast until the spring, sometimes a year later, so we are missing out on those premium prices, because we have an inept logistical system and an inept transportation system, a transportation system that has very little to no accountability.

Earlier today, the Minister of Transport was talking about one of the amendments the Senate had brought forward, which I think is critical. It is on “own motion powers” for the Canadian Transportation Agency. That was an amendment brought forward at the standing committee for transportation. It was an amendment brought forward by many of our stakeholders. They want accountability for the rail lines. If there are issues, and our stakeholders see issues, the Canadian Transportation Agency, once it receives a complaint, or even if it does not receive a complaint, can take action to try to address some of those key issues. It is a key part of Bill C-49.

The Minister of Transport earlier today spoke very highly about this part of the bill when he said that we are giving the CTA its own motion powers, which will make such a critical difference for our producers. In fact, in the amendment the Liberal government has put forward, there are no own motion powers. It states in the amendment that the authorization goes to the Minister of Transport. He will be the one who decides if the CTA can take action and put forward some guidelines, a template, on what action can be taken.

Let us put that into a perspective that I think all of us in the House today can understand. That is like my parents saying, “You know what, son? You can do whatever you want with your life, as long as it's okay with mum and dad”. That is what the Liberal government's own motion powers are in Bill C-49. Who is going to give that any credence? There is supposed to be some accountability in Bill C-49 for our shippers. However, this only comes into effect if it is okay with the Minister of Transport. It is okay for people to make their own decisions, but they have to ask the minister first. That has nothing to do with own motion powers. It is really quite hollow hearing that this is going to be a critical part of the bill, because it is taking the arms of the CTA and tying them behind its back.

As we have gone through this process, every step of the way we have offered the Liberal government a solution. My colleague, the shadow minister for transportation, has offered another solution today. She has brought forward an amendment that will concurred the Senate amendments to get this bill passed as quickly as possible.

We are not saying that we agree with every aspect of Bill C-49. In fact, I think we have heard in the debate today that there are still some significant issues with the bill. We also listened to our stakeholders. They need something that will give them some piece of mind that there is going to be some sort of legislation in place to help them address some of the problems they are facing.

We have had stakeholders like the CFA. They represent 200,000 farm families. The Grain Growers represent 50,000 active producers, and they are asking for no further delays on Bill C-49. They want it passed immediately. That is what my colleague's motion today will do.

We want to ensure that we can get this bill passed as quickly as possible. Again, every time we have offered an option or a solution to get this bill through the process, the Liberals have put in yet another step and delay.

They are saying today that if they do not support our motion, and they want our support to pass their amendments and the minister's motion, this all of a sudden will be a quick process. That is simply not the case. If the Liberals do not accept our motion and they pass theirs, Bill C-49 will go back to the Senate, and the Senate will have to agree to the Liberals' amendments. It is yet another obstacle to keep Bill C-49 from passing. This is going to be a ping-pong ball that will go back and forth, or maybe not. Maybe the Senate will agree to the Liberal amendments, but we do not have any assurance of that.

There are amendments they could have passed almost a year ago. There have been opportunities put forward to pass Bill C-49, or, what preferably would have been the case last fall, to extend Bill C-30, and we would never have faced any of these issues.

I am really encouraging our colleagues across the floor to support our motion today, pass the Senate amendments, go right to royal assent, and give our stakeholders the assurances they are looking for to ensure that they can get their job done. What this comes down to is our stakeholders' inability to get their products to market. We have a great deal of concern that this will spill into the fall as farmers get ready for next year's harvest. That has been the disconcerting part of it all.

I think my colleague across the way can understand the comments we heard at our emergency meeting last month on the grain backlog. Many of those witnesses came forward and said that they have given up on it this year. They know that they are not going to get their grain to market and are hoping that this does not impact next year's harvest and next year's shipping season.

I want to highlight that this bill is certainly not perfect. There are lots of concerns about what is in Bill C-49. I want to read some comments from the Premier of Saskatchewan, who has been extremely vocal in his concern about Bill C-49 and the problems it has caused in Saskatchewan. We have seen that Nutrien has just announced that it has laid off or is laying off more than 600 employees, which is going to impact maybe up to 1,300 employees in rural Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Premier said, “This is a direct result of the federal government not taking action where there is a huge problem, and they have the clear authority to fix it.”

What have the Liberals done in response to that? They have done nothing. Once again, they want to put this bill back to the Senate, which would delay this process even further.

We have to highlight the financial impact these delays have had. Again, $500 million in grain is sitting in storage bins across western Canada, not getting to market. We have now seen the job layoffs in Saskatchewan at Nutrien, and that is just one company, one potash company. Certainly there will be others that will be facing similar problems.

This is having implications for rural communities. If farmers cannot sell their grain, and they cannot get it to market, it means they do not have money in their pockets to spend in our small communities. That is grocery stores, gas stations, and little movie theatres. That is charities, ball teams, and fundraisers. Those are the things that are suffering because our farmers do not have money in their pockets. They cannot get their grain to market, and that is a direct result of the inaction of the Liberal government when it comes to this grain backlog.

The Liberals could have stopped it a year ago. They could have stopped it in the fall. They could have taken action with an order in council in January or February. Every single time, they have stuck up for the rail duopoly.

With Bill C-49, there is no accountability. Why have the Liberals made our grain farmers suffer through yet another grain backlog? When it comes down to it, they have really done nothing.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the minister for joining us today, as well as all of the departmental officials. I know you do very good work on behalf of Canadians and I appreciate your joining us today. My question, obviously, will be for the minister.

For weeks, Minister Garneau, farmers and the Province of Saskatchewan have all been asking you to support an order in council to force the railways to clear the rail backlog that has plagued Canada's rail system this winter, yet you have refused to do so.

To be clear, this is not the first time you have refused to act in the interests of our farmers and shippers. When you introduced Bill C-49, Conservative members requested that the bill be split so that the rail measures in the bill could be studied in an expeditious manner. When you refused, we then called upon you to extend Bill C-30 to ensure that there would be no legislative gap, and again you refused. Finally, when the opposition members proposed reasonable technical amendments to Bill C-49 to address the concerns raised by numerous witnesses, again the Liberal members did not support them.

My question to you, sir, is this: how much more funding would the Department of Transport have needed to request in the supplementary estimates (C) in order to draft, execute, and implement an order in council as requested by numerous farm organizations and provincial governments?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is an urgent issue. I met with agricultural producers and shippers who said we need to do this. Their top recommendation during the course of the study was this could be a little better, that could be a little better. All sides have different things that they would like to see improved. That is a good sign to signal that we have achieved a balance. The number one recommendation that I heard was to get it done quickly.

We have revisited Bill C-30 prior to sunset at the transportation committee and extended it initially. The status quo is that there are no rules in place. What we need to do is step on the gas with every member of this House, I hope, to signal clearly to the other house that we need to move this legislation through quickly. I anticipate that we will be voting on this issue before too long and I hope we have the support of the entire House to ensure that shippers from across Canada have remedies to get their product to market, indeed before winter sets in.

Motions in amendment

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have already heard a lot of people speak about Bill C-49. I had the privilege of attending the hearings in September when I subbed in for that week. I found the hearings incredible in the sense of the knowledge that was shared by all of the experts, as well as the learning, and collegiality among all parties listening and questioning the people there. Having said that, I put some notes down on paper. I am not as well spoken as the previous member, so I will refer to my notes extensively.

Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, makes large-scale changes to how transportation is regulated in Canada. It is an omnibus bill. It makes big changes to rail, air, and marine port authorities. The question is, does it make all the right ones?

I would like to discuss the complicated set of changes Bill C-49 makes to rail in Canada. The changes to the long-haul interswitching this bill makes replace the provisions introduced by the previous Conservative government, which extended interswitching distance to 160 kilometres. Those provisions expired on August 1. I remember well the winter of 2013-14, and the reason why these changes were made at that time.

This is a significant challenge. It needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The shipping industry has been left in limbo since that time. Shippers and producers rely on those tools to ensure access to competing railways. Without them, they lose an important bargaining chip in negotiating prices with railways. Some would say they were not used that much. On the other hand, they were there as a bargaining tool.

This directly hurts competition and can even result in no produce being moved at all in some areas. That' is what happened in the Peace country in 2014. That is why the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act was necessary to address the situation in 2014.

Therefore, new interswitching provisions are long overdue. Unfortunately, it is far from clear whether this bill meets its objective of improving shipper and producer options with the 1,200-kilometre interswitching tool. The system introduced through Bill C-30 was popular with shippers. It provided the certainty of a regulated rate up to 160 kilometres. Bill C-49 proposes changing this so that the interswitching rate over 30 kilometres will be decided by the CTA on an ad hoc basis. The witnesses I heard at the transport committee preferred the 160-kilometre regulated rate system we already had.

The 30-kilometre interswitching rate will be set each year. It takes into account the railroad's infrastructure needs across their entire network. This could increase the rate paid by shippers.

The rate-setting regime this bill introduces needs to be designed to ensure that shippers have access to competitive rates. As designed, the rate will be derived from comparable traffic that is subject to captivity. This system needs to concentrate on a concrete review mechanism to ensure it is actually working for shippers. The government cannot just design this system and leave it to its own devices. Without a sunset clause, which we heard asked for many times, or predesignated review dates in two to three years, there are absolutely no guarantees for shippers and producers that they will benefit.

As it stands, there is simply too much uncertainty about the impact of the newly redesigned interswitching provisions. They need to be reviewable and they need to be timely. We need them implemented now.

Speaking of captive shippers and producers, it is noteworthy that the nearest interswitching location for many shippers and producers in northern Alberta and B.C. would be in Kamloops-Vancouver corridor. The other exclusionary zone is from Quebec City to Windsor. Interswitching is not allowed beyond 30 kilometres in these areas. For these captive shippers, the new interswitching provisions will do nothing to yield more competitive rates and improve competition. This is a serious problem. These captive shippers and producers have no choice but to use one company to which they are effectively held hostage.

It is important to remember that railways in Canada operate in a near monopoly situation. This situation could put shippers and producers at a real disadvantage. The provisions of Bill C-49 that allow shippers to request a contract from a railway, with reciprocal penalties, offers the chance to foster more competition.

However, the penalties need to be designed to acknowledge that the railways have much greater economic power than the shippers. Bill C-49 is intended to encourage the efficient movement of shippers' traffic while creating a system that is fairly balanced between the shipper and the railway. Therefore, the government needs to take a clear position that because of the difference in economic power, railways would be penalized at a higher rate than shippers. One dollar to a shipper versus one dollar to a railway is very different. Giving both the same fixed penalty would not be reciprocation. The railway simply would not face a meaningful penalty for failing to fulfill its service obligations.

The lack of short-line rail is also a pressing issue. There are very few left, and they are a critical component, where they do exist, of our infrastructure. Without them, we need to rely on trucking, which is hard on the roads in municipalities and worse for the environment.

When the railway does not operate efficiently for shippers, the whole supply chain is impacted. This we heard a number of times. They need to collaborate and plan with the whole chain, or the system does not work efficiently. If the respective parties plan their supply chain, the whole system has a chance to be more equitable and efficient. If a producer contracts with a shipper for a specified date, then gets a call that the cars will be showing up a week late, that is a problem, and the producer pays the penalty. The cars then show up late at their destination, and the producer is often the one who ends up suffering for it. When railways do not get their cars where they are supposed to be on time, that incurred cost goes back to the producers. They are held ransom by the whole system.

What I heard in committee when this bill was being considered was a lot of talk about adequate rail service. This bill needs to do more than strive for adequate. The government has expressed a desire to increase agriculture exports by 40%. Transportation needs to work much better, or increasing the amount of produce will be irrelevant. Canadians need and expect great rail service. We need an efficient system that ensures that cars show up and ship grain on time.

We all are aware that NAFTA negotiations are ongoing. It is therefore remarkable that the government would allow the new 1,200 kilometre interswitching distance to increase U.S. rail access to Canada at regulated rates. The U.S. could access this Canadian traffic without reciprocity. It seems like weak negotiating on the part of the government to give up this leverage before NAFTA negotiations are concluded.

With regard to air travel, Bill C-49 introduces some interesting provisions. It would take the ultimate authority on joint-venture decisions away from the commissioner of competition, which was mentioned by others, and would give it to the minister. It would further require the minister to take into account the public interest. This is a broad and extremely subjective term. We currently have an independent, non-partisan public official making the decisions to promote competition. The bill may introduce a needless political component to the decision-making process.

Bill C-49 would also allow the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to sell security screening services to airports. When large designated airports that already have security screening services buy additional screening, that cost is shifted to the airlines. The airlines then pass it on to consumers. This provision would essentially be a veiled tax on air travellers.

I respect that the government intends to benefit air passengers by introducing this bill. However, it would leave what compensation passengers would be entitled to from the airlines to the discretion of the minister and the CTA. This would be extensive government intervention. We cannot risk those well-intentioned measures actually making air travel more expensive through ad hoc decisions. The CTA would have to determine on a case-by-case basis if a service breach was the fault of the airline or of any other factors. We need a charter of rights. We need it up front. People need to know what the compensation factors are, not to be judged ad hoc.

The administrative costs of implementing this legislation could be large. Again, it is a large omnibus bill, with many parts to it. Do we have all the right parts in it? I think not. There are other things that could have been done and should have been done.

[Martin Fournier]

There was no consultation on Bill C-49.

As we mentioned, there were consultations about the economic agreement with Europe from the time when it was signed. Before it was signed, there was no national consultation with industry. We know that international companies were consulted, but not the industry in Canada. So we can say that there was not really any consultation in that respect.

Once the agreement was signed, a working group met for almost two years. Almost everyone involved took part. Certain things that we asked for on a number of occasions appeared in Bill C-30. However, the main request was to establish this single body, and that was completely forgotten.

[James Given]

I am going to try to give you an answer without giving you an answer.

I've had many meetings. Everyone of course knows my concerns when it comes to cabotage, and Bill C-30, and CETA, and Bill C-49, and China and whoever the hell else we have on the list, but when it comes to consultation, this is part of the consultation process.

[James Given]

We've proven that they don't follow the same regulations when they're in Canada. There are two issues at play. The ship gets a coasting trade waiver. That covers the ship. The crew then apply for work visas through the temporary foreign worker program.

There are two separate issues. When we look at Bill C-30, as with Bill C-49, nothing is changing when it comes to the provisions under the immigration act for that crew. The problem is that the crew members are never told what their wages are supposed to be. They're never told what their rights are when they're working in Canada, because under the TFW program, for all intents and purposes, they're Canadians. They're never told any of this, and they're paid their regular wage, which is $2.50 or $1.90. They're paid that until someone catches them. Also, there's no enforcement. No enforcement officer goes down unless they get a call. If you're a foreign crew member and you don't know that, or you're too afraid to call because of repercussions, you're not going to make that call.

We've had some very good discussions with the ESDC over the last little while where we're going to change some of that process. However, ESDC was also very clear with us that it doesn't chase a shipping company around the world to try to collect our tax, because they should be paying taxes while they're in Canada. The taxation issue on a foreign ship is a big one, along with crew costs.

[James Given]

I'll attempt it, just because I like to talk.

Bill C-30 deals with the EU and with CETA and is limited to EU first and second registry vessels. If you look at the expansion of the movement of empty containers, it's being opened up to any flag vessel, which would be Panama, Liberia, all of the FOC flag states.

I look at a flag such as that of the Marshall Islands, which many ships that would be trading in this trade fly. The actual flag state of the Marshall Islands is in Reston, Virginia. That's where you pay to get the Marshall Islands flag mailed to you. It goes, then, from the European Union to all flag states.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. It is good to turn our attention to another part of Bill C-49 which sees the Coasting Trade Act amended.

I have a couple of questions. They're probably broad questions that any one of you could answer. The first is, can you identify for this committee how Bill C-49 goes further than Bill C-30?

[Martin Fournier, Executive Director, St. Lawrence Shipoperators]

Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, thank you for giving us an opportunity to share our comments and concerns with respect to Bill C-49, and more specifically the amendments proposed to the Coasting Trade Act.

I will introduce myself. I am Martin Fournier, Executive Director of St. Lawrence Shipoperators, an association whose mission is to represent and promote the interests of Canadian ship operators in order to support their growth and ensure the development of shipping on the St. Lawrence River.

St. Lawrence Shipoperators consists of 15 members—15 Canadian ship operators that have a fleet of more than 130 vessels that employ Canadian sailors. The fleet navigates the St. Lawrence River, the Great Lakes and the east coast, in addition to serving the Atlantic and Arctic provinces. Our members provide thousands of people with quality jobs and generate significant economic spinoffs in Canada.

According to a study carried out by the Council of Canadian Academies, the Canadian shipping industry employs between 78,000 and 99,000 individuals and generates between $3.7 billion and $4.6 billion in employment income. Just the activities of the inland fleet, which operates on the St. Lawrence River and in the Great Lakes—the area generally covered by our members—create more than 44,000 direct jobs and generate more than $2 billion in provincial and federal revenues. Therefore, the domestic marine industry plays a a key role in the competitiveness and prosperity of Canada and of the entire North American economy.

It is important to point out that marine transport operations between various Canadian ports are covered under the Coasting Trade Act, whose aims include supporting domestic marine interests by reserving the coasting trade of Canada to Canadian registered vessels. That information comes directly from Transport Canada's website. Among other things, the act stipulates that transportation between two Canadian ports must be provided by Canadian-flagged vessels with Canadian crews.

In the United States, since 1920, the Merchant Marine Act, better known as the Jones Act, has been protecting the U.S. domestic marine industry by ensuring that coasting trade is handled by U.S.-built vessels that are U.S.-flagged and U.S.-owned, and are operated by U.S. crews. Many other countries around the world, including European countries, have laws that protect their market.

It should be noted that, during the negotiations that led to the economic agreement with Europe, countries of the European Union did not open their market to Canadian ship operators. Only Canada agreed to concede a portion of its market, with no reciprocity.

When a country opens its market to foreign partners that do not operate based on the same rules and are not subject to the same requirements as Canadian ship operators with Canadian-flagged vessels, that favours foreign ship operators at the expense of the very competitiveness of our ship operators and domestic interests.

According to a study carried out in 2015 by Ernst & Young and Innovation maritime, the crew costs for European vessels authorized to operate in Canadian waters under the economic agreement represent only 30% of the costs of a Canadian crew. The wage gap between Canadian crews and crews from other countries, including those provided for under Bill C-49, will be even larger.

This is the second time in less than a year that amendments have been proposed to the Coasting Trade Act. The first time was under Bill C-30, which concerns the implementation of the economic agreement with Europe. The second time was through this bill, which makes certain concessions for the European Union that are criticized by the domestic marine industry.

Canada must also take action to protect its marine industry and refuse to give up its market to foreign companies. This is a matter of the vitality and sustainability of Canada's domestic shipping industry.

I want to mention that, during the latest electoral campaign, the Liberal Party wrote to us that it had no intention of amending the Coasting Trade Act and even recognized the importance of the act for the market. St. Lawrence Shipoperators feels that free trade agreements generally benefit the Canadian economy and supports Canada's efforts to increase trade and the competitiveness of its economy. However, we are concerned about the consequences of loopholes in the Coasting Trade Act and concessions made in trade agreement negotiations that affect the domestic marine sector.

St. Lawrence Shipoperators and its members, as well as a number of stakeholders and industry representatives that participated in the work of the industry-government working group on the implementation of the economic agreement, have repeatedly expressed their concern with regard to the system's effectiveness and the measures currently in place to monitor and effectively control foreign vessels' coasting trade activities. Many examples and situations justify those concerns. The addition of new coasting trade activities in the economic agreement or any further opening of the Coasting Trade Act is of little comfort in that regard.

We have requested the establishment of an oversight system on a number of occasions. The request was also made to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which studied Bill C-30. There was even a recommendation to that effect.

So it is essential that an oversight system be established and that it include all the government departments and agencies involved, meaning Transport Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Transportation Agency, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and Employment and Social Development Canada.

St. Lawrence Shipoperators has always been opposed to any opening of the Coasting Trade Act that would allow foreign vessels to transport cargo between two Canadian ports. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a gradual erosion of the act.

This market is reserved for Canadian vessels that, pursuant to regulatory requirements and Canadian standards, are designed, built and refined to handle the numerous challenges of navigation in Canadian waters and waterways. With their adherence to those standards, some of the highest in the world, Canadian vessels are making navigation safe and protecting the environment. These national vessels are operated by crews that are solely and exclusively composed of Canadian mariners, who are among the best qualified and best trained in the world. They are knowledgeable of and experienced in navigation in Canadian waters and they are aware of the challenges inherent in sailing here. Reaching those high standards ensures greater safety and respect for the environment. But that comes with significant operating costs that Canadian shipowners must bear, unlike many other foreign owners.

The particular circumstances of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway, economically and in terms of both maritime and environmental safety, requires that the protection measures, of which the Coasting Trade Act is part, must be maintained.

So it is important to preserve maritime jobs and the expertise that has been built in Canada over centuries. Opening the Coasting Trade Act is risking the loss of priceless knowledge and economic wealth that is of direct benefit to companies and workers here.

For those reasons, St. Lawrence Shipoperators and its members oppose any opening of the Coasting Trade Act and any change to it. We are asking for a single body to control and oversee cabotage activities to be conducted in Canadian waters by foreign vessels.

Thank you.

[Sarah Clark, Chief Executive Officer, Fraser River Pile & Dredge (GP) Inc.]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Clark, and I serve as president and chief executive officer of Fraser River Pile & Dredge, located in Vancouver, British Columbia. Our company proudly conducts dredging operations in B.C. and across the country. I would like to thank the chair and the honourable members of the committee for hearing us today.

I'm actually here to speak to you on behalf of a coalition of dredging companies that operate from coast to coast. I'm going to share my time today with my friend and colleague Jean-Philippe Brunet, the executive vice-president of corporate and legal affairs for Ocean group of Quebec. We sincerely thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the consequences of amending the Coasting Trade Act as outlined in Bill C-49. For us, this is a fresh opportunity to be heard on the impacts of the amendments to the Coasting Trade Act, an opportunity we previously had in respect to amendments to the same act, under Bill C-30, the Canada-E.U. comprehensive economic trade agreement implementation act.

To be very clear from the onset, the Canadian dredgers are eager to compete in a marketplace fuelled by healthy trade relationships. We simply ask that we continue to compete on a level playing field, where risks and opportunities are equal for all. Unfortunately, CETA was a bad deal for Canadian dredgers. There's no reciprocity for us in the European market, but there's streamlined access for Europeans in the Canadian market. We therefore submit that Bill C-49 represents an ideal opportunity to address this inequity and provide workable policy solutions.

Let me say a few words about the dredging industry in Canada and the critical role it plays for Canada as a maritime and trading nation. Ours is a geographically expansive country that relies on a complex transportation network to move people and goods. As stated by Minister Garneau on May 16 of this year, Canadians rely on the economically viable modes of transportation to travel and move commodities within the country, across the border, and to our ports for overseas shipments. At his announcement regarding the trade and transportation corridors initiative on July 4, Minister Garneau highlighted the digging of deepwater ports as being critical to the development of Canada's north, underscoring the essential role dredging plays in the creation and maintenance of our transportation network and, as a result, our national and economic sovereignty.

Opening routes to Canadian and international shipping vessels brings consumer goods to Canadian markets and takes our export products around the world. Without dredging, ports in major cities across the country would be inaccessible to global trade and transportation. Industry operations, both coastal and inland, would not be able to function. The companies that comprise our coalition actively comply with rigorous government regulations concerning labour, environmental protection, safety, and operating standards while regularly submitting to routine major inspections that are amongst the most rigorous in the world. Canadian dredging companies also provide well-paid, middle-class salaries, which in turn fuel local economies across the country.

We are here with you today to do our part to ensure that the Canadian dredging industry is provided a level playing field on which to compete sustainably and responsibly, to create more jobs, and to continue to contribute practically to Canada's economic success. Unfortunately, these important goals have been put at some risk by the effect of the proposed amendments to the Coasting Trade Act contained in Bill C-49. Proposals in Bill C-49 are of course contingent upon the coming into force of elements of Bill C-30 on September 21, 2017. We understand that the spirit of CETA reflects the wishes of both governing bodies and peoples to create better economic ties and a more prosperous future. We support the government's effort to expand trade and to make our economy as vibrant as possible. At the same time, we wish again to express our concerns about the negative impact. We believe the amendments to the Coasting Trade Act contained in Bill C-30 unfairly advantage foreign dredging companies at the expense of Canadian firms, Canadian workers, and ultimately, Canada's transportation infrastructure. Bill C-49 builds on a foundation laid by Bill C-30 that is highly problematic for Canadian dredgers.

As I've said, we are fully prepared to compete. We do so every day in our industry, both in Canada and abroad. Under CETA, there was no negotiated reciprocity for our industry.

CETA opens up the Canadian market to European firms while keeping the European market closed to Canadian dredging firms. This would normally be considered an unpleasant by-product of doing business in the global market, but several factors intervene to create a situation where non-Canadian firms could gain a structural and market advantage over Canadian firms. If a level playing field is not created and maintained, Canadian dredging companies will face structural disadvantages when bidding on contracts, as we pay market rates and benefits that reflect the skills of our crew members in Canada.

For example, foreign crews are typically compensated at about a third or less of the rates we pay. In 2015, the average monthly salary for a chief engineer on a Canadian vessel was $15,000 U.S., while the same position on a Dutch crew was about $7,000 U.S. As salaries represent about one-third of our vessel's operating costs, non-Canadian companies will operate at a significant advantage over Canadian companies, leaving Canadian seafarers out of work. In this scenario, the playing field is inherently uneven, to the detriment of Canadian companies, and, ultimately, to our employees and their families.

Prior to Bill C-30, foreign-flagged vessels were required via the Coasting Trade Act to obtain a coasting trade licence. Jim outlined that process very well in his presentation, which would include paying duties, and following shipping conventions, worker visa requirements, and employment standards. However, even that structure faced monitoring and enforcement challenges. Under CETA, non-Canadian dredgers will have greater access to our waters, and therefore greater opportunity for non-compliance.

Before making our key recommendations, I will now ask my colleague, Jean-Philippe Brunet, to say a few words about Quebec in particular.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Bill C-30, the Conservative bill.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon. I am just passing through the committee.

One thing struck me in Mr. Pellerin's comments. The Conservatives introduced a good bill, Bill C-30, specifically about what you call interswitching. Now we have a Liberal mish-mash that is going to have consequences for small businesses and to threaten jobs.

My first question would be for Madam Stuhldreier. I hope I pronounced her name right.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to our guests for joining us and for sharing their expertise with us.

When we do this kind of study, consensus is relatively rare. But we seem to be getting one on long-haul interswitching. Some people don't want it just because it's not competitive and others don't want it because it's not effective.

It is occurring to me that Bill C-49 is not achieving that objective at all. If we were to rethink the objectives of interswitching, where should we start from? Should we go back to what was proposed in Bill C-30 or should we correct Bill C-49 so that it includes a provision on interswitching that favours those who need it?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes, thank you.

So your producers are concerned about being in a situation where the measures in Bill C-30 have been abandoned and Bill C-49 will not be passed for a number of months. Yet harvest time is almost upon us.

Do your producers have serious concerns about the coming weeks and months?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I apologize to Mr. Hardie in advance if I am asking a question that has been asked for the last hundred years. I haven't been here quite that long.

Joking aside, we have often been told that the interswitching measures, and all the other measures in Bill C-30, were designed to respond to the problems caused by an exceptional harvest, followed by a very harsh winter.

Am I wrong to say that agricultural techniques are advancing so rapidly that what was once an exceptional harvest has become the norm?

[Sean Finn]

I would not say that it is the devil incarnate, but you have to understand that the intent of Bill C-30 was to establish temporary measures to deal with quite an exceptional problem. There had been a major grain harvest, almost a record harvest, as well as a very difficult winter. In terms of the effect of Bill C-30, I could show that, once the winter was over, in March 2014, the rail companies shipped all the grain that needed to be delivered. You cannot really establish that the measures in Bill C-30 helped with the transportation of grain. With Bill C-30, once the winter was over, we managed to clear the backlog caused by the hard winter and by the record grain harvest.

It is important to understand that, in situations where shippers claim to be captive according to the definition in the proposal, that is, when shippers have access to one railway only, they can actually use trucks or other means of transportation. That allows shippers to make choices.

We gave you the example of the Americans who have access to the Canadian network at internetwork interchange points in Canada. We do not have the same access to internetwork interchange points in the United States. That is especially the case with CN, for example, which goes from Chicago to Louisiana. We cannot get access in the same way.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair,

I would like to talk about the same thing, interswitching. As I listen to you, it seems that long-haul interswitching is the devil incarnate.

My question has two parts.

First, does that mean that the concept of interswitching as provided for in Bill C-30 would be acceptable from now on as a way to try to re-establish the negotiation power between producers and carriers?

Second, we have been talking for some time about long-haul interswitching along a north to south axis. I come from Trois-Rivières, Quebec, a city that ships grain, among other things. Can I assume that the principle of long-haul interswitching must also apply along an east to west access? Do the same problems exist in that direction?

[Janet Drysdale]

In CN's context, in the context of business law specifically related to the extended interswitching under Bill C-30, it's probably in the order of a couple of thousand carloads.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think, Ms. Drysdale, it was you who commented that the interswitching regime generally requires you to essentially drop off someone's goods at an interchange point so that somebody else can pick them up.

When we went through a study of Bill C-30 previously in this committee, the widespread testimony that we heard—and there were comments to this effect today—was that in fact that's not really what's happening. The vast majority of circumstances are really impacting the negotiation, and it is creating a sort of pseudo-competition, whereas there is none in the rail industry.

Is that incorrect? Is a change taking place at the negotiating table, as was the intention, or is it actually causing rail carriers to lose business to competitors?

[James Clements, Vice-President, Strategic Planning and Transportation Services, Canadian Pacific Railway]

The rail supply chain is the backbone of our economy. Not only is the Canadian freight rail system the safest, most efficient, and environmentally friendly means of transporting goods and commodities, it achieves these goals while maintaining the lowest freight rates in the world. This is a key point. A healthy rail system is critical to Canada's international competitiveness, given our vast geography. Without a competitive, economic, and efficient rail system that can move products thousands of kilometres to ports for export, at the lowest cost in the world, much of what Canadians sell on international markets could not be priced competitively.

Canada's freight transportation system has been successful because the legal and regulatory environment, particularly in recent decades, has recognized that competition and market forces are the most effective organizing principles. These principles are articulated in Canada's national transportation policy declaration, contained in section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act.

It is important not to lose sight of these principles when reflecting upon legislative changes to the framework that has been proven to be so successful in delivering economic benefit to Canadians. CP is pleased that the government has decided to allow the extended interswitching regime of the previous government's Bill C-30 to sunset, as it was based on what we saw as a deeply flawed rationale, and it generated a number of harmful public policy consequences that ultimately disadvantaged the Canadian supply chain.

Similarly, however, the proposed new long-haul interswitching, LHI, regime contains a number of problematic elements. Most fundamentally, the LHI regime, like the extended interswitching regime it is replacing, is non-reciprocal with the U.S. As such, American railroads would be granted significant reach into Canada, up to 1,200 kilometres, to access Canadian rail traffic, but Canadian railways will not have the same reciprocal ability under American law.

The LHI regime is constructed in such a way that it is asymmetrical in its impact, both in terms of non-reciprocal access for American railroads vis-à-vis CP and in terms of CP and CN, because CP's exposure to American railroads under this regime is much greater than is CN's, given the geographical location of our respective networks, further compounded by the two excluded corridors.

The LHI regime could undermine the competitiveness and efficiency of the Canadian supply chain by incentivizing the movement of Canadian traffic to American railroads and supply chains, thereby eroding traffic density for Canadian supply chains.

The negative consequences to the Canadian economy will not be limited to the rail industry. If Canadian rail traffic is diverted to American trade corridors, it will also dampen shipping volumes at Canadian ports. For CP alone, there is a significant amount of our annual revenue that could potentially be moved to American railways and trade corridors under this proposed LHI regime.

A decision to allow non-reciprocal access for American railroads represents a significant concession by Canada to the U.S. while NAFTA is being renegotiated. This strikes us as an unwise public policy choice for the Canadian economy. The proposed LHI regime ought to be reconsidered in that context.

As drafted, Bill C-49 also imposes an obligation on connecting carriers to provide rail cars to the shippers in addition to their other service obligations. It has been well understood that as part of its common carrier obligation, a railway is required to furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for traffic. However, in some cases, the provision of railcars by a connecting carrier is not practical. For example, tank cars are typically owned by the customer, not the railway. The Canada Transportation Act already addresses a railway's car supply obligation, so it is important to clarify that the railway does not have a higher standard to provide car supply under LHI than already exists.

Since the LHI rate is to be determined by the agency, based on the commercial rates charged for comparable traffic, it follows that traffic moving under an LHI rate or any other regulated rate, such as grain under the MRE, should be excluded from the LHI rate determination since those rates cannot be considered commercial.

Further, American railways operating in Canada and regulated by the federal government should also be compelled to provide rate data to be used by the agency in determining LHI rates.

We will conclude our opening remarks there. I know there are many other elements of Bill C-49 that we have not discussed this morning. Our letter highlights some considerations on those points, and, of course, we are happy to take questions on any element.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to all three of you for being here with us.

I have questions for each of you and my first question is for Mr. Orb.

Before even talking about Bill C-49, I would like to point something out. It is almost the middle of September and a number of the provisions in Bill C-30 sunsetted on August 1. Without even knowing what will happen in a few months, are the measures that have not been renewed and that sunsetted on August 1 causing problems for exporters?

[Helena Borges]

The elements of Bill C-30 that will remain in place are the arbitration for level of service, and the operational terms. The agency was given authority to define those operational terms when the bill was first introduced, so that is one element that is there.

The penalties for the railways not complying with what's in their level of service agreement on service also continues to be in operation.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What elements of Bill C-30 are going to remain in place?

Transportation Modernization Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my remarks to the debate on Bill C-49.

Before I begin, I would like to take a second to acknowledge a very poignant moment today in the House. I was here when the Clerk, Marc Bosc, arrived for his last shift here in the House of Commons as Acting Clerk of the House, as we have heard from a number of sources.

Mr. Bosc was the person who welcomed the members who had been newly elected in 2015 to the House. It was a very emotional time for us. To us, Mr. Bosc is the Clerk of the House, because he is the only one we have ever known. Mr. Bosc has always been there for us and has always shown the utmost professionalism. He was respected by all, at least by everyone on this side of the House. Mr. Bosc has always served with enormous professionalism, and we have always respected him.

For me, Mr. Speaker, it was a very poignant moment to see him enter the chamber this morning and take his place before us, to begin his final sitting day in the House of Commons. I trust that Mr. Bosc will always hold a place of honour here in Parliament.

In closing, we found out about this rather suddenly. I would have liked the opposition parties to be consulted more on the process to replace the Clerk. No offence to the incoming Clerk, but I just wanted to take a few moments on behalf of my colleagues, myself, and my family, who shared in all the emotion that we experience when we first arrive here, to acknowledge Mr. Bosc's excellent work.

Mr. Bosc has been here much longer than I have, but like me, he has seen his share of governments and their different approaches to ensuring that their bills get passed.

Bill C-49 is another example of the government using closure to prevent giving the opposition opportunities to speak to this bill or criticize it. By the minister's own admission, this bill is quite complex, and it will make significant changes to Canada's transportation industry. Even so, we will have just a few of hours of debate to discuss it and raise what I think are some very important points.

Why is this especially troubling in the case of Bill C-49? It is because this bill does not amend just one or two sections or one or two acts. It amends 13 pieces of legislation.

For the past two days, I have been listening to the arguments given by the Minister of Transport who says that the opposition is overreacting, since 80% of the changes proposed in Bill C-49 will amend just one law, and therefore the opposition has no reason to protest so loudly. What? How is that an argument? It is as though one section of an act were more important than another. If the 20% of Bill C-49's clauses that amend 12 other laws are not all that important, why bother including them? Why are we talking about them? If they are not that important, if everything is focused on just one law and the opposition is outraged, why keep the other 20% of the amendments? Why not remove them and create another bill with those amendments and consider it separately? It does not matter, because everything is in the same bill.

Clearly, this argument simply does not hold water. It is particularly troubling. As members know, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities since I arrived in this place. Obviously, transportation affects all Canadians in every field. Transportation has an impact on the daily lives of all Canadians, whether we are talking about the transportation of goods or people.

They say this is a complex bill, that they will not give the opposition much time to talk, and that, since 80% of it is specific to one act, there is no need for us to protest so loudly. I think the minister should go back to the drawing board, take another look at what is in his bill, and think carefully about the repercussions that each amendment in Bill C-49 will have on the day-to-day lives of all Canadians.

Here is the lowdown on Bill C-49. The Liberals' omnibus transportation bill will establish a new air passenger rights regime; liberalize international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers; enable the Minister of Transport to consider and approve joint ventures by two or more airlines; update the Canadian freight system; require railways to install audio-video recorders in locomotives; expand the Governor in Council's powers to require major railway companies to provide rate, service, and performance data; and amend the Canada Marine Act to allow port authorities to access Canada infrastructure bank loans.

However, there is nothing there. According to the Minister of Transport, a few hours of discussion are enough to address all of these issues, since he did not think that the opposition had anything relevant to say during the first hours of this debate. Why would the government want to continue listening to opposition members provide supposedly irrelevant information when it can simply expedite the process by muzzling them? At least, that is what the minister seems to think.

Since when are opinions that differ from the government's irrelevant? The big problem with the Liberals is that, when we do not agree with them, on this or any other issue, they feel threatened and under attack. They think that anyone who does not share their opinion and does not think like they do is irrelevant, and so they have no reason to take any interest in what those people have to say in the House. That explains a lot.

It explains a lot, such as Motion No. 6 and the many time allocation motions that have been imposed on us since the beginning of this session. It explains the infamous discussion document that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tabled to supposedly improve the way the House operates. When we read that document carefully, we learned that the Liberals' intention was once again to avoid hearing what the opposition parties had to say.

It is not complicated. When things do not sit well with the government, it decides to muzzle dissenting voices that cast grey clouds over Liberal sunny ways. Well, I have news for the Liberal government. The official opposition and all the other opposition parties, I am sure, have no intention of staying quiet. We have no intention of letting changes slip through. We have no intention of completely agreeing with everything the Liberals put in front of us. We have no intention of being the people who enable the Liberal Party to push through their entire election platform. That is not our role here. Our role is to present criticisms.

As an aside, let us talk about the Liberal platform. It did not take long for the Liberals to realize that much of what they wanted to do is simply impossible. They promised big spending and small deficits. They kept only one of those promises. They are spending big, but they have come to realize that that requires huge deficits. That is something the government does not want the opposition to criticize. They would like us to keep quiet and just watch them and applaud them because they really like applause. That is not what we are going to do. That is not our role.

Let us come back to Bill C-49 because it seems like we are off topic, that we just keep providing an overview, and that we keep talking about everything but Bill C-49. Let us talk about Bill C-49 and what it amends. As I was saying, it significantly amends 13 different laws and has repercussions on three modes of transportation. This legislative measure will weaken legislative protections for shippers and western Canadian farmers.

We want to concentrate on proactive measures to make travel less expensive and more convenient for all travellers. This would include abolishing the carbon tax, instead of the Liberals’ plan to establish reactive compensation that will benefit only a small segment of the population.

This bill provides very little detail about the proposed air passengers’ bill of rights, and it does not have the support, in its current form, of many passengers’ rights advocates. Also, port authorities and their wholly owned subsidiaries will have access to loans and loan guarantees from the Canada infrastructure bank. There is an inconsistency here. That does not make any sense to me, since this bank does not exist yet. It remains a proposal for now, and it is held up in another house, for very good reasons.

Like us, the senators think that the infrastructure bank warrants its own bill, given the impact it will have and the $15 billion that the government intends to provide to it. That is $15 billion from Canadian taxpayers to be given to a board of directions to manage on our behalf without any accountability to Parliament.

These points alone justify our opposition to the passage of Bill C-44, which is currently being studied on the other side in its current form and includes all these budget measures as well as creating the infrastructure bank. I hope that people will get the message.

In Bill C-49, they already assume the outcome. Port authorities are being given approval to access loans from the non-existent infrastructure bank. What I do not understand is that the government, ever since it began telling us about the infrastructure bank, keeps saying that it will be an independent bank. As an aside, the process to find the president for this non-existent bank has already started.

Therefore, the infrastructure bank, which does not exist, will be made up of a so-called independent board of directors who will manage the money given to them by the Liberal government. At the same time, these supposedly independents will be told that they have to invest $1.3 billion in Montreal’s Réseau électrique métropolitain and provide loans to port authorities. To sum up, here is an independent infrastructure bank that will not be independent and does not yet exist. However, we are being asked to approve a clause of the bill that will allow port authorities to secure loans from this infrastructure bank that will be created in the near future.

It is clear that something is not working, that they are improvising, and that the minister wants to move quickly. We do not understand why he insists on moving so quickly. Some will tell us that it is because they want to settle the matter of Bill C-30 before it expires on July 31 in order to protect western grain producers in their rate negotiations with the railways. That could be the case, but that is not what is going to happen, since even if Bill C-49 is rushed through today or Monday and is referred to committee, the committee meetings are scheduled for September.

The committee was prepared to meet in July if the government agreed to hive off all the measures concerning Bill C-30. That would have allowed us to study them quickly in order to avoid having a legal vacuum for western grain producers. These meetings could have been held before August 1. The committee was prepared to meet in the middle of summer, during vacation—at least, the opposition members of the committee were. That would have been a major sacrifice for some of us to show up and study a bill to help western grain producers.

Why was the official opposition prepared to do that? Because we get that this is important. Right now, grain producers are concerned about what is going to happen this fall if there is a legal vacuum. We do not know exactly how the market will react. These people are negotiating right now.

We see another problem here. I myself am not a grain producer. However, several of my House of Commons colleagues represent western Canadian ridings, and they know a lot about grain production. From what I understand, grain producers usually harvest their crops in the fall. What time of year is busiest for grain producers? The fall, when they are bringing in the harvest.

The government is going to ask grain producers to testify on Bill C-49, which will have a major impact on their future, in the fall. The government is going to ask them to leave their machinery and their fields so they can come testify in Ottawa in September. That is when they should be in their fields doing their work, doing what we support them doing, and making their contribution to Canada's economy by producing and working. This makes no sense.

That is why the opposition was prepared to agree to move quickly on that part of the bill. We were prepared to let many things slide in order to move quickly. Why? Canada's grain producers are far more important to us than adding another number to our legislative record. The farmers need us to come to Ottawa to protect them, stand up for them, and help them succeed. That is our role.

If we are not taking extraordinary measures to get Bill C-30 passed before the deadline, then there is no urgency to justify speeding up the process and muzzling the opposition. The government probably does not want to let the opposition speak because it does not want to hear arguments like mine in defence of western grain producers.

I want to talk about another initiative that was very well received by the public, I admit. This was the main point in the message from the Minister of Transport. Indeed, he wants to create an air passengers' bill of rights. This is urgent. Like all of us, all Canadians who have flown over the past few months have seen the coverage of some of the dramatic incidents that have taken place in the U.S. Since the bill announced the creation of an air passengers' bill of rights, we thought we would get some information. We thought we might be told what to expect, but no, all the minister did was mandate the Canadian Transportation Agency to begin consultations that will eventually lead to regulations and, at some point, the air passengers' bill of rights.

Do we really need a bill to ask the Canadian Transportation Agency to begin consultations on a bill of rights? It makes no sense. There is no need for urgency when it comes to Bill C-49, apart from the legislation protecting western Canadian grain farmers; on that, we agree.

We believe that the only way to go and the only explanation or justification to make this measure acceptable, to make this gag order acceptable, would have been to split the bill and immediately pass the measures in Bill C-30, in order to make certain temporary measures permanent. We were ready to go ahead with that, but everything else could have waited; there is no need to panic. The only emergency here for this government is to silence the opposition. The government is not ready. It is improvising and presenting measures that just do not make sense.

For all these reasons, and despite a few good measures in the bill, the official opposition cannot support Bill C-49.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the comments of my NDP colleague. On this side, with the other members of the committee, we were prepared to proceed quickly on Bill C-30. In my opinion, time allocation was not even necessary, as all the parties consented to proceed. We could have taken this part that was accepted by those from the west, including Calgary, and proceeded very quickly so that these permanent measures would be passed by August 1, before Bill C-30 expires. We could have therefore passed a permanent solution to a problem that has gone on for too long.

However, that is not how the government decided to act. It decided to limit debate and prevent us from bringing forward our suggestions for improving this bill. Today, I learn that the opposition questions are not good. Yesterday, I was told that I was not worthy of a seat in the House. Therefore, I think that this government has a problem with respect regarding the opposition.

I am asking the minister, for whom I have a lot of respect given everything he does, to recognize the opposition’s role. We have to ask questions, and when he imposes time allocation on us, preventing us from asking questions about a bill that will amend 13 other pieces of legislation, that is a lack of respect for the opposition.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that the minister would really like us to work more quickly. We did not refuse, far from it; we even agreed to meet starting in early September, before the business of the House began, to move the bill forward.

However, if we are seeking efficiency, why did the minister refuse to split the bill in two so that, for example, grain carriers would have answers and concrete measures on the prerogatives of Bill C-30, which is ending on July 31?

Grain producers are currently negotiating contracts. They have lost all competitive advantage in the negotiation because the measures will not be extended from the day the measures in Bill C-30 expire to the day Bill C-49 is passed.

Why is the minister refusing to extend the measures set out in Bill C-30 in the meantime?

Indian Act

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

moved that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, acknowledging that we come together on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, I stand here to speak to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration).

On August 3, 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec, in its decision in the Descheneaux case, ruled that key registration provisions of the Indian Act unjustifiably violate equality rights under section 15 of the charter, and declared them of no force and effect.

The court suspended its decision for a period of 18 months until February 3, 2017, to allow Parliament time to make the necessary legislative changes. That decision was appealed before the court before the current government took office, but that appeal was withdrawn by this government in February of 2016.

Bill S-3 is the first stage of the government's two-staged response to the Descheneaux decision, and needed broader reform of registration and membership provisions within the Indian Act.

I will take this opportunity to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for its thorough and invaluable work under tight court mandated deadlines. I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for their understanding regarding the urgency surrounding this bill and for their work during pre-study of Bill S-3.

In keeping with the recommendations of the standing Senate committee, on January 20, 2017, the government sought and was granted a five-month extension of the court's ruling to permit more time to consider Bill S-3. Through the additional time provided by this extension, and the diligent work of the Senate committee, there have been numerous improvements made to the original version of Bill S-3, which have been welcomed and supported by the government.

The bill now proactively addresses further groups impacted by sex-based inequities which were identified by the Indigenous Bar Association. The recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Gehl case has also allowed the government to address the issue of unstated paternity by enshrining additional procedural protections in law through this bill.

In addition, I acknowledge the understandable skepticism of first nations and parliamentarians about whether the second stage of registration and membership reform would actually lead to meaningful change. That is why the government proposed a series of amendments to report back to Parliament on a number of occasions and in a number of ways to update members and all Canadians on the progress toward broader reform. Three separate reports to Parliament are now in this legislation to hold the government to account regarding the second stage process, focused on broader reform of registration and membership provisions in the Indian Act.

The bill now would require the government to launch the collaborative stage II consultation process on issues within six months of the royal assent of Bill S-3. The bill would also require that as part of that process, the government consider the impact of the charter and, if applicable, the Canadian Human Rights Act. The requirements for the government to report to Parliament on the design of the collaborative consultation process within five months of the royal assent of Bill S-3, and to report to Parliament on the progress of that process within 12 months of the launch of those consultations are also included in the legislation.

The second report must also include details regarding the 1951 cut-off, the second generation cut-off, the categories for Indian registration, enfranchisement, adoption, and unstated/unknown parentage.

The bill also includes a three-year review clause regarding the amendments to section 6 of the act enacted by Bill S-3. The objective of this review is to determine whether all sex-based inequities have been eliminated. The bill also includes a declaration by the government regarding recommended amendments to the Indian Act.

I am committing, on behalf of the government and personally, to co-designing a process with first nations including communities, impacted individuals, organizations, and experts to deliver substantive registration reforms, including potential future legislative changes.

I have spent decades working on the issue of meaningful consultation, and finding ways to ensure that consultation incorporates voices beyond the usual suspects and provides participants with sufficient resources to engage. I can assure members and all Canadians of the government's absolute commitment that this will be a process where the voices of the full range of impacted people will be represented at the table, and which will incorporate a human rights lens.

In stage II, charter compliance will be the floor, not the ceiling, and there may very well be areas of needed reform where no consensus is achieved. The government has made it clear that consensus will not be a prerequisite for action.

However, if the government is to act in the absence of consensus, it only increases the necessity for decisions to be based on a foundation of meaningful consultation, and credible evidence about the potential impacts of reform. We must develop reforms which can be implemented in a way that ensures we have integrity in the system. Balancing the needed time to engage impacted people, through the parliamentary process, has allowed for only two truncated three-month engagement periods, even with the extension granted by the court.

There was not enough time to hold significant consultations on reforming Indian registration and band membership under the Indian Act.

Because of the tight court mandated deadline, the opportunity for consultations was limited, and I think it is important to talk about the intended scope of Bill S-3.

The goal of Bill S-3 is to remedy known sex-based inequities relating to registration in the Indian Act, which fall short of charter compliance based on the current state of the law. This is not restricted to situations where a court has already ruled, but extends to situations where the courts have yet to rule, and where we believe a sex-based charter breach would be found.

However, the government has been clear that in circumstances where the courts have ruled policies to be charter compliant, or where situations are more complex than purely alleged sex-based inequities, government action must be based upon meaningful consultation.

These issues have to be addressed during the second phase of the reform of registration and band membership under the Indian Act. It is important to note that this second phase will be a collaborative process.

The government must develop and initiate consultations on the broader reform within six months after the passage of Bill S-3, as stated in the bill.

Despite supporting numerous amendments proposed and adopted by the standing committee, the government has made it clear that it cannot support one amendment put forward by Senator McPhedran and accepted by the Senate. The intention of Senator McPhedran's amendment is to provide entitlement for Indian registration to all direct descendants born prior to April 17, 1985, of individuals entitled to status under previous Indian acts, including those who lost that status for whatever reason. In simple terms, this clause seeks to implement the approach commonly referred to as “6(1)(a) all the way”.

Although the simplicity of this approach may seem appealing, I would ask all members to consider this position cautiously. While I believe the amendment was put forward with the best of intentions, the way the clause is drafted creates ambiguity as to whether or not it would do what it is apparently intended to do. This ambiguity was highlighted by Senator Sinclair during clause-by-clause at the Senate committee, and by the Indigenous Bar Association at the House committee.

In fact, Drew Lafond of the IBA testified about the wording of the clause, noting, “We cautioned against simply inserting that in its current form...You run into technical problems with the language by simply inserting that into a bill because you run the risk of there being inconsistencies or some unintended consequences with that.

If this clause is interpreted in a way to implement the “6(1)(a) all the way” approach, then it could potentially extend status to a broad range of individuals impacted by a wide range of alleged inequities. This clause would go well beyond the intended scope of Bill S-3, dealing with significant non sex-based registration issues, including enfranchisement, adoption, date of birth, and others. In fact, the amendment seeks to implement the precise remedy explicitly rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the McIvor decision, where it was clear that this remedy is not required to make the provisions charter compliant.

The Supreme Court of Canada then refused leave to appeal that decision. This does not mean the government will not consider this as a potential approach in the context of a policy decision to address broader registration and membership reform. The government is open to considering this approach through stage II, and may be where it ends up, but we have not adequately consulted with those who could be impacted, and we do not currently have the demographic information to understand the practical implications of implementing such an approach.

While arguing in the Senate committee for the need for further engagement on this clause, Senator Sinclair made that point noting: “The question becomes what impact will that have upon First Nation government. That is not a question we have the answer to...”

While the government is initiating that work now, preliminary estimates are not based on reliable data, and contain huge ranges of potentially newly entitled individuals, from 80,000 to two million. Highlighting these numbers is not to suggest either end of the spectrum is what the likely impact would be, but to note the huge range of current estimates and the need for better data.

In addition to the current lack of understanding of the practical implications of such an approach, it seems obvious that the necessary consultations were not held.

Many communities expressed concerns that this approach could have serious repercussions for them.

Communities could find themselves with huge numbers of new members with little or no connection to their community and without meaningful prior consultation. I want to understand the perspectives and concerns of vast numbers of potentially impacted people who have not yet been asked their opinion on the “6(1)(a) all the way” clause.

I want to be clear that I stand in solidarity with the indigenous women who have been fighting on all of these issues for decades. I hear their pain, the hurt of receiving a letter in which they were told that their marriage made them a white woman.

Whether courts have determined these remaining issues as charter issues or not, I want to be part of fixing these ongoing problems. I want to know from the people who have been advocating and studying these issues for a very long time whether this approach is the one we should take and if so, whether this clause is the best way to implement that approach.

We must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past where, even sometimes with admirable intentions, policies are implemented absent proper consultation or evidence and result in dire, unintended consequences. I want to work with communities, impacted individuals, and experts to ensure that we finally get this right. The concerns expressed by many about the drafting of this specific clause show how easy it is to get this wrong if it is rushed.

As many members already know, the deadline for passing this bill is July 3rd.

If we do not have legislation passed that addresses the Descheneaux decision before July 3, the section struck down by the court will be inoperative in Quebec. The practical implication would be that these provisions will then become inoperative within Canada as the registrar would not be in a position to register people under provisions found to be non-charter compliant.

Ninety per cent of status Indians are registered under the provisions struck down by the Descheneaux decision. These applicants would then be unable to access benefits that come with registration and membership. In addition to up to 35,000 individuals waiting for their rights to be granted through Bill S-3, we cannot lose sight of the thousands of individuals who would not be able to register if the court deadline passes and the provisions noted above become inoperable.

I urge all members to act responsibly and to take into account the urgency with which we must act to pass this bill.

I ask all members to send the bill to committee swiftly so that it can be amended and sent back to the Senate in a form that delivers on the rights of 35,000 people now, and allows the government to begin the broader reform in a way that respects our duty to consult, international documents such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the need to get this right through the stage II process.

If this clause is interpreted in a way that implements the “6(1)(a) all the way” approach, then it could potentially extend status to a broad range of individuals impacted by a wide range of alleged inequities. This clause would go well beyond the intended scope of Bill S-3, dealing with significant non-sex based registration issues, including enfranchisement, adoption, date of birth, and others. In fact, the amendment seeks to implement the precise remedy explicitly rejected by the B.C. Court of Appeal in the McIvor decision where it was clear that this remedy was not charter compliant.

I ask again that the House send the bill to committee now so that we can amend it. Then we can begin this very important work of stage II where we can get rid of all the inequities in the Indian Act, once and for all, and finally get this right.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economy

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise as the representative of the magnificent riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for moving this motion, since it gives me the opportunity to once again talk about Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, a bill that will help our farmers and others who transport their goods using our rail system.

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is home to a great company called Elopak, which manufactures containers for liquid food, and it needs the rail system. It brings in big rolls of paper to manufacture containers for cream or juice, such as the refrigerated juice that we buy at the grocery store. Canada's rail system is important for moving goods and services within the country.

Users have been asking for many years for an effective, long-term solution to improve this system, and I am proud that our government can keep its commitments.

Our government is committed to ensuring that the grain industry has a balanced, effective, and transparent rail transportation system to get its products to market. That is why Bill C-49 includes a large number of measures to help meet that objective.

Specifically, Bill C-49 is making the most significant changes to rail policy in a generation. This legislation caps the maximum grain revenue entitlement to keep grain transportation rates low. Our government listened to the concerns of Canadian farmers on this issue, which is extremely important to them. Having the chance to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, I have often heard about this issue. Furthermore, we are making changes to the maximum revenue entitlement, or MRE, to encourage investment in railway companies and expand the network to benefit all users.

Bill C-49 provides monetary penalties for railway companies. These penalties will hold them accountable for poor service. As well, we clearly set out in the bill that the option for shippers to seek penalties from railway companies will not prevent them from seeking full compensation for expenses or losses due to poor service, such as late charges.

This is a long-standing issue for the grain industry, and this legislation will keep in place the Canadian Transportation Agency’s temporary authority to award compensation for such failures. This bill also provides a robust definition of “adequate and adapted” services by specifying that railway companies must provide the highest level of service under the circumstances. The level of service would be available to everyone, including farmers affected by poor railway service.

To ensure that this mechanism will provide quick compensation, we are reducing the agency’s timeframe for rendering a decision from 120 to 90 days.

Furthermore, Bill C-49 ensures that small users can use a centralized process to challenge high rates charged by railway companies.

We will raise the cargo load limit for access to final offer arbitrage from $750,000 to $2 million, indexed to inflation.

This system will be easier for small users. Since there are no hearings, small users will not have to provide evidence in their case against the facts provided by railway companies regarding alternatives for moving their goods.

Users will be able challenge rates, and an arbitrator can make a decision applicable for a period of up to two years.

Bill C-49 will also enhance transparency. For the first time ever, big rail companies will be required to provide detailed information about the rates they charge, including amounts to be paid under the terms of confidential contracts. They will also be required to make all important information about their services publicly available through the agency.

Under this bill, we will establish new requirements for railways with respect to their plans and the steps they are taking to enable them to move grain for the following crop year. The agency will also have clear authority to hold hearings and issue recommendations on any issue of concern.

Taken together, these measures will ensure that problems are identified ahead of time and that all affected parties can take steps quickly to ensure that what happened in the winter of 2013-14, when record grain production and a harsh winter caused major delays, never happens again.

Through the measures included in Bill C-49, our government is protecting our reputation as a reliable trade partner and ensuring that we can grow our economy to benefit all Canadians.

This bill includes an important new measure to promote competition between the railway companies. Railway interswitching would provide users with access to an alternative railway company for distances up to 1,200 kilometres or 50% of the total long-haul distance in Canada, regardless of which is greater. This would give users a significant bargaining tool when negotiating prices and service options.

Members of the House will recall that this was temporary legislation passed in response to extreme circumstances that are no longer an issue in the transportation and grain shipping system. In that context, we will allow Bill C-30 to lapse as planned on August 1, 2017.

There are four measures in this legislation that our government looked at in detail. We heard the users' concerns about each of them and we considered their future in order to ensure that adequate conditions will remain in place for the long term.

First, the agency has the authority to order a railway company to compensate users for inadequate service. As mentioned earlier, Bill C-49 makes that measure permanent.

Second, the agency has the authority to clarify service agreements that users have submitted for arbitration. This solution allows users to obtain a service contract when negotiations fail. Bill C-49 also makes that measure permanent.

Third, the temporary measures concerning the minimum volume of grain for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific will finally be removed as planned. Users have said that the minimum volumes were having an adverse effect on the system and that some corridors had received preferential treatment. Although it was understandable given the situation, I am sure all members of the House will agree that this is not the type of policy that we want to maintain in the long term, given its unintended consequences. Long-haul interswitching therefore provides a national solution to the major problem of captive shippers.

The report by the Hon. David Emerson on the state of transportation in Canada, began in 2014, recommends that railway interswitching in the Prairies, introduced in the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, be withdrawn as planned. This report did not make any recommendations about some alternative instrument for encouraging competition or providing users with additional tools for negotiating with the railway companies.

Our government did not think that this was acceptable. Captive users told us that it was crucial to get better service and rate options. That is why Bill C-49 proposes long-haul interswitching. While that would encourage competition in the system, railway companies would be appropriately compensated for directing traffic to a competitor.

This provides me with an opportunity to commend the Minister of Transport for his extensive efforts in consulting farmers and other users before introducing this bill. Our government took the time to listen to farmers. That is why this bill provides them with considerable support.

Our government understands the importance of a balanced and competitive railway system for its users and for farmers. That is why we are calling on all parliamentarians to act quickly. Meanwhile, the grain industry will continue to enjoy maximum revenue entitlement protections, something that keeps rates low and maintains processes such as arbitration around service delivery.

Bill C-49 is not a temporary fix; it proposes comprehensive measures to ensure the long-term success of Canada’s grain industry. Passing them all at once would greatly expedite the legislative process. I am pleased to note that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has already agreed to come back earlier, before the House resumes, to consider Bill C-49.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the opposition day motion brought in by my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, which indicates that the government has been very ineffective with respect to the care and due diligence of this nation.

In particular, I want to say that damaging Canadian industries and diminishing Canadian economic stability, as he has pointed out in his motion, are certainly things that we care about every day in the House. We hear it from our constituents when we get back to our constituencies on weekends and during constituency weeks. It is certainly a situation that I have heard about quite regularly from my constituents.

My colleague, the member for Durham, has just pointed out that there is a huge deficit in place in Canada although the Liberals talked about small deficits during the election campaign. They have outgrown that by $30 billion, which is about 30 times what the Liberals said they would have. That is terrible mismanagement. Our future generations are going to have to pay for that every day of their lives as they move forward, not to mention the fact that all of us in this chamber today will share in that burden as well.

There are three major areas of concern that the member has pointed out: the softwood lumber deal, the carbon tax, and in particular, the current rail service agreement with respect to rail transportation in the Prairies.

The member has talked at great length about the softwood lumber deal, so I do not need to say much more. Suffice it to say that thousands of jobs are dependent upon an agreement between Canada and the United States. With the tariff that has been put in place by the United States today, we clearly see that the government did not have an answer when it came up with about $870 million as payment to cover some of the costs that will be borne by our industry. We need to find long-term leadership with respect to this matter. These stopgap measures are not good enough. That is what we are seeing in the other areas too.

The carbon tax that the government has implemented or is forcing upon provinces is certainly something that is going to continue to put people out of jobs. There were 200,000 jobs lost in Alberta alone. There are jobs lost in my constituency. We have a very small oil industry in western Manitoba, most of which is in my constituency. People have been put out of work there as well. We are only seeing some stability back in that area because of the stability in the price of oil right now, as well as an upgrade in the American economy. There has been a bit of a boost there. That is giving us some stability right now in Canada. However, it is very nebulous as to how long that may continue and if it will be on a long-term basis.

The area that I want to speak about today is mainly the current rail service agreements that ensure that our farmers can get their products to market.

In the spring of 2014, through the winter of 2013, our government brought forward Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, with our transportation minister, at the time, and our agriculture minister. They did an exceptional job of putting a program in place that would allow farmers some protection with respect to the movement of grain. There were extenuating circumstances, for sure, that winter. At that period of time, we had some of the coldest weather we have ever had. However, we are used to that in Canada, particularly in western Canada, so that is not an excuse with respect to being able to get grain to port on time.

There were three or four areas that were very important in that whole venue with that act. One of them was allowing interswitching to move up from a 30-kilometre basis to 160 kilometres, which made it quite effective to have a bit of competition in the industry, which we do not have most times when we have two railroads with, basically, a duopoly with respect to being able to move grain in the Prairies.

Trucks can only move so much grain effectively and we do not have the processing plants to process all of the grain in the Prairies. In fact, at that particular time, about 50% of the grain in Canada was going for export. That is why we desperately need to have that kind of openness and a bit of protection against the movement of other products. We cannot just leave grain, because of the massive volumes of it alone, and because it is basically in a captive area. It has to be grown every year. It has to be moved and marketed, perhaps not all in one year, but it does have to be moved, and it is a perishable product in the long run.

That is why it is so important that we move forward for Canadian families and businesses on the Prairies and in Canada as a whole, because wheat contributes greatly to the gross domestic product of our nation. Millions of jobs in Canada depend on the shipment of grain in the agricultural industry.

The minister has brought forward Bill C-49 but there is great concern as to whether it will have any teeth and whether it will get passed before we rise in the House for the summer. I commend the minister for bringing it forward, but I would encourage him to talk to his colleagues and move forward with it. If the bill does not move forward there is going to be a huge gap in this whole area. Bill C-30 will take over again, and it dies on July 31. That would leave the huge gap I referred to earlier and farmers will go into the coming harvest without any type of rule or regulation in place that will allow for the convenience of knowing the conditions under which grain can be shipped for the coming year.

I referred to interswitching rights earlier. Long-haul interswitching could be utilized. It certainly allowed for competition within that 160-kilometre radius. Interswitching is a tool that we brought in with Bill C-30. It is a much better rule than using competitive line rates, which have been in since the change in the Crow benefit in 1995. Competitive line rates, while sounding good, really were an ineffective way of providing the certainty that farmers and grain companies would have some competition. That is why the grain companies and the farm groups have joined together to lobby the government to put a stronger rate in place, a much stronger and more useable mechanism to use in that area.

A number of groups in Saskatchewan, and a growing chorus of western Canadian groups, have called for an extension of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act that we had in Bill C-30. I am calling on the government today to extend that again. It was extended once by the government but it needs to do it again. That will provide fairness and equity and predictability in regard to the movement of product into the fall.

The government is talking about proroguing the House. If the House is prorogued this summer or early in the fall, the legislation would die on the Order Paper and the government would have to start all over again. This would provide unpredictability in the industry for some extended time down the road. It would be the spring of 2018 at the earliest or the fall of 2018 before we would have any kind of predictable rules to carry on with the movement of grain products in western Canada and to get grain to port in the just-in-time fashion that is required today to meet the markets that we built up so extensively through the 40-some free trade agreements that the Harper government signed with our trading nations. Keeping markets open is one of the best things that a government can do in relation to our agricultural industry.

The government needs to also look at the coordination of the grain grading system between Canada and the United States because there is much grain movement back and forth. A lot of livestock goes back and forth. Having sat on the western standards committee of the Canadian Grain Commission for a number of years as a farm representative, I know how important access to the U.S. is.

There are other things that I would ask the Minister of Transport to do. One of them is to get the Minister of Agriculture on side to move forward with some of these areas as well. He is looking at removing deferred grain tickets, cash tickets, and that would not be helpful to farmers either. The Minister of Agriculture needs to move more quickly in regard to the PED virus in hogs and cleaning trucks in Manitoba.

There were nine cases last month, and there has still been no action on that to make sure we maintain a strong hog industry.

All of that fits into the transportation of product. We are talking about the transportation of grain, but the movement of livestock is part and parcel of the use of grain on the Prairies.

I look forward to any questions.

Transportation Modernization Act

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her question and for the work she did while she was on the transportation committee. I believe she was the member who was pushing for the committee to set in place a timeline for us to conduct the review of Bill C-30 to ensure that we were not bumping up against the deadline that we now seem to be bumping up against.

Definitely, rail safety was one of the first studies we undertook, when we were first elected, as part of our first session.

What is really interesting is that there have been a number of studies and very little action on the studies the committee has undertaken. As the member noted, the minister has stood up many times saying that rail safety is his number one priority. I find it somewhat curious that the ink was barely dry on the government's announcement that it would begin the review of the Railway Safety Act when it included a measure like the LVVR measure in this act, when it was about to launch a review of the Railway Safety Act. I do not know if this is by design or default, but it seems a somewhat incoherent approach to all matters in the transportation file.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to debate Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, at second reading.

The bill could simply be renamed the transportation omnibus act for the number of different bills being amended, with many of changes being more than just technical in nature. The Air Canada Public Participation Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the CN Commercialization Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the Coasting Trade Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Competition Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the 2009 Budget Implementation Act, and the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act are all being amended.

How this squares with the Liberal election promise not to use omnibus legislation is beyond me. Do not get me wrong, I am not complaining about an omnibus bill, just the fact that the Liberals did and then made a promise they knew they would not keep. Furthermore, when I introduced a motion in transport committee last week calling on the committee to write to the Minister of Transport and his government House leader to ask them to split the bill into the following sections, rail shipping, rail safety, air, and marine, to provide an enhanced and possibly expedited scrutiny, every single Liberal member voted against it without even a single comment as to why.

I found this vote particularly ironic, as it was the Liberal member for Niagara Centre who raised the idea of expediting the passage of the bill in the first place, in order to provide grain farmers with a greater amount of certainty as they negotiate contracts for future shipping seasons.

The more measures that a bill contains, the more time it takes to provide adequate scrutiny. Separating the bill would be the easiest way to facilitate expedited passage, and thus my motion calling on the bill to be split into several parts.

Unfortunately, Liberal members were unwilling to split the bill into these natural divisions. This does not inspire confidence that when the bill eventually does reach committee, the Liberal Party members will be open to any amendments. While Bill C-49 is supposed to be the Minister of Transport's legislative response to the 2015 Canada Transportation Act review led by the Hon. David Emerson, it would appear that what we have before us is a bill that is designed to change the channel from some of the bad news that keeps piling up for the Liberals.

The government's communications strategy for this legislation has overwhelmingly concentrated on the air passenger compensation regime that is being introduced, and not the other very consequential measures. Here is what the Minister of Transport posted on his Twitter feed as he introduced this legislation, “These air passenger rights will ensure that travellers are treated like people, not just a number.”

Like many members here, I travel a lot and only have positive things to say about all the employees working for the airlines and at our airports. Of course, on occasion, flights do not go as we hope, but the Minister of Transport appears to be willing to pit passengers against airlines rather than fixing the structural problems in Canada's aviation regime.

This legislation does not spell out what the compensation regime will be, just that there will be one. The bill states that after consulting with only the Minister of Transport, the Canadian Transportation Agency will make regulations concerning carriers' obligations toward passengers. However, for even greater clarity, subsection (2) of proposed section 86.11 states that the Canadian Transportation Agency must comply with any instruction from the minister with regard to setting regulations concerning carriers' obligations to passengers.

What this means is that the Canadian Transportation Agency is tentatively responsible for setting what financial penalties a carrier would have to pay to the passenger in the case of a service breach, unless the minister is dissatisfied with the level of prescribed compensation that the CTA decides is appropriate, in which case he or she can dictate what that level of compensation will be.

It is noteworthy that the agency will, by law, only be allowed to consult with the Minister of Transport concerning the setting of these regulations, and not with consumer advocate groups, airlines, airports, Nav Canada and other stakeholders in the sector.

I do not understand what the purpose of consulting only the minister is. If the Canadian Transportation Agency is to be an arm's-length organization, this legislation clearly diminishes its independence. If the minister will not allow the agency to independently set the parameters of the passenger compensation regime, he should just spell out in legislation what it will be and let members of Parliament and stakeholder groups decide whether this is a good proposal or not.

If this legislation were truly aimed at reducing the cost of travel for the passenger, while increasing service and convenience, the minister would immediately lobby to have the government's carbon tax, which will make every single flight more expensive, withdrawn. He would reform the air passenger security system, which was universally identified as a major irritant for all passengers during the Canada Transportation Act review by all the organizations that participated in the process.

While it would be preferable to have the sections of the bill dealing with air and rail examined as stand-alone pieces of legislation, I can only surmise that the government's complete mismanagement of the House's agenda has led us to the point where an omnibus transportation bill is what we have in front of us today. At least we have finally begun debating something in the transport sector, now that we are two years into the government's mandate. So far, the only achievement the minister has to show in terms of legislation is the act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Let us talk about Bill S-2, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. This was first introduced by the government's representative in the Senate 13 months ago and passed third reading in the Senate on February 2. The minister claimed that Bill S-2 was a priority in his speech to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce in November 2016, yet it has not been touched since.

On May 12, just days before the introduction of the legislation we are debating today, the Minister of Transport introduced the oil tanker moratorium act, a bill that his own officials conceded would only impact the future development of Canada's oil sands and no other activity in northern British Columbia. Equally concerning about this oil tanker moratorium, which could be renamed the oil pipeline moratorium, is that there is considerable support among first nations on B.C.'s coast for energy development opportunities, but the wishes of these first nations are being ignored. For the Liberals to move forward with this tanker moratorium without properly consulting coastal first nations is extremely hypocritical.

The Liberals go to painstaking lengths to emphasize the amount of consultation they undertake, but it is becoming more and more apparent that their interest in consulting is about being told what they want to hear and not about listening to differing views. If anyone needs further proof that Bill C-48 was introduced only for political purposes, it is that this moratorium has been introduced as a stand-alone bill and not as part of this omnibus package we are debating today.

The Minister of Transport's silence and inaction on critical and time-sensitive transport issues, especially rail transport, is leading to uncertainty for both shippers and the railroads, which both want certainty as they negotiate shipping rates for the season.

That is why over the past several months I have asked many times whether the government intends to renew the sunsetting measures in Bill C-30 before they expire on August 1, 2017. The response I have been given time and time again is that the government recognizes the urgency to get this done and that legislation is forthcoming. Unfortunately, the Liberals have made a muck of this, and the key measures in Bill C-30 will sunset before any replacement legislation can receive royal assent and become law.

Last week in the transport committee, a Liberal member moved a motion calling on the committee to begin its consideration of this bill, Bill C-49, in September, before the House begins sitting, to expedite the study of the sections of the bill that deal with the shipping of grain. While Conservatives have no objection to considering this legislation in September before the House returns from the summer break, government members fail to realize that our producers needed them to turn their attention to this months ago, as the measures will sunset on August 1 of this year. At best, there will be a two-and-a-half-month gap between when the measures in Bill C-30 sunset and replacement legislation is in place.

By the time this legislation has passed, the majority of contracts for this year will have been negotiated with the law in flux. Because of the government's mismanagement of the legislative agenda, these popular measures will sunset without replacement, and shippers will be the worse off.

This is important to note, because for a combination of reasons, including a lack of rail capacity, preparedness by railways and shippers, weather, and the size of the crop, western Canada's 2013-14 grain crop did not get to market in a timely manner. Consequently, the previous Conservative government introduced Bill C-30, which gave the Canada Transportation Agency the power to allow shippers access to regulated interswitching up to 160 kilometres, mandated that CN and CP both haul at least 500 tonnes of grain per week, and introduced a new definition of adequate and suitable service levels. With this extension, the number of primary grain elevators with access to more than one railroad with the extended interswitching limits increased from 48 to 261.

These measures were met with universal support from the members of the shipping community, because even if they did not use interswitching, they could use it as a tool to increase their negotiating position with the railways, as the shippers knew exactly how much the interswitch portion of the haul would cost them.

At the same time, the government announced that the Canada Transportation Act statutory review would be expedited, and it began a year early to provide long-term solutions to the grain backlog of the 2013-14 shipping season and other problems in the transport sector within Canada. The hon. David Emerson, a former Liberal and Conservative cabinet minister, was tasked with leading the review. This review was completed in the fall of 2015 and was on the Minister of Transport's desk shortly before Christmas. The minister then tabled this report in mid-February 2016 and promised wide consultations on the report. As the key measures of Bill C-30 were going to sunset on August 1, 2016, and parliamentarians were hearing from the shipping community that it would like to see these extended, Parliament voted in June 2016 to extend those provisions for one year.

In the fall of 2016, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook a study of Bill C-30 and held a number of meetings on the merits of these measures and whether they should be allowed to sunset. We were assured that if we lived with this extension, these issues would be dealt with by August 1, 2017.

The vast majority of the testimony heard was supportive of maintaining the 160-kilometre regulated interswitching limit at committee, which is why the committee's first recommendation was the following:

That the Canadian Transportation Agency retain the flexibility provided under the Canada Transportation Act by the Fair Rail For Grain Farmers Act to set interswitching distances up to 160 km, in order to maintain a more competitive operating environment for rail shippers with direct access to only one railway company.

Anyone who has read this bill will know that the government ignored the committee's main recommendation. At some point during this debate, I hope to hear from Liberal members on the transport committee about whether they believe that the government was right to ignore the committee's recommendations, and if so, whether the entire committee study was just a waste of time.

Basically, what the government is proposing with this legislation is to replace the 160-kilometre interswitching limit with the creation of a new long-haul interswitching tool that would be in effect between Windsor and Kamloops on hauls of up to 1,200 kilometres, or up to 50% of the length of the entire haul. Shippers would be charged the regulated interswitching rate for the first 30 kilometres of the haul and then a Canada Transportation Agency-determined rate, which would be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the price of a similar haul, for the remainder of the distance to the interswitch point. Shippers would only be able to interswitch at the first available interswitch point within the zone.

What the government has done is take a little-used existing remedy, called a competitive line rate, and rename it long-haul interswitching.

Under a competitive line rate, a shipper could apply to the agency to set the amount of the competitive line rate, the designation of the continuous route, the designation of the nearest interchange, and the manner in which the local carrier would fulfill its service obligations. We know from history that this remedy was infrequently used because of the prerequisite that the shipper first reach an agreement with the connecting carrier, and the two main carriers effectively declined to compete with one another through CLRs. What we do not know is what the difference will be at a practical level between this new long-haul interswitching and the existing competitive line rates.

Like competitive line rates, long-haul interswitching is a much more complicated system for shippers to use, and the jury is still out on whether this will achieve the minister's stated objective of improving rail access for captive shippers. When Bill C-30 was first introduced, there was universal support among shippers for the extended interswitching. So far, very few organizations I have spoken to can say that this tool is better.

In conclusion, this much is certain: the key measures in Bill C-30 will be allowed to sunset on August 1, before this legislation receives royal assent. The Liberals have had nearly a full year to get new legislation in place but failed to do so, and shippers will suffer the consequences.

Canada remains one of the most expensive jurisdictions in which to operate an airline, and it is about to become even more so with the imposition of a national carbon tax. This bill does nothing to address the systemic cost issues, which are passed on to passengers, that were identified by the Transportation Act review. As has been the case with almost everything with the current government, optics trump everything, and this bill exemplifies that.

[Hans Kristensen, Member, Board of Directors, Canadian Pork Council]

Good morning.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee and for your continued attention to the international market access for Canadian pork.

My name is Hans Kristensen. I am a producer from New Brunswick and the Maritimes' representative on the Canadian Pork Council's board of directors. As part of my responsibilities as a CPC director, I also sit as a director on Canada Pork International.

The roles and responsibilities between the CPC and Canada Pork International complement each other. Through public policy outreach, the CPC advocates for reasonable legislation and regulations both domestically and internationally to develop market opportunities for Canadian producers. Canada Pork International steps in once market access becomes feasible and promotes Canadian pork in foreign markets.

The last time we were here to discuss debt in the agriculture sector and its effects, we outlined how the pork sector relies on exports and how the relationship between market access and the economic stability of our industry are so closely connected. I'm certain by now you are familiar with the impact the Canadian pork industry has on the Canadian economy. It's a good story that needs to be told. In 2016, we exported over one million tonnes of pork and pork products valued at over $3.2 billion to 90 different countries. The pork sector relies on exports. In fact, more than two-thirds of the hogs produced in Canada are exported. Over the past decade, due to the hard work of the entire industry and this government, we have expanded to become the third largest exporter of pork in the world. This expansion supports not only hog farmers, but also provides thousands of jobs in rural and urban communities alike.

The pork industry has always been interested in eliminating trade barriers to our exports and improving access, whether import barriers, or unfair sanitary or regulatory measures, or legitimate tariffs. We work hard to remove measures that hamper our exports. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the meat sector is an ardent and steadfast supporter of all initiatives that contribute to not only the opening, but equally vital, the maintenance of existing export markets.

The Canadian Pork Council is pleased federal legislation to implement Canada's rights and commitments under the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, Bill C-30, was granted royal assent on May 16. The CPC has followed developments with great interest since the October 2008 Canada-European Union summit to explore an economic partnership. Europe is the last important pork-consuming region in the world to which Canada currently has little effective market access. It is limited by very high tariffs and onerous import administration rules. The EU is one of the world's most protected import markets for meat. The new zero-tariff access for pork granted under CETA and much improved quota administration rules provide unique access for Canada and an advantage in the future over U.S. exports should a deal be worked out between the U.S. and the EU.

One of the non-tariff barriers hampering access for Canadian pork exports to the EU is the requirement that imports of fresh, chilled pork undergo costly and burdensome testing requirements for trichinae. The EU testing requirements are costly and severely limit sales of chilled pork to Europe. The EU also requires that a health mark label be applied to all boxes of meat exported to the EU. The label is intended to ensure traceability of the product to the producing establishment and to provide a visual means of determining if a package has been opened. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's current interpretation of the EU requirement makes it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for Canadian pork processors to meet this requirement. Over the past two years the industry has raised its ongoing concern about the health mark label with both Canadian and EU officials. Notwithstanding constant assurances that the issue is being worked on by officials in Canada and the EU, it would appear that little if any progress has been made to resolve the issue.

As important as trade agreements are, they constitute only one component of trade in pork products. The removal of import quotas and tariffs is only of value if it is possible to overcome also the myriad of associated technical regulations and requirements. The meat industry works very closely with the market access secretariat of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the CFIA, Health Canada, and Global Affairs Canada on the endless task of addressing these impediments. These departments need the flexibility and a full team with the financial backing to efficiently address market access issues. There is work to be done to better capitalize on existing access.

When a country places a barrier to trade, our industry has to ask if we can overcome that barrier, and at what cost to our industry. The cost of compliance can sometimes deter operations from implementing the process or technology that allows CFIA to certify that the product or establishment comply for all products destined for the desired market...are erroneously expensive.

However, in some cases, a country's expectation or high barrier for import has benefited our industry, such as with Japan. Pork exports from Canada to Japan have been a major success story, and this has led to a strong trade relationship that has benefited both countries. The Canadian pork sector has a long history of trade with Japan that goes back more than 40 years since the first shipment of pork left Canada destined for Japan.

The Japanese market is very demanding on the safety of products and requires a high level of food safety and certification from its importers. These requirements have enabled the Canadian pork industry to develop some of the highest quality food programs and food safety programs in the world, such as the Canadian quality assurance program. These programs assist the industry in accessing Japan and other international pork markets. It can be said that the Japanese influence on the Canadian industry has also led us to be better producers and better exporters.

I must take a moment to point out that Canada is currently Japan's second largest country supplier of pork after the United States, and we believe there is still room to grow our sales. A trade liberalization agreement between our two nations will provide a big boost for our industry.

Another example where a non-tariff barrier is restrictive and the industry has decided to meet the country's requirement is the use of ractopamine. Ractopamine is a product approved for use in animal feed in over 25 countries, with an additional 75 countries allowing for the importation of pork that has been fed ractopamine, even though it is not allowed to be fed in their domestic herds.

In July 2012, the Codex Alimentarius Commission voted to approve an international standard that set the maximum residue levels of ractopamine as a feed additive, thus recognizing the product as safe for use in pork and beef production, yet markets such as the EU, Russia, China, Taiwan, and Thailand refuse the importation of meat where the product has been in contact with ractopamine.

As a result of this, the Canadian ractopamine-free pork certification program was launched in April 2013. This was in response to Russia's requirements banning the importation of meat from hogs that have been fed or even exposed to ractopamine. The Canadian Pork Council worked closely with the Canadian Meat Council, the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada, Canada Pork International, Elanco, and the CFIA to develop the program. The certification program was implemented throughout the pork value chain, including feed mills, producers, and live animal transporters, as well as slaughter, processing, and storage establishments.

Our industry is forgoing the benefit of using this product and has voluntarily implemented a national program to ensure that pork products meet import requirements of our clients for the ractopamine program. Our industry decided to stop using the product so we can increase the flexibility of accessing markets. That flexibility and that market access comes at a cost, but it also places our industry at risk.

For example, recently, Chinese testing of a shipment of pork from a specific establishment in Canada detected ractopamine residues. Canada's pork industry takes this detection very seriously, and we want to assure our Chinese customers that our country and our industry is dedicated to providing their consumers a ractopamine-free product. The CFIA has suspended exports of pork to China from the establishment. Product en route to the Chinese market from this specific establishment is also being recalled, and the plant involved will not ship until further notice. Our industry partners are working with the establishment involved, as well as with Canadian government officials, to clarify this incident and take the proper corrective actions.

The industry is confident in the integrity of the Canadian ractopamine-free pork certification program. The Canadian pork industry values its relationship with China and looks forward to continuing a strong trading relationship.

I thank you again for the opportunity to speak this morning on behalf of the industry.

Resuming debate

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate concerning motion No. 14 is not about having a problem with working until midnight each evening—except, obviously, on topics raised by the opposition. I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said in the House yesterday, that most of us are already working every day on a similar schedule.

In my previous career, I was already used to long hours. When I ran a global business, my European colleagues began calling me at 4 a.m., and my days would often stretch until midnight. This was necessary so I could meet with my employees and people in the plants and businesses in the Pacific region I was responsible for.

As the head of a North American refining and petrochemical company, I realized that maintaining customer relations and meeting deadlines to submit applications made for very long days.

The Liberal government said it wanted to make Parliament more family friendly in order to encourage women to get into politics. I support encouraging more women to get into politics, but I do not believe that many women would choose to work until midnight each evening, away from their kids.

Now, why did this government introduce such a motion, when theoretically it should oppose it?

As I have said, I am not opposed to working long hours. I said earlier today, and will say it again, Einstein was quoted as saying that the definition of insanity was repeating the same action hoping for a different result. The government has not accomplished a lot in the way of legislation. If we think about the 19 bills that have passed versus 52 in the same time frame when the Conservatives were in power, really not much has been accomplished. There is no prioritization of what is coming forward.

I want to take a moment to talk about what has already passed because it shows something important.

So far in Parliament the transparency for first nations has been removed with Bill C-1. Bill C-2 gave back to the middle class $932 a year in taxes and then Bill C-26 increased their CPP payments by $1,100 a year, with no benefit. Bill C-10 gave Air Canada a deal to get maintenance jobs out of Canada and escape a lawsuit. Bill C-14, medically assisted dying, was passed without protecting the rights of conscience. Bill C-17 addressed environmental items for Yukon. Bill C-18 was environmental change for Rouge Park in Toronto. Bill C-30 was a CETA deal that now has to be renegotiated with Brexit happening. Bill C-31 was the trade deal with Ukraine. The rest were all maintenance budget items that needed to be done. That is all we have accomplished in 18 months of the Liberal government's agenda. Everything else is lost in process, being amended in the Senate, and not coming forward.

What is the government going to achieve by making us sit every night until midnight, which, as I said, I am fully willing to do? I really do not think it is getting anywhere. Why is it not getting anywhere? Because it does not listen to the opposition's points of view.

The job of the opposition is to bring reasoned and intelligent arguments on why a government proposal is not good for Canada and to make helpful suggestions about what would make it better.

When bills are sent to committee, the committee's job is to make helpful suggestions and amendments that would make them something all Canadians could embrace. That is really what is happening. The government is not accepting amendments, not listening when the opposition talks, and again and again, when things go to the Senate, the Senate comes up with the same amendments and spends more time studying them, doing exactly the same thing that committees of the House are supposed to do. That is one problem.

Another problem is that there has to be trust when parties work together.

I am going to compare the antics that I see happening here with what I see in the business world. In the business world, people work together. People have to be able to trust one another when they make deals. They have to be able to follow up on things as they said they would.

From what I have seen, the opposition House leaders are trying to work with the government House leader but she is not keeping up her end of what she has agreed to. Every day I watch her stand in the House and misrepresent to Canadians that she just has a discussion paper, when really a motion has been rammed through PROC. I have seen her avoid answering questions that she is accountable to answer.

I would suggest that there has been a huge erosion of trust in the government House leader and sometimes that cannot be fixed in order to restore the ability to work together. The government should really consider changing up that position and coming back to a place where we can work together and trust that agreements that are made, amendments that are suggested, and motions that are brought forward are as agreed. That is really important.

There is another point that I would like to make that has not been discussed much here. I have listened to the debate on Motion No. 14 and I have heard a lot about the blame game. I hear from the Liberals that when Stephen Harper's government was in place, it did this bad thing or that bad thing, or whatever. Honestly, two-thirds of the Parliament are new. Some of us were not here in the previous Parliament. We have an opportunity to do things differently now. If we think something was previously done wrong, we have the opportunity to do it differently in the future.

When items come up in the business climate, not everything needs the same amount of time to be talked about. I have sat in the House and heard Liberal members stand up and say they support such and such a bill and I have heard Conservative members and NDP members stand up and say they do too, and then we talk about it for days.

This is not the way we should be spending our time. If the government had not squandered all of the time in that way, we would have more time and we would not have to sit late. In the same way, there are things that need to be discussed longer that cannot be rammed through, things such as the budget bill that has been combined with the infrastructure bank. When comments come forward, the government needs to lead. It needs to separate those things out so that the things that can be quickly passed get passed on. When I say passed on, I am saying that if we all agree on a bill at first reading and we do not need to change anything, then the legislation should be sent right away to the Senate. Why are we spending time doing second and third reading and committee and everything else? We need to be able to update some of the processes here.

I am not about just criticizing without providing recommendations for how I think we could make this better. Here are my recommendations, which I think the government could use to change some of the things that it is doing and which would result in getting legislation passed through in a better way.

When it comes to the rules of the House, I see an opportunity to modernize those rules but a change would need to honour the tradition of Parliament and have all-party consensus or at least the consensus of a majority of members to change things, because those things influence our democracy and they are important. Doing some of those things would, as the suggestions I have made about passing things we all agree on and everything else, clear the legislative agenda in a way that would move things forward more positively.

I also would reiterate that you have to have someone working with the opposition leaders who can be trusted, and I think that trust is broken.

The other point I would make is about amendments that are brought forward and are agreed to by the opposition members. It is not often that the NDP and the Conservatives play on the same team and sing from the same song sheet. That does not usually happen but lately it has happened a lot. When that happens, it should be a signal to government that this is an amendment that Canadians want to see.

The government needs to say what it is going to do and then it needs to own up to it. Some of the credibility loss that has happened has happened because the government said it was going to do something and then it did not. The government maintained it was going to be open and transparent and then facts have been hidden or things have not been well represented. The government said it was going to be accountable but then every day when we stand up and ask questions we get the shell game. It does not answer our questions, and this would not be acceptable in the business world.

These are some of the things that would help to get the legislative agenda flowing through. As a member of the opposition, I want to see the right things happen for Canada and I am willing to work with the government to see that happen.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to raise two issues.

The first has to do with how the committee functions.

With all due respect, Madam Chair, as much as I appreciate the miracles you have managed to work since I've been on the committee, I must say that our sense of collegiality seems to be slowly slipping away. It fades every time we meet.

Clearly, I think that if proper subcommittee meetings were held more often, it would help ease some of the tension we're seeing. I'm not trying to force anything on you, but that is what I would strongly suggest. I think the committee should favour that approach.

It would probably also help us iron out the bulk of our work plans and thus avoid surprises and frustrating situations like this morning's, not to mention what happened at a meeting you unfortunately weren't at, Madam Chair. I think that's one solution that would help the committee get back to its former self.

As for possibly having to work on Bill C-49 in the summer, I would simply say that, if we must, we must. That was never the issue. The argument is that farmers are a priority, and I agree with that. In terms of the measures in Bill C-30, keep in mind that the priority according to farmers—the message they were championing—was that they would be happy to see the measures made permanent. I'm having a hard time, then, wrapping my head around how the government party can claim this is an absolute priority that we need to deal with as quickly as possible, when it opted to insert the measures into an omnibus bill. I'm well aware that this isn't the right place to debate the matter, but I would just point out that, if this is indeed a priority, one solution would be to take the measures out of the mammoth bill that is Bill C-49. That way, the committee could study the measures in a timely manner and make everyone happy.

Instead, the government is trying to fast-track consideration of an omnibus bill that affects just about every sector of transportation, including grain transportation, which has a direct impact on farmers.

Truth be told, Bill C-49 could be divided into a number of bills. Even though the government has absolutely no intention of doing this, it seems to me that, if it wanted to give priority treatment to farmers, the best option would be to extract the provisions from Bill C-49 related to Bill C-30 . It could then make Bill C-30 the priority and refer it to our committee. That way, we could deal with the matter expeditiously while following through on the government's wish to prioritize farmers and deliver the support they are expecting from us.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I don't think anyone asked the minister to wait until June to begin the study of the bill in the House. It's a long and meaty bill. Bill C-49 is clearly an omnibus bill: there's something in it for everyone, including measures on grain transportation.

I think the committee members have done excellent work. We have gotten things done and responded quickly. The delay between the two should not be laid at the committee's feet. We would never do anything to delay the implementation of the measures in Bill C-30.

These people have been waiting, and once again, I would point out that it wasn't the committee that decided to wait until June to bring forward the bill. It's unfortunate; the government could have chosen another approach.

I would also like to hear what my fellow member and vice chair of the committee has to say about the situation. Here we are, in full committee, studying motions on committee business and other issues we need to talk about. We often find out about things at the last minute, however, so we don't have time to prepare or respond. Yet again, today, the schedule has been changed a few times.

As vice-chairs of the committee, not only were we elected by our peers, but we are also paid extra by the House to hold subcommittee meetings precisely to discuss scheduling and suggestions of this nature.

After the subcommittee meets, we are able to consult our colleagues about the committee's upcoming work—at least, that's what I would do. It would certainly be a better idea if we were to proceed that way more often, Madam Chair. It would give us an opportunity to learn about these types of intentions sooner and to find some common ground even before beginning our work with the entire committee present. The committee would run a lot more smoothly that way.

Using the subcommittee would also prevent situations like the one involving Mr. Rayes' request to resume debate on his motion. The subcommittee could've discussed it and realized that it wasn't possible. We could have done things the right way. It's unfortunate that we didn't.

When everything is going fine, we don't need to meet, but I think we need to talk and meet more often so as not to bring in witnesses unnecessarily or be caught off guard by proposals like this one at the last minute.

Mr. Badawey's suggestion that the committee meet when the House is not sitting didn't come out of nowhere. I think you talked about it amongst yourselves. The government party is aware of the idea, and you are getting ready to vote on it.

I'd like to hear what my colleague has to say. I think the subcommittee could help because it could resolve issues like these and ensure that the committee's proceedings ran smoothly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You do all of the work with the witnesses, have all of the hearings, or as many as possible, so that when the House reconvenes, we would be able to go immediately into clause-by-clause and get that legislation adopted. I say this because the very people who will be most affected by the issue around Bill C-30 and the sunset clause are the farmers, who have concerns about the railways and their reaction.

It's a question of moving things along regardless of....You know how government works and how things do not always move as swiftly as you'd like. Mr. Badawey's suggestion is on whether the committee would be interested in putting forward three or four days, mid-September, before the House resumes, to get some of the witnesses in and to get some of the hearings done.

That's the suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's exactly what Mr. Badawey is suggesting because of the sensitivities of the C-30 clause. Now it's up to the committee.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think what I would do is go back to Mr. Badawey's suggestion regarding Bill C-49. Just to be clear on what he is suggesting, the measures in Bill C-30 were due to sunset a year ago, and we extended them in the understanding that we would undertake a study on Bill C-30 and bring forward recommendations to the minister.

We undertook that study in September 2016. You reported our findings and recommendations to the House. The minister, then, has had our recommendations on the measures contained in Bill C-30 before him.

What Mr. Badawey is suggesting is that, because we are in this very tight time frame now to deal with these measures that are going to sunset on August 1, this committee now needs to study this legislation throughout the summer, perhaps holding wide consultations with stakeholders, which is what the minister told us he was doing when we tabled the report in the House between that time and now.

What's happening is that members are now being asked to consider meeting in the summer to expedite Bill C-49, which won't actually have any impact on the expiration of the measures in Bill C-30, because this bill will not be passed until the fall.

Is that correct?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 23, 2017:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2017, or at any time on Friday, June 23, 2017, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division which, under the Standing Orders, would be deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on Wednesday, September 20, 2017;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m.;

(j) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81 (18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.; and

(k) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to government Motion No. 14. For the benefit of members, the motion would extend the sitting of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks. Our government has an ambitious legislative agenda that we would like to advance in order to deliver on the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election. Let me reflect on our recent legislative achievements before I turn to the important work that lies before us over the next four weeks.

In our last sitting week, the House and Senate were able to reach agreement on securing passage of Bill C-37, which would put in place important measures to fight the opioid crisis in Canada. I would like to thank members of the House for the thoughtful debate on this bill and for not playing politics with such an important piece of legislation. In particular, I would like to thank members of the New Democratic Party for co-operating with the government to advance this bill when it was in the House and for helping us dispense with amendments from the Senate. This was a high watermark for the House and I hope that we can take this professional and courteous approach forward. I would also like to thank senators for their important contributions to this bill.

I would also like to point out the passage of two crucial bills related to trade. The first, Bill C-30, would implement an historic trade agreement with the European Union. The second, Bill C-31, would implement a trade agreement with Ukraine, a country that is dear to many members.

I am proud that our government continues to open the doors to trade and potential investment in Canada to grow our economy and help build a strong middle class.

In looking forward to the next four sitting weeks, I would like to highlight a few priority bills that our government will seek to advance. I will start with Bill C-44, which would implement budget 2017. This bill is about creating good middle-class jobs today while preparing Canadians for the jobs of tomorrow.

I will provide some examples of the initiatives that will contribute to building a strong middle class. The budget makes smart investments to help adult workers retain or upgrade their skills to adapt to changes in the new economy and to help young people get the skills and work experience they need to start their careers.

The budget also provides for investments in the well-being of Canadians, with the emphasis on mental health, home care, and health care for indigenous peoples.

Bill C-44 would provide financing to the provinces for home care and mental health care. It would also create leave for those who wish to care for a critically ill adult or child in their family. These initiatives help build stronger communities.

I would also like to point to initiatives in the budget that deal with gender equality. The first-ever gender statement will serve as a basis for ongoing, open, and transparent discussions about the role gender plays in policy development. Our government has other initiatives that aim to strengthen gender equality. For example, Bill C-25 encourages federally regulated companies to promote gender parity on boards of directors and to publicly report on the gender balance on these boards.

Another bill, which I will discuss in greater detail later in my remarks, is Bill C-24, a bill that would level the playing field to ensure a one-tier ministry. The bill has a simple premise. It recognizes that a minister is a minister, no matter what portfolio he or she holds.

Our government has committed to legalizing and strictly regulating the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis. I look forward to the debate on this important bill tomorrow. I will note that the bill would provide strong safeguards and deterrents to protect young people from enticements to use or access cannabis.

The government has taken a responsible approach in seeking to legalize cannabis by ensuring that law enforcement agencies have approved methods to test the sobriety of drivers to guard against cannabis use while operating a motorized vehicle. This afternoon, the House will continue to debate this bill, which, I will happily note, has support from all opposition parties in the House. I hope that we can agree to send this bill to committee on Wednesday.

Now I would like to return to our government's commitment to improving gender equality. Bill C-24, which stands in my name, seeks to formalize the equal status of the ministerial team. This bill is very straightforward in its nature. It is fundamentally about the equality of all ministers. We strongly believe that the Minister of Status of Women should be a full minister. We believe that the Minister of Science and the Minister of Democratic Institutions should be full ministers.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not share this fundamental belief in equality. I think we should send this bill to committee for a detailed study of what the bill actually does.

I would like to draw members' attention to another piece of legislation, Bill C-23, regarding an agreement with the United States on the preclearance of persons and goods between our two countries.

This bill is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The principle of the bill is simple. It is about ensuring a more efficient and secure border by expanding preclearance operations for all modes of transportation. This will increase the number of trips and the volume of trade, which will strengthen both of our economies.

As members may know, preclearance operations currently take place at eight Canadian airports, and immigration pre-inspection is also conducted at multiple locations in British Columbia in the rail and marine modes.

Once that bill comes back from committee, I hope that we can work together to send it to the other place.

In our last sitting week, our government introduced comprehensive modernization of our transportation systems. A strong transportation system is fundamental to Canada's economic performance and competitiveness. Bill C-49 does just that. The bill would enhance the utility, efficiency, and fluidity of our rail system so that it works for all participants in the system. Freight rail is the backbone of the Canadian economy. It moves everything from grain and potash to oil and coal, to the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, and the food we eat.

I would also like to draw to the attention of members provisions in Bill C-49 that would strengthen Canada's air passenger rights. While the precise details of the air passenger rights scheme will be set out in regulations, the objective is that rights should be clear, consistent, transparent, and fair for passengers and air carriers.

Finally, our government committed to creating a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Bill C-22 seeks to accomplish two interrelated goals, ensuring that our security intelligence agencies are effective in keeping Canadians safe, while at the same time safeguarding our values, rights and freedoms, and the open, generous, inclusive nature of our country.

I appreciate the work that was done in the House committee to improve the bill. The bill is currently before the Senate national security committee, and I look forward to appearing before that committee with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Sitting a few extra hours for four days per week will also give the House greater flexibility in dealing with unexpected events. While it is expected that the Senate will amend bills, it is not always clear which bills and the number of bills that could be amended by the Senate. As we have come to know, the consideration of Senate amendments in the House takes time. This is, in part, why we need to sit extra hours. I know that members work extremely hard balancing their House duties and other political duties. I expect that extending the hours will add to the already significant workload.

I wish to thank members for their co-operation in these coming weeks. As I reflect upon my time as government House leader, there were examples where members of the House came together, despite their political differences, and advanced initiatives that touched directly upon the interests of all Canadians. I hope that over the four remaining sitting weeks before we head back to work in our ridings, we can have honest and frank deliberations on the government's priorities and work collaboratively to advance the agenda that Canadians sent us here to implement.

In the previous Parliament, when the government decided to extend the sittings in June of 2014, Liberal members supported that motion. We knew then, as we know now, that our role as legislators is a privilege, and we discharge our parliamentary functions in support of our constituents.

There will be initiatives that the government will bring forward over the coming weeks that will enjoy the support of all members, and there will be issues on which parties will not agree. Our comportment during this time will demonstrate to Canadians that we are all in this together, despite our differences, for the good of this great country. Let us not lose sight of that.

I believe the motion before the House is reasonable. I hope opposition members can support sitting a few extra hours for four days a week for the next few weeks to consider important legislation for Canadians.

Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development—Main Estimates, 2016-17

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be here this evening.

I will be speaking for about 10 minutes, Madam Chair.

The Prime Minister gave me a very clear mandate as Minister of International Trade to increase Canadian trade and attract job-creating investors to Canada by expanding the economic opportunities offered to all Canadians. I am proud to say that the government has made significant progress on that front, but a lot of work remains to be done.

There is a growing recognition that when it comes to international trade, business as usual is no longer an option. Many people, especially those working hard to join the middle class, feel that trade and globalization have not worked for them. In response, we have options: protectionism, the status quo, or we can rethink the method, form, and function of free and fair trade in the world.

This government believes that we can do better. It is trade that has helped build this country into a top 10 global economy with the world's 30th largest population. With a population representing about 0.5% of the world population, we represent about 2.5% of global trade. I have been saying around the world that trade is in the DNA of Canadians, so for us, protectionism is not an option.

Likewise, the status quo is unacceptable. It is holding us back while others continue to move forward. Not only do Canadians rightfully expect us to keep pace with global trends in international trade, but they also expect us to actively participate in all trade programs.

If we do not seek the social licence to implement an ambitious trade program, we will succumb to the forces that oppose it.

To that end, our government is pursuing a new progressive trade agenda. At its most basic level, progressive trade is about ensuring that all segments of society can take advantage of, and otherwise benefit from, the opportunities that flow from trade and investment.

In concrete terms, this means that we will give more consideration to the interests and ambitions of smaller companies, especially those owned by women, young people, new immigrants, and indigenous entrepreneurs by bringing them to the forefront so they can realize their full potential.

To help Canadian jurisdictions attract global investment, we will be investing $218 million over the next five years to create the invest in Canada hub, a new federal body dedicated to attracting leading global firms to Canada to support middle-class prosperity by bringing good jobs, fresh capital, and new technologies to our economy.

We will also enhance our trade promotion support to Canadian businesses to ensure that they can take advantage of the opportunities created by trade agreements.

As Minister of International Trade, I play a leading role in promoting the benefits of trade with Canada as well as Canada's attractiveness as an investment location at the international level. In that sense, I consider myself to be Canada's chief marketing officer, of sorts.

Together with my officials in Canada's world-class trade commissioner service, I am pursuing four parallel avenues of action.

First, I am engaging with Canadian firms, especially small and medium-sized businesses, to encourage their participation in international trade while cultivating relationships with our major long-standing exporters responsible for the bulk of our exports to ensure we are aware of their trade development priorities and any market access concerns. At the same time, I am reaching out to high-value foreign investors to promote Canada's attractiveness as an investment location to the highest level within major international business.

Lastly, I am promoting Canadian capabilities in the most promising sectors, namely aerospace, the automotive industry, clean technology, the oil and gas industry, and forestry at major trade shows and trade missions.

My international commitment is also focused on key markets that present the greatest potential for Canada. Now more than ever is the best time to diversify our markets. This includes high-growth emerging markets as well as established trade partners, especially those with whom we have free trade agreements.

Finally, as far as our progressive trade agenda goes, I will be communicating with Canadians to sustain support for the global trading system here at home and to promote awareness of the benefits of trade and investment for Canadians, Canadian businesses, and Canada's economic prosperity. As the so-called chief marketing officer, the Prime Minister has instructed me in his mandate letter to increase the support provided to Canadian businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that flow after trade agreements are signed.

In other words, and my colleagues would join me in this, it is about making trade real for people. Trade deals for people mean better jobs for our middle class, more choice and better prices for our consumers, and a chance for SMEs to export around the world.

That is why Global Affairs Canada created the free trade agreement promotion task force, which is responsible for working with businesses in order to help them identify and reap the benefits of these agreements. The task force has mobilized business associations in order to come up with a new model for promoting free trade agreements so they can ensure follow-up.

Our priority is to promote the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic trade agreement, commonly known as CETA. I am delighted that Bill C-30 received royal assent yesterday, and I am pleased to point out that CETA should be provisionally in effect very soon.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work of my colleagues and members of the Standing Committee on International Trade, who worked so hard to make this agreement a reality for Canadians. It took vision to begin the discussions over a decade ago. Today, all around the globe, it is the right agreement at the right time, not only for Canada and Europe, but also for the entire world.

We are also undertaking promotional activities to support other trade agreements, such as the Canada–Korea Free Trade Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 2016, and as my colleague, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, was saying, the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement, which is expected to be applied some time this summer. Once CETA is in force, Canadian companies will enjoy unprecedented duty-free access to a market of more than 500 million consumers and a GDP of over $22 trillion.

I often say around the world that Canada soon will have preferential market access to about 1.1 billion consumers. This is a fact that is noted around the world. We are becoming a bridge between the Pacific and the Atlantic. That, with our progressive trade agenda, is being noted around the world. Canada will be one of only a handful of countries that have guaranteed preferential access to both the U.S. and the EU, which together account for nearly half the world's economic output.

For most exporters, the most visible component of CETA is undoubtedly the elimination of tariffs in all sectors. Presently, only 25% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods are duty-free. That number will rise to 98% as soon as the provisional application of the agreement takes effect and to 99% once all of the tariffs have been phased out. Over 9,000 tariff lines will be duty-free when the provisional application takes effect. This will create opportunities for people in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and across the country, including the territories. All Canadian communities will benefit from this agreement, the most progressive agreement Canada and the European Union have ever negotiated.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 16, 2017

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 16th day of May, 2017.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates that the bills assented to were Bill S-208, An Act respecting National Seal Products Day, and Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made Monday, February 13, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-30.

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the recorded division on the third reading of Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic trade agreement implementation act, be deferred until the expiry of the time provided for oral questions tomorrow, Tuesday, February 14.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to the third reading of Bill C-30 , the implementing legislation for the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, otherwise known as CETA.

I know there are those in the House who are quick to dismiss the opposition to this trade agreement, but I would remind all members that this is the people's House and these concerns deserve to have their say here in the heart of our democracy.

I also find it interesting that in today's debate, Liberal members of Parliament have decided to sit out and leave the heavy lifting to the NDP and the Conservatives. Perhaps they have grown tired of trying to defend this supposedly progressive trade deal. Be that as it may, I am proud to stand here today to provide a reasoned and principled progressive opposition to this implementation bill.

I want to start my speech by talking about the rushed process which the bill has gone through. I would go back to the solemn promise that the Prime Minister made in his open and accountable government publication, that ministers were to treat Parliament with respect and provide the necessary information for us to do our jobs. I quote from that publication:

Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process.

When we look at what happened with Bill C-30, on October 30, 2016, the Prime Minister signed CETA at the Canada-EU leaders summit, and the implementing legislation was basically put forward on October 31. This rushed process violated the government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty along with an explanatory memorandum outlining key components of the treaty at least 21 sitting days before the legislation is presented.

This is just one more broken promise in a string of broken promises. The fact that the government violated its very own policy on this just shows how quickly the government forgets the principles for which it was elected.

We are also aware that all is not well among the members of the European Union. We know there have been several protests with over 100,000 people in attendance at each. In fact, the German constitutional challenge against CETA has garnered 125,000 signatures, and a recently launched referendum campaign in the Netherlands has collected over 200,000 signatures.

I do not believe that this opposition can be pegged simply on a rising tide of protectionism. There are very concrete reasons that people are opposed to CETA. What we have here is that Parliament is essentially being asked to write a blank cheque with this legislation to give the government the power to go ahead with it when we know that each one of the 28 member states of the EU still has to ratify this and it is a process that is expected to take anywhere from two to five years. Again, the question is, why do we have this rushed process?

To get to the crux of our opposition to this bill, it is about the investor-state dispute, the investor court system that is part of this agreement. New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports. If only we had a trade deal that was doing just that, but when we have components like investor-state provisions that threaten the sovereignty of our country and the ability of our country to make laws for the good of this place and its people, we believe those have no place in trade deals. The investor court system still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions that they feel impact their profits.

Earlier, I had an exchange with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the rule of law. I think the rule of law has three constituent components to it: legality, democracy, and human rights.

Legality has to do with the fact that the bills are passed in a democratically elected House of Commons. They have a process they go through: first, second, and third readings, royal assent, and so on. Democracy comes from the fact that the members of the House who propose laws are democratically elected and are accountable to the people. Constitutionality comes from the fact that all laws that we make in this place are subject to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think he misinterpreted what I was trying to get at in our argument about the democratic accountability of the investor court system. I feel that when we have an investor court system that can supersede the democratically elected people's representatives, be they at the municipal, provincial, or federal level, that does not satisfy my definition of the rule of law. I think the rule of law is being superseded by a system that is profoundly undemocratic. Never mind that it was set up by an elected majority, which by the way, got there with 39% of the vote. It is the fact that it is able to overturn or sue lower levels of government precisely because of the way they are acting.

To give a perfect example, for my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, we have a contaminated soil dump that is causing great grief to the local community. It is a gravelled area that is now taking in contaminated soil, and the company in question is, of course, receiving money for all the contaminated soil it is bringing in. The local government, and even the provincial government, have realized the error of their ways, and now there may be a process afoot to try to reverse that contaminated soil.

If we had an agreement in place like CETA, and it was a foreign company operating there, it could basically sue the local government and sue the provincial government for the loss in profits, for dumping contaminated soil in an area that supplies drinking water to a local community. Where, in all that is logical, does that make sense? For the residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, my home riding, that puts in perspective what this could allow foreign companies to do.

The other thing we in the NDP have gone over is pharmaceutical costs. I used to serve as the New Democratic Party critic and spokesperson for seniors. I have handed that off to the member for North Island—Powell River, and she is doing a great job. We have testimony from the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, an association that is an expert on this subject. It had a study prepared for it that showed that the proposals in this agreement would delay the introduction of new generic medicines in Canada by an average of three and a half years. The cost to pharmaceutical payers for this delay was estimated to be $2.8 billion annually, based on generic prices in 2010.

I have been helping seniors in my riding for many years. Before I was a member of Parliament, I worked as a constituency assistant. I saw first-hand how seniors are struggling with the cost of living. Many of them, when it comes to the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs, either do not take their dosage or take less than what is recommended by a doctor. This can lead to cascading health effects down the line. Why in the world would we institute a system that would increase the cost of pharmaceuticals, when all the talk in Parliament these days, and a lot of pressure, is on how we can institute a national pharmacare system to bring these costs down? It seems to be at odds.

We know from our conversations with small businesses, the small businesses in my riding, that they want more consistency. We know they want fewer regulations and they want standards that are simple to comply with: simple border processes, less paperwork, and lower costs. If we had a trade deal that was actually just about trade, the free movement of goods, and making sure tariffs were being lowered, we could deal with that. However, this implementing legislation contains a laundry list of acts of Parliament and regulations that are going to have to be changed. It is a 140-page bill, and it goes way beyond trade.

We believe that greater access to European markets is great for Canadian goods, but just as with the TPP, CETA is a massive trade and investment deal that makes significant changes on investor rights, intellectual property, pharmaceutical drugs, and more. I believe that Canada must maintain its sovereignty over the ability to make policy for the good of the country and its residents, and I will stand and defend that for as long as I can.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

It is my privilege to speak on behalf of the residents of Kitchener—Conestoga on such an important piece of legislation that would have a huge impact on our local economy, as well as the entire Canadian economy.

Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states, better known as CETA, is a landmark agreement. This landmark agreement is a result of years of hard work, especially by our world-class trade negotiators, who did most of the heavy lifting.

I would also like to acknowledge the incredible hard work of my colleagues, the member for Abbotsford, the former trade minister, and also the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, the former agriculture minister, who did a lot of work to ensure that this free trade agreement would, in fact, be put in place and benefit so many sectors in our society, not the least of which is the agriculture sector, which is largely represented in the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. We welcome the opportunity to bring the deal into force.

With 28 member states, the EU represents 500 million people and annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion. The EU is the world's largest economy. It is also the world's largest importing market for goods. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's GDP.

Conservatives have always been the party of free trade. We will continue to be the party that stands up for free trade, because we know that with free trade comes higher-quality competition and co-operation among countries for shares of economic prosperity.

Between 2006 and 2015, under the leadership of Stephen Harper and exceptional ministers of international trade, the previous government was instrumental in negotiating not only CETA but many other free trade agreements globally. For example, the Conservative government brought negotiated free trade and saw the agreements come into force with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Peru, Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, and South Korea.

Today in Canada one in five Canadian jobs is linked to trade. In strengthening Canada's trade relations, we support these existing jobs, as well as job creation and economic growth. We know that the free flow of goods and services creates jobs and economic growth for all Canadians, and that is why I am proud to have been part of a government that always championed free trade globally.

It is because of all of this I am very disappointed that the trans-Pacific partnership seems to be in jeopardy as I truly believe that it, too, could have unleashed great economic prosperity within each country that was involved in its negotiations. However, I will be supporting this piece of legislation and expect members of the House to be unanimous as it stands to benefit the constituents of every single one of our ridings. However, based on comments from many of my NDP colleagues, it again looks like they will vote against jobs and more opportunity for their constituents.

A joint Canada-EU study that supported the launch of negotiations concluded that a trade agreement with the EU could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12-billion annual increase to Canada's economy, the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. This trade agreement is about job creation for Canadians.

These increases would be made possible, because when CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines on non-agricultural products will be duty-free, along with close to 94% of all EU tariff lines of agricultural products. This is especially important for Canada's beef, pork, grain and oilseeds producers. These sectors would benefit greatly from the implementation of CETA.

Canadian service suppliers would also have the best market access the EU has ever granted to its other free trade agreement partners. Why is this so substantial? This service industry employs more than 13 million Canadians and accounts for 70% of Canada's total GDP.

The Canada-EU trade agreement would also give Canadian suppliers of goods and services secure, preferential access to the world's largest procurement market. The EU's $3.3 trillion government procurement market will provide them with significant new export opportunities. The agreement expands and secures opportunities for Canadian firms to supply their goods and services to the EU's 28 member states and thousands of regional and municipal government entities.

In the Waterloo region, we have a well-known high tech sector as well as advanced manufacturing. These companies stand to gain access to a huge market share in the EU, companies like Ontario Drive and Gear, which manufacturers the all-terrain vehicle Argo and also manufactures high quality gear products; companies like MyoVision, Clearpath Robotics, Olympia, which manufacturers ice clearing machines similar to the Zamboni but much better than the Zamboni, plus many other startups that are coming out of the Waterloo region.

I also spoke earlier about the benefit to the agricultural sector in my riding of beef, pork, grain, and oilseeds.

Allow me to highlight an award winning dairy farm in my riding, producing what is clearly the greatest cheese in all of Canada. I am talking about Mountainoak Cheese. I would urge all my colleagues, specifically those from southwestern Ontario, if they have not visited Mountainoak Cheese, it is an absolute must, especially for cheese lovers.

Mountainoak Cheese is the recipient of several awards, a few recent ones being first place for the three-year-old cheese in the hard cheese class; first place for its farmstead mild in the semi-firm cheese class. At the 2016 cheese competition at the Royal, its gold was first for the interior ripened Edam, Gouda, Asiago category and the grand champion variety cheese reserve.

Mountainoak has become so well known that even Rick Mercer recently visited to help it make some cheese.

I share this because it is businesses like these that will greatly benefit from the lower tariffs found in CETA specifically pertaining to specialty cheeses. They will be able to bring their award winning cheese to the EU and make us in Kitchener—Conestoga even more proud than we already are.

I remember when we signed this free trade agreement. The dairy industry had big concerns about the 3% import of cheese into the Canadian market. Because I knew about Mountainoak Cheese and other high quality cheese producers in Canada, I was convinced from the very beginning that if Canadian cheese producers were given the access to European markets, they had nothing to fear in terms of imports. In fact, by expanding their ability to ship into the European market, they would actually expand their ability to produce more and better quality cheese.

In conclusion, and keeping the dairy industry in mind, I would like to discuss the promises that our previous government made to this sector in order to help them with the transition into this new free trade agreement. I would also expect that the Liberal government would also honour commitments made to vital sectors of our economy, namely, the supply managed dairy industry as well as commitments made to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the CETA fisheries investment fund.

Last week I rose in the House and asked the Minister of International Trade whether he would make the commitment to maintaining these assurances, specifically to the dairy industry, as I had met with the dairy industry just the day prior. Unfortunately, when I asked the minister this question, I was not given a straight answer. If the government were to withdraw or minimize the measures our government made to the dairy industry and to other supply managed sectors, in my opinion, it would be pulling the rug out from under these industries that had been relying upon these promises in order to make the transition.

As CETA approaches its final implementation, our party will continue to hold the Liberal government to account and ensure that Canadians will reap the rewards of free trade. I urge all my colleagues to support this trade agreement because it is in the interests of every Canadian and it is in the interests of creating new jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures.

The NDP and I are in a very bad spot right now. The Liberals have put us in a very awkward position because we are completely in favour of a free trade agreement with Europe. The Liberals need to understand that. Unfortunately, the agreement was negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservatives in total secrecy with no proper consultation whatsoever. We did not even have the document so that we could do the work properly. The agreement sacrifices several sectors of our economy. What that means for Drummond is that dairy and cheese producers are paying the price.

That is why we cannot support this agreement as it stands. Had it been done properly and wisely, had they negotiated by the book, we could have ended up with a deal that would have garnered the support of all parties in the House. Unfortunately, because of the way it was done, we cannot support it, so we have to vote against this bill.

The bill includes all the changes needed to implement the agreement right away, including the investor-court system provisions that are going to change, as the European states have already clearly indicated. Even if we accept the agreement, European countries will probably oppose that particular part.

The NDP has been calling for improved trade with Europe for some time now in order to diversify our markets. Many serious concerns and unanswered questions remain regarding the proposed agreement, as I mentioned.

Trade with Europe is too important for us to wind up with a botched deal, one that was negotiated by the Conservatives, based on Conservative concerns, and signed hastily by the Liberals without taking any time to properly review the deal and consult Canadians in all sectors of the economy. Some sectors have been completely ignored. I am thinking of the dairy and cheese producers in my riding of Drummond, for instance. I will expand on this a little later on.

With respect to dairy and cheese producers, it is important to point out that the Liberals are not offering adequate compensation. In fact, this agreement is going to result in a huge loss for our dairy producers. As the member representing the people of Drummond, a riding that is home to many dairy and cheese producers, I cannot support the agreement, which is not enough for our dairy producers.

The Liberals' plan to compensate dairy producers is not really a compensation plan. It is a program that is being added and that is totally inadequate. It consists of $250 million over five years for dairy producers and $100 million for cheese producers. However, we do not really know how this program will work. What will be the exact terms and conditions? Will the people of Drummond and Quebec be eligible? Will small cheese producers be eligible? It is not really clear.

I met with some dairy and cheese producers this summer. The members for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Berthier—Maskinongé accompanied me on a tour of the communities in my riding. We met with dairy producers. They were very angry with the Liberal government, not just because of the Canada-Europe agreement on the horizon, but also because of its failure to take action in the dairy sector, specifically with regard to the massive entry of diafiltered milk, which is completely illegal.

Today, while the Prime Minister is meeting with the President of the United States, we are still faced with a problem that began over a year ago: the issue of diafiltered milk. The Liberal government said that it would resolve this problem during its first three months in office. However, those three months ended a long time ago. Unfortunately, despite all the pressure dairy farmers and the NDP have been exerting to make them change their minds, the Liberals are still sitting back and doing nothing. Meanwhile, there is a fairly simple solution to this problem: apply the same definition to this product at the border as when it is used in dairy products. Milk is milk, but diafiltered milk products are not milk. They should never be used to produce cheese.

The government's inaction is costing dairy farmers a lot of money. The fact that the government is also signing a bad trade agreement with Europe without compensating producers is unacceptable.

It is important to remember that we are talking about 17,700 additional tonnes of cheese coming to Canada under the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. That is about the equivalent of all the cheese produced in Nova Scotia, for example. Cheese producers are being quickly and heavily penalized.

I will read a quote by Daniel Gosselin and Suzanne Dufresne, owners of the Fromagerie Au gré des champs:

People do not realize what it means to have 17,700 tonnes of European cheese arriving in Canada. It is simple: it is like having 1,000 cheesemakers our size suddenly open up in Quebec.

Small and medium-sized cheesemakers are quite worried, and rightly so, about the impending arrival of 17,700 tonnes of cheese in our market without any real compensation for them, without any real support.

I had the opportunity to visit a number of cheese factories in my region a few months ago. For those who have the good fortune of passing through the beautiful Saint-Guillaume area, the fresh cheese from the Fromagerie Saint-Guillaume is among the best. There is a cheese that the locals like to call “Le p'tit frais”, not just because they are proud of it, but because it is made fresh daily. You can even find Le p'tit frais de Saint-Guillaume here in Ottawa. It is utterly delightful.

We also have the Lemaire cheese factory. It too makes an excellent cheese curd often used in poutine. As everyone knows, the Drummond region is the birthplace of poutine. That is where it was invented. In fact, the greater Drummond region hosts the annual poutine festival.

Anyone who visits the region should try the Lemaire cheese factory's poutine.

Lastly, I want to mention Agropur's five-year-old Grand Cheddar, which is made in Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil and was first in its class at the Sélection Caseus competition. My region needs support for its dairy industry, and it needs protection for its cheese industry. This is extremely important.

We cannot allow our government to abandon our dairy and cheese producers or to ignore the diafiltered milk file. As if that were not enough, the government wants to saddle them with the negative outcomes of a free trade agreement with Europe without providing compensation or a plan to help our cheese producers, who have been asking for import quotas for a long time. There is no news on that front.

I could go on about other issues, such as the legal action the government is opening itself up to, but I will stop there because I see that my time is up.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30 to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states.

Before I start, I would like to pass my thanks on to my colleagues, the member for Abbotsford, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and former Prime Minister Harper, for their hard work in bringing this about.

I want to start with the obvious. Trade is good. Trade makes markets better. Trade lowers prices for consumers and gives them more options. Trade does not make life better just for wealthy Canadians; it makes life better for all Canadians.

I am always proud to stand in this House to defend agreements and legislation that make life better for Canadians. I spoke to Bill C-30 at second reading back in November. In that speech, I spoke to four points about why I am supporting the agreement. I want to expand on a few of them today.

First, as I mentioned, trade is good for Canada. A more competitive market means Canadians have access to the best products, at the best prices. Lowering or eliminating tariffs on goods that we import for our own consumption means that the price we pay for these goods will drop.

Again, I will always stand up to defend policies that lower prices for my constituents, and for all Canadians.

Trade agreements help Canadians from both perspectives: consumers benefit when we have lower prices and producers benefit when they can have greatly expanded markets to sell their goods.

Farmers in Alberta can now sell their products to not only people in Ontario, Quebec, and B.C., but once CETA passes, basically duty-free to Belgians, Germans, the French, and every other country signatory to this agreement. The EU represents some 500 million people, with almost $20 trillion in economic activity. The EU's imports alone are worth more than our entire GDP.

If we want our producers to grow, we must ensure they can access newer, bigger, and hungrier markets. When our producers have more customers, they need more workers to fill that demand. I do not think I have to remind members in this House that we could use a few extra jobs in Alberta right now.

CETA is projected at a $12-billion annual increase to our economy. I know $12 billion can be an abstract number, but a $12-billion increase is equivalent to adding $1,000 to the average family income each and every year, or 80,000 jobs.

Some of those jobs will help my constituents in Edmonton West and the constituents of colleagues across Alberta.

CETA will help Alberta grow, access new markets for our goods, and will help Albertans access products at lower prices.

For our producers, the EU is already Alberta's fourth-largest export destination and our third-largest trading partner. The EU currently imports over $2 trillion annually, of which Alberta makes up $1.4 billion. We have just .07% of the European market. We have plenty of room to grow. Alberta's main exports to the EU include high-value items as well as resources, such as nickle, turbo-propellers and other machinery, cereals, medical instruments, cobalt, electrical machinery, mineral fuel and oil, services, wood pulp, inorganic chemicals, meat, animal feed, grains, seed, fruit, plastic, vehicles, pharmaceuticals, beverages, iron and steel products, and animal products.

For our consumers, nearly 100% of all non-agricultural products will be duty-free and nearly 94% of all agricultural products will be duty-free.

Once in force, CETA would eliminate tariffs on almost all of Alberta's exports and enable Alberta's job creators access to new market opportunities in the EU. Eliminating tariffs on almost of all of our exports means we would have more competitive pricing to offer to the more than 500 million new customers. It is like moving our lemonade stand from a neighbourhood street corner to Times Square. The potential for us is enormous.

CETA would also provide Alberta exporters with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. That is like moving our lemonade stand from the neighbourhood street corner to Times Square where our competitor is stuck in a location with no traffic and higher costs.

On the day CETA's provisions enter force, 98% of Canadian goods would be duty-free. For agriculture and agrifood products, almost 94% of EU tariffs on Canadians goods would be eliminated, rising to 95% once all phase-outs are complete. This duty-free access would give Canadian agricultural goods, including beef, pork, and bison, preferential access to the European market.

I know some of my colleagues have this stereotypical image that Albertans are all ranchers and cowboys. I hate to play into that stereotype, but I cannot pass up this opportunity to remind the House how important beef is to the Albertan economy and what CETA means to this. According to the CBC, because of CETA, Canada is poised to supply about 1% of all the beef needs in Europe under this new pact. That would mean $600 million for Alberta, $600 million in new business, $600 million in new jobs.

As well, the following industries in Alberta would benefit. The first one is metals and minerals. Alberta's metals and minerals sectors include natural gas, conventional oil, coal, minerals, and the oil sands. More specifically, Alberta's metal refinery and mineral sector is a foundational industry that allows for infrastructure development as well as energy and natural resource production in Alberta. It generated 28% of the province's total GDP in 2011, and employs more than 181,000 Albertans, creating employment opportunities that provide some of the highest earnings in the Alberta economy. Exports of metals and minerals currently face tariffs as high as 10%.

There is agriculture and agrifood. Alberta has more than 50,000 farms with crop and livestock production. They produce an abundance of world-class agriculture commodities. The agriculture and agrifood sector employs nearly 76,000 Albertans and contributes 2.5% to the GDP. Between 2010 and 2012, the exports of agriculture products to the EU suffered tariffs of over $35 million. That is $35 million that can be reinvested in the economy, jobs, and productivity improvement.

There are forest products. The forest products sector employs nearly 19,000 Albertans and represents a significant component of the economy. Forest product exports to the EU average $62 million and face up to a 10% tariff right now. These barriers would be eliminated under CETA.

There is advanced manufacturing. Alberta's advanced manufacturing industry employs more than 28,000 people. Between 2010 and 2012, Alberta's exports of advanced manufacturing products to the EU averaged a quarter of a billion dollars, which face tariffs as high as 22%. Industrial machinery, one of Alberta's key advanced manufacturing exports to the EU, faces tariffs of up to 8%.

Alberta is a major producer of chemicals and plastics. It employs 11,000 Albertans, an important part of exports to the EU, with exports averaging just under $100 million a year. These exports currently face tariffs of up to 6.5%. Again, these would be eliminated.

In addition to beef and agriculture products, CETA would also provide for increases in eligible trade for products with high sugar content. This stipulation would enable a company like PepsiCo, which has a large bottling facility in Edmonton's west end as well as other parts of Alberta, to continue to ship its products abroad and find new customers in new markets duty free. The stipulation for sugary products would also help local Edmonton start-ups, such as JACEK Chocolate Couture, which opened in Sherwood Park last year, and has now expanded into Canmore as well as downtown Edmonton. It will help it to hire new employees and reach a massive new market base.

CETA will open up markets for our burgeoning alcoholic beverage companies, which products are very well known to members of the Alberta Conservative caucus. There are over 50 breweries in Alberta, including favourites like Big Rock, Alley Kat, and Yellowhead. There are distilleries like Eau Claire Distillery, which makes gin and vodka from only local Alberta grains, and Park Distillery, based in Banff, that makes a vodka with glacial waters from the Rockies.

Closer to my home in Edmonton, there is Red Cup Distilling in Vegreville. I am wearing the button today supporting Vegreville. There is also the Big Rig Craft Distillery in Nisku, by the Edmonton airport, where people can get brum, which is basically rum made with sugar beets instead of sugar cane. I want to note it's called brum and not rum, so as not to run afoul with the rum lobby. If the all-powerful rum lobby is watching on CPAC today, please note I called it a brum and not a rum.

Edmonton is home to many head offices of world-class companies that are said to grow, compete, and win with access to this huge new market. PCL Construction has finished Rogers Place in downtown Edmonton, the finest hockey and event arena in the entire world. Stantec engineering, Booster Juice, and Weatherford are all based in Edmonton.

Edmonton is also renowned for its start-up culture, and many new enterprises will benefit from increased access to markets and added IP protection. TappCar is a ride-share company that has gained ground by working with municipal governments rather than circumventing local laws. Drizly is an app that arranges liquor deliveries. Should it expand to the Parliament Hill area, I am sure that sales will spike massively. My wife's personal favourite is Poppy Barley shoes, which has grown from a small, shared office space downtown to Edmonton's famous Whyte Avenue, with pop-ups in Toronto.

Edmonton also boasts having three of the top fifteen start-up companies in Canada, as named by Metabridge. The first is LoginRadius, which does customer analytics and serves over 1,000 businesses worldwide. There is Mover, a company that handles cloud file migration. The third company is Showbie, which helps teachers, schools, and students get connected across technology platforms.

Edmonton's bread-and-butter business, the oil and gas sector, stands to benefit tremendously from CETA by increasing market access to our oil and gas products. The Prime Minister wants to phase out oil and gas, but CETA represents a grand opportunity for Canada's job-creating and economic-driving industry to capitalize on new customers.

Supplier diversification is one of the European Union's top energy priorities. Currently Russia has 31% of the EU's oil and gas import market share, making it first. Canada has just 1% of the market share, placing us 26th. It is well known that Russian President Putin uses his country's oil and gas reserves as a weapon. Given that Russia supplies almost one-third of the EU's oil and gas, this position is strong. The EU needs to diversify, wants to diversify, and Alberta has plenty to offer. Not only will this create wealth and jobs in Alberta and the rest of Canada, it will help to free Europe from the bullying and blackmail of the Russian president and deprive him of his desperately needed revenues that he uses to threaten our democratic allies. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper famously told Putin to get out of Ukraine. CETA will help us get him out of Europe's oil and gas business.

As CETA reduces and eliminates tariffs across the board for oil and gas products, Canada and Alberta are well poised to fill the gap and become a crucial energy ally. This is an opportunity that we should not pass up, and frankly cannot pass up. The government may perhaps one day support energy east, and then we can ship Alberta oil to Quebec and New Brunswick for refining and stop sending jobs and billions of dollars to despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Beyond energy, free trade helps foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies. We strongly support international trade initiatives that strengthen the bonds with friendly countries, increase economic productivity, and drive prosperity and job creation.

The world is full of uncertainty, and prior champions of trade and co-operation are retreating. This comes at an unfortunate time for Canada. Our country has the fastest-growing population in the OECD, and the west has the fastest-growing and youngest population in Canada. We have products. We have workers. We have the businesses. We will continue to have more people and more products over the next few years, and we need places to sell these goods.

CETA is an opportunity for us to secure access to the largest single market in the world at a time when other countries are retreating. Not only will this agreement help to give our job creators access to growing and demanding markets, it will give Canadians a head-start advantage over our competitors who are retreating from the global marketplace.

Even after all of these benefits I have discussed and talked about, CETA's detractors argue that the costs outweigh the benefits. They will say that CETA gives too much power to corporations and will allow them to sue governments for compensation if they change policies. The argument is callously thrown around as a holistic and negative point. It is just an assertion.

According to a summary in The Globe and Mail, CETA opens up a new process called the investment court system, or ICS. The ICS essentially acts as a permanent tribunal to handle complaints brought by businesses. Canada and the EU have hailed the ICS as a breakthrough offering a high level of protection for investors while fully preserving the right of governments to regulate and pursue legitimate public policy objectives, such as the protection of health, safety, and our environment.

It is perfectly legitimate for businesses that act in good faith and set up shop in new countries because of a trade agreement to be able to protect themselves from arbitrary changes by the host government. If governments agree to and sign a trade agreement, they agree to be bound by the provisions of that trade agreement with some exceptions. It is unreasonable to make governments the sole power holder in this arrangement.

If we expect companies to come to Canada, to do business in Canada, to create work for Canadians, and create wealth for our country, we must be able to guarantee them some modicum of stability and predictability, or at least grant them some recourse if a future government makes arbitrary changes that violate the provisions of that trade agreement. This is a two-way street, and businesses do not deserve less protection just because they are creating jobs, making investments, and earning profits.

At the same time, it is also important that governments are able to react to changing circumstances and create legislation that is good for Canadians in the event that exceptional circumstances arise. This is why CETA has built in provisions to protect both business and government.

I want to note here that Canadian investment in the EU was almost a quarter of a trillion dollars as of 2014. That is Canadian investment that will also be protected from the whims of a changing political landscape in Europe.

The Consider Canada City Alliance is a partnership with 12 of our largest cities. These cities represent 63% of Canada's GDP and 57% of our population. They work to increase investment in Canada and grow trade opportunities.

Our own highly respected Edmonton Economic Development Corporation is part of this coalition. Michael Darch, president of the CCCA states:

We see Canada moving toward creating the largest trading and investment block in the world. The cities that comprise the Consider Canada City Alliance account for 63% of Canada's GDP fully understand that our economic prosperity is built on global trade and investment....

Modern commerce is much more than moving goods across the borders. It is about financial and knowledge-based consulting services, digital commerce and entertainment, and the freedom of movement for the skilled workers who are creating the 21st century global economy.... CETA addresses these and many more opportunities. Canada is demonstrating leadership in building the agreements necessary to protect our economic future and guarantee access to prosperity for all Canadians.

The Consider Canada Alliance has listed its top five reasons for supporting CETA. Number one is “dollars and sense”. It “will increase Canada-EU trade by 20% and boost Canada's economy by $12 billion..”.

Number two is “unparalleled market access”. “Once...CETA comes into force...investors in Canada will have assured preference access to both NAFTA and the EU” with nearly one billion customers combined and a GDP of over $35 trillion.

Number three is “enhanced investor protection”, as I just mentioned. “CETA will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, transparency and protection for their investments.” Again, I note, Canadians have invested a quarter of a trillion dollars in the EU. That is Canadian investment that will be protected from the whims of a changing landscape in Europe.

Number four is “easing of investment restrictions”. “The net benefit review threshold under the Investment Canada Act will be raised from the current $600 million to $1.5 billion, following CETA's entry into force.”

Number five is that it “signals open trade, not closed borders”. “While populist movements in some developed countries appear to be antagonistic to expanding trade agreements, Canadian cities are welcoming aggressive investment interests from across Europe and around the world during investment missions conducted in partnership with Federal [and provincial] colleagues.”

Again, I repeat, trade is good. Trade lowers prices and enables competitive and valued Canadian businesses to expand, hire new employees, and prosper in a globalized world. Trade helps strengthen ties with our allies. We will always support international initiatives that nurture greater co-operation between Canada and our friends overseas. Free trade allows billions of dollars in Canadian exports to reach new markets and ensures that European goods flow into Canada at competitive prices for our consumers. Free trade will help Alberta's businesses grow and prosper at a time when Alberta needs it most.

I am proud to support this agreement that will help Alberta's small and large businesses, Albertan consumers, Canadian industry, Canadian producers, and that will deepen our long-standing ties between Canada and Europe.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her comments.

She is absolutely right. That is the basic problem with free trade agreements. They give a huge amount of power to major corporations and are detrimental to our interests, our neighbours, and the people in our communities. My colleague's example of the plant in Mexico highlights that.

I have another example. An American company is currently suing the Canadian government for $250 million because the Government of Quebec placed a moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to protect ecosystems. This company is now suing our governments. Taxpayers could end up being out of pocket just because we want to prevent pollution in the St. Lawrence River.

That is exactly what the NDP is rejecting, and that is why we will be opposing Bill C-30.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased an honoured to rise in the House to speak to this important bill. Indeed, the bill relates to an important trade deal, or free trade agreement, with the European Union. We appreciate how natural it seems for Canada to enter into much more intense and closer trade relationships with the European Union, and for a number of reasons. First of all, Europe is a natural trading partner for historical and cultural reasons. Furthermore, several European countries have legislation that is similar to ours or often even better than ours when it comes to environmental protections, collective bargaining, workers' rights, and where unions fit in society and in the economy.

We should realize that, of course, we need to have a free trade agreement with the European Union and increase our trade relationship with the EU. I agree. However, this deal is so huge that it needs to be negotiated properly. We will not accept just any deal that is reached hastily or under pressure, simply because the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet want a good photo op with some nice handshakes that they can post on Facebook. It is much more important than that.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, we should have taken the time to properly review this free trade agreement, which, I would remind him, was negotiated in secret under the previous government, the Conservative government. At the time, the process was heavily criticized by the Liberals. However, in their usual fashion, the Liberals started to change their tune once they came to power.

I would cite a recent example to to argue the importance of proper trade with Europe. On Friday, I was in my colleague's riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. We visited a small business called Utopie MFG, in Saint-Narcisse, near Rimouski. The business employs about 30 people. It makes alpine skis and snowboards. I had no idea how these things were made. I learned some amazing things during our visit. Every ski is made by hand with hardwood. This company's chief competitors are Austria and China. There are only two businesses that manufacture alpine skis in Canada, this business in Saint-Narcisse and another in Whistler. It is important for them to have access to the European and U.S. markets.

In every small community, there are entrepreneurs who are starting up businesses, innovating, and making new products, and who need the opportunity to export their goods to foreign markets.

We want Utopie MFG to be able to sell its skis in the United States, Europe, and anywhere in the world where there is snow. That is why we need a good free trade agreement, and we must not rush into it as the government is currently doing. I would add the Liberals are exceptionally gifted when it comes to using words to say the opposite of what they mean.

Once in power, the Liberals copied the free trade agreement negotiated by the previous Conservative government. It is the same free trade agreement, but it has suddenly become a progressive agreement. It is the same thing but they have tacked on the word “progressive”. Given that it comes from the Liberals, it has magic powers. Abracadabra. I would like to be able to do that with my kids at home. It is the same as what we had before. This agreement is a threat to many of our economic sectors, including cheese producers, who will see 17,000 tonnes of European cheese enter Canada, without having any protection and receiving only a pittance in compensation.

I also went to the Saguenay last December. We visited Fromagerie Blackburn, a family cheese company that started out as a dairy farm. Its cheeses have won prizes in Europe. The company is currently expanding, but growth could be stalled by the massive arrival of European cheese if we do not provide the protection and assistance the company needs.

How can the government abandon our cheese producers who have also been growing for years in Quebec? Thirty years ago, people were eating cheddar cheese and that is about it. There were no other types of cheese available, besides the kind eaten on toast in the morning. However, today, there are dozens of great cheese producers across Canada, particularly in Quebec. How can the Liberal government abandon them and offer them almost nothing in the way of compensation? That is a concern for us. My colleague also mentioned it in her speech earlier.

Another concern is the fact that this agreement with Europe deals with intellectual property and the associated definitions, which will impact the price of prescription drugs. The progressive Liberal-Conservative agreement will delay the introduction of new generic drugs in Canada by three and a half years. Big pharma will obviously be thrilled, but this will directly impact those who need those drugs.

According to estimates, the yearly cost of drugs in Canada could increase by $850 million to $2.8 billion. That will have a huge impact on the people who need those drugs and who do not have good private insurance, since few provinces provide public insurance. Canadians are the ones who will have to bear these costs at a time when they are already struggling to pay their bills and make ends meet. It has to be said: the Liberal government does not care that this agreement will benefit large pharmaceutical companies to the detriment of seniors, the sick, and people with disabilities.

There is another very fundamental thing that concerns us about the free trade agreement with Europe. We have talked about economic sectors, exports, and the cost of drugs, but there is a dispute settlement mechanism in the free trade agreement with Europe that is extremely dangerous for our governments and even for the quality of our democratic life. Think chapter 11 of NAFTA, only in the free trade agreement with Europe.

I do not understand how a progressive agreement can give companies the option of suing a government or a level of government for making regulations that could jeopardize their future profits. Talk about belt and suspenders. Companies make plans to invest. If a government makes a decision that is in keeping with the will of the people or to protect public health, public safety, or the environment, those companies could take legal action against that government before the trade tribunal and demand compensation for the loss of expected future profits.

That is handing over tremendous power to corporations and big companies to the detriment of democratic choices made by the elected representatives of the people. This kind of dispute settlement mechanism subverts democracy. That is extremely dangerous, and the NDP will never stand for it. We will never agree to giving big companies that kind of power. It happened with NAFTA. Canada was sued several times. It cost us millions of dollars, and we do not want to make the same mistake again with the European Union.

We are not the only ones saying so. People in the European Union share our concerns, including in Germany, the Netherlands, and of course in Belgium, where the Walloon Parliament stood up and set conditions that had to be met before it would accept the Canada-European Union free trade agreement.

People like José Bové are also concerned that the agreement is going to weaken environmental standards and social programs on both continents, whether here in Canada, with respect to pork or beef production, for example, or in Europe, with respect to accepting oil-related products that produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, which goes against the philosophy of people from the European Union right now.

This deal is dangerous, and we should have taken the time to study it properly.

These are the reasons the NDP will be voting against Bill C-30, knowing full well that a good free trade deal, a good trade agreement with Europe, would be in our interest. However, we cannot afford to mess this up, which is what the Liberal government is doing.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Today we are here to talk to this important bill, Bill C-30. I am glad to have a second opportunity to speak to this, the economic and trade agreement with the European Union, commonly known as CETA.

The bill is now on its third reading, having been studied by the Standing Committee on International Trade. This will probably be my last opportunity to speak to this important bill.

In January, I completed a series of 11 town halls on seniors issues. Just so the House understands, when I asked the people of my riding what the most important issue was for them, by far seniors issues were number one. I took the opportunity to travel around the riding. I went to larger and smaller communities to really hear the stories from seniors and from the people who supported and loved those seniors. I wanted to hear about the specific challenges they faced on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, it was a very sad series of town halls. I heard stories about having to make decisions between medication, heating their homes, and feeding themselves. Again and again, I heard of seniors who had no access to the guaranteed income supplement because the process in getting that guaranteed income supplement was a challenge for them. When it came down to the core, the biggest issue was the cost of medication for seniors.

I know this is not an issue that is exclusive to North Island—Powell River. It is all over the country. Seniors are falling more and more behind.

The last time I spoke to this bill, I raised a few issues. The first was the issue of prescription drugs, for which I profoundly care. I mentioned that with the provisions in CETA, consequently the bill would change intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals. Under this agreement, consumers, including our seniors on fixed incomes, could expect to have their drug costs increase by more than $850 million annually.

In the town halls, a lot of constituents came up afterward and shared stories with me. They also shared stories during the town halls. I remember one woman who told me that she and her husband were in good health right now. They were recent retirees and life felt pretty good. However, when they looked at the future, they realized they had to plan for when they would not be as healthy. Unfortunately, part of their plan included the time when they would have to legally separate, and would have to deal with the fact that the cost of living would become so high due to medication costs and having to put somebody in a care facility. The woman told me that she had worked hard her whole life, but with the increasing cost of pharmaceuticals and cost of living, she did not know how they would make it, even though they saved, they had well-paying jobs, and they had a good pension. The reality for seniors today is one that is leading to more and more poverty.

While in opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study on the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government now, the Liberals are telling provinces and territories that they will cut health care transfers, while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for provinces and territories. I am very concerned about this.

The reality on the ground is that people will have serious health issues. More and more people will have to go to emergency rooms because they have not taken their medications. I remember one doctor sharing with me that seniors were unable to afford medications so they were going to the emergency rooms every day to get refills. Think of the expense. If the costs go up, the implications will be devastating on our health care system.

I was glad that our great trade critic, the member for Essex, brought up this important issue in the committee. The NDP brought forward amendments to make certain that an analysis of the impact of CETA on pharmaceutical drug costs would get done. What happened? This is an important issue, and our constituents and Canadians deserve to know. There will be little to no debate on our amendments. They were all rejected, showing no interest in fixing the the flaws of the deal or addressing the serious concerns of Canadians.

Jim Keon, the president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, at committee said:

From a cost perspective, as I've said, generics on average now are selling at something like 20% to 25% of the price of an equivalent brand-name product. If you delay for two years, you're paying an extra 75% to 80% on that product for an extra two years. That affects provincial drug program budgets; it affects employee plans; and it affects people who pay out of pocket, and those costs are very significant.

Our seniors, and all Canadians, deserve better.

The former minister of international trade and now global affairs minister was honest about why Liberals have decided to rush this agreement through Parliament. For them, the deal symbolizes an open Canada in light of rising protectionism. I am sorry, but trade with Europe is just too important to get wrong. Canadians expect a good deal, and they deserve a good deal.

We need to be talking about some of the serious concerns with CETA so we can make a better deal for Canadians, because this is about health care costs. This is about medication. I have heard too many stories from health care providers talking about seniors and other people splitting their medication in half, not taking the full dosage. If the costs go up, this means people will not be getting the medication they need to take care of themselves.

I support deepening the Canada-EU trade relationship in order to diversify our markets, but there remain significant concerns that need addressing. Once again, when in opposition back in 2014, Liberals decried the limited time to study this agreement. In their dissenting report, on p. 47 they wrote, “The brevity with which this committee has dealt with this agreement should be of concern to anyone interested in let alone concerned about the CETA.” Where is that language now? Why are we not taking the opportunity to do that very important work of looking at just the parts that we should be seriously concerned with, the parts that would have huge ramifications on Canadians?

Maude Barlow said, “Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op?” Is this the reality? I do not know, but Canadians deserve a good approach, not just a fast one.

The biggest roadblocks to CETA's ratification by all the EU members are a referendum in the Netherlands, opposition from the Bundesrat in Germany, and the European Court of Justice examination of CETA. Therefore, let us take the time to figure out the issues, mitigate them, and get it right. I am afraid the Liberals do not see this reality, and for them it is like a big show.

I saw and heard some shocking truths from the seniors of North Island—Powell River. These are not unheard of across Canada, where seniors are facing multiple challenges. It is a great honour for me to have the new role as critic of seniors issues. I am really proud of the work that the communities I represent have done in educating me about what those particular concerns are around seniors' challenges. Right now, we are not seeing that follow-up with the funding for home care so seniors can stay in their homes and get the support they desperately need. It saves money. It is good for the health and well-being of people who built our country. Now we are seeing CETA, which would have huge impacts on their health care and getting the medication they so desperately need.

Canada really has to take a moment and ask the government why it is okay for seniors to be put in a position where they cannot afford the medication they need, when they are making choices between household expenses, like food, power, and heat, and medication.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-30 and about the important role trade plays in our Canadian economy.

This is one of the few bills I can praise the current government for. It is something I wish I could do more often, if the Liberals would follow the Conservative path.

They obviously picked up on the great work we were doing as a government and have been able to help carry it through. Maybe the Liberals can take some of those lessons on things like balancing the budget or lowering taxes. One can only hope that maybe their understanding and recognition of the importance of trade will extend to other things that are important to our economy and to our fiscal situation in this country. Again, that is me being an optimist.

Let me get to the heart of the matter we are speaking to today, which is trade itself. Canada is a trading nation, and trade really is the lifeblood of our economy. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada, and about 60% of our GDP, are linked to exports. We do not have to look very far or very hard to figure out how important trade is to our economy and to opportunities for Canadians, based on those statistics.

History has shown that trade is the best way to help us create jobs and growth and long-term prosperity here in Canada. As trade increases, so does our nation's economic success, which obviously then puts more money into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. That is really what it is all about, at the end of the day. People talk about a strong economy and opportunities. What it all boils down to is putting more money into the pockets of Canadians to feed their families and provide better opportunities for their children. That is really what we are speaking about when we talk about trade and economic prosperity.

Under our previous Conservative government, the Stephen Harper government, one of our key accomplishments was that we launched one of the most ambitious pro-trade plans in our country's history. It was probably the most ambitious, in fact. I would like to take a moment, while I am on that point, to add a note of praise. I have heard others who spoke do the same, but it is important that it be said, because credit should be given where credit is due.

I look at the member for Abbotsford, who was the former minister of international trade, and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who was our agriculture minister, and the great and hard work they put in. I know the travel schedules those two individuals and others had to undertake to accomplish some of the things that were accomplished under the Stephen Harper Conservative government. Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself, some great things were done, but it was a lot of hard work on the part of those members in particular. I want to note the legacy they created, because I think that is important. The two of them remain here in the House and continue to work hard in opposition to encourage these kinds of things to continue.

Under the leadership of those individuals, we were able to conclude free trade agreements with 38 countries. Examples are Colombia; the European Free Trade Association, which includes Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland; Honduras; Jordan; Panama; Peru; South Korea; and the 28 member states of the European Union. There were some pretty significant advancements there.

We also concluded, signed, or brought into force foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, FIPAs, with 24 countries. That was more than any other government in Canadian history as well.

One of our historic achievements was the Canada–Korea Free Trade Agreement, which was Canada's first free trade agreement in the Asia Pacific region, which is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world. South Korea is not only a major economic player and a key market for us in Canada but also serves as a gateway for Canadian businesses to the entire Asia Pacific region. This agreement is projected to increase Canadian merchandise exports to South Korea by 32% and to boost Canada's economy by $1.7 billion.

Additionally, in November 2013, our Conservative government released the global markets action plan, which was our pro-jobs, pro-export plan. It was aimed at creating new opportunities for Canadians, through trade and investment, by targeting emerging and established markets with broad Canadian interests.

Obviously, when we look at our record, we strongly support international trade, and we support international trade initiatives that will generate increased economic activity, jobs, and a collaborative relationship between Canada and emerging economies.

Canada should also strive to maximize the benefits we have as a free trading nation and establish trading relationships, beyond North America, with these emerging markets. To that end, it is important that the government vigorously pursue the reduction of international trade barriers and tariffs. This is why we supported Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement, which received royal assent not long ago. The trade facilitation agreement will simplify customs procedures, reduce red tape, expedite the release and clearance of goods, reduce costs associated with processing, and make international trade more predictable for Canadians.

Predictability is certainly key. We see the effects when we lack predictability when we look at the current government and its never-ending, constant changes to regulatory processes for energy project reviews. We can see what the lack of certainty creates when the chill is put on investments. Certainty is certainly key when we look at providing opportunities for businesses to help grow the economy. They need to have certainty.

Canadian investors, importers and exporters of goods, and small and medium-sized businesses will certainly benefit from the implementation of the TFA.

Another trade agreement that was successfully negotiated by the previous Conservative government was the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This agreement will continue to strengthen the Canada-Ukraine partnership in peace and prosperity. Total bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Ukraine averaged $289 million in 2011-15. It is expected to expand by 19% as a result of the implementation of this trade agreement. With this agreement, Canada and Ukraine will eliminate duties on 99.9% and 86% of our respective current imports, thereby benefiting both Canadian and Ukrainian exporters and consumers. Our GDP will increase by about $29.2 million under that agreement, and Ukraine's GDP will expand by about $18.6 million. Canada's exports to the Ukraine will increase by about $41.2 million.

Canada's export gains will be broad-based, with exports of pork, machinery and equipment, transport equipment, other manufactured products, motor vehicles and parts, and chemical products being some of the leading industries. Our previous Conservative government also established market access for beef in Ukraine in July 2015. Canada exported about $35.5 million worth of agriculture and agrifood and seafood products to Ukraine in 2014. These obviously show some of the benefits of trade and trade agreements and what they can mean for Canada.

Let me get to the trade agreement we are talking about today, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Negotiated by our previous Conservative government, CETA is by far the most ambitious trade initiative Canada has ever concluded. Once this agreement comes into force, Canada will be one of the few countries in the world to have preferential access to the world's two largest economies: the European Union and the United States.

The Conservative Party strongly supports international trade initiatives that will generate increased economic activity, drive prosperity and job creation, and foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies.

A joint Canada-EU study concluded that a trade agreement with the EU could boost Canada's economy by about $12 billion annually, and increase bilateral trade by 20%. It is important to put some sense to what that means for the average Canadian and Canadian families. It is the economic equivalent of adding about $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income. It would add about 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. That is something that the government has failed at to this point. This would be something to help create some jobs to put people to work, and provide new opportunities for Canadian families to increase their income.

When CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines on non-agricultural products will be duty-free, along with close to 94% for agricultural products. The agreement would also give Canadian service suppliers the best market access the EU has ever granted any of its trading partners. That is great news for the 13.8 million Canadians who are employed in the industry. It accounts for about 70% of our country's GDP.

Under CETA, Canadian firms could bid on contracts and supply their goods and services to the three main EU level institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council, as well as the EU member state governments, and thousands of regional and local government entities. The Canada-EU trade agreement would give Canadian suppliers of goods and services better access to the EU's $3.3-trillion government procurement market, which would provide them with significant new export opportunities.

Investment plays a key role in the Canadian economy. CETA would provide Canadian and EU investors with greater stability and transparency for their investments. The stock of known foreign direct investment by Canadian companies in the EU totalled about $210 billion at the end of 2015, representing about 21% of Canadian direct investment abroad. Conversely, in that same year, known foreign direct investment from European companies in Canada totalled more than $242 billion, representing 31% of total foreign investment in Canada.

This is a landmark agreement. It has resulted from years of hard work, especially by our world-class trade negotiators who did all the heavy lifting on this.

I would like to focus in and speak to the benefits CETA would bring to my home province of Alberta. Times are tough in Alberta right now, so when we hear any good news on the economic front, it is something we can greatly appreciate. There is no question Alberta stands to benefit from the preferential access to the EU markets. The EU is already our province's fourth largest export destination and our third largest trading partner. Once in force, CETA would eliminate tariffs on almost all of Alberta's exports, and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. CETA also includes provisions that would ease regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights, and ensure more transparent rules for market access. Alberta exporters could benefit from all of these improved conditions. When we look at some of the opportunities there, the main merchandise exports from Alberta to the EU are agriculture and agrifood products, advanced manufacturing, metals and mineral products. Some of our other exports include chemicals and plastics, fishing and fish products, forest products, and information and communications technology.

I would also like to take a minute or two to talk about one very specific opportunity that we have already seen open up as a result of this agreement.

In 2014, when negotiations had proven to be successful toward this agreement, a beef processing plant in my riding reopened. It had been a farmer-owned plant that had closed down in 2006, and had been sitting vacant since then.

In 2014, we were able to announce that there was a buyer, Rich Vesta from the United States, who is well known in the beef industry and has brought a lot of great opportunities to some of the businesses he has been involved with in the United States. He decided to purchase this facility and bring it back online. He chose to do that largely based on this agreement. He saw an opportunity for specific cuts of beef to go to some niche markets that would be based around some of the trade agreements we had been able to sign for Canada, in particular, the opportunities that CETA would create. Even before being implemented, we already could see the benefits of these opportunities.

That plant had been sitting there dormant since 2006. I was able to tour it recently and it is nearing its opening. It is expected to open later this month, in fact. When I toured it a couple of months back, I could see it was really coming together. I heard about all of the innovations and improvements being made. This is going to be an absolute world-class facility. The processing innovations that it is going to bring to Canada are amazing. They are all based on trade opportunities being created by some of the trade agreements under the Conservative government and the hope generated by this particular agreement as well.

We can already see the success stories and I am sure they will continue. It is something that people are very excited about and proud of in my home community of Airdrie, as well as Balzac in Rocky View County, where the facility is located. It will create jobs for people in the area. Many people are struggling right now and trying to find work. Not only will this create opportunities for people, but down the line there will be opportunities, such as more buyers for our cattle as well. Small cow-calf operations would benefit, right up through feedlots, etc., because it would create opportunities for everyone. People are really excited about what it would mean for my area.

I will take a minute to speak about some of the opportunities and benefits that CETA would bring to the forestry sector in Canada, which is another example. The EU is actually the world's third largest importer of forest products. In 2015, it accounted for about 14% of global forest product imports, or about $46 billion. While most Canadian forest products already enter the EU duty-free, when CETA comes into force, Canadians will also enjoy quota-free market access. This means Canada would have a preferential trade advantage with the EU that many competitors will not have.

As well, bilateral dialogue on forest products would enhance Canada's ability to influence the development of EU measures, reducing the potential negative impacts of EU measures on Canadian exports, and help ensure continued access for Canadian forest products to the European Union. That would provide Canada with a really unique window into the regulatory development process in the EU. Canada would then be able to raise industry concerns with proposed regulations at a very early stage. That would be of benefit to our forestry producers as well.

We are also looking at a new phytosanitary measures joint management committee that would facilitate discussions between Canadian and EU experts. It would provide a venue for experts to resolve issues impeding trade before they become major problems.

CETA would also establish a framework for co-operation on the full scope of animal health, plant health, and food safety provisions.

Tourism is also something that I focus on greatly. It is pretty important in my riding. We already have great links and ties between Canada and the European Union countries when it comes to tourism. I have often said that tourism breeds trade and trade breeds tourism, so opportunities would be created by those links that already exist. This agreement would help to build on all of those things.

I stand today to show my support for CETA and for the opportunities that it would create, the jobs it would create certainly for small and medium-sized businesses in our country and right on through. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the bill.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, we will be continuing today to debate the NDP opposition day motion.

Tomorrow we will call Bill C-31, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, for debate at third reading.

Monday, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-30, the CETA legislation.

In the coming days we will give priority to Bill C-37 on safe injection sites.

Next Thursday, February 16, shall be an allotted day.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening in strong support of Bill C-30, an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

It has been a long time coming, more than a decade, and there have been so many people who have been involved on the Canadian side in helping shape CETA. Certainly, much credit is owed to Canada's world-class trade negotiators, who for 10 years did much of the heavy lifting. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge several hon. members in this House who played an instrumental role in concluding CETA.

Much credit is due to the hon. members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster. Under their leadership, Canada reached an agreement in principle with the European Union in 2014.

Credit is also owed to the hon. member for York Centre, who, as Canada's international trade minister, commenced the negotiations with the European Union back in 2009, and did a lot of the early heavy lifting, as did Stockwell Day when he was the minister of international trade.

Credit is owed to our current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who, in her previous portfolio as Minister of International Trade, helped get CETA across the finish line.

Finally, credit is owed to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It was Prime Minister Stephen Harper who had a great vision when it came to market liberalization and free trade. For 10 years, Prime Minister Harper presided over a decade of success when it comes to trade, including the signing of 46 historic free trade agreements, CETA being the largest of those free trade agreements. Indeed, CETA is the largest free trade agreement since NAFTA.

Canada is a trading nation. Two-thirds of Canada's GDP is tied to trade. One in five jobs is tied to trade. Since the ratification of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement in 1988, trade between Canada and the United States has flourished. Each and every day there is some $2 billion in trade occurring between Canada and the United States. Of course, Canada has preferential access to the U.S. market through NAFTA.

With CETA, Canada stands to gain preferential access to the largest economy in the world, the European Union, which is comprised of 28 member states, has a population of more than 500 million people, and boasts an annual economic activity of nearly $20 trillion.

What is more the European Union is the largest importer in the world, which complements Canada's export-driven economy. Canada already does a lot of trade with the European Union. The European Union is Canada's second largest trading partner. Each and every year, Canada does approximately $80 billion to $90 billion in trade with the European Union.

Over the years, Canada's economic ties with the European Union have been strengthened. When we look at exports, for example, we have seen exports to the European market increase from some $17.9 billion in 1997 to $40 billion today. With CETA, Canada's economic and trade ties to the EU promises to grow even stronger. Indeed, an early Canada-EU joint study projected that bilateral trade between Canada and the European Union stands to gain by some 20%, thanks to CETA.

For my province of Alberta, CETA is nothing short of a big win. The European Union is Alberta's fourth largest export destination. It is also Alberta's third largest trading partner. Simply put, what CETA means for Alberta is the elimination of almost all EU tariff lines on Alberta exports destined for the European market.

Under CETA, EU agricultural and agri-food tariff lines will be eliminated, 94% will be eliminated immediately. That number will eventually rise to 95%. With the elimination of those agricultural and agri-food tariff lines, there are tremendous opportunities for Alberta's large and vibrant agricultural and agri-food sectors.

In that regard, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance projects that Canadian agri-food exports to the European Union will grow by some $1.5 billion, thanks to CETA.

It is not just the agricultural sector that stands to benefit from CETA, frankly it is all sectors of the Canadian and Alberta economies. That is because under CETA, nearly 100% of non-agricultural tariffs will be eliminated. That presents enormous opportunities for many sectors, including the service sector.

The service sector comprises about 54% of Alberta's GDP; 1.5 million Alberta jobs are tied to the service sector. Under CETA, Canadian service suppliers stand to gain the best market access to the European Union compared to the EU's other free trade partners. What that means is new markets and new opportunities for Alberta and Canada's service suppliers.

Investment is important to the Canadian economy, and it is absolutely crucial in connecting Canada to global supply chains. When we look at, for example, investment, Canadian foreign direct investment to the European Union last year equalled $210 billion. That is roughly 21% or 22% of Canadian foreign direct investment directed into the European Union.

What CETA promises investors is to help facilitate investment, both for Canadian investors and European investors. Not only that, CETA means more certainty, more transparency, and more protection for investors.

While there is much to be proud of and much to look forward to with CETA, it is not entirely good news, because when our government left office 15 months ago and passed the torch to the Liberal government, we gave the government, essentially, a free trade agreement with the European Union on a silver platter.

For whatever reason, the Liberals decided that it somehow was not good enough, that they would reopen it. What did that result in?

It resulted in a lesser deal for Canada when the European Union made the commitment to regional governments to put in agricultural safeguards to protect against import surges. When we talk about investment, which is very important and a very important aspect of the CETA agreement, there is also some uncertainty surrounding the investor state settlement dispute process, which will not be part of the provisional coming into force of this agreement, which it was under the deal that was negotiated by our previous Conservative government.

It is not all good news, but that should not take away from the fact that on the whole, CETA is a good deal. In that regard, when we take a step back and look at CETA, and what it means for Canada, one important fact is that it will mean that Canada will have preferential market access to both the United States and the European Union, the two largest economies in the world.

Combined, the United States and the European Union represent about 50% of global GDP. From a strategic standpoint, CETA is a big win relative to the United States, inasmuch as Canada would get first mover advantage in relation to the European Union.

That presents many opportunities for Canada in terms of becoming an investment gateway for European Union investors seeking access to the United States market for NAFTA, and an investment gateway for U.S. investors seeking access to the European Union market.

CETA means more trade, more opportunities for Canadian businesses, and it means more jobs for Canadians. After 10 years of hard work and tough negotiations, Canada is on the cusp of achieving this historic free trade agreement.

For jobs, for growth, and for the long-term prosperity of Canada, let us get it done. Let us get CETA across the finish line. Let us pass Bill C-30.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as things stand, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C-30 at third reading. It is with heavy hearts that we will vote against it. As everyone knows, we supported the Canada-Europe agreement in principle. The agreement will benefit Quebec in many important ways.

Right now, our neighbour to the south is fairly unpredictable. Some would even say erratic. The election of Donald Trump reminds us that hitching our wagon to the American star is not good enough. We need more than one partner. Europe is perfectly suited to be that partner.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage was absolutely right when she said yesterday that Quebec is the high-tech heart of Canada. We have an international reputation for the cutting-edge sectors such as aeronautics and artificial intelligence that are part of our economy. Thanks to our creative people, we are considered world leaders in sectors such as video games.

Quebec is also at the head of the pack in research and development despite inadequate federal government support. We have the most highly rated shipyard in North America. Quebec is a world leader in green energy production. In contrast to Canada, which is mired in tar, we will emerge victorious from fossil fuel dependency. Quebec's future is bright.

However, developing a leading-edge product is a long and expensive process. Our high-tech companies, our industries of the future, could not possibly be profitable based on domestic markets alone. We need access to the world. Our high-tech sectors depend on it. Our future depends on it.

The Canada-Europe agreement could have been a great agreement. It had the potential to be tailor-made for Quebec, which in some ways already serves as a bridge between North America and Europe. Approximately 40% of the trade between Canada and Europe is done with Quebec. On top of that, about 40% of European investments in Canada are made in my province of Quebec. The strength of the Quebec economy speaks for itself. Our development model is a little different than that in the rest of North America, but this does not frighten European investors. After all, Germany is much more unionized than we are, and it is doing very well, thank you. Europeans do not mind that our employees are more unionized than anywhere else in North America. The exact opposite is true of American investors, who fear the differences in Quebec, in part because Canada is doing a terrible job promoting and selling Quebec's strengths.

Considering the growing protectionism in the United States, Europe will be looking more and more to Quebec to act as a gateway to North America.

Yes, this agreement presented its share of opportunities, but we cannot support just any old thing. We see what happens all around the world when governments fail to support those on the losing side of trade agreements. The Canada-Europe agreement has its share of victims in Quebec, and Ottawa is neglecting to compensate them. Quebec is a trading nation and we have always played our cards right, despite the fact that Quebec is not independent and must continually fight to ensure that Ottawa takes Quebec's differences into account in trade agreements.

Unlike the government, we will not leave our people behind. We have a very stable dairy and cheese sector thanks to supply management. The Canadian government has chosen to favour the western beef industry at the expense of Quebec's cheese producers. The reality of the European market is quite different from that of Quebec's market. In Europe, producers are highly subsidized, which is not the case in Quebec. They can easily sell their cheese here in Quebec below cost. That is not possible in a system where supply meets demand in order to avoid waste and where farmers are ensured stability. More often than not, Quebec's cheese producers are small artisanal businesses, fragile businesses. The Canada-Europe agreement will open the Canadian market, including the Quebec market, to European cheese products, but the reverse is not true. Under WTO rules, the supply management system does not allow us to export our products. The cheese producers are in a lose-lose situation.

European businesses that receive very large subsidies will be able to sell cheese in Quebec at a very low price. That will put tremendous pressure on our producers. Given that Quebec produces half of Canada's cheese and more than 60% of its fine cheeses, Quebec is most affected by this agreement.

The agreement will give 7% of the Canadian market to Europe, specifically 18,000 tons of cheese. Almost all future imports will consist of fine cheeses. I will repeat that Quebec produces over 60% of Canada's fine cheeses and it will be the first victim of the agreement. It is estimated that cheese producers will loose more than $300 million year after year.

The government has never committed to compensating producers for all their losses. In fact, it offered the dairy and cheese industry a total of $350 million over five years. It did not provide any details about the criteria or the allocation. Moreover, it gave no guarantees for the future. All we were asking the government to do was to make a firm commitment to fully compensate producers for their losses. It never wanted to do that.

Quebec's cheese producers are resigned to the fact that the government is implementing the Canada-Europe agreement and is opening up our market to European cheese. Consequently, UPA is requesting financial compensation for the losses that dairy and cheese producers will inevitably incur. The Government of Quebec is also asking for compensation for these producers.

Our cheese producers are concerned, and the Canadian government has not done what is necessary to reassure them by giving them the guarantees they have asked for. Diversifying our markets is a good thing because having more trade partners will make our economy more stable. However, unfortunately, the Government of Canada has once again failed to consider the Quebec market.

Since Quebec is not a country, Canada speaks on its behalf, even though Canada does not understand the Quebec model. Often, the Quebec model is not compatible with the Canadian model. Of course, in those types of situations, the federal government does what is best for the rest of Canada, simply because it is more politically expedient to do so. It is a matter of numbers. That is what is happening again with the Canada-Europe agreement.

If the government had done its homework, it could have proposed innovative solutions, such as allowing artisans and small businesses to get import licences for European cheese. That way, they could have profited from selling European cheese and compensated for any losses incurred because of this agreement. If nothing is done, the large chains will get licences and they will be the ones to profit. That will be even more harmful to our producers. To date, the government has not given any indication that it is sensitive to the plight of our cheese producers.

In short, for all of these reasons, we cannot support this bill. The Bloc Québécois will not abandon Quebec's dairy and cheese producers. We made a firm commitment during the last election. We promised that we would support the Canada-Europe agreement only if the government promised to fully compensate the dairy and cheese industry. Since the government has not made a clear commitment in that regard, we will oppose the bill. The Bloc Québécois keeps its promises, and it condemns the government's insensitivity toward producers. We stand with producers.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today on this important piece of legislation. It is a privilege to speak in support of the passage of Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

I congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the minister of the previous government who was involved, as well as the team of negotiators for their diligent and successful work in bringing this international trade agreement to the final steps required for implementation.

There are many reasons to support freer trade. It ensures that consumers, businesses, and government have access to a broader assortment of goods and services. It enhances competition and makes available better quality products at lower prices. In a broader policy context, it provides leadership, with an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade and the development of more sophisticated, effective, and valuable trade agreements. However, most of all, trade leads to economic growth, and economic growth means more jobs, and more jobs means greater opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

In an uncertain global trading environment, Canada's economy will thrive only if we pursue a market diversification strategy. That strategy requires that we should always be exploring new markets while at the same time improving sales performance in as broad a set of our existing markets as possible. The European Union is the world's second largest market. To illustrate the scale, 500 million Europeans buy more from the rest of the world every year than everything that Canada produces in a year.

When trying to improve sales, the first place to look is whether there is room for improvement with the customers we already have, like Europe, where we have been doing business for 200 years. Europe is already one of Canada's best customers. The European Union is Canada's second largest trading partner, after the United States. In 2015, Canada's merchandise exports to the EU totalled $38 billion.

I represent the electoral district of Kitchener South—Hespeler, in southwestern Ontario. To bring the issue a little closer to home, in 2015 Ontario's merchandise exports to the EU totalled $19.7 billion, more than half of all of Canada's exports to the EU. Ontario and Kitchener South—Hespeler stand to benefit from increased access to the European market.

Once CETA is implemented, Canada will be strategically positioned to become one of a few developed countries with preferential access to the world's two largest markets, which are the European Union and the United States.

I want to bring this a little closer to home. In my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, the implementation of CETA stands to benefit advanced manufacturing, which is a big economic driver there. It employs many people with well-paying jobs in my riding.

We are able to achieve that $38-billion level of sales to the EU despite the fact that 75% of what we sell to the EU is currently subject to tariffs and taxes, which the EU collects on Canadian goods at the border, adding to the cost of our goods for Europeans, making our merchandise less price competitive. CETA would make Canadian goods more competitive and give our goods an edge over goods from countries that do not have preferential access to the European Union markets.

On the first day that CETA enters into force, 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods will be duty free, including the most significant Ontario exports: metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, chemicals and plastics. Within seven years that duty-free percentage will rise by one more per cent to 99%. Virtually all manufactured goods Canada exports to Europe will be duty free.

Similarly, for agricultural and agrifood products, 94% of EU tariff lines would become duty free immediately, rising to 95% within seven years.

The European Union is also the world's largest importer of services. Under CETA, Canada's service providers would benefit from the greatest access the EU has ever provided in an agreement. This is particularly important for the Ontario economy, in which services accounted for 77% of the province's total GDP and employed more than 4.9 million Ontarians in 2015. Once Canadian goods or services have been imported into the EU, CETA provides that they must be treated no less favourably than the locally produced products. For example, they cannot be subject to higher taxes, stricter product regulation, or restrictions on sale than for a similar domestic good.

At the end of 2015, Europe was a venue for 21% of foreign direct investment by the Canadian companies, totalling $210 billion; and $242 billion of foreign direct investment in Canada had been made by European companies, representing 31% of all foreign direct investment in Canada.

CETA would provide investors in both Canada and Europe with greater protection while respecting governments' ability to enact legislation and to regulate in accordance with the public interest, such as environmental protection or people's health and safety.

Governments are some of the most substantial purchasers of goods and services. The annual procurement spending by European governments is estimated to be in the area of $3.3 trillion. CETA would provide Canadian firms with the opportunity to bid on contracts to supply their goods and services to European governments at all levels.

Under CETA, skilled Canadian professionals and business people would find it easier to work on a temporary basis in the EU and to move across borders as required; for example to establish branch offices and to provide services related to goods sold.

I stand here today, enthusiastic about the increased trade agreement with CETA. Trade means more growth. Growth means more jobs. More jobs mean greater opportunity for those trying to enter the middle class. CETA would be good for my constituents in Kitchener South—Hespeler, creating jobs and opportunities, it would be good for Ontario, and it would be good for all Canadians.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-30 at third reading today. As we know, Bill C-30 is implementing legislation for the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This debate is the last one we will have before the legislation is passed by this House and moves on to the Senate.

The Canada-EU relationship is extremely important, and perhaps it has grown in importance since Canada's relationship with the U.S. faces new challenges.

The New Democratic Party believes Canada should absolutely be deepening trade relations with the European Union. After all, our countries share deep social and cultural ties, and the EU is already our second largest trading partner. This trading relationship is extremely important. In fact, as I have said before, it is too important to get wrong.

I would like to begin my speech by highlighting some of the testimony received by the Standing Committee on International Trade. After, I would like to revisit some of the New Democratic Party's outstanding concerns with CETA, and the challenges with this agreement, moving forward.

While the trade committee only had four meeting to hear from outside witnesses on CETA, we heard some very good presentations. I wish we could have had more meetings and more witnesses, as I felt they made very valuable contributions.

One of the challenges that is often overlooked in trade discussions is how the government will actually help micro, small, and medium-sized businesses access potential new markets. Only about 10% of Canadian SMEs do business outside of our borders.

It is the job of the Minister of International Trade to develop, and implement a new strategy to support Canadian businesses exporting to international markets. This theme was often raised at the trade committee, as witnesses discussed how the government could support Canadian exporting businesses.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association testified that it was very supportive of CETA. However, it also highlighted critical issues around the conversion of potential markets into real trade. Canadian meat producers are essentially shut out of the European market, so they welcome the access that CETA may grant them. However, I will point out that for Canadian beef exports, the increased quota would be phased-in over six years. On the other hand, EU exporters would have tarrif-free, quota-free access to Canada on day one.

The Cattlemen's Association pointed out significant differences between Canada and EU food safety regulations. Its support for Bill C-30 and CETA implementation is contingent on three conditions: first, it wants a commitment from the government to develop and fully fund a comprehensive strategy to eliminate non-tariff barriers to Canadian beef; second, it expects EU beef imports would comply with Canadian food safety requirements; and third, it wants to see government investment in beef processing and beef producer operations to help them comply with the complexities of the EU market.

As we can see, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that Canadian exporters can access potential new EU markets.

The committee also heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which affirmed that trade agreements are just a starting point. Canada needs a vigorous trade strategy to help smaller businesses take advantage of new opportunities.

I would like to point out some comments provided to the committee by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses which, as we know, represents over 100,000 Canadian SMEs. Ms. Corinne Pohlmann of CFIB said:

Almost two-thirds of our members in a very recent survey are supportive of international trade agreements. However, nearly one in five small business owners felt they didn't have enough information to answer this question, suggesting that perhaps more needs to be done to inform them about the opportunities trade agreements can bring to their business.

She also pointed out that supply-managed producers have strong concerns and should be compensated for losses they would incur on CETA. According to the CFIB, smaller businesses want more consistency, fewer regulations, standards that are simple to comply with, simpler border processes, less paperwork, and lower costs. These are all principles that the NDP agrees with resoundingly.

This is exactly the kind of trade that we support. It is a shame that CETA includes so much else that we simply cannot support, like extraordinary legal rights for foreign companies to challenge our domestic environmental laws, and IP rules that favour name brand pharmaceutical companies that would drive up the cost of medication for Canadians.

These are the elements of comprehensive agreements like CETA and TPP that we simply cannot support. These elements are not in the best interests of Canadians. Canadians need elected representatives who are willing to stand up and challenge these harmful ideas.

CETA will also hurt Canada's dairy sector, and the so-called investment package offered to dairy farmers falls far short of compensating them for their losses. I would like to read a quote from Yves Leduc of the Dairy Farmers of Canada who appeared before the trade committee:

In regard to the government's announcement of a transition assistance package for CETA on November 10, DFC was pleased to see that the government decided to invest $250 million in dairy farms as well as $100 million in funding to help spur investment into updating Canada's dairy processing infrastructure...However, it only partially addresses the damage that will be caused by CETA. For dairy farmers, CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production, representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the production of the province of Nova Scotia alone. It will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million in perpetual lost revenues.

Let us take a look at the math here. Canadian dairy farmers will perpetually lose $115 million-a-year, while the Liberals' so-called transition plan will provide $50 million-a-year for only five years. This simply will not compensate dairy farmers for the losses they will incur under CETA, and some farmers will never see a penny of this money.

The government says that it supports supply management, but when it comes time to act, it turns its back on our dairy farmers. There is no action on diafiltered milk, and now the government has sent Brian Mulroney over to the U.S. on Canada's behalf, who just last week openly called for the elimination of supply management.

This is the person the Liberals have sent to the U.S. to supposedly defend Canadian trade interests. I hope the Minister of Agriculture is urging the Prime Minister to send Mr. Mulroney back to Canada, because Mr. Mulroney cannot claim to be fighting for Canada while opining that supply management has got to go.

Supply management is the backbone of our dairy industry, and it provides Canadian farmers with reliable incomes. It keeps prices stable, requires no government assistance, and supplies Canada with healthy, local milk. However, supply management has been eroded under TPP and CETA. It is time the government makes good on its word, and starts standing up for Canadian dairy farmers.

On CETA, the Liberals have completely ignored the issue of compensating Newfoundland and Labrador, which is expected to give up its minimum processing requirements under CETA. These rules are very important to Newfoundland and Labrador. They require that fish caught in the province must also be processed there. This keeps jobs in the local rural economy.

In 2013, a $400 million fisheries fund was set-up, with Ottawa contributing $280 million and Newfoundland and Labrador contributing $120 million. Where is the money now? Why has the Liberal government backed away from this pledge? For Heaven's sake, why is every Liberal MP from Newfoundland and Labrador not rising to their feet and raising these concerns?

I would like to read a quote:

The abolition of minimum processing requirements is clearly of great concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and your government’s support of the CETA was earned, in part, by a promise from the Government of Canada to help the industry adjust to the new reality. That promise should be honoured.

Do members know who said that? It was the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, in a letter to the former Prime Minister.

I agree, Mr. Prime Minister, the promise should be honoured, but will the government commit today to the promised compensation, or is this just another Liberal broken promise?

There is another Canadian industry that stands to be severely impacted by CETA, and that is our maritime industry, which supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. Under CETA, foreign-owned vessels will be permitted to transport goods between Canadian ports. Opening up cabotage to foreign vessels is a first in Canada, and seafarers are rightly concerned that this will lead to Canadian job losses. These European vessels will be allowed to hire non-Canadian workers.

I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues the issue of flags of convenience, which is a practice whereby a merchant ship is registered in a country other than that of the ship's owners. Owners do this because it gives them many advantages: minimal regulation, cheap registration fees, lower or no taxes, and freedom to employ cheap labour from around the world. For workers, this means low wages, as low as $2 an hour, as well as poor onboard conditions, inadequate food, clean drinking water, and very poor working conditions.

I hope my hon. colleagues can appreciate the ramifications this may have on Canada's maritime industry. The Canadian Maritime and Supply Chain Coalition, which includes the Seafarers' International Union of Canada and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, among others, is very concerned about CETA. It estimates it could result in the immediate loss of 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs from the east coast, to the Great Lakes, to the west coast.

I would like to highlight CETA's impact on one additional Canadian industry. It is an industry that is very important in my riding of Essex. I know it is important in many of my colleagues' ridings as well, including those with ridings in the Niagara region and British Columbia. Of course, I am speaking about Canada's wine sector.

Currently, the EU exports 180 million litres of wine to Canada, but Canada only exports 123,000 litres to the EU. Under CETA, this trade imbalance will be exacerbated.

The Canadian Vintners Association is asking for federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and prepare for the implementation of CETA. I am hopeful the government has considered the implications of CETA on our wine industry, and that it will offer support to help them adapt.

With any trade agreement, there are trade-offs and concessions to be made. Canada made some significant concessions on the assumption that the U.K. would be part of the agreement. We now know it likely will not.

If CETA moves forward, some sectors will also have to make significant adjustments. I urge the government to be a strong partner to affected Canadian industries, and assist them as needed with transition support and compensation where required.

I have been very disappointed in the Liberals' apparent unwillingness to listen to Canadian concerns with CETA. As I mentioned, we have had a very limited committee study of this legislation, and even sectors that support the agreement had specific conditions and concerns regarding implementation.

This agreement has no doubt had a rocky path, and it is still very unclear whether the EU will ever fully implement it. If the EU parliament ratifies CETA, it still has to be ratified by each individual member state and in some cases, regional parliaments must ratify too.

Last month, the EU trade committee voted 25-15 to endorse the deal. However, this past December, the EU committee for employment and social affairs voted 27-24 to reject the deal. It is clear that there is still a lot of opposition, both in Canada and in the EU, to CETA. The Liberals have been trying to say all progressives in the EU support the agreement, but that is simply not the case.

In addition to political opposition, there is widespread public opposition. Last year, there were several protests with over 100,000 people in attendance at each. A German constitutional challenge against CETA garnered 125,000 signatures, and a recently launched referendum campaign in the Netherlands has already collected over 200,000 signatures.

I do not believe this opposition can be pegged on a rising tide of protectionism. There are very concrete reasons why people are opposed to CETA. Angella MacEwen, senior economist with the Canadian Labour Congress, said to the trade committee:

The gains of these trade deals are never as big as they are projected to be, and the gains for CETA are small. They are among the error bars for what our economic growth is projected to be anyway.

Of the few studies that have been done on CETA, most are based on unrealistic assumptions, such as full employment, lack of capital mobility, and equal sharing of projected income gains. Even with these assumptions, GDP gains from CETA are not projected to be beyond 0.76%. I would also like to point out that after trade agreements are implemented, there is really no way of measuring whether they create any new jobs, or how their benefits are distributed.

Studies based on a different set of assumptions have shown CETA will increase inequality, and could lead to 204,000 job losses in the EU and 23,000 job losses in Canada.

At the end of the day, I do not see a commitment from the government to mitigating these negative impacts. In fact, Liberals refuse to even speak about them whether here in the House or at the committee level. I urge the government to listen to these very real concerns around CETA.

The Liberals have spent over a year consulting on the TPP and still cannot make up their minds, but on CETA, the other Conservative-negotiated trade deal, they essentially did no consultations. They slapped a gold star on it, called it progressive, and are pushing it through Parliament. I see no difference between the trade policies of the previous Conservative government and those of the current Liberal government. With the change in the U.S. administration, Canadians are looking to this government to stand up and fight for Canadian interests. It is time the Liberals showed us what a progressive trade agenda actually looks like.

Today, The Globe and Mail reported that a new poll shows Canadians expect our Prime Minister to “stand up to the President’s aggressive America-first strategy even if it leads to a trade war with Canada’s biggest trading partner”. For New Democrats, standing up to the President means standing up for Canadian jobs. Canada must stand firm on protecting its dairy industry, softwood lumber industry, and other trade-dependent industries. If the United States wants to reopen NAFTA, there is also an opportunity for us to push for more stringent labour and environmental standards and to get rid of regressive provisions like investor-state arbitration rules similar to those we see in CETA and the TPP.

I would like to conclude my remarks today by adding a word of caution. There has been a lot of criticism of the previous Conservative government for negotiating trade deals in secret. They did that with the TPP and they did that with CETA. There is a better balance to be struck between protecting confidential negotiating details and informing Canadians of what is on the table.

The Liberals promised Canadians more openness and transparency, but when it comes to trade, I see them slipping into the Conservatives' patterns. There has been no peep from them on the trade in services agreement, nor have they given Canadians any clarity about what will be on the table in the NAFTA renegotiations.

I urge the government to be up front with Canadians. They want greater transparency and meaningful, honest discussion with Canadians on the potential impacts of any trade deal.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill C-30, an act implementing our latest free trade agreement with the European Union. I was very glad to hear the minister speak on the subject. I congratulate him as well on his appointment to the ministry. For all those who did not make it, their time will come I am sure, when the minister faces tough questions and will be unable to answer them in the House.

As I have done before, I have a Yiddish proverb, and I love using them. “Words must be weighed, not counted”. I know when it comes to counting words in the House, two members will disagree with me that they should be weighed. The member for Winnipeg North and my dear colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, might disagree with me in their race to the top. However, weighing the words is far more important.

I know many members have come to the House to talk about the details of the bill, the different sections they agree with or agree less with, and the impact it will have on Canada's economy. I want to take it back just a little to talk about the meaning of free trade, the meaning it has had for Canada, and the impact it has had on our history.

Canada has been a trading nation from the very beginning, since pre-Confederation, by our forefathers and those who came here early on when beaver pelts were considered the currency of our country.

In the earliest debates on Confederation at the time, when Canada was founded, there were great debates on how Canada would become a true country. They were about the maritime customs union. That is what the early pre-Confederation politicians of the day were debating. It took Sir John A. Macdonald, taking charge of the situation and hijacking these meetings, to turn it into a discussion about how they could form Canada, a country devoted to trading, both within the British Empire and with our neighbours to the south. From that moment on, the great debates in our country have truly been about how we can make free trade work for us.

At the time, those debates were called reciprocity. The reciprocity treaty had been annulled the year before, in 1866, and that was the great foundation of our country. That impulse that we no longer could trade as easily with the United States, formed a great need among politicians to come together, create Canada and be able to trade more openly with our British motherland, the great mother parliament.

It was Alexander Mackenzie, the second prime minister of Canada, a great Liberal prime minister, a great believer in free trade, who said that reciprocity was really what Canada was all about. It was very important to him and to his party that it be implemented and returned to what it was.

As I mentioned, it has been a foundational debate in Canada: how and with whom can we trade, and as freely as possible. It has never been about how the government can trade with another government, but how people can trade. People create corporations and enterprises. They are entrepreneurial. They look for the best deals, and it is not just about price. It is about the product people want. It is about obtaining the type of product and not looking at only the price, but the quality, its origins, whatever country it comes from, and being able to obtain it freely in a country without government interference telling them, through a tariff or regulation, or imposition of a ban, they cannot obtain it.

In a previous decade, it was a Conservative government that negotiated many free trade agreements, with 46 different countries, which brought the total up to 51 in Canada. That was 4.6 agreements per year.

Sometimes when I speak with students, especially students of history, I like comparing Canada to the Hanseatic League. It is in ancient Europe. We are about to embark on a great free trade agreement with Europe, including many of the countries whose cities were formerly with the Hanseatic League of ancient Europe. Canada is on the cusp of achieving a vast free trade empire, of which Prime Minister Harper used to speak. We have this great opportunity. Free trade will reshape our country and Europe as well. It is that combination of sharing a common history and common culture for many of us. It is an opportunity to shape the future for the next 20 to 50 years. It is not just for ourselves. It is also for our children and grandchildren, who will have opportunities that we did not have when we were much younger.

Other agreements have gone onto the wayside, like the TPP. It is my great hope the government will take up the TPP negotiations again and ensure we sign it with the partners that are still willing to go ahead with it. It is a great loss for the United States not to be moving ahead with the TPP at this time. I still have great hopes that Congress will change its mind and actually move on this. Again, it puts Canada right in the middle between CETA and the TPP and our free trade agreement with the United States.

We have an amazing opportunity to become the hub country through which goods can move, corporations can come and not just create good paying middle-class jobs, but also reshape our country and provide new opportunities and new ways of doing business, and creating wealth for the government to tax and pay for the public services Canadians have come to expect.

While TPP is a great loss for the United States, CETA is a great loss for the United Kingdom. A great many politicians in Europe and the United Kingdom have said this will be a be a loss for the United Kingdom, but they still look forward to negotiating free trade agreements both in Continental Europe and Canada, and finding opportunities to increase trade and to make it possible.

I like to quote from Daniel Hannan, a politician. Sometimes I also look at his videos and his speeches. He is now a former member of the European parliament, and was one of the big promoters of Brexit. He said that the union between the United Kingdom and the European Union was not some great utopia of free trade due to the regulations that were imposed on them. He said that the goal of a great many politicians in the United Kingdom still was to achieve free trade with Europe, Canada and with as many countries as possible to give this great opportunity for their citizens to trade freely with others. It is still good to aim high as much as possible. I am glad the government is pushing forward the legislation to implement the treaty and then to move on from there to other negotiations, to other perspective countries and regions with which we could achieve some type of free trade agreement and provide opportunities for Canadians to trade.

On January 24, The European Union trade committee voted 25 to15 with one abstention. The rapporteur for the CETA said that this was a strong response to growing protectionism and that trade would enable them to continue to bring wealth to both shores of this trans-Atlantic friendship. That is a great way of looking at it. It is not just about the business component. It is also about this great friendship we have had, which predates NATO and the British and French influence on this continent. It is a long-standing relationship that America in the very broad sense, America, Canada, Mexico., has been able to enjoy with Europe. We have a shared history. Our histories and politics are intertwined. We participate in international bodies together. Although we can disagree, and sometimes very profoundly, we maintain that friendship, and that agreement does not turn into rancour, warring among each other anymore, thankfully. Now we have an opportunity, through free trade, to mutually reach an agreement between ourselves that will be beneficial for our citizens and our residents.

Both Canada and the European Union recognize in the deal the right to regulate domestic rights, and both will remain intact. That is found in section 7(d) of the legislation. This should allay the concerns that multinationals will somehow gain more influence and be able to pit one government against another, or pit a regulation in order to try to indicate that it is unnecessarily targeting them in some way. Section 7(d) tries to allay some of the fears of some people who no longer support free trade, the great pull internationally toward more protectionism that we saw 100 years ago. We need to push against that. It is a good sign from the Liberal government that it is moving ahead with the European free trade agreement. It says that we are open for trade and business. We want to find ways to trade more freely with others. We want to reach an agreement to reduce tariffs, to align our regulations to give those opportunities to Canadians to trade freely with them.

CETA will not remove barriers on four specific areas: public services, audiovisual, transport services, and a few agricultural products, including dairy, poultry, and eggs. The European Union expects the trade between its bloc and our country to rise by 20% when the agreement is fully implemented.

If we look at some of the numbers from 2015, according to the European Union, if we count just the imports from Canada, they totalled just about $40 billion. If we look at the exports to Canada, it was $49.5 billion. This is just a rough conversion from the euro.

We could also look at the Observatory of Economic Complexity, which is a website I highly recommend to people interested not only in numbers but to have them visually explained, to visually show what the numbers actually mean in real trade and to convey the numbers in a way that is catchy and attractive to the eye. For Canada, if we have a rough comparator, it means in value.

We exported $45.2 billion in cars in 2014. If we compare that to the exports we got from Europe, it was $49.5 billion. Therefore, we can see the opportunity we have. The car industry in Canada is a sector of the economy. It is very big in Ontario and not so very big in Alberta, but it is an opportunity if we just compare these two numbers. The top imports to Canada were vehicle parts, $20.4 billion, which is about twice as much as our EU trade; refined petroleum was $17.9 billion; and delivery trucks were $12.7 billion. Again, we expected the boost to Canadian trade would be somewhere in the area of $12 billion. Therefore, that boost alone would be like doubling the delivery trucks we import.

Again, it would be like almost doubling the vehicle parts sector of our economy. It is a huge opportunity, a chance for Canadians and Canadian companies to find ways to meet the needs and wants of people overseas and, likewise, for those people in other countries, such as the European Union, to find ways to meet the needs of Canadians without having the government necessarily interfere in that free exchange of goods and services.

The 751-seat European Parliament will be holding a vote on February 15. Therefore, it is very timely to be having this debate and passing the bill. It would be a good signal to send to the European Parliament that we are onside and that we want to proceed as quickly as possible to pass this bill in both the House and the Senate so Canadians can start to do the legwork needed on the ground to prepare themselves to trade with our partners in Europe. I am sure European companies and European residents are getting ready to trade with Canadians.

Sending the message that we still believe in free trade is more important today than it has ever been before. As I mentioned before, there is a great rise in protectionism across the globe. A great many people have seen, for the past 30 years potentially, in their own individual cases the lack of opportunity. They have not been able to obtain the jobs they wanted. The free trade in their countries perhaps was not as successful as they had hoped, or the sector of the economy they were in, perhaps for extended periods of time, suffered from an agreement where someone else with a comparative advantage was able to trade at a lower price or for different quality goods.

Again, we are always trying to find opportunities to help Canadians retrain and find new sectors of their economy to go into, to find entrepreneurial routes to create wealth. Although there are those situations, we have to support this renewal through this agreement, this renewal of our faith in free trade that it is good for Canadians and that it has been part of our history. We can broaden this transatlantic friendship and with that, protectionist sentiment notwithstanding, we will make this work. It will not be perfect. Every sector of the economy may not profit as equally as another, but we will find opportunities to make it work. Where it does not work, we can always make an agreement with our European partners to get it done.

I will go back to my example of the Hanseatic League. That league was based on trade in Europe, especially around the Baltic Sea. It dominated trade for almost 400 years. Yet Hansa societies were working to remove restrictions on trade, especially regulatory restrictions on trade. Permitting and restrictions were a big deal in those countries, in those cities. It was very difficult at the time to freely trade among all regions there. The Hanseatic League, basically, made it possible to trade freely almost among themselves, to provide and ship goods to other areas that needed them.

The opportunities that the league found profoundly reshaped the Baltic states and cities. We can still see it today in the city from which I come. I was born in Danzig, Gdansk in Polish. After 1466, it became the leading grain port and made Poland the dominant exporter of grain through the association it had with the league. I lived in that city for four and a half before my family came here in 1985. It is marked by that profound association it had with the Hanseatic League. The entire port areas are either shipyards or old grain ports. The most historic well-known heritage buildings are old Hansa society buildings. They are all grain storage facilities. Those are the things people mostly recognize.

Even though there was such awful destruction in World War I and World War II and during the many riots and uprisings in Poland during the 1800s during the partitions, those buildings still stand today. They stand as a kind of reminder to generations that have come afterward of the opportunities trade has given cities like Danzig and cities like Hamburg, which greatly profited from the ability to associate with others freely and to trade freely with them.

I am convinced that CETA will reshape Europe and Canada for decades to come in a positive way, a better way. We will find opportunities to trade and will find, perhaps, wants and needs that we did not know existed in Europe. Likewise, they will do it here. We will grow that relationship we have with them, both in trade imports and exports but also in the friendship we enjoy. We will come to a better understanding of what our countries require or do not require. People perhaps will be able to move across to other areas of the world, again seeking opportunities, chances to create wealth for themselves and for their families to live, work, and play as they wish.

The freedom to associate has to also mean the freedom to trade. “Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which government can confer on its people, is in...every country unpopular”. Perhaps members think that was said in 2017, but it was not. It was actually said in 1824, by Thomas Babington Macaulay, the first Baron Macaulay, a British historian and politician, a Whig, no less. At the time, he was looking at continental Europe and saying that he saw a great rise in protectionism and a great rise in people no longer seeing the benefits of free trade and the opportunities they received from engaging in trade with others.

Again, it is the great paradox of our time that those who have gained the most from the liberalization of trade, especially since 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, no longer believe in its ability to reduce extreme poverty. They no longer believe in its ability to reduce extreme deprivation in housing and energy. They no longer believe that it is as effective. We know that all the stats prove it. We can see with our eyes, when we travel to certain areas, that trade has benefited immensely countries in Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America. Things are better today than they were 100 years ago or 50 years ago. Since 1989, countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Poland have immensely benefited, and their middle class has benefited, from the ability to trade freely with others, and so have we.

The trade relationship we have with the United States is the one we know best. It is the one sometimes we take for granted as well. We do not do enough to nurture the relationship we have with our American friends to the south. Sometimes we take it for granted, and we should not, because just as Baron Macaulay said in 1824, the rise of protectionism can always return. We are seeing that today.

What we have to be doing with an agreement like this is passing it as quickly as possible through this House, with judicious debate here and in the Senate. We have to give ourselves the opportunity to at least move it along further so that when the European Parliament, on February 15, has its vote, it will see that Canada is ready to take advantage of this agreement we have negotiated in good faith with the European Union and that we want to follow through on it and deepen the relationship we have had.

The great reductions in poverty and deprivation we have experienced and seen with our own eyes over the past 60 years were not the result of status or socialist command economies. They did not lift more than a billion people out of poverty. It was free trade, free-market economies that succeeded.

Why are people opposed to it today? I will maybe leave off with a quote from Daniel Hannan. He mentions two things that are the problem between protectionism and free trade and the pull between the two: “dispersed gains, concentrated losses”.

We can see that in industries that are protected, that enjoy some type of grant from the government, a monopoly or oligopoly system, such as in sugar and tires. It goes on and on.

On one side, the gains of free trade are dispersed across the population, and it is hard to say, “This is why I have gained over the past 20 years and have been able to obtain a job that feeds my family and gives me the sense of hope and opportunity I have always looked for”. On the other side, concentrated losses, those who lose from it can sometimes lose very profoundly.

My family came to Canada not just because they were fleeing political persecution but because of the opportunities Canada provided. The free trade agreement is deeply embedded in that, and I urge the House to pass this bill as soon as possible.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. There has never been a more important time in our history to talk about trade. Therefore, I am going to talk about Bill C-30. I would invite all my colleagues on both sides to really take this opportunity to rise to the challenge that we are facing.

Twenty years from now we will remember the moment that we seized as parliamentarians to really move forward on trade. The world is waiting for us to ratify this agreement. This is going to be great for Canada. This is going to be great for Europe. This is the gold standard of international agreements.

Obviously, I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak to a very important bill, Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA.

As Minister of International Trade, CETA is one of my top priorities. Many ministers have worked on this free trade agreement in recent years and, thanks to their efforts, the Prime Minister was able to sign this agreement in Brussels at the end of October 2016.

CETA negotiations began in 2008. It took many years of hard work to reach an agreement that addresses issues that have never been covered in Canada's other trade agreements, including NAFTA.

It is now up to us, as parliamentarians, to complete the legislative process and bring CETA into force so that all Canadians can finally benefit from it. This agreement is the result of a historic initiative to promote the prosperity of our country, and I would venture to say that Canadians in each of the 338 ridings represented in the House of Commons will benefit from it.

By signing this agreement we are gaining market access and improved trade conditions that go beyond the NAFTA provisions. What is more, we achieved this in a progressive and responsible way. This agreement will provide Canada with the growth and jobs its needs, while fully upholding Canadian and European standards in areas such as food safety, environmental protection, and workers' rights.

CETA will open opportunities for Canadian businesses 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. Imagine the opportunities for all the SMEs here at home.

Under CETA, consumers will benefit from lower prices and a wider range of choices. This agreement will also be beneficial for workers, since it will create more high-quality jobs associated with exports. It will also be beneficial for our businesses, no matter their size, as they will see lower costs resulting from the elimination of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers.

This is a progressive trade agreement that prioritizes the middle class, opens new markets to Canadian producers, and means greater prosperity for Canadians from one end of our great country to the other.

I would like to talk about the importance of trade. Canada's participation in international trade is vital to the entire nation's prosperity. Canada has always been a trading nation. Exports are key to our economy. They contribute to growth, productivity, and, of course, employment. Taken together, they represent about 30% of Canada's GDP. One in six Canadian jobs depends directly or indirectly on our export activities.

The small and medium-sized businesses in all of our ridings play a leading role in our economy. Employing some 10 million Canadians, they account for nearly 90% of private-sector employment in Canada.

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. Creating new commercial opportunities for SMEs is therefore essential to growing our economy, because job growth and opportunities for the middle class depend on those businesses.

In 2015, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada released a report 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.

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.

In addition, the report indicated that 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.

Lastly, exporters are also more growth oriented than non-exporters. Indeed, the sales of 10% of exporters grew by 20% or more per year between 2009 and 2011 compared to only 8% of non-exporters.

I know that my colleagues in the House already appreciate the fact that trade and, in particular, the role of small businesses within all our ridings, is important to Canada's economic growth.

SMEs clearly play a major role in fostering the future prosperity of the country, and Canada firmly believes in the importance of helping our SMEs to be successful because this will create jobs and strengthen the middle class across the country. Concrete tools such as CETA are important as they motivate businesses and encourage them to seize opportunities in major foreign markets such as the European Union.

I will now turn to the government's role and the impact of the positive trade policy on Canada's businesses. The findings of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's report support our government's continuing commitment to stimulating growth of SMEs and advancing an export agenda by entering into new trade agreements. These agreements help our SMEs because they ensure access to export markets abroad and they create conditions conducive to the competitive participation in these markets.

This is especially true in the context of current global value chains because international production requires goods to cross many borders. It is especially important to facilitate the flow of goods across borders to ensure the success of our businesses today and tomorrow.

The European Union is a key market for global value chains. It has more Fortune 500 companies than any other place in the world, including the United States. Broader access to these value chains provides a large number of Canadian SMEs a major opportunity to realize their goals and aspirations on an international scale.

I know that every member of the House would like to help the SMEs in their ridings conquer those markets, and CETA is another tool in the toolbox for our SMEs. 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.

In this period of slower economic growth and of growing protectionist and even anti-trade tendencies in many areas of the world, it is particularly important to implement agreements such as CETA.

I will give an overview of CETA for all of my colleagues in the House. CETA represents many firsts for free trade in Canada and the European Union. CETA sets new standards in trade in goods and services, non-tariff barriers, investments, and government procurement, as well as in other areas such as labour and environment.

It offers preferential access to the large, dynamic European market.

It creates tremendous opportunities and gives Canadian businesses a real competitive edge.

It gives Canadian businesses a first-mover advantage compared to their competitors from other markets, such as the United States, which do not have trade agreements with the European Union.

CETA is a comprehensive trade agreement. Once it comes into force, it will cover almost every sector and aspect related to trade between Canada and the European Union. Of the EU's some 9,000 tariff lines, approximately 98% will be duty free for Canadian goods as soon as the agreement comes into force, as compared to the current 25%. An additional 1% will be cut over a seven-year phase-out period.

This agreement is vital to create growth in Canada and, as we know, growth means jobs for the middle class.

The elimination of tariffs under CETA creates immense opportunities for many of Canada's exports to the EU, where tariffs remain high. Let me give members a few examples: fish and seafood, which secures an EU tariff of up to 25%; wood, with an EU tariff of up to 8%; information and communications technology products, with EU tariffs of up to 14%; and machinery equipment, with EU tariffs of up to 8%.

Canadian services providers will also benefit from the best-quality market access the EU, the world's largest importer of services, has ever provided in a trade agreement, as well as the most ambitious commitments on temporary entry the EU has ever been granted.

Beyond increased market access, CETA includes many other significant achievements.

A protocol of conformity assessment will allow Canadian manufacturers in certain sectors to have their products tested and certified in Canada for sale in the EU. This is a significant innovation that will save companies time and money and will be particularly useful to small and medium-sized businesses.

This is also the first bilateral trade agreement in which Canada has included a stand-alone chapter on regulatory co-operation, which is forward looking and promotes early engagement as measures are being developed.

As well, CETA includes a detailed framework for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, a key aspect of labour mobility.

Canada is one of the largest exporters of services in the world. It exported $16 billion in services to the EU in 2015 alone. CETA gives Canadian service suppliers the best market access the EU has ever granted to any of its free trade agreement partners. CETA will ensure that Canadian service suppliers compete on an equal footing with domestic providers, in certain sectors, and receive better treatment than most competitors from non-EU countries.

Provisions set out in the chapter on cross-border trade in services will provide for better market access assurances in many sectors of interest to Canada's economy, including professional services, environmental services, technical testing and analysis services, and research and development services. This is great news for all Canadian entrepreneurs.

CETA's labour mobility provisions will also enhance the ability of Canadians and EU business persons to move across borders. CETA provisions will make it easier for short-term business visitors, intra-company transferees, investors, contract service suppliers, and independent professionals to conduct business in the EU.

Investment also forms a substantial portion of the Canada-EU economic relationship. In 2015, the known stock of direct investment by Canadian companies in the EU totalled $210 billion, representing 21% of known Canadian direct investment abroad. In the same year, the known stock of direct investment from European companies in Canada totalled $242 billion, representing over 31% of known total foreign investment in Canada.

These numbers are significant. Canada needs more investment. More investment means more jobs for Canadian workers and more growth for our economy and a stronger middle class, something that each and every member in this House would be able to support. CETA provides greater incentive for EU companies to choose Canada as the attractive destination in this world for their investments.

CETA includes provisions to facilitate the establishment of investment, to protect investors against such practices as discriminatory treatment, uncompensated expropriation, arbitrary or abusive conduct, and to ensure that capital may be freely transferred. CETA's obligations are backed by a mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes, which includes both a first instance tribunal and an appellate tribunal.

Let me tell the House about the progressive nature of CETA, and that should make every member of this House very proud. Investment and dispute resolution are some of the themes that have been discussed at length here in Canada and across the EU. Canadian and EU citizens have voiced views and concerns on these important issues, and others, such as environmental protection, workers' rights, consumer health and safety, and a government's right to regulate.

One of the most important things that our government did right after taking office was to listen to the critics of CETA, critics who were gaining steam both in Canada and in Europe, and to understand some of the legitimate concerns people had. We worked with Canadians, including industry and civil society alike and, I would say, members and critics on the other side as well. Together with the EU, we responded to ensure that the economic gains from implementing this agreement would not come at the expense of these vital elements.

This includes making changes during the legal review of the agreement, as well as publishing a joint interpretative instrument with the EU at the time of the signature of CETA. It provided a clear and non-ambiguous statement of what Canada and the EU and its member states agreed with respect to a number of CETA provisions, including those in areas of public concern. CETA cements the paramount right of democratic governments to regulate in the interests of citizens on the environment, on labour standards, and in defence of the public sector. This is even more important in today's world, where we are faced with increasingly challenging times for trade and the global economy.

Let me tell the House about CETA in the world, the context we are living in today, in conclusion. We are seeing many nations now turning more inward and pursuing more protectionist measures following decades of ever-increasing openness. Many people are feeling that globalization has left them behind. People are faced with income inequality. They are suffering from economic hardships. They are worried about their jobs and future prospects. These are real and legitimate concerns.

That is why, at my first WTO meeting, I said to all the ministers, “Let us have a WTO for the people. Let us always make the people first in whatever decision we are taking.” It is all about people.

However, closing borders is not a solution. Doing so will decimate economic growth and make us all poorer as a result, especially for a trading nation like Canada, for which participation in global commerce is key to our prosperity. This path is clearly a perilous direction.

In conclusion, that is why it is important that Canada stands up to this protectionist trend and continues moving toward an open society for free and open trade. We must do so in a way that puts the middle class at the centre of our ambitions and at the heart of any deal. Not only is this the right thing to do, it is in our national economic interest to do it. I urge every member to speak in favour of CETA, vote in favour of CETA and for decades to come, people will remember what we did, a historic agreement.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-30.

The question is on Motion No. 2. The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 53.

The House resumed consideration from February 6 of Bill C-30, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures.

As we approach the end of today's debate, may I be permitted to address the tremendous opportunities and benefits in the bill by first reflecting on the way I watched Canada change, develop, and prosper as a result of trade and unavoidable globalization in my lifetime.

As the product of an offshore union myself, I have no real memory of arriving at Pier 21 in Halifax, a babe in my mother's arms, aboard a Red Cross hospital ship from England near the end of the Second World War. In fact, my first real trade-related memories as a child here in Ottawa in the late 1940s involved the exciting arrival of Christmas oranges in our house, the mandarin oranges that arrived every year in those early years from Japan.

By the time I began elementary school, our family had moved to Medicine Hat, Alberta. My dad had been transferred from the Ottawa Citizen to become editorial page editor of the Medicine Hat News. Our food back then was local. Milk, butter, eggs, cheese, meat, and bread came from farms, butchers, and bakers barely a couple of hours away from our house, much of it delivered to our home by horse-drawn wagons. Just in passing, I was regularly detailed to collect horse droppings for our home vegetable garden, where today, of course, there is an abundance of off-the-shelf retail fertilizers.

Our shoes and clothes in the 1940s and early 1950s came mostly from Ontario and Quebec. It is worth remembering, of course, that the Canadian shoe industry was started originally by an investment made by Jean Talon in Quebec in 1688. It developed over the centuries before and after Confederation, but after peaking in 1972, the Canadian-made shoe industry went downhill because of the arrival of less expensive, cheaper foreign imports, even despite government efforts in that day to slow the tide with import tariffs.

Our T-shirts and our underwear back in the 1950s came from a great Conservative firm in Nova Scotia. I loved my Stanfield's unshrinkable, drop-bottom long underwear when winters were longer and colder than they are today, and in those days, almost all of our cars came from Detroit or the Canadian branch plants of Detroit.

By the mid-1950s, Canada's auto industry was booming with new plants, new facilities, increased employment, and the surge in export sales as Canadian manufacturers took advantage of the fact that European makers were still recovering from the war.

My dad, who was a prudent, penny-wise newspaper man, never bought a new car, but he always bought North American, carrying our growing family around southern Alberta, first in a second-hand 1947 Chevy sedan and then in another very well-used 1954 Pontiac.

While I was studying at the naval dockyard in Esquimalt in 1960 listening to the hit tunes of those days, Percy Faith's Theme from a Summer Place and Sinatra's High Hopes, I remember seeing the decommissioned World War II cruiser, HMCS Ontario being prepared to be towed to Japan for scrap. I have little doubt that some of the recycled steel from the “Big O” came back to Canada a few years later, perhaps in the form of the first Japanese auto import, the Datsun Fairlady I remember, and of course the very first Honda Civic.

As a young journalist covering Expo '67 in Montreal, I remember the record crowds of foreign visitors and heads of government, and the excitement and the talk everywhere of the many doors being opened to Canada to global trade opportunities. Those doors did eventually open, although the big trade agreements, as we know, took somewhat longer to be achieved.

I remember as a young foreign correspondent in London, England, in the early 1970s, the political debate leading up to the referendum that saw the United Kingdom join the European common market. That was followed eventually by the Maastricht agreement and the creation of the European Union, the United Kingdom's opt-out clause, and so forth.

Britons benefited from that trade agreement, but as we all know too well, the European integration progress went a little further than British voters would accept, leading to the Brexit referendum outcome last year.

Today we face new challenges, and we have seen new challenges for the U.K., for the European Union, coincidentally for the United States, for our NAFTA partners, and pretty well all of our global trading partners, which brings me to the legislation before us today.

Certainly on our side of the House, and I know on the government side, we cannot say too often that this landmark agreement is the result of years of hard work, especially by our world-class trade negotiators, who did the heavy lifting for a succession of ministers and governments.

We in the official opposition welcome the opportunity to bring this deal into force and to recognize the work of successive trade ministers, including, most recently, the member for Abbotsford and the member for University—Rosedale. I will come back to that in just a moment.

We believe passionately, in the official opposition, that Canada should strive to maximize the benefits we have as a free-trading nation and that CETA will establish trading relationships far beyond North America. Again, we cannot say too often for our listeners at home that the 28 member states of the EU represents 500 million people, and annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion. The EU is the world's largest economy and also the world's largest import market for goods. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's total GDP.

I spent the morning with the EU delegation to Ottawa. It was interesting to catch up with the representatives of the 28 members of the EU on the ratification process. I was delighted to remark to the representative of the government of Latvia that our foreign affairs committee is just back from an eastern European tour visiting Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Poland, and Latvia and to have been told by the minsters in the Latvian government that they are rushing to try to be the first member of the EU to formally ratify the agreement. They are urging us to ratify and enable implementation of the act.

I would like to say that I was very impressed a couple of months ago by the very gracious acknowledgement by the minister of trade, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of the hard work of her predecessor, the member for Abbotsford, in developing and advancing the CETA file in his time. Not all of my Liberal colleagues have been as generous.

If I could conclude on a positive note, and in the context of that spectacular Super Bowl victory last night, I would suggest that the member for Abbotsford might be seen as the Tom Brady character, moving the ball against great odds to the brink of victory. Again, with the greatest respect, the former minister of trade, now the foreign affairs minister, might be seen as James White, in overtime, two yards to go, plowing through the defence to carry the ball into the end zone to win the day.

In closing, CETA is a great deal for Canada. It is a great deal for Europe. I have no hesitation in committing my vote to bring this agreement into force.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act that would implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures.

I would like to begin by thanking my hon. colleagues, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and the member for Abbotsford, for their past and current work on this important file.

Bill C-30 is a continuation of our previous government's ambitious trade agenda and I am pleased to see that the current Liberal government is continuing to push for CETA.

Bill C-30 would implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, between Canada and the European Union and its member states. The Canada-EU trade agreement is our country's biggest bilateral trade initiative since NAFTA. Including the 28 member states, the EU represents the world's largest single market for an investor and trader with over 500 million people and annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion.

When CETA comes into force Canada will be one of the few countries in the world to have guaranteed preferential access to the world's two largest economies, the United States and the European Union. This is a historic deal which would benefit Canadians from coast to coast. It would ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses are in a strong position as we move forward to an increasingly globalized world.

Most members would agree that Canada is a trading nation. Without trade, thousands, if not millions, of Canadians would lose their jobs. It is therefore crucial that we continue to expand access for Canadians and Canadian businesses to international markets, like this agreement would do. Canada needs to maximize the benefits. We are a free trading nation and we need to establish trading relationships beyond North America. That is exactly what CETA would accomplish.

As CETA approaches final implementation, we will continue to hold the government to account and ensure that Canadians reap the rewards of free trade not only with the EU, but also through other significant trade deals.

The Liberal government must also honour commitments made to vital sectors of our economy, specifically to the supply-managed dairy industry as well as commitments made to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the CETA fisheries investment fund.

Now let us talk about the benefits of this deal.

The EU is the world's largest economy. It is also the world's largest importing market for goods. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's GDP.

A joint Canada-EU study that supported the launch of negotiations concluded that a trade agreement with the EU could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12-billion annual increase to Canada's economy, the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income, or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

When CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines of non-agricultural products will be duty-free along with close to 94% of all EU tariff lines of agricultural products.

This agreement would also give Canadian service suppliers, which employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of Canada's total GDP, the best market access the EU has ever granted to any of its free trade agreement partners. It would establish greater transparency in the EU services market, resulting in better, more secure, and more predictable market access.

The agreement would also provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, stability, transparency, and protection for their investments. Our preferential access to the EU would attract investments into Canada from the U.S., and EU investors would look to Canada as the gateway to NAFTA.

The agreement would also give Canadian suppliers of goods and services secure and preferential access to the world's largest procurement market. The EU's $3.3 trillion government procurement market would provide them with significant new export opportunities. The agreement would also expand and secure opportunities for Canadian firms to supply their goods and services to the EU's 28 member states and thousands of regional and local government entities.

Our previous government worked tirelessly to sign trade deals right across the globe, agreements with Korea, Ukraine, Honduras, Panama, Jordan, Colombia, Peru, and the TPP nations, just to name a few. I am pleased to see a continuation of the previous government's work on this file, and I hope that the Liberal government will continue to advance Canadian trade interests abroad.

During this discussion on international trade agreements, it is crucial that we take into consideration the recent comments by the new President of the United States on the renegotiation of NAFTA.

Trade with the United States is our most important relationship. Nine million American jobs depend on trade with Canada, and we have added 4.7 million new jobs to our economy since NAFTA came into force. With $2 billion in trade crossing our border every day, Canadians are worried about their jobs, and rightfully so. We need to ensure that the Prime Minister has a plan to protect high-paying jobs that are created in Canada as a result of NAFTA, including 550,000 auto sector jobs and 400,000 forestry jobs. There are also well over 210,000 aerospace jobs. We need a deal that is in the best interests of Canada.

I am now going to talk specifically about some of the benefits and opportunities for my home province and my constituents. The EU is Ontario's second-largest export destination and its second-largest trading partner. Once CETA is in force, it would eliminate tariffs on almost all of Ontario's exports, including 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods becoming duty free for major Ontario exports, including metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, chemicals, and plastics. It would also provide our exporters with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU.

Being an Ontario member, we also want to thank the provincial Liberals because Ontario needs all the advantages it can get based on the current situation.

This agreement would give us access to a vast market for Canadian goods, as I have said before. It would benefit many sectors across our economy, including my riding, specifically in agriculture. In the agricultural and agri-food sectors, which I touched on before, CETA would make almost 94% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods duty free. It would rise to 95% once all the phase-outs are complete.

This would include preferential, duty-free access for a specified amount of Canadian beef, pork, and bison. This is one of the largest industries in my riding. It provides employment and economic opportunities to many of the small communities in my area. Ensuring an advantageous position for our farmers and other sectors will help to ensure the long-term economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

As I mentioned, many people in my riding and across this country are concerned about their future, and rightfully so, with the cost of doing business in Ontario being sky high, and now with the increased taxes due to the provincial and federal Liberals. Many Canadians are struggling to get by. I am hopeful that this deal is signed and that the Liberal government's intention is to continue to build on the previous government's strong record of international trade. We are a trading nation, and we need to continue to increase market access for Canadian businesses and products.

I would like to thank all the men and women who have worked for years to get this agreement negotiated, drafted, and now before us here in the House of Commons. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in this place to speak to the concerns I have about Bill C-30, legislation to enact the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

There are a number of fallacies that have come up in the debate today, and I will try to address those. They relate, by the way, to the investor-state provisions, which I believe to be the key and most unacceptable part of the trade agreement. However, I want to make sure I do not skip over the other concerns that have been raised by many in Canada and in the European Union.

One is that this trade agreement will absolutely make pharmaceutical drugs cost more in Canada. There is no question about this. By giving greater patent protection, it will postpone the moment when drugs go to generic form, when they become much more affordable. The estimates are that it will increase the cost of pharmaceutical drugs anywhere between $800 million and $1.6 billion.

Let me give the reasons why. This is what the comprehensive economic and trade agreement commits to and that Bill C-30 would implement. It would commit Canada to creating a new system of patent term restoration that would delay the entry of generic medicines by up to two years. It would lock in Canada's current terms of data protection, making it difficult or impossible for future governments to reverse them, and it would implement a new right of appeal under the patent linkage system that would create further delays for the entry of generics.

If this trade agreement is in the interest of big pharma, the pharmaceutical industry, which I would have to mention is an economic sector that does not need a handout, can we accept that the prescription drug business, the pharmaceutical industry globally, does very well for itself and does not necessarily do well for those who need life-saving drugs?

This relates to the debates we have had in this place about the need for pharmacare and a national pharmacare program. It is even in the mandate letter to our Minister of Health to pursue bulk purchasing of prescription drugs to try to bring down the price to the level we could get if we had a national pharmacare plan, when all prescription medication could be purchased centrally to try to drive down the cost.

The reality is that the single largest growing cost within our health care system is the cost of prescription drugs. I want to reference the hard work of my hon. colleague from Oakville, Terrence Young, who lost his seat in the last election. His daughter died from taking a drug, as prescribed by her physician. Her name was Vanessa, and in the last Parliament, we passed Vanessa's Law.

It is very clear that the drug industry charges more than what it costs to produce a drug, because it can. This is the last sector on Earth we should be wanting to give yet more advantages to to make the price of drugs go higher.

At the same time, litigation relating to pharmaceuticals, the notice of compliance proceedings dealing with full patent infringement, has been termed by Canadian Lawyer magazine as streamlining litigation, again, to the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry. It has a very effective lobby. Hats off to the pharmaceutical industry in Europe and in Canada for getting its own way under this agreement, but that does not mean it is in the interests of Canadians.

I am also very concerned, as is the Green Party, about the protection of procurement. This has to do with the rights of municipalities and other government sectors to say that they want the right to choose where they procure their products. They want to say that it is okay to preference their local suppliers. That will not be possible under CETA.

We also know that the way this agreement is structured around intellectual property leaves a lot to be desired and does not adequately protect Canadian companies in the large, more predatory global marketplace.

Getting to the misconceptions, one was, I thought, rather unexpected in this debate. Just to put it to rest, I heard a number of Conservative MPs use this debate on the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union to rail against having a carbon price. This was a very unusual place to make that argument, since the European Union has carbon prices. Why, in a debate on CETA, would we hear distorted arguments about the economic impact of putting a carbon price in place? It is rather the contrary. If Canada does not put a carbon price in place, we might find ourselves at the other end of discriminatory tariffs brought forward by the European Union, because they have done so, and they want trading partners to do so as well.

Other fallacies have to do with the way in which we characterize investor-state dispute resolution. It is very important that we distinguish and differentiate between terms of trade agreements to resolve disputes over trade. We have those in NAFTA. We have those in CETA. We have those at the WTO. When there is a dispute over a tariff or an alleged subsidy, there is a dispute process that resolves trade disputes. The investor-state provisions are not those. Investor-state provisions have nothing to do with resolving trade disputes. That may seem counterintuitive, but let me back up. Trade dispute mechanisms within treaties are state-to-state. If Canada has a problem with Belgium, or Poland has a problem with Canada, the investor-state dispute resolution is entirely different.

If we go ahead with CETA, it would give a Polish company the right to sue Canada if any government, state, provincial, municipal, first nations, or a court decision, made a decision that interfered with that corporation's expectation of profits. Therefore, it is not state to state, as it would be in a trade dispute. It is corporation to government.

Let us use a real life example from my home province. The people of Kamloops, B.C. are busy fighting a proposal for a large open pit mine within the town limits. It is called the Ajax mine. It is being proposed by a Polish state-owned enterprise. Kamloops is a mining community with other mines. It is not as if it is against mines, but the majority of people in Kamloops do not want an open pit mine in the town limits. If CETA is not in place and the Government of British Columbia decides it will not go ahead with an open pit mine, that is the end of the story. B.C. can make a decision and Kamloops can make a decision. However, with CETA in place, it would not be the end of the story. The Polish mining company, Ajax mine, could do what Bilcon from New Jersey did under chapter 11 of NAFTA. When its open pit mine on Digby Neck, Nova Scotia, was turned down by the Conservative government of Nova Scotia and the Conservative government federally, under the previous environment minister, John Baird, Bilcon went for a secret tribunal under chapter 11 of NAFTA and sued us for $300 million. Did it allege we were wrong on the science? No. Did it say this was a secret protectionist move to protect trade in Canada? No. It just said it did not think the environmental assessment process was fair to it.

Ajax, the Polish mining company, would have the right to bring secret arbitration cases. The one thing that is different under CETA is the process would not be a secret. There would be an investment court. However, there would be no room at the table to have litigants representing the public interest. No environmental group would be allowed before the so-called investment court to argue this was a reasonable decision that our government made.

Therefore, the presence of these agreements really needs to be much better understood, investor-state agreements, the chapter 11s or sometimes called FIPA, the foreign investor protection agreement, such as the one Prime Minister Harper secretly passed in cabinet, which binds Canada to the year 2045, so the People's Republic of China has the right to sue Canada and we cannot get out of it until 2045.

These agreements need to be better understood as fundamentally corrosive to democracy. They do not belong in trade treaties. They have nothing to do with advancing trade. They are all about reducing the power of sovereign government and increasing the power of transnational corporations. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-30.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to rise once again in the House to speak to Bill C-30.

These trade agreements have the potential to cause great damage to communities and to whole regions, as our experience with NAFTA has clearly demonstrated. We, in the NDP, believe that they should be undertaken with scrupulous attention to all potential consequences.

I am more than a little disappointed. The NDP had proposed a number of well-reasoned and good faith amendments to CETA, amendments that would have gone a long way to fix the major problems in the bill, amendments that were not just sought after by us but by a broad swath of labour and civil society groups throughout Canada and the European Union, and they were all rejected.

We had amendments on limiting CETA's controversial investment chapter so corporations could not sue the country that made a decision or action in its own best interests in the name of corporate profit, rejecting the increased threshold for mandatory foreign takeover reviews, and limiting changes to Canada's cabotage rules. Cabotage, by the way, is the transport of goods or passengers between two places in the same country by a transport operator from another country.

We also called for an economic impact analysis of CETA and an analysis of the impact of CETA on pharmaceutical drug costs. Sadly, in what has become a recurring pattern with the government, there was little to no debate on our amendments and, as I noted, they were all rejected. It appears that the government's election platform commitments to fair, open, and transparent government have gone the way of electoral reform.

As the government prepares to renegotiate sections of NAFTA with the new administration in the U.S., it is important that it does not rush into another deal before we have been able to study the changes that will soon occur to our agreement with our American cousins, as it is arguably one of the more important trade agreements to which Canada has been a party.

More important, I and all New Democrats continue to be seriously concerned about the ways in which these agreements hamstring the ability of future governments to establish important social programs. The hamstringing to which I refer is what American pundit, Thomas Friedman, once termed, a couple of decades back, as the “golden straitjacket”. It is very entertaining to me that a previous speaker, an hon. colleague from another party, mentioned the gold-plated agreement. I want to talk about the golden straitjacket with some irony here.

The golden straitjacket is supposed to work like this. As our country puts on the Golden Straitjacket, two things are supposed happen: our economy grows and our politics shrink. It is a straitjacket because it narrows considerably the parameters of the government's future political and economic policy options. It is golden, presumably, due to the economic benefits which would then follow.

However, flash forward a couple of decades and we see clearly that these supposed benefits were a little more than oversold. In fact, to say that the benefits of NAFTA were unevenly distributed is to engage in cruel understatement. Some sectors of the economy benefited, and others were devastated.

Members could ask anyone in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, the people of Hamilton or Oshawa, Ontario. We have absolutely no evidence that the economic gains of CETA will be distributed any more equitably than were those of NAFTA. In fact, CETA is likely to make it all the more difficult for future governments to address the very inequalities that we can feel certain will result from this agreement.

CETA will increase the pressures to privatize most government services. That is because the multinational corporate and financial interests, in whose interests this agreement was negotiated, view most government services not as fundamental provisions without which our lives and economy would suffer, but as potential revenue streams, as potential markets in which to make lots of money.

CETA can be rightly construed as part of what was an aggressive wave of trade deals designed to undermine the rights of Canadian governments to legislate public health policy if it threatened investor profit. Under these conditions, the likelihood of a national pharmacare plan becomes substantially more difficult, if not impossible. Such a plan could be viewed as a direct infringement on corporate rights and counterintuitive to the purpose of health care policies that put people first.

In keeping with putting people first and to maximize our resources in our universal health care system, a national pharmacare program has long been the priority of the NDP. Just about everyone who has ever seriously looked at this issue will know that there is broad agreement among researchers that a universal public drug program, with an evidence-based list of reimbursed drugs, a clear and transparent budget, and a strong ability to negotiate fair drug prices, would improve the health of Canadians. It would significantly lower the social cost of drugs and could be achieved with relatively small initial outlays by governments.

It is an idea that is a long time coming. A prescription drug coverage program was recommended as the next step way back in 1964 by the Royal Commission on Health Services. Canada has the fastest-rising drug costs per capita among OECD countries and is the only country in the world with a public medicare system that does not have a pharmacare program.

It is estimated that changes to patent protection for pharmaceutical drugs as a result of trade agreements could cost our public health care system anywhere between $850 million to $1.65 billion every year, according to the Council of Canadians. At approximately $900 a person, Canadian drug costs are already the second highest in the OECD, second only to the United States. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden have all had some form of universal public drug coverage that results in lower costs, as well as lower drug cost growth rates. Consumption of drugs in these countries is equal or greater than in Canada, but expenditure is much lower.

Countries with pharmacare programs are able to suppress the inflation of drug prices, which directly result in people paying less for their medications. A true universal pharmacare program shows feasibility, sustainability, and effectiveness. Universal pharmacare programs in other countries currently are more advantageous in terms of costs than both private or public drug insurance plans in Canada.

Our current fragmented system means higher drug costs for everyone and huge profits for big pharma. Canada has a total of 19 publicly funded drug plans, 10 provincial, three territorial, and six federal. Eligibility, coverage, and benefit payment schemes vary in each of these programs. Again, the Council of Canadians makes the excellent point that one's postal code or socio-economic status should not dictate if one receives necessary medication, but in some provinces only people on social assistance, seniors, or those suffering from certain diseases are covered, while in other provinces people are covered based on an income assessment.

It is long past time for federal leadership on this issue. The proponents of a national pharmacare plan have won every argument. By every rational criteria, it is the smart thing to do.

Therefore, why does Canada not have a national pharmacare plan? I suspect that on this issue, like so many others, the Liberals will not venture such a thing without total buy-in from industry. Let us be as clear as we can on this. The pharmaceutical industry will never support a national pharmacare plan.

In fact, the industry is moving in the other direction. The pharmaceutical industry lobbied heavily for changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals under CETA and, as we can guess, got them. These changes are expected to increase drug costs by more than $850 million annually. Yet leading environmental, labour, and civil society organizations in Canada also lobbied for changes, changes which, as I mentioned earlier, were similar to those proposed by the NDP. Apparently, the Liberals did not find their arguments convincing.

The priorities of a government are laid bare, not through its public statements but through its actions. Insofar as CETA is concerned, one has to ask, “On whose behalf does our government work?”

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to stand to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, otherwise known as CETA.

This is a historic agreement, so I would first like to take this opportunity to thank my Conservative colleagues, the hon. member for Abbotsford, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and of course, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, for all of their hard work and dedication in making this become a reality. Without their steadfast commitment to increasing Canada's economic productivity, driving our country's prosperity, and creating good-paying jobs for Canadians, we would not be discussing this trade agreement today, so I thank them.

When the previous Conservative government had the privilege of being elected in 2006, Canada had trade agreements with less than five countries. It was our party that understood the importance of trade and the economic benefits that it produces. As a result, Conservatives fought to increase the number to over 50, signing 46 new trade agreements, and opening up new markets for Canadian companies to have access all over the world.

Canada has always been a trading country. Right now, trade makes up 70% of our country's GDP, and one in five Canadian jobs depends on it. Needless to say, our economy depends on having this open, secure access to foreign markets to trade our Canadian products, and in a rapidly more global economy, our companies will need even more favourable access if they are to thrive.

With 28 member states, the EU represents 500 million people and annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion. This makes the EU the world's largest economy. It is also the world's largest importing market for goods. In fact, the EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's entire GDP, making the EU market a lucrative place to do business.

As the largest market in the world, Canadian companies deserve an opportunity to sell their products and services to and in those countries. The previous Conservative government recognized early on that this part of the world would provide a great opportunity for Canadian businesses to expand and succeed, and I would like to thank the Liberals for continuing with this important work. However, with the recent waves of protectionist sentiment and the Prime Minister's willingness to renegotiate our most vital of trade agreements with one of our largest trading partners, the U.S., it is crucial now more than ever that we get it right.

Ontario in particular stands to benefit significantly from preferential access to the EU market. The EU is already Ontario's second largest export destination and second largest trading partner. Once in force, CETA would eliminate tariffs on almost all of Ontario's exports and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. CETA would also provide Ontario exporters with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU.

In my beautiful riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, agriculture is a very important part of the local economy. When many people think of my area, agriculture is the first industry to come to mind, but there are many other industries, including manufacturing, that are crucial components of what makes the community function. Once CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines on non-agricultural products would be duty-free, along with close to 94% of all EU tariff lines on agricultural products.

Many of the businesses in my area currently export to the United States, so naturally, the talks around negotiating and renegotiating NAFTA are making many of these business owners nervous and, indeed, uncertain about their future. On the positive side, CETA would open a huge new potential for many of these businesses and they would be able to ship their products to the EU, in many cases tariff-free. CETA is an important opportunity to provide constituents in my riding with perhaps a little peace of mind during these uncertain times, providing them with potential new markets and a customer base that would continue to bring in economic benefits to Haldimand—Norfolk.

In fact, studies have shown that a trade agreement with the EU could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12-billion annual increase to Canada's economy. This is the equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income, or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. In Haldimand—Norfolk, that means a possible $3 million coming into our small communities. What is more, the agreement would also establish greater transparency in the EU services market, resulting in better, more secure, and more predictable market access.

I do, however, have some points that I would like to emphasize, and I hope that the Liberals will keep these in mind as they enter into the final stages of this deal.

The first is that the Liberal government must honour commitments that were made to vital sectors of our economy. These include the agricultural supply management arena, as well as commitments made to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the CETA fisheries investment fund.

The second is that, as my Conservative colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola has previously mentioned, I too hope that the Liberal government will work hard to assist small businesses looking to enter into these new international markets. As he pointed out, many of these businesses simply do not have in house the resources necessary to navigate these new trade waters in a way that would benefit their company and help them succeed. Most companies in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk are small businesses, and I know that they would welcome any assistance.

I support CETA and I look forward to the opportunities that it would create for my riding, for southwestern Ontario, and indeed for all of Ontario and Canada. The fact is that many businesses in Ontario in particular and in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk are hurting. They need to see some light at the end of the tunnel. With rising hydro costs and increasing Liberal taxes, many of them are struggling to survive. They need more opportunities to get their products and their services to market, to make a living, to provide for their families, and CETA would do just that.

This trade agreement would also establish trading relationships beyond North America, provide economic prosperity for Canada, and help create well-paying jobs for Canadians. As CETA approaches its final implementation, our party will continue to hold the Liberal government to account and ensure that Canadians reap the benefits and the rewards of free trade.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we are speaking on European free trade, I would like to mention Loreto Peschisolido, who was born in Italy on December 11, 1932 and migrated to Canada in 1951. He went from being a tomato picker, to a painter, to an entrepreneur, to a fashion designer. Mr. Loreto Peschisolido, sadly, passed away on February 2, 2017. Today, along with the member for Surrey Centre, I was able to attend his funeral.

I would like to extend my sincere, heartfelt condolences to his lovely wife, Margherita, and his son, the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Peschisolido family.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, more motivated than in any past remarks on this bill. As we all have seen over the past year, there is a great deal of rhetoric from across the globe that has emerged. It is rhetoric that speaks supportively of isolationism, protectionism, and an abandonment of treaties and international bodies that foster co-operation and collaboration.

Of particular concern to me, and many others in this House, is this new support for what is currently being described as economic nationalism. There is a belief among supporters of this new wave of protectionism that looking inward is somehow better for citizens of any country that adopts this kind of approach.

In the face of these kinds of arguments, it must be emphasized that the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, otherwise known as CETA, signed between Canada and the European Union member states, represents a new model for the world of what is possible in a well-planned, fair, and comprehensive trading relationship. More importantly, this is an agreement that is good for Canadians because of one simple concept: opportunity.

The numbers behind CETA are very exciting. There are 28 European Union member states, with a combined population of 500 million people and a collective GDP of more than $19 trillion. Simply put, Canada has spent many years negotiating access to the world's largest single market. Once again, the data is very promising. According to a joint report released by both Canada and the EU, CETA is estimated to increase the value of bilateral trade by 22.9%. The report also finds that it will increase Canada's annual GDP by $13 billion.

With so many ready to demonize international trade as a political strategy, we in Canada have a different vantage point. As a trading nation, the elimination of trade barriers represents job growth, not job loss. Businesses of all sizes and dozens of industries will have more opportunity than ever.

The list of business interests that will benefit from CETA is as diverse as it is long. From aerospace to agriculture, CETA has addressed long-standing and very specific trade barriers and tackled them directly. To sell our products and services abroad, due to preferential market access, in British Columbia we are actively looking for new markets for our products and services. Currently, the EU is B.C.'s fifth-largest export destination and our province's fourth-largest trading partner.

The elimination of tariffs as a result of CETA would be a massive competitive advantage for British Columbia's businesses. To put this in perspective, 98% of the EU's tariffs, representing over 9,000 individual measures, will now be transitioned to a duty-free environment. The regulatory obstacles that kept the EU at bay for many Canadian businesses that wanted to expand across the Atlantic Ocean are now gone. For our natural resources, aquaculture, information and communication technologies, and cutting-edge medical research breakthroughs, Europe is a frontier that is untapped and ripe with potential.

For B.C.'s services businesses, where 76% of our total GDP is generated and more than 1.7 million British Columbians are employed, there are also new opportunities on the horizon. As an example, the procurement market in the EU, which Canadian companies would now have access to through CETA, is estimated to be worth about $3.3 trillion annually. This is a monumental figure for which to plan out a potential new future as a business.

Canada has taken seven years to craft an agreement that protects public services and ensures continued control over environmental, labour, health care, and safety standards. It protects our public health care system, maintains the sovereignty of our government to draft laws and regulations, and of course, guarantees complete transparency.

Unlike the stories of average citizens being forgotten and ignored in trade agreement negotiations, I can say, as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, that my colleagues on all sides and I listened to Canadians to ensure that all individuals, groups, and organizations that would be impacted by free trade had the opportunity to have their voices heard and carefully considered.

For a country of Canada's geographic size, with such a small population, trade is at the heart of our economic success. While the federal government and the individual provincial governments are increasingly working on taking down trade barriers within our own country, our domestic marketplace cannot sustain the growth we aspire to and require. In CETA, we have established a new standard for how a comprehensive and wide-ranging trade agreement can benefit both sides while also respecting national interests and populations.

I am proud of the work our standing committee and the former minister of trade, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, have accomplished since we started work on this deal. Today we are the verge of a new dawn for international relations between Canada and Europe.

I want to conclude by sharing my belief that trade in the world we live in goes far beyond the metric of dollars and cents. I believe that when nations come together for mutual benefit and with respect for one another's specific interests, diplomacy at its finest can result. International relationships have always been something Canada has prided itself on, with our openness and understanding, our history of forging alliances rather than enemies, and our ability to grow our economy into one of the largest in the world, in spite of our unique challenges of size and population density.

I strongly encourage every member in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-30 and open the wealth of opportunities that lie in front of us.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to debate Bill C-30, an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

CETA is one of the largest trade deals our country has undertaken since the North American Free Trade Agreement some 20 years ago. CETA is the result of many years of hard work by a number of key players, including key stakeholders, farm groups, agricultural groups, our trade negotiators, and certainly a number of public servants, but also by the hon. member for Abbotsford.

I am honoured to sit in a caucus with the member for Abbotsford. I have much respect for the gentleman for him bringing about such an important trade deal as CETA. I am very honoured to be speaking in favour of this trade deal. Thanks to the hard work of our previous Conservative government, CETA will have not only great benefits for the businesses and agricultural industry in my riding of Perth—Wellington, but in ridings and in communities across Canada as well.

International trade is absolutely essential to a country and to an economy like Canada. Investing our time and resources in international trade deals helps create wealth and reduce poverty in some developing nations as well.

When new trade agreements are negotiated, there are often those who will complain about different aspects of the deal, who will say that we are trading away Canadian sovereignty. People oppose the deal for one reason or another, but we always hear these voices. Thirty years ago, when the former Mulroney government was negotiating the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, we were told that Canada was signing away our sovereignty, that Canada would be a branch plant of the United States. Here we are 30 years later, celebrating the great success of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, which was later supplemented by the NAFTA agreement. Our standard of living is as high as it has ever been and we are a strong and independent nation. In large part, this is due to the great trade deals that have been negotiated by previous governments.

These agreements can have a huge impact on our national economy. In order to avoid the negative impact of reducing tariffs, we must study free trade agreements very carefully in terms of the effects they will have on each sector of the economy. That is what we did with CETA. This agreement was not hastily put together; it is the result of years of consultations and negotiations.

CETA is the next great step in the development of Canada's economy. Our country has considerable resources. However, it is sparsely populated. With our small population, our domestic market cannot maintain our high standard of living. We must expand our global markets. If we want to continue creating jobs in the 21st century, we have to create more opportunities for selling our goods, resources, and technology on foreign markets.

Canadian companies are counting on trade with the United States to secure their growth and job creation. When the economic recession of 2008 hit, it became more evident that Canada had to expand its trade options.

The former Conservative government made excellent progress in response to this urgent need by establishing new bilateral trade agreements with other countries and negotiating important trade agreements such as CETA and the TPP. I was therefore relieved to learn that the current government is implementing CETA. Unfortunately, we do not know what it will do with the TPP. However, on this side of the House, we are very proud to support it.

In an uncertain world of unfortunate protectionist rhetoric, CETA has become more important now than ever. Our exporters simply cannot afford to lose global market access. If we expect our economy to grow into the 21st century, we must have access to the European market.

CETA expands Canada's access to 28 European nations, consisting of 500 million people and a total gross domestic product of $17 trillion. To put that in contrast, the gross domestic product of Canada is only $1.6 trillion. CETA would bring down the tariff walls that block access to Canadian goods in Europe and Canadian businesses would gain special access to the world's largest market for imports. By ratifying CETA, we give advantage to Canadian farmers, farm families, and manufacturers.

The local economy in my riding of Perth—Wellington is built on agriculture. I am very proud to be the son, grandson, and son-in-law of farmers in my riding. I am proud to support so many hard-working farm families that dedicate their lives to feeding our nation and feeding the world.

For communities, like mine in Perth—Wellington, to survive and prosper, we need expanded markets. CETA would eliminate tariffs on Canadian food products as they were imported into Europe. It would eliminate tariffs of up to 9% on fresh apples, 12% on cherries, 7.7% on flour, and 5.1% on sweet corn. CETA would also establish high duty-free tariff rate quotas for beef and pork to be phased in over the next five years.

I will share a couple of important figures with members.

In 2015, total exports of beef from Canada were $2.2 billion and for pork, $3.4 billion. This is a significant export market that Canada can embrace. We have some of the greatest farmers, especially in the pork and beef industry, in the world and we can harness that great potential. This is also all the more important today as farmers, especially in Ontario, are facing an uncertain future as they deal with the rising costs of production, especially as these are further increased by the implementation of carbon pricing in Ontario and nationally as well.

I want to say a bit about the dairy industry.

As hon. members may know, the great riding of Perth—Wellington has more dairy farmers and dairy farms than any other riding in the country. I am very proud of our dairy industry and I am very proud to represent so many farm families in my riding that dedicate their lives to producing high-quality Canadian milk. Contrary to the fears that often get presented when international trade deals are being negotiated, the three pillars of supply management have been protected, as they were protected in the TPP deal as well. Producer pricing, production discipline, and import control have all been protected in both the TPP and the CETA negotiations. Canadian consumers will be able to drink delicious Canadian milk. As the son-in-law of retired dairy farmers, I will continue to enjoy drinking a good cold glass of Canadian milk.

I might take this opportunity as well to say how proud I am of some of the cheese makers in my riding. The small communities in Perth—Wellington are quickly developing a name for creating some of the greatest new cheese products now happening in Canada. We have a number of small cheese processors that are doing some great work. I am proud of those local cheese makers who do such great work.

The CETA deal would create up to 80,000 new jobs in Canada. Putting that in perspective, that is 80,000 families that would have an individual in that family who has a job. That is 80,000 families that might be able to buy their first homes. That is 80,000 families that might be able to put their kids in that sporting activity, whether it is hockey or soccer, which they may not have been able to do before if those jobs did not exist. This would have upward of a $12 billion increase to the Canadian economy. That is as much as $1,000 per average Canadian family. This is an exceptionally important trade deal that we as Canadians ought to embrace and as members of Parliament ought to embrace and support as we go forward with these negotiations.

Finally, in 2015, agriculture and agrifood in Ontario alone exported $775 million worth of farm products and agricultural products to the European Union alone. This is a massive market that we as Canadians must embrace.

CETA is not only good for the Canadian economy, it is absolutely essential for our growth and continued prosperity. Protectionism is not the right path for Canada, and I will be voting to support and to ratify the CETA deal.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

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.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

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.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

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.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

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.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

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.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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:

If CETA is passed by the EU, we will have a deal with the U.K. until things unfold in that country. Canada, of course, has an interest in maintaining access to the significant U.K. marketplace, and we believe very strongly that CETA provides an excellent baseline for future negotiations.

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 preemptively 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:

The lack of constitutional protection for the private property rights of Canadians means that the rights of Canadians can be treated as second-class under NAFTA. Canadians deserve the same property rights that foreign companies enjoy in Canada, and shouldn’t be second-class in their own country.

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.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-30 for the second time now. It is a great event when we can implement a progressive trade agenda between Canada and our second largest trading partner, the European Union.

It gives me great pleasure as the chair of the Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group, as an Italian citizen, a European citizen, as well as a Canadian citizen to say that our two communities are working together. This is an unprecedented trade deal in the world we live in. It will bring great benefits to the Canadian economy as well as the European economy. It will open up new markets for our manufacturers and our service providers, firms looking to create personal wealth for their citizens. It will drive long-term economic growth.

When I look at the trade deal that we brought over the finish line, that we completed as a government, I must congratulate our current Minister of Foreign Affairs for her work on completing the agreement, and I congratulate the European Parliament for passing the agreement and now it will go to the individual European Union members.

When I look at what we are putting in place as a government, I say how are we growing the middle class, how are we strengthening the middle class, which is the backbone of our economy, the backbone of Canadian society for generations, and that is the way it will continue.

This morning we created a thing called Toronto Global, where we joined with our municipal partners and our provincial partners and we invested funds to help grow the Toronto economy, an investment hub in Toronto. Toronto as we know is an economic generator in Canada, along with the oil patch in Alberta, along with the manufacturing sector in the heartland of Ontario, and here we are investing.

A few months ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs created this Investment Canada hub downtown, $218 million over five years, again, to attract investment to Canada. Why? To create good-paying, middle-class jobs for all Canadians, for the future of my daughters, and for folks here who may be grandparents or parents, so that they will have good jobs for their kids.

I look at our progressive trade agenda that has been implemented with the European Union. I look at some of the things we have done with this deal. There is a chapter on environmental protection, a chapter on sustainable development, and a chapter on labour. This is what I would call a trade deal that is win-win, fair, right, and progressive. We need to underscore it, because that is important for our relationship with all countries around the world, and specifically with the European Union.

I look at companies such as Fiat Chrysler Canada, which is part of FCA group headed out of Turin, Italy. I look at investments they have made in cities like Windsor and Brampton. I look at the jobs that they are creating, the good middle-class jobs that they are providing for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is very important.

I look at my own personal background and what trade has done for me. I grew up in northern British Columbia. To pay for my university education, I worked at the Canadian grain elevator, which as we can imagine exported wheat, barley, and oats through Prince Rupert to countries all over the world. These were very good, and still are very good, above-average paying middle-class jobs.

It gives me great pride to acknowledge that trade grows our Canadian economy. Trade is good, and that is what this deal does. The European Union alone imports over $2 trillion worth of goods and services. That is larger than the Canadian economy. We think about the opportunities that Canadian companies will have to export their manufactured goods, but even above that, above the manufacturing sector, we think of the services, so we think of consultants, we think of organizations. We look at the opportunities for procurement, for transportation companies to not only bid on jobs in the European Union, but also to employ Canadians. The opportunities are tremendous.

We look at what we have done to strengthen the middle class in addition to CETA. We look at our plan for infrastructure in Canada. Obviously that will be a plan that will strengthen our ports, our airports, and our waterways, so goods and services can be exported expeditiously and efficiently to countries in Europe.

Another bonus is our plan for middle-class Canadians in terms of taxes. We lowered taxes last year. Nine million Canadians now pay lower taxes in Canada. Over $20 billion of tax relief is another measure to strengthen the middle class. The Canada child benefit is something to strengthen the middle class. CETA is something that will strengthen the middle class. I am very proud to speak to this measure today.

When I look at the country of Italy where my parents came from, the trade that goes back and forth and the strong cultural and historic ties, I can only say that CETA is a win-win for both where I came from and for the country we now call home and love. CETA provides us with a tremendous opportunity to strengthen ties, to invest in both countries, and to create those good-paying middle-class jobs.

I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if they look at the economic data on Canada, we have had very strong gross domestic product and employment numbers in the last two to three months. We have seen a pick-up in Canada. There is uncertainty, but the only thing we can do with uncertainty is to have a steady hand. That is why we have a foreign affairs minister doing what she is doing and a trade minister doing what he is doing, which is reaching out to our counterparts and allies. We will stand together with them, grow the economy through CETA, and continue to do that. I am proud to be a part of that.

On the infrastructure side, there is $181 billion over 12 years. As we know, infrastructure allows for the strengthening of economic growth, today and tomorrow. We will continue to implement that. In a few months, in the riding I am from, they will open a new subway, the York-Spadina subway extension from the city of Toronto. That is infrastructure that is being put to use. Approximately three or four weeks ago, I was proud to announce an investment by the Canadian government for a new inter-regional transit terminal in the city of Vaughan. That will again strengthen the local economy, move goods and services, move people, and strengthen the middle class.

CETA is a trade deal that will help us grow the economy, create good jobs, and at the same time strengthen the middle class. I have to underline that.

CETA's improvements for services, investments, labour mobility, and government procurement are groundbreaking. It will be a model for other trade deals that will occur throughout the world. For Canadian companies, 98% of Europe's tariff lines will be eliminated. Again, this is all great for the economy.

As I have heard this morning and in past days, we have been hit with uncertainty on the horizon. However, CETA provides an avenue of certainty for Canadian firms to know that they can trade and invest with the second-largest economy in the world and the second-largest trading partner for Canada. That will allow us to grow a stronger economy.

I will also look at the other measures we have implemented to strengthen the middle class, such as the CPP enhancement, which was groundbreaking for us. It will allow the next generation to know that they will have a strong and healthy retirement, and allow them to retire in dignity.

I think my time is almost up. However, I would like to say this with respect to the CETA deal. It demonstrates to us just how important relationships are in today's world. I believe that the majority of members in the House are in support of the deal. It demonstrates to all of us the path forward that we, as a government, must take with our international allies, a path forward where progressive trade deals and a progressive agenda win. That is the way we will grow our economy. That is the way we will strengthen our middle class. I continue to underline that.

In reading over CETA and the chapters on environmental protection, the innovative approach to investor protection and investment dispute resolution provisions, and the safeguards that are in place regarding our manufacturers—we have obviously excluded the social services aspect from the deal—this deal is groundbreaking. We have finished it, and I am proud of that fact.

To conclude, as someone who has worked internationally, both in New York City and for some time in London, England, and has travelled extensively in Europe and the United States, I look at this deal as almost guaranteeing for my children the opportunities that I have had. That is effectively what it does. It allows us to grow our economy and provide opportunities for individuals and businesses who want to trade, invest, create wealth, and create good-paying Canadian jobs.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on International Trade. I am very proud to have been serving on that committee for the past year now.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation act, which has reached third reading.

Having had the unique opportunity of sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade for almost a year now, I can attest that the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, also known as CETA, is not only a priority, but also a great source of Canadian pride for our committee.

As I indicated at second reading, CETA was already a major topic of discussion when I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly as far back as 2007. At the time, I was lucky enough to be the critic for economic development, and I strongly supported economic diversification in Canada and Quebec, specifically through the diversification of our trading partners. I remember how difficult the 2008 financial crisis was for Canada, but I never lost faith in our people and our institutions to get through that difficult time.

Significant changes have taken place on the world stage recently, especially when it comes to trade. The global economic and trading conditions have shifted on every continent. Just look at the United States and how it withdrew from the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations, on which we worked so hard over the past year.

The shift is inward facing. Some of the speeches we have heard could even be described as having protectionist overtones. We have seen it in Europe, where the European Union will now have to negotiate with Great Britain, and even south of the border, where our neighbour's new leader has been making major trade announcements.

During these trying times, I am personally very proud to see Canada assert its leadership on progressive international trade and move forward while protecting Canada's economic interests.

Many economists agree: market diversification is key to the success of our businesses here at home from coast to coast. To our government, progressive trade represents growth, and growth represents more jobs here in Canada and in our local communities, who are all desperate for work.

I know and am convinced that the comprehensive economic agreement with Europe will bring about growth and also real opportunities to strengthen Canada's middle class. Let us not delude ourselves, however. As we have seen in 2008, when our main main trade partners economies falter, Canada is also hit hard. It is in this context that Canada leads the way by negotiating one of the most ambitious and progressive economic agreements ever.

The implementation of CETA, and passage of Bill C-30, is a real Canadian success story that all Canadians can be proud of because we must diversify our economy and accept new trade partners for the sake of our children, our small businesses, and future generations.

Greater access to European markets is the natural next step not only because we have similar values but also because we want to diversify our economies and our trade partners. It is natural for Europeans to want to trade with countries like Canada. First we are staunch supporters of human rights and workers' rights, and we are also an economic hub for innovation and knowledge. Canada is a country that provides excellent training, our workforce is highly skilled, and we understand that the knowledge economy is the economy of the future and of the 21st century.

I can say that my riding in the northern suburb of Montreal has many innovative businesses and leaders in a multitude of key Canadian economic sectors including manufacturing, robotics, automation, aerospace, informatics, and food processing.

I have all of that in my riding. The signing of CETA will lead to many new opportunities for those companies. Since the election, I have been meeting with companies. I have visited their facilities and I have listened to what they have to say about what works for them and what does not. One thing these companies always mention is how they are looking forward to CETA's coming into force.

The implementation of CETA will have an unprecedented impact on these companies. They will be able to increase their production because European markets will now be open to them. The opening of these markets will allow a number of companies, not only in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles but all across Canada, to really take off and finally gain access to a larger demand in some sectors where the customer base may be somewhat limited.

I often hear Canadians saying that SMEs, companies in my riding and across the country, are trapped in the valley of death. Access to European markets will allow many of them to finally cross that valley, find new clients, and have new opportunities that will allow them to really take off.

CETA also provides an opportunity for Canadian and European companies to share best practices in their field, and it may also allow some companies to be able to grow quickly and achieve their full potential.

The sharing of best practices is essential, and it is one of the agreement's strongest elements, as is the provision that facilitates labour mobility. Once this important economic agreement comes into effect, this little-known provision will allow greater labour mobility in a number of key sectors in the Canadian economy, especially the service industry, which has been booming for the past few years. It is also important to note that, not only is the European Union the second largest economy in the world, boasting a market of 500 million people, but it also has one of the most developed and advanced service industries on the planet.

This agreement will put more Canadians to work; it means growing channels of innovation; and it means exciting times for our small and medium-sized businesses in many sectors.

While much of the rest of the global economy is closing its borders, Canada, for its part, is opening its arms, well aware of the important role it has to play. When CETA comes into force, Canada will be in an enviable position, for it will be able to eliminate tariffs and will be the only country to have such a massive trade agreement with European markets.

As Canadians, we can all be proud of the Canada-European union comprehensive economic and trade agreement that was concluded and, as a result, the opening of our markets with Europe. I am very proud of this. I hope all my colleagues in the House will enthusuastically support this agreement and Bill C-30.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the Canada-European Union trade agreement.

I would first like to make some acknowledgements to our team members, the ones who made this possible. I speak, of course, of Mr. Steve Verheul and Kirsten Hillman, as well as their team, who worked long and hard and have proven to be some of the very best negotiators this globe has to offer. I speak, as well, of colleagues of mine. They are the member for Abbotsford, who was the former trade minister, and our thoughts and prayers are with him, as he has some health issues, and the former agriculture minister, who is the current trade critic and with whom I have the privilege to sit as deputy critic on the trade committee. We also want to congratulate the Liberals for doing the work that was necessary to bring this home. Today we are working toward signing the agreement and sending it on its way to make it a reality.

I want start off with a quick history of trade.

We have always traded. People have always known that it is important. It is not only important, it is impossible for us to acquire what we need without trade. Some of us are blessed with agriculture. Some of us are blessed with the ability to make things. Some of us have other abilities.

Throughout history, civilizations have moved with trade, but there has always been the issue of tariffs. There has always been protectionism that caused trade to slow down. There have been governments that, for their own selfish reasons and ambitions, have taken some of those hard earnings and the work of those who created the goods.

Throughout the history of the world, people and governments have worked toward freeing trade. I think we can begin with the 18th century. Adam Smith argued that we must more and more lower tariffs, eliminate tariffs, and make trade global. That continued in the 19th century and the 20th century. We saw two awful wars. We saw World War I, and the death and destruction it caused, and World War II, which seemed to accelerate the ability of people to wreak havoc on our lives.

There was a renewed call to make people work together and give them a reason to live in peace. Trade is a wonderful example of that. In 1949, the World Trade Organization was formed, and work went on to free up trade.

We saw what that led to. On our continent, it led to NAFTA, an amazing agreement that allowed us to work with the United States and Mexico to have a flow of goods continue to move back and forth, and that has resulted in some prosperity.

There have been some mishaps and some setbacks are happening in the United States at this point. However, here in Canada, we know that NAFTA has been a good thing.

We have also had a number of smaller agreements, but today we want to talk about CETA. CETA is amazing. It has been called the crown jewel of trade agreements.

Trade has lifted nations out of poverty. I read recently that the World Health Organization has stated that extreme poverty has been cut in half in the last 15 years. We know that these are things that work and benefit mankind.

Some hard work and coordination has taken place. The Conservative government's record is excellent on free trade. We understand the importance of free trade. I mentioned NAFTA earlier. There were some smaller agreements the Conservative government arranged, such as the free trade agreement with Korea, and then of course CETA.

We are a trading nation. The Conservatives believe in free trade that will generate increased economic activity, drive prosperity and job creation, and foster greater co-operation among our democratic allies.

In my home province of Ontario, we are quite excited about trade. It certainly has some great possibilities for us. My colleague likes to refer to it as the “reunification bill”, because most of us can trace our ancestry to Europe. Some of us can trace a very recent development with respect to that as well. My parents came from the Netherlands. I know, Mr. Speaker, that your parents came from Italy. I think we could go on and on in this House. There is no question that we have some great roots and ethnic abilities.

There are four things I want to talk about.

First, when CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariffs on non-agriculture products will be duty free, along with close to 94% of EU tariff lines for agricultural products. Why does that make a difference to southwestern Ontario? In southwestern Ontario, we are blessed to have incredible land and a beautiful climate. We produce some of the highest outputs of corn, soybeans, and wheat. We also have an incredible greenhouse industry. It was started by Italian immigrants. This industry has spread and grown. My riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington has the largest collection of greenhouses in North America.

There are possibilities and opportunities to move forward and present them to people who have direct roots in Europe.

Second, the Canada-EU trade agreement will also give Canadians service suppliers. Service suppliers employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of total Canadian GDP. The best market access to the EU has been granted through this free trade agreement. The agreement will establish greater transparency in the EU service markets, resulting in better, more secure, and more predictable market access. We will have that opportunity as well, oftentimes with people we know, people we are accustomed to, and customs that we know. It will provide access to 500 million people and the largest GDP on the planet.

Third, the Canada-EU trade agreement will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, stability, transparency, and protection for their investments. Preferential access to the EU will attract investments in Canada from our largest trading partner, the U.S. Conversely, EU investors will look to Canada as a gateway to NAFTA. If that is true, then it is certainly true for southwestern Ontario and my riding, because we are right at the doorstep of the United States. We have the opportunity to trade with the United States, which will be looking to us to access Europe, because it is not participating in this EU agreement. As well, Europe will be looking to us for access to the United States. It offers us an amazing number of possibilities.

Fourth, the Canada-EU trade agreement gives Canadian suppliers of goods and services secure, preferential access to the world's largest procurement market. What does that mean? There are a number of countries in the EU that are in constant need of services and supplies for their governments. This gives us an opportunity to tap into those.

I want to close with the government's responsibility. I want to talk about the responsibility of government, which is to keep us competitive. We do that by lowering red tape, lowering taxes, and reducing debt. I wish I had more time to talk about that. I implore the current government to not make the mistake it is making by going further into debt, which will cause higher taxes and result in making us less competitive.

I will close by saying that the government's responsibility is to make sure that this agreement works. It is the people's responsibility to be creative and to offer products at reasonable rates that will be attractive to their clients, but it is the government's responsibility to make sure that it will work. It is its responsibility to do that by keeping taxes low and regulations low. I am looking forward to this agreement being signed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in amendment

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House in support of the legislation before us today, and to introduce why the historic Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, also known as CETA, is so important.

It is a great step forward in our government's progressive trade agenda. CETA addresses a full range of Canadian interests and touches on all sectors with Canada's second-largest trading partner, the European Union. The foundation of our international relations between Canada and the countries of the EU is a clear example of working together towards greater prosperity for Canada and our trading partners in Europe.

The EU is Canada's second-largest trading partner after the United States. In 2015, Canadian merchandise exports to the EU reached $38 billion, and imports totalled $61 billion. The EU is a strong, established market to which Canadian firms will gain preferential access when CETA enters into force. Canada and the EU already share a robust commercial relationship, which is about to become much deeper, to great mutual benefit.

With a total population of 507 million people and a combined GDP of over $21 trillion, the EU is the world's largest foreign investor and trader. It accounts for approximately 16% of global trade. Investment also forms a substantial portion of the Canada-EU economic relationship. The EU is Canada's second-largest source of foreign direct investment, something which is very important to our minister, totalling $242 billion in 2015 and representing over 30% of total foreign direct investment in Canada.

As well, Canada has significant investments in the EU. Our foreign direct investment totalled $210 billion in 2015, which is 21% of our foreign direct investment abroad. Clearly, our commercial ties to the EU are significant.

Trade is about goods and services, and procurement. The services sector is responsible for 70% of economic activity in both Canada and the EU, which is reflected in the current volume of trade and services. We exported $16 billion in services to the EU in 2015, and imported $22 billion during the same period.

Hon. members know that the EU is currently the world's largest importer of services. This is very good news for Canada, as we are one of the largest exporters of services in the world. Our service providers will benefit from the best market access the EU has ever provided in a trade agreement, as well as the most ambitious commitments on temporary entry that the EU has ever granted to a trading partner.

During the pre-study on Bill C-30 by the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the reasons their members want to increase their trade into Europe to expand their business and pursue more opportunities as their economy recovers is because this is an alternative and important opportunity on top of their arrangements with the U.S. market.

CETA recognizes the increasingly important role that services play in global trade. It creates a wealth of new business opportunities for Canadian service providers. This agreement will ensure that Canadian service suppliers compete on equal footing with domestic providers in the EU. Canadian companies will receive better treatment than most competitors from non-EU countries.

CETA covers nearly all sectors and aspects of Canada-EU trade. It addresses the removal of tariffs, the conforming of product standards, professional certification and assessment procedures, the cultivation of investment, and alignment of regulatory regimes.

CETA creates greater certainty for business, greater protection for investments, vastly improved access to EU markets for goods and services, and new opportunities for procurement markets. That will translate into real benefits for Canadians and contribute to Canada's long-term prosperity.

CETA will provide Canadian companies with a distinct advantage in the EU market over our competitors, including the United States. It will enable Canadian businesses to have first mover advantage in developing customer relationships, networks, and joint projects. It offers Canadian small and medium-sized business enterprises the opportunity to be part of global supply chains anchored in the EU.

CETA leverages not only EU markets, but also the other trading partners of the EU. Approximately 98% of the EU's tariff lines on Canadian goods will be duty free immediately upon implementation. The elimination of tariffs under CETA creates enhanced opportunities for many of our exports to the EU, where tariffs to this day remain high. For example, Canadian fish and seafood exporters currently face EU tariffs as high as 25%. Tariffs on wood products may be as high as 14%. These tariffs will be virtually eliminated under CETA.

A protocol on conforming assessment will allow Canadian manufacturers in certain sectors to have their products tested and certified in Canada for sale in the EU. This is a significant innovation that will save companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, time and money.

CETA also includes provisions to enhance the recognition of professional qualifications in Canada and the EU, which is a key aspect of labour mobility. CETA's labour mobility provisions will enhance the ability of Canadian and EU business people to move across borders. It will make it easier for short-term business visitors, intra-company transferees, investors, contract service suppliers, and independent professionals to conduct business in the EU.

As well, CETA will open up new opportunities for Canadian businesses 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 its 28 member states and thousands of regional and local government entities.

CETA's obligations are backed by a mechanism for investment dispute resolution, which includes an appellate tribunal. Canada needs to attract more investment. More investment means more jobs for Canadian workers, more growth for our economy, and a stronger middle class. At the same time, it is very important to ensure that CETA protects the rights of governments to regulate in the public interest. We need to ensure that increased trade does not happen at the expense of environmental protection or labour rights. We need to ensure that trade is fair and that everyone benefits from the increased economic activity that trade delivers.

Our government believes strongly in an open global economy, and we will continue to champion an open society and open global trade. However, we cannot ignore the fact that many people are very concerned about trade globalization, which is blamed for job losses. We are now seeing the growth of anti-trade and anti-globalization sentiment. We are seeing a rise in protectionism. It is imperative that we understand and address this concern.

This is why one of the most important things that our government did right after taking office was to listen to the critics of CETA, both in Canada and in the EU. It is important to appreciate that we partnered with stakeholder, labour, and environmental groups to ensure that CETA is the most progressive trade agreement ever negotiated, and that it reflects today's expectations for doing business in a way that respects the environment, the economy, and our shared social values.

CETA represents an important step towards the development of our progressive trade agenda, one that places more emphasis on the promotion of strong labour and environmental standards; clear provisions to ensure that governments can regulate in the public interest in areas such as health, safety, and the environment; as well as the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

CETA is a progressive trade agreement with the EU, a like-minded and long-standing trading partner. The relationship between Canada and Europe is the result of extensive historical, cultural, political, economic, and deep people-to-people relationships. We believe our shared values are important for the dignity and prosperity of all, and increasingly important in a world of shifting global power. CETA is a progressive trade agreement that upholds and promotes the values that we share with the EU.

We look forward to implementing this landmark agreement with our European partners in 2017.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 8

Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Schedule 3.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures. It is a very important piece of legislation, one that I fear has not been given due study or consideration by parliamentarians.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I was dismayed to be the only member of Parliament who voted against a heavy-handed motion that restricted our committee from receiving feedback on this legislation from anyone but the few witnesses who were selected to appear.

It is vitally important that we hear from Canadians on the legislation that comes before us at committee. Shutting the door on the voices of Canadians goes against the spirit of openness and transparency, which should be the very cornerstones of our democracy.

With limited committee meetings and witnesses, there were many issues that the committee failed to properly address, such as the impact of CETA on mariners' jobs. Even of those few witnesses we heard from, groups that are supportive of the deal have concerns about how it will be implemented and how the government will support their industries in accessing potential new markets.

CETA has been called the biggest trade and investment deal since NAFTA. It covers a wide array of issues, including significant reforms to Canadian intellectual property rules related to generic and non-generic pharmaceutical drugs.

Deals like CETA are part of a new generation of trade deals, such as the trans-Pacific partnership, which include many controversial aspects that have more to do with investors' interests than the public's interest.

There is growing concern around the world, where people are questioning if these massive trade and investment deals are in the public's best interests. The Minister of Foreign Affairs claims that swift passage of CETA is necessary to send a message that Canada still supports these deals in the face of mounting public opposition to trade agreements. However, passing this legislation with little study of its impacts on the lives of everyday Canadians is the opposite of how we as legislators should be proceeding.

Much has changed in the world since CETA was signed. We are having many conversations about the trade agenda of the newly elected U.S. president and what it means to have fair trade or free trade.

I would like to read a quote from Angella MacEwen, senior economist at the Canadian Labour Congress, who testified before our trade committee:

There are market failures, distributional impacts, and very real concerns that workers have, because trade deals can increase inequality if you don't take proper action to make sure they don't. The answer isn't in rushing more trade deals through. The answer is in taking a minute to examine those very real concerns that people have and those very real negative impacts to see how you can mitigate them.

I agree that the proper response is not rushing more trade deals through. This is why I pushed at committee for more meetings, more study, and more input from Canadians on CETA.

I proposed various amendments at committee and I was pleased to see the Liberals agreed there need to be some changes to the bill's intellectual property rights. We agreed on several amendments to these provisions in the bill.

I also proposed amendments to limit CETA's controversial investment chapter. There is no reason Bill C-30 should have contained these provisions. European states, namely Belgium, have made it clear that investor-state provisions must be removed before it is willing to ratify CETA, yet the Liberals are asking parliamentarians to sign off on CETA as it stands, including these investor-state provisions. If these provisions will not be provisionally applied and will be rejected for ratification in Europe, why would Parliament sign off on them?

In the event that an investor court system is established as Bill C-30 proposes to do, there is an issue with how tribunal panellists will be selected. As pointed out by Gus Van Harten, these panellists will hold incredible power yet their appointments will be unilaterally selected solely by the Minister of International Trade. I proposed an amendment at committee that this process be opened up and I was disappointed to see that government MPs had no interest in debating my proposal.

I also proposed an amendment to remove the increased threshold for mandatory foreign takeover reviews. CETA includes a clause that would raise this threshold from $600 million to $1.5 billion, meaning foreign takeovers of Canadian companies under $1.5 billion would not be subject to review of whether such a takeover would be in our national interest.

I would also like to discuss the issue of how CETA impacts maritime jobs. CETA will, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports and will open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers. This will lead to the estimated loss of 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high quality, well-paying jobs. This industry as a whole supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs.

I received a phone call in my office over the holiday period from a woman who was distraught over the impact on maritime workers. She was also distraught that her Liberal MP would not respond to her request to understand the situation he was putting their community in. These communities rely on these good-paying jobs, and this has simply been ignored.

I was shocked that the Liberals did not even say a word at committee during the debate around this motion. There was not one word. That is incredibly disappointing for parliamentarians who are committed not only to represent the people in their own riding but across the country, when they sit on such an important committee as the international trade committee.

We also know that CETA will allow foreign boats to bring in foreign workers, with no requirement for a labour market impact assessment. These workers can be paid as little as $2 an hour, and suffer from low safety standards and poor working conditions. Over the holiday period, there was a ship on the west coast that came in with workers who had not been paid and workers who had been on the ship a year beyond their contract and could not be released to go back home. These workers are being mistreated, and only when they reach Canadian ports and someone discovers this is happening are Canadians able to intervene on their behalf. This is an issue of human rights in our own waters.

I would also like to point out that by permitting more foreign flag vessels CETA encourages tax avoidance, since foreign ships registered in flags of convenience countries, such as Malta or Cypress, take advantage of tax havens and the cheapest labour available.

Today, at report stage, on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, I am proposing amendments to delete clauses of Bill C-30 that would implement parts of CETA's investment chapter, implement changes to the pharmaceutical intellectual property rights, implement a host of new geographical indicators, raise the threshold for foreign reviews, and change the rules for coasting trade.

I want to go back to the geographical indicators for a moment, because the European Union was quite clear. It requested over 170 carve-outs for geographical indicators. Some in the House may be asking what these exactly are. These are things like cheese designation for Asiago cheese, or feta cheese. It is things like champagne or Darjeeling tea. These are things that Canadian producers will no longer be able to label with those names because they will own those geographical indicators in Europe. If Canadian suppliers or producers attempt to put the name on them, they will be in violation of CETA.

The interesting part about this is Canada received zero geographical indicators. Think about Nanaimo bars, Saskatoon berries, maple syrup, or Montreal smoked meat. None of these things are protected. That means European companies can continue to label their products in this way. This is a huge loss to all of these growth industries.

I look forward to further debating these amendments today, and I ask fellow parliamentarians to take a serious look at these proposed changes before the House moves on to the third reading of Bill C-30. There are many unanswered questions and outstanding concerns regarding CETA. As parliamentarians, we cannot simply turn a blind eye to the very real concerns that exist in this trade deal.

It is disheartening to me that the Liberals refuse to address the increase in the cost of pharmaceutical drugs that will impact every person in their riding, I believe it is a disservice to Canadians not to look at the good and bad in every piece of trade legislation that comes before the House. We actually are obligated to do that. We have taken an oath to do that. I ask parliamentarians to take that seriously today.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There are 53 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-30.

Motions Nos. 1 to 53 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Seeing that the member is not present to move Motion No. 1, I will now put Motions Nos. 2 to 53 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate that we began this morning on the Conservative Party's motion. Tomorrow, we will begin the report stage debate of Bill C-30 on the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Monday, we will resume debate of that bill.

Next week, we will also continue the second reading debate of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, and Bill C-31, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Next Thursday, February 9, shall be an allotted day.

Last, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find agreement for the following motion. I move:

That a take-note debate on the subject of job losses in the energy sector take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Wednesday, February 8, 2017, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, (a) any member rising to speak during the debate my indicate to the Chair that he or she will dividing his or her time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Welcome back, everybody. Happy New Year.

Members, I hope you had a good break in your ridings with your families and all that good stuff.

The last time we had a meeting, we were very successful finishing Bill C-30. I'll just let the committee know that I presented it in the House yesterday without any trip-ups, so it's in front of Parliament as we speak.

As was stated before the Christmas break, we'll get right to Bill C-31, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

Ms. Ramsey has a motion here.

Do you want to speak on it, Ms. Ramsey?

International Trade

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

The proposal in paragraph (a) of the amendment would result in a lack of consistency between the text of CETA, the text of the joint interpretive instrument, and the text of Bill C-30.

With regard to paragraph (b) of the amendment, it is inaccurate to state that “additional protection” was an objective of the intellectual property provisions in CETA. While CETA provides for supplementary protection for certain patent-protected pharmaceutical products, this is only a very narrow subset of intellectual property provisions in CETA.

As to the amendment under paragraph (c), it is unjustified and inaccurate to suggest that CETA provides Canada, the European Union, and all its member states with the discretion to voluntarily enforce basic worker rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our trade committee.

As everybody knows, we're dealing with Bill C-30 in clause-by-clause study today. Fortunately, it got through the House and everybody got to speak to it.

I welcome the officials.

It's good to see you and your team, Mr. Verheul. This is your baby, for a lot of you guys, and you did a lot of work.

Before I get started, Mr. Hoback, I'd like to pass on from the committee best wishes to your colleague Mr. Fast. I've heard that he has some health issues. Mr. Fast did a lot of work on this file in the many trips he made to Europe. Our thoughts are with him. If you could pass that on, I'd appreciate it.

Are there any questions from the committee before we get rolling here? Hopefully, we'll have a very productive next couple of hours, and then everybody can enjoy their evening Christmas party.

Without further ado, we're going to start this off. We have our trusted clerk with us—

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-30.

The question is on the motion that the question be now put.

The House resumed from December 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite has been in this House for quite some time past my own time here, but I would encourage him to be respectful of other members of the House, and I would appreciate that respect, please, as a member.

I would like to speak about the fact that New Democrats have supported two of the three pieces of trade legislation going through this House. As a matter of fact, I followed the procession for royal assent last night on Bill C-13. I was pleased to do so.

At the trade committee level, we have been working incredibly hard and asking difficult questions, questions the government, on the other side of this House, seems unwilling to address.

When we talk about CETA, the government will not speak about the impact on the cost of prescription drugs for Canadians. It simply will not answer. The minister herself visited the trade committee and refused to answer our questions.

Yesterday New Democrats stood proudly in this House debating a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-30, on CETA, the largest trade agreement we have entered since NAFTA. It is not just me who thinks that. The minister herself stated that in the previous Parliament.

New Democrats will always look at every aspect of a trade agreement. As for the TPP, I encourage the member opposite to read the 6,000 pages, because I can assure him, I have done so. I have done my due diligence as a parliamentarian. I have travelled with the trade committee to every province in this country and seen more than 400 people. I have held seven town halls on TPP. I promise the member that I am doing my due diligence as a parliamentarian on all trade agreements.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this important subject, Bill C-30, regarding the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

Canada is a trading nation. As we have heard so many times in this debate, we need good trade agreements, and we need to diversify our trading markets. Trade is too important to get these agreements wrong, especially with such an important partner as the European Union. We have to take the time to get it right. However, the Liberal government seems to be in a real rush to get this treaty ratified. The government signed CETA on October 30. The government has a set policy for the tabling of treaties in Parliament. That policy states that the treaties must be tabled with explanatory notes 21 days before the enabling legislation is presented. What happened with CETA? Bill C-30, the enabling legislation, was put on the Order Paper two days before the agreement was even signed, and it was tabled in Parliament on October 31, the day after the signing. What is the hurry? The European Union nations will be taking their time to make sure that this deal is good for them. Why are we giving them that advantage when we should be taking our time to make sure we get it right as well?

There are obviously good things about freer trade with Europe. We are happy to see the reduction or elimination of tariffs on Canadian industries, particularly those in the agricultural sector, such as beef, pork and canola. We like free trade when it is fair trade.

There is a forest products mill in my riding called Greenwood Forest Products, which creates laminated pine shelving and furniture parts. It sells its own products across western North America, but to serve eastern Canada and the eastern United States, it imports finished products from Romania. It is cheaper to do that than to ship products across Canada. That is another story. Therefore, it depends on trade with the European Union to survive. It does not pay any tariffs on products coming from the EU now, so CETA will not directly benefit it, but it does appreciate any strengthening of trade ties between Canada and Europe. It may likely have to do more business in Europe in the near future because it is deeply concerned about the direction that the softwood lumber agreement is taking with the United States. Its products have never been hit by countervail duties or tariffs in the past with the U.S. However, the recent moves in the United States between the U.S. lumber industry and the U.S. Department of Commerce have apparently expanded the number and types of products covered under the industry complaints to include a wide variety of value-added products, instead of being restricted to the dimension lumber, as it has been in the past. Therefore, it is very disappointed with the Liberal government's inaction on the softwood lumber front.

That is a good example of why we need to diversify our trading relationships. We need good trade deals with other nations and other regions. However, we do not want bad deals that will result in decreased market share for Canadian companies, unfair competition, reduced sovereignty, and significant job losses.

We are particularly worried about the investor-state dispute provisions brought in by this agreement. Under similar trade agreements, Canada has become one of the most sued countries in the world, winning only three of 39 cases against foreign interests, as we try to maintain our sovereignty in legislating protections for the environment, health, and other social interests.

I would like to quote something from the Canadian Environmental Law Association about this. It states:

[CETA] will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, the liberalization of trade in services, and the deregulation of government procurement rules will impact the federal and provincial governments’ authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.

Yes, there are carve-outs for some of these categories, but that will not stop corporations from initiating litigation, forcing us to prove that we are protected, and putting a regulatory chill on governments across this country, stopping them from enacting progressive legislation as they fear possible litigation. Since some European regions are clear that they want this provision removed, why does Canada feel compelled to insist on this part of the agreement when it is clearly not in our national interest?

I am also concerned about what CETA would do for drug costs in Canada. Changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals under CETA would be expected to increase drug costs by more than $850 million annually. This would not only be harmful to individual Canadians and their families who are struggling to get by but would make it increasingly difficult to bring in a national pharmacare program in Canada, something this country desperately needs.

We in the NDP are also concerned about compensation for sectors that would be negatively impacted by CETA. The dairy industry was promised compensation by the previous Conservative government, but the current Liberal government is now offering dairy farmers less than 10% of the amount previously on the table. There are other sectors that would be directly or indirectly affected by this agreement.

As many members know, my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay produces the finest wines in Canada. I will admit that good wines are produced across the country, from Vancouver Island to Nova Scotia. I have sampled a nice wine produced from grapes grown by the President of the Treasury Board, and I hear that the member for Brome—Missisquoi makes a great late-harvest Vidal.

The Canadian wine industry is a very important sector in the Canadian economy, contributing $8 billion to the national bottom line. It almost died after the free trade agreement with the U.S. in 1988, but through hard work on the part of a few small wineries, a long-term vision, and attention to high-quality products, the industry survived to live another day and now produces some of the best wines in the world.

In 2004, Canada signed a wine and spirits agreement with the European Union. Since that time, imports from the European Union to Canada have increased by 40 million litres to 180 million litres a year, valued at $1.16 billion. This compares to Canadian exports to the EU of only 123,000 litres, valued at $2.7 million. It is a significant imbalance.

Canada has one of the fastest-growing wine markets in the world. More and more Canadians are drinking wine, but three-quarters of that growth has gone to imported wines. The Canadian wine industry is not asking for protection or tariffs under CETA. Members of the industry are in favour of continued free trade in wine with Europe, but they are asking for help from the federal government to build the domestic industry to a level at which they can fairly compete with Europe and other wine regions of the world. The Canadian wine industry, through the Canadian Vintners Association, is asking the federal government to implement a 10-year wine industry innovation program to support the growth of this industry and to create jobs across Canada.

We need to be supporting Canadian industries at this time so they are not unduly harmed by these trade agreements but can truly take advantage of them.

To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of trade. We are very much in favour of good trade agreements. We simply want to ensure that these agreements are in the best interests of Canada, that they help grow local industries, and that they support job creation across the country.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, trade between Canada and Europe is already free. There are very few tariffs between Canada and the members of the European Union, which raises the question of why we need a comprehensive economic and trade agreement. However, if we are to evaluate this agreement as a trade deal, a logical starting point is to examine the current pattern of trade between Canada and the European Union.

In 2015, Canada exported $38 billion of merchandise to the European Union and imported $61 billion of merchandise from the EU. This imbalance meant a trade deficit of $23 billion.

An implication of this is that if CETA functioned as advertised and boosted bilateral trade flows, it would increase our trade deficit with the European Union. For example, a 10% increase in bilateral trade would boost exports by $4 billion and imports by $6 billion. That would raise our trade deficit with the EU by $2 billion, which is a subtraction from Canadian output and employment.

The economic models that were used to argue for CETA simply assumed balanced trade and full employment, but of course we know those assumptions are not realistic in the real world. Furthermore, these models take no account of Brexit. The United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union, which is of course very consequential for CETA. The United Kingdom is the only major European economy with whom Canada is running a trade surplus.

In 2015, Canada exported $16 billion of merchandise to Britain and imported $9 billion. If we looked at the remaining European Union countries, Canada exported only $22 billion of merchandise and imported $52 billion. In other words, Canada imported more than twice as much as we exported to the European Union, excluding the United Kingdom, and that means a trade deficit of $30 billion with what remains of the EU.

In that scenario, a 10% increase in bilateral trade would boost our exports by just $2 billion and would increase our imports by $5 billion. That would raise Canada's trade deficit with what remains of the European Union by $3 billion, an even larger subtraction from Canadian output and employment.

When we look at the actual trade flows between Canada and the EU, particularly the EU excluding the United Kingdom, there is very little reason to believe that CETA could increase Canadian output and employment; but even if it did, CETA also makes it easier for European companies to bring in temporary foreign workers. Even if there were some increase in employment in Canada, there is absolutely no guarantee that it would go to Canadian workers.

Beyond trade, I think it is important to recognize that CETA has many other provisions that have nothing to do with free trade. As other New Democrats have mentioned in this debate, CETA would increase the duration of pharmaceutical patents. That is the opposite of trade liberalization. It is a restriction that would make it harder for generic drug manufacturers and harder to have competition in pharmaceuticals and it would boost the price of those medications for consumers.

Another aspect of CETA that is very controversial and has very little to do with trade is the investor-state dispute provisions. These provisions have been watered down somewhat to try to make CETA more palatable to Wallonia and other areas of Europe that were concerned, but nevertheless there still are investor-state provisions, and CETA for the first time extends these to the municipal level of government.

The question I would ask is, why do we need these provisions at all in CETA? The origin of investor-state provisions was in NAFTA where Canadian and American investors may have had doubts about the Mexican judicial system. However, clearly Canada has a well-functioning court system. Clearly, Europe has a trustworthy judicial system. Why is it even necessary to set up a special tribunal process that is only accessible to foreign investors? Why can Canadians not use the European court system, and why can European investors not use the Canadian court system? We really have not heard an answer to this question from the government side.

It is worth reviewing some of the outrageous cases that have been brought against Canada under the investor-state provisions of NAFTA. If we go back to the 1990s, there was the Ethyl case, in which Canada tried to ban a gasoline additive, MMT, that was already banned in the United States. However, the American producer of it sued Canada under NAFTA, and the Canadian government not only lifted the ban, but also paid $13 million U.S. in compensation.

More recently, we had the AbitibiBowater case, where AbitibiBowater, a Canadian pulp and paper company, shut down its last remaining mill in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial government reclaimed water rights that it had given to AbitibiBowater to operate those mills. The company, which had registered itself in the United States, was able to present itself as an American investor and sued Canada under NAFTA for the loss of these water rights that it was no longer even using. What happened? The Canadian government paid AbitibiBowater $130 million in compensation.

To talk about an even more recent case, Lone Pine Resources is an Alberta-based oil and gas company that registered itself in Delaware and then used NAFTA to sue Canada because of Quebec's ban on fracking. Lone Pine Resources is claiming $250 million in compensation.

What we see in all of these cases is that companies are abusing the investor-state provisions of NAFTA to directly challenge democratic laws, regulations, and public policies that arguably interfere with their potential future profits. Given the bad experience we have had with the investor-state provisions of NAFTA, it is totally unclear why Canada is pushing to include these provisions in CETA. Again, it is not just a matter of re-including in CETA what is already in NAFTA. CETA actually goes farther, in the sense that it imposes this regime on municipalities, something that NAFTA and previous trade deals did not do. There is a real objection to the investor-state provisions in CETA, notwithstanding the government's efforts to water them down somewhat.

In conclusion, there is no case for CETA as a trade deal, if we look at the actual trade flows between Canada and what is left of the European Union after Brexit. Furthermore, there are many negative non-trade aspects of CETA, such as more temporary foreign workers, longer pharmaceutical patents, and more of these outrageous investor-state disputes. For all of these reasons, the NDP is opposing Bill C-30.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation act.

This is not the first international agreement that we have considered. In the past, we examined NAFTA, an agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. One part of NAFTA still sticks in our memories today, years later, and that is the infamous chapter 11, which allows companies to sue a government.

Governments that want to legislate on environmental, health, and worker safety issues can be taken to court by companies that are unhappy with these laws, even though every government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens.

When NAFTA was signed, I was still a university student, and I clearly remember talk of the free trade area of the Americas, or FTAA, which resulted in many protests. I remember that, at that time, there was a protest in Montreal. People there even tore down fences because they were so opposed to an even broader free trade agreement that did not respect the right of governments to legislate.

What is happening with the Canada-European union comprehensive economic and trade agreement is unbelievable. This should be an easy deal to reach since Canada and Europe are so similar. It should not be so hard to reach a deal. We should not be having so many problems.

However, once again, this deal is being negotiated behind closed doors with very little public consultation. Once again, there are also many flawed provisions, including those that will allow companies to sue governments that are seeking to protect the environment, health, and worker safety.

If we tried to explain this to people who are unfamiliar with these types of provisions, they would not believe us, and yet it is true. As a result, as I was saying, it is unbelievable because Canada and Europe should be able to easily reach agreements. We should be able to reach a deal without too much difficulty, and yet we are being faced with these types of problems.

Another problem is the fact that Canada has what is called the supply management system. It is extremely important for producers in my region and other areas of Quebec and Canada, particularly dairy, cheese, poultry, and egg producers. These sectors have a supply management system that does not rely on government subsidies.

People sometimes say that supply management is expensive. That is absolutely not the case, because it does not cost people a cent. The government does not subsidize either producers or processors. The supply managements system ensures a balance. Unfortunately, this agreement opens up the market to cheese. Basically, 17,000 more tonnes of cheese will come into the country, and that will have a direct impact on citizens as well as dairy and cheese producers. I will say more about this shortly.

I would also like to talk about the notorious investor-state provision that makes it possible for an investor to take legal action against a state. I can already picture how surprised people will be about that; I can hear them tell me that there is no way and it is just not possible. It is, though. In recent years, there have been 39 cases, and Canada came out on top in just three of them. In the rest of the cases, Canada had to pay billions in damages and interest to foreign investors. Why? Because we, as a government, decided to protect health and the environment and ensure better working conditions.

We should be proud of that, but instead we are taken to court. It costs us billions of dollars that we can no longer invest in the shift towards green energy or give to our dairy and cheese producers who are going to suffer during this transition. Indeed, some 17,000 tonnes of cheese is going to enter Canadian markets.

Let me give a concrete example. The people of Drummond know very well what I am talking about. I want to talk about shale gas. I have been working very hard on the shale gas file for many years now. Something terrible happened. An American company, Lone Pine Resources, sued the Government of Canada. That company wants to do hydraulic fracking. Without going into too much detail, I can say that that practice is extremely polluting, dangerous, worrisome, and unsafe, and the science has not yet shown that Canada can afford it.

There is a moratorium on the practice in Quebec, specifically for the St. Lawrence Valley. In the Drummond region, we are very happy about that moratorium, since permits had been granted for fracking in my region, Drummond. Tens of thousands of citizens spoke out to prevent it from happening.

Under NAFTA's famous chapter 11, this company sued the Government of Canada for $250 million. Unfortunately, if we look at how other suits against the Government of Canada played out, we are going to lose this one too. That is money that could have been invested in health, in protecting the environment, or in supporting our dairy farmers and cheese makers, for example, during a transition period like the one we are about to enter into.

One of the reasons I am extremely upset is that the negotiations have resulted in this kind of thing, which we see in so many international agreements. It is embarrassing and shameful that governments can be sued for wanting to protect their citizens.

The other problem affects our dairy farmers and cheese makers. For a little over a year now, I have been touring the dairy farms back home in Drummond. In fact, I had the opportunity to see my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who came to meet our dairy farmers and cheese makers. They told her that they are quite concerned about the agreement between Canada and Europe. They were concerned even before the arrival of the Liberal government, when the Conservatives were in power.

At least the Conservative government promised $4.3 billion in compensation. Right now, all the Liberals are promising is $350 million. This is just another embarrassing moment for the Liberals on top of the diafiltered milk issue. It is shameful because they could have resolved that problem in no time at all.

It is really quite simple. It is a matter of applying the same definition at the border and the processing facilities. What is considered milk at the border should be considered milk at the processing plant. What is not considered milk at the border, the issue we are currently dealing with, should not be considered milk at the processing plant either. This issue could have been resolved during the government's first 100 days in office. Dairy producers in the greater Drummond area and across Quebec and Canada are suffering as a result of this situation. It is extremely serious because they are losing millions of dollars a year. A dairy producer in Drummond can lose between $10,000 and $15,000 a year because this situation has not been resolved, even though it would have been a relatively easy fix.

I began visiting the cheese factories in my riding: Fromagerie St-Guillaume, Fromagerie Lemaire, and Agropur's Fromagerie de Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil. They are saying that, right now, the government is not doing enough to compensate dairy and cheese producers. They are extremely concerned. They want something to be done to improve the situation. That is why we cannot give the government carte blanche on this agreement. We want an agreement with Europe, but we want a good agreement.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed that the Liberals are ready to shut down debate on CETA. No Liberals are even speaking today to Bill C-30 in this House. It is incredibly important that Canadians hear that their concerns are being listened to, and the New Democrats are proud to be doing that today along with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I appreciate her words today as well.

This agreement is far too important to get wrong, and it is far too important for parliamentarians to simply rubber-stamp before we fully consider the range of implications that it would have for Canadians. I have participated in the second reading debate on Bill C-30, and what I saw was that the few Liberal and Conservative MPs who rose to debate this legislation completely ignored the very real concerns around this agreement. It is easy to look at one side of an agreement and only speak about the positive. What takes courage and dedication to the people we represent is to stand and also address the negative aspects.

This deal is far from perfect and it is far from done. In Europe, each of the 28 EU member states, as well as Belgium's regions, must approve the parts of CETA that fall under their regional competencies. If any of these states or regions refuse to ratify, the deal falls apart. I also hope that my colleagues are aware that in the Netherlands right now activists are collecting petitions of signatures to trigger a referendum on CETA. There is still a lot of opposition to this agreement. Just last week, the European Union's employment and social affairs committee voted 27 to 24 for a motion saying that the EU parliament should refuse to approve CETA because it would lead to the loss of some 200,000 EU jobs.

The reality that my colleagues do not want to face is that these kinds of massive, so-called trade agreements actually lead to job losses and greater inequality. Deals like the TPP and CETA are not traditional trade agreements. They go so much further than just reducing tariffs. They set new rules of commerce that benefit the largest multinationals. People push back against these agreements not because they are afraid of trade, but because they know these agreements would continue shrinking the middle class; eliminating good-paying manufacturing jobs and jobs in seafaring; and trading away the public interest in favour of corporate interests.

Canadians support trade. It is vital to our economy and supports jobs in every single region of our great country. New Democrats support deepening trade with Europe and expanding those opportunities for Canadian exports. We also take very seriously our duty to evaluate trade deals on the balance of what they offer to Canadians, and we want the government to do the hard work to fix the remaining problems with this deal.

As I have said before, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. Yet my colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative parties seem to have their blinders on. They are so ideologically supportive of any and all trade and investment agreements that they refuse to properly study these massive trade deals before passing them into law. Canadians deserve better.

There are still so many unanswered questions and unaddressed concerns, including the following:

Why does this bill include investor-state provisions, when EU member states have said they will not ratify the agreement if these provisions are not removed?

If Bill C-30 goes through, how will the minister appoint judges to the investor court? These judges have enormous powers. Will the minister have all the power to select them, unilaterally and with no oversight or consultation?

What would be the implications of changes to the Patent Act on prescription drug costs in Canada? How much more would Canadians be paying? How would the provinces and territories be compensated?

If Bill C-30 is meant to be implementing legislation only, why are there clauses that go above and beyond what is in the actual CETA?

Why will the government not provide clarity to Canada's maritime sector about which cabotage routes would be open to Europeans? How many jobs would these new rules cost us? Why are these provisions not reciprocated by the EU? Why are we opening up cabotage for the first time in Canadian history when we know how many well-paid Canadian maritime jobs are on the line? Why do we not insist that foreign-flag vessels employ Canadian and not foreign crews?

The list just goes on and on.

Just last week we heard from the Canadian Vintners Association. They support the removal of tariffs but are concerned that CETA will deepen the already large trade imbalance on wine between Canada and the EU. In fact, they estimate the EU exports to Canada 180 million litres valued at $1.16 billion, compared to Canadian exports to the EU of 123,000 litres valued at $2.77 million. They state that they support CETA, but that, “Ratification must include federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and take advantage of, and prepare for the implementation of major trade deals, such as CETA.”

We have a thriving wine industry in my riding of Essex, and we all want it to continue to grow. I ask my Liberal colleagues if they have considered this important industry and what kinds of support should be offered to them to ensure they can remain competitive should CETA come to pass.

All of these concerns that I have mentioned have not been given the proper attention in this place or at the international trade committee. We have only held a handful of meetings on CETA, giving it just a fraction of the time and attention that we devoted to studying the trans-Pacific partnership. We have barely made time to hear from witnesses on CETA's intellectual property provisions and changes to the Patent Act. We still have not heard from the maritime industry, which will be significantly impacted by CETA.

Even the beef industry, which supports this agreement, has several recommendations and outstanding concerns that they would like to see addressed before CETA is implemented.

I feel compelled to ask my colleagues in this place to consider the many outstanding concerns with CETA and to push for those changes that this agreement needs.

We should remove the ISTS rules that give foreign companies special rights and privileges that our own domestic companies do not enjoy. If they want to attack our rules and regulations, they should be obligated to go through our domestic courts first.

We should study how much CETA will increase prescription drug costs in Canada. Canadians already pay some of the highest cost drugs among the OECD countries, second only to the United States.

I frequently hear in this place that Parliament should not worry about studying CETA because we have known about the deal for a long time. It is true that negotiations started many years ago, and that the trade committee studied CETA in 2012 and 2014. I have read these reports, but I wonder if any of my Liberal colleagues have done the same because when I read their dissenting reports from 2012 and 2014, I was left with the impression that they felt more consultation, study, and analysis was needed before CETA was ever finalized.

In 2012, the Liberals recommended the report be titled as an interim report, and that further hearings be held, given that the committee's meetings were “deficient” and that CETA would have a greater impact on Canada than NAFTA. They recommended that the government share with the committee an analysis that clearly indicates both the benefits and costs of the agreement identified by the sector.

The Liberals talked about the impact of CETA on prescription drug costs. They said. “it was of concern that the federal government has provided no third party analysis with respect to the entire issue.”

Where is this concern today? When I raise the issue with the minister, she accuses me of fearmongering and says that there will not be any impact for eight years, so it is no big deal. The hypocrisy is truly astounding.

I also read the Liberals dissenting report from 2014, and I have to say that they restated their support for the 2012 recommendations and made even more. The Liberals, in 2014, said, “it is hard for Canadians to give outright support to an agreement when they haven't yet seen the text but only the technical summary.” So much seems to be speculative. All that witnesses are able to do is speculate about the possible gains, losses, and/or other impacts of CETA.

Here we are, in the next Parliament, and we have done very minimal consultation. We have heard from witnesses at the trade committee in a very few meetings. There are many other people who want to appear before the trade committee on CETA and are not able to do so. They are not even able to provide a written report to the committee.

I would be happy to share with my Liberal colleagues copies of their own party's reports so that they, too, can get a sense of the work remaining to be done on this agreement. I simply cannot understand how they can now turn around and pretend to have no concerns with CETA.

I appeal to my colleagues from all parties on both sides of the House to vote against the motion to shut down debate. At the beginning of my speech, I outlined some of the many issues and concerns that we, as parliamentarians, should consider before rushing through an agreement of this size and scope. There is no reason we cannot do our job as MPs and take our time with this NAFTA-like agreement.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to rise today to share my thoughts on Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states. This bill includes all necessary legal changes to implement the free trade accord with Europe, commonly known as CETA.

Today, I wish to raise four major concerns. The concerns are very important to the people I represent in North Island—Powell River. They want to hear more about prescription drug costs and what it will mean to them in their everyday lives. They want to make sure that we are not participating in investor-state provisions. They want to know that Canada has the ability and the right to protect itself. They are also concerned about the compensation for dairy farmers, the loss of market for the people in Comox with dairy farms, as well as, very importantly, maritime jobs.

The four motives in this bill will negatively impact my riding of North Island—Powell River, and because of this, I cannot in good conscience support it. Might I also add how sad it is for me to stand in the House today and realize we are not having a rigorous debate on these very important issues that will have long-term impacts. It is very simple for the government to point out that it feels the NDP is not interested in supporting trade agreements, but that is false. New Democrats are asking for these serious concerns to be addressed in a meaningful way. We absolutely have the time to do this work, and it is imperative for government to work with us to make sure that work is done.

Simply put, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The NDP supports deepening the Canada-EU trade relationship in order to diversify our markets, but there remains significant concerns and unanswered questions about this proposed deal. The government should work to fix the problems with the current deal rather than settle for a flawed agreement.

In my riding, there is a major concern about prescription drug costs. I have had the chance to meet with some of the most wonderful people over the last year who live across my vast riding, including many seniors. In the first year of my first mandate, getting to know people and understanding their needs was not only essential but paramount. I conducted a series of town halls focused on the demands of seniors in the riding, and I am proud to be continuing this series in the new year.

Unfortunately, the reality for many seniors is that they cannot afford their medications. I have heard on many occasions that Canada badly needs a strategy in place to meet the needs of seniors, and they want to know why it does not exist. One of the many challenges they face is the increasing cost of drugs. I am under the impression that legislators in the House have an abstract understanding of our social safety net, but the reality is that seniors are often vulnerable, on fixed incomes, and have to choose whether they purchase medications, food, or heat. This is a reality, and these decisions are happening daily across Canada.

Let me be very clear: this does not fit my vision of a prosperous Canada. We know that drug costs in Canada are already too high. According to the most recent data available from the Canadian Institutes for Health Information, Canadians pay the second most per person for drugs in all of the OECD countries, second only to the United States, and our costs are significantly higher than the average.

We know that that there needs to be a coordinated effort to contain these costs. What do we do to ensure that seniors can afford the necessary prescription drugs at a reasonable cost? Respectfully, one of the issues now is the reality we are facing with CETA, which would change intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals. Under this agreement, consumers, including seniors on fixed incomes, can expect their drug costs to increase by more than $850 million annually.

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that it would make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program. While in opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study of the financial impacts on provincial and territorial systems around these issues, but now they are cutting this and not listening to these important voices that need to be heard.

The second flaw in this piece of legislation is the investor-state provisions, which allow corporations to sue governments over regulations they claim negatively impact their businesses. The Liberals are asking parliamentarians to sign off on CETA, despite the fact that European states have made it clear that investor-state provisions will have to be removed before they ratify it. I do not understand why Canada will not say this as well.

In February 2016, during CETA's legal scrubbing phase, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new investor-court system allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions that they feel impact their profits. Foreign companies would have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws, without going though domestic courts.

Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under ISDS. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments, and the Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases, while continuing to be subject to ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages. Existing ISDS measures have also contributed to the regulatory chill, where governments fail to take actions in the public interest for fear they may trigger an investor claim.

Another concern of the investor-state provisions brings us back to my first point on pharmacare. According to Natalie Mehra, from the Ontario Health Coalition, the ability for investors to sue the government puts much more significant risk on the federal government. It would limit our ability to create a national pharmacare program, which would be the single biggest step we could take to containing drug costs, improving safety, and improving access all at once. The Liberals have not explained how they would ensure environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected, and how they would be protected from foreign challenges.

I am proud to represent the Comox Valley. Farming, agriculture, has been a mainstay for a long time and remains incredibly vibrant. It is one of the few locations in Canada that has tracked a surge of agri-investment activities. This has helped culinary tourism in our area. For example, we have great artisan yogourt and award-winning cheese makers.

Many small and medium-size cheese makers across Canada want to continue to grow the market for high-quality Canadian dairy products. Under CETA, European dairies would receive tariff-free access for an additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese, representing 2% of the Canadian milk production. According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, this will cost them $160 million a year in perpetual lost revenue.

The previous Conservative government recognized that CETA would lead to significant losses to Canadian dairy farmers, offering $4.3 billion in compensation. Instead of honouring this commitment, the Liberals have offered an investment package worth $250 million over five years. This falls short of the losses that dairy farmers would incur.

CETA would, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports, and will open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers. CETA will lead to the immediate loss of approximately 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high-quality, well-paying jobs. The industry as a whole supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. Foreign boats will bring in foreign workers with no requirement for a labour market impact assessment. These workers could be paid as low as $2 an hour and suffer from low safety standards and poor working conditions. This is not the Canada that I want to see. By permitting more foreign-flagged vessels, CETA would encourage tax avoidance, since foreign ships registered in flag-of-convenience countries take advantage of tax havens and the cheapest available labour.

Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. It is important that we have a vigorous debate about these issues. I do not understand why the government is not standing up for Canadians, standing up for the jobs and the realities we face. I know in my riding of North Island—Powell River, we hold sacred our commitment to keeping Canadian jobs local. We are a small riding that has faced many challenges, and we keep rising again and again. We do not need to have the government not negotiate in a positive way so we can see the results that we so desperately need.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this may well be my last speech before the House adjourns for the holidays, so I would like to take this opportunity to wish my constituents a very happy holiday and to thank my team members: Francine, Sébastien, Nesrine, and Catherine. They have been very patient with me during the especially long five weeks of House sittings coming to a close this week. While some might say, “Finally”, those of us on this side of the aisle have just begun. We would like to wish everyone a very happy holiday.

I am pleased to rise today. I like saying that I am pleased to rise, and people seem to say that all the time. Still, I am not exactly ecstatic here because there are lot of problems with this Canada-European Union free trade agreement. When we oppose Bill C-30 and the agreement as written, it is very important to emphasize that we did the same during the previous Parliament. What really bothers me is having to make the same arguments that we used with the Conservatives in debates on international trade issues. Our stance on free trade keeps coming up. We are in favour of free trade, but it has to be fair and not at just any cost.

Unfortunately, that is what is missing from the approaches taken by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. It is clearly missing from this agreement, as well as other agreements, such as the trans-Pacific partnership, which is also before the House, in a way, considering the conversations that have taken place with various civil society groups.

There are several aspects that are of concern, and I would like to begin with the most troubling one, the one that has been raised most often in this debate, namely the investor-state provisions. This is fundamental. If you were to go door to door, something every MP has done, and you asked everyone if it seems appropriate that a private company could sue its government for making a decision after it was elected, and the government has to defend itself, or even compensate the company using taxpayers' money, I think virtually everyone would unanimously agree, and no one in Quebec or Canada would think that was acceptable. However, that is exactly what this agreement allows.

The problem with those provisions is that they undermine two pillars that the NDP sees as the most important pillars of free trade and free trade agreements, namely regulations on environmental protection and the protection of workers.

These investor-state clauses would allow a company to sue the Government of Canada if the federal government or a provincial government introduced regulations or legislation that the company felt hurt its bottom line and its ability to make money. This is completely unacceptable. A perfect example of this problem is the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico. Quebec passed laws to ban fracking in certain areas of the St. Lawrence River. In 2011, if I am not mistaken, a company took the federal government to court because Quebec passed environmental legislation. This completely compromised environmental protection and violated one of the pillars that the New Democrats consider essential in order to support a free trade agreement, which is to be able to trade with a partner with environmental legislation similar to ours.

I am choosing my words carefully because the answer we will probably hear from the other side of the House is that this is what makes the European Union an ideal trading partner. Certainly, we share values with the European Union as a political unit, but the problem arises when a private sector company can begin pitting its interests against regulations made by elected governments here in Canada. There we have a serious problem.

The same applies to worker protection. Even the most responsible of companies require a certain degree of government oversight with legislation to ensure some minimum protections for workers.

That is the purpose of the Canada Labour Code and the Quebec Labour Code. They ensure that workers have a minimum of rights. In a society such as ours it would be unacceptable for a company to take legal action against the government on the basis that such rights are detrimental to its business.

The government has told us not to worry because these provisions will not affect workers' rights, environmental protection, or any other area. However, as the member from Outrement so clearly pointed out earlier today, there will be two sides to the debate. The investors will take legal action against the state, who will argue about the importance of environmental protection. The company will only have to justify its position by saying that it does not harm the environment and that they can proceed. That is the problem.

As the member for Outremont said so well, to date, Canada has done nothing to demonstrate that it can win in these circumstances, in these secret tribunals, and protect the people we are here to protect and that this agreement does not protect.

The other problematic aspect is that the government has not come up with a concrete solution for Brexit. The majority of our EU trade is with the United Kingdom, which is now preparing to leave the European Union. The government does not seem to have taken this fact into account. When, unlike the past few days, government members decided to participate in the debate, they were asked that question, but their answer was not convincing.

There is also the issue of higher prescription drug costs, which will affect the daily lives of Canadians. The members opposite are good talkers, but they still do not have a plan to reduce drug costs like the one the NDP proposed during the last election campaign. The government should acknowledge this problem.

In the 2012 dissenting report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Liberals specifically requested a sectoral study to explain the costs associated with the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, and especially its impact on the cost of prescription drugs.

I do not understand why the Liberals were calling for such a study when they were in the opposition, and today everyone acts as if it never existed. I will not even speak of the debate on health transfers, where the same reduced transfers proposed by the Conservative government have been maintained.

Since time is passing, I will close by addressing the final point, which is the most important one for the people in my riding. I am of course referring to the way that the dairy producers have been swindled. Despite the real change promised in the last election campaign for Quebec’s dairy producers and craft cheese makers, the Liberal government is doing worse than the Conservative government that preceded it.

In the last Parliament, a motion by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé was passed unanimously. Every party in the House, including the Liberal Party, voted in favour of this motion, which called for the producers to be compensated. That is the least that can be done after putting supply management on the table, something Stephen Harper’s Conservative government had promised not to do.

The Conservatives had promised to compensate producers in the amount of $4.3 billion. That was a very fine commitment on their part. Today, however, the Liberals have dropped that to a mere $300 million. That is staggering. It is a betrayal of dairy producers, one of the many betrayals they have suffered at the government’s hands.

Take for example the diafiltered milk issue, which is still not resolved. This is the sort of issue that demonstrates that the Liberals are acting just as the Conservatives did, if not worse.

It is for these reasons that we are opposed to Bill C-30 and that we are demanding that the government reflect upon and renegotiate these important matters. It is not too late to make these fundamental changes which will allow us to exercise our duties as parliamentarians, that is, to protect the citizens we are representing here, the citizens whom this sort of agreement will not be protecting, the citizens it will be betraying.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House at the point of calling the question on Bill C-30, the bill that would bring in the comprehensive economic trade agreement between the European Union and Canada.

I have the honour to represent the only party in this place that has voted against all investor-state agreements. Although mostly the NDP members vote against them, they do not always. I would urge them to reconsider and ensure, for the future, that all investor-state agreements be rejected. They really have nothing to do with trade at all. I want to dive into that aspect of the investor-state agreement and touch briefly on the other aspects Canadians should be concerned about.

First, as many members in this place have already raised, it will increase the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. It is very clear that this will happen. Numerous independent studies have looked at the implications of the so-called CETA on drug prices for Canadians.

Second, it is also clear, and it has been raised by a number of groups, that the language the European Union wants in the text on the question of municipal powers for procurement will also be negatively affected by CETA, including access to procurement for municipalities, academic institutions, school boards, and hospitals. If they should decide that they want to make sure they are buying locally, they could be offending the provisions of CETA.

The third part is the most controversial. It is certainly the most controversial in Europe. It is why Canadian parliamentarians are being sold a bill of goods when we are told that there is any urgency here. I am really surprised that the Liberal government chose not to have significant review and consultation nationally. We had that on the trans Pacific partnership agreement but not on the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. This is surprising, given that there can be no need for urgency in Canada to ratify when there are 28 countries, and an additional 10 subnational groups throughout the European Union, that have yet to ratify, and given that there is still a pending decision from the European Court of Justice as to whether the comprehensive economic trade agreement is compatible with European law.

The controversy within Europe is overwhelmingly about the one piece of this agreement that I think could be very conveniently and easily removed without affecting the trade aspects at all. This takes some underscoring. What kind of trade agreement has an entire section that has nothing to do with trade? The answer, these days, is almost all of them. We are being sold, hook, line, and sinker, the notion that a trade agreement must include something called investor-state dispute resolution systems, or FIPAs, foreign investment protection agreements.

The first of these anywhere in the world was chapter 11 of NAFTA, and we have a lot of experience with it. I do not believe that even the negotiators of NAFTA believed that they were introducing anything novel when they negotiated chapter 11. As much as Canada had a national debate on NAFTA, chapter 11 never came up, because it was a sleeper provision. It might have stayed asleep, actually, if it had not been for the ingenuity of a Toronto lawyer, Barry Appleton, who decided that chapter 11 of NAFTA could be interpreted in a completely novel way.

The essence of the legitimate protection of investor interests in other countries is that we do not want a government coming along and nationalizing the assets, saying, “You have built a lovely refinery here. We are now going to say it belongs to the government of 'fill in the blank', and you, as an investor, are not going to get your money back on that.”

That is what people thought chapter 11 was initially, because it talked about protection from expropriation, but chapter 11 used some novel language. It talked about governmental measures that were tantamount to expropriation. Here is where the clever lawyering came in.

The first chapter 11 came to us when this Parliament banned the trade and use of a toxic gasoline additive, a manganese-based gasoline additive, that had a human health threat component. It also gummed up the diagnostics of the on-board catalytic converters for automobiles, so car manufacturers were worried that it would void their warranties. Environment Canada was worried that it would cause more air pollution. Neurotoxicologists, like Donna Mergler, at the University of Quebec in Montreal, was worried about it causing an increase in a disease that looks a lot like Parkinson's, but it is manganism.

Well, Parliament banned it, but because of a chapter 11 NAFTA challenge from a private corporation in Richmond, Virginia, Ethyl Corporation, Canada found itself in an arbitration case. This was just the first of many, and we keep losing them, or we keep having them settled out of court, although we cannot call these places courts, unless we use the word “kangaroo” first. These are arbitrations in hotel rooms with private arbitrators. They make money being arbitrators. They are expert lawyers. We can find Canadian lawyers who claim to be environmental lawyers suddenly selling out to be expert lawyers for U.S. corporations at these secret hearings.

The secret hearing process under NAFTA in chapter 11 is egregious. Just as egregious is the Canada-China investment treaty. I would have to say that it is more egregious, because every investor from the People's Republic of China is going to be a state-owned enterprise for the People's Republic China. Therefore, their ability to sue us is virtually unlimited. Of course, the Canada-China investment treaty never had even as much debate as we are getting on CETA. It never went through Parliament at all, because previous Prime Minister Harper approved it in cabinet, confidentially. The treaty binds the Canadian government until the year 2045 to the People's Republic of China, and its state-owned enterprises have more right to challenge decisions made in Canada than any Canadian corporation does.

CETA falls somewhere in between. CETA is being sold to us by many as the gold standard. It was the head of trade negotiations for the European Commission, Cecilia Malmström, who came up with the idea that since this investor-state provision in CETA is so controversial and is attracting so much protest from within the European Union, maybe we can make it look more like a real court and end the fact that it is so clearly profit driven.

Can members imagine arbitrators who are one day working in their big downtown law firms and the next day are essentially judges determining whether the decisions passed through parliaments around the world are going to hold up to their private scrutiny? There is no appeal, no oversight, and no room for intervenors to make the case as to why it was appropriate to ban a gasoline additive or to stop the export of PCB-contaminated waste or to not put a toxic waste disposal facility next to a town's freshwater supply. These are all real-life examples under chapter 11 where the polluters have won and the citizens have lost, and it happens over and over again.

CETA proposes some improvement, no question. It is much better than chapter 11 of NAFTA and better than the Canada-China investment treaty, which we seem to have forgotten ever even happened in this place. When I hear Conservative members getting up and asking whether the new administration under the Liberals is moving too close to China, I kind of want to run over, shake them, and ask if they do not remember that they passed, in secret, or their cabinet did, the Canada-China investment treaty, which is the worst of all of these.

Professor Gus Van Harten, of Osgoode Hall Law School, literally wrote the book on the bad investment deal with China. The book is called Sold Down the Yangtze, if members want to pick it up to find out how our sovereignty was sold out by the Harper administration.

Gus Van Harten has done a careful study of what is being offered in this so-called gold standard, and there definitely are flaws.

The arbitrators will have a more permanent roster. Can members imagine if our judicial system picked judges at random from the private sector, and they did better on cases where the rich guys won? Can members imagine how fair our judiciary would be seen to be? Well, CETA makes an improvement on that. There will be a permanent roster of such judges. They will still be drawn from private-sector work, and although they will be prohibited under the CETA terms from acting as advocates and lawyers before a CETA investment court, they will not be barred from operating as advocates and lawyers under other dispute resolutions, such as chapter 11 of NAFTA.

There is still this culture of an elite group of corporate lawyers who are literally global ambulance chasers. They find companies and tell them that they can sue a government if they want to.

The sad part, as well, is that, for a moment, Cecilia Malmström's proposal called for allowing civil society to come forward as intervenors. That part of her proposed gold standard was dropped.

My plea to the current government, and my plea to all parliamentarians, is to dig in our heels on this. I commend the NDP caucus for digging in its heels on this. We should dig in our heels and say that these are anti-democratic by definition.

There is no chance in the world that a company that emanates from the European Union is going to expropriate Canadian property in Europe, contravening all the laws and international common law practice. We are in a safe zone here, developed country to developed country. Let us get rid of the unfair investor-state provisions and fix CETA so that it is about fair trade.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak alongside our leader and my colleagues in opposition to Bill C-30. I would also like to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Essex, and our entire team for pushing the debate forward.

On something as important as the trade agreement with the European Union, it deserves proper debate in the House of Commons. Truly, it is only the NDP that is pushing for that debate, pushing to ensure the government is being held to account on a proposed trade deal that we find extremely problematic for Canadians.

I also rise in the House today not just as the member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski but also as the jobs critic for the NDP. Earlier today, we presented our federal call to action entitled “The Precarious Generation: A Call to Action”. It was based on our months long national tour, a series of national consultations in nine provinces and one territory. We heard from young people, millennials, their parents, their friends, and people from our communities across the country. They all came to share their stories, their lived experiences with respect to what was an emerging crisis in Canada, which is the rise of precarious work.

Today I was honoured to put forward the kinds of recommendations that millennials across our country shared with us, recommendations that are bold, that are hopeful, that are visionary. Those recommendations come from a place of great challenge and increasing difficulty. Millennials are facing the prospect of being less well off than their parents generation in a very real way. That is a phenomenon we have not seen in recent times in our country.

The numbers talk for themselves. The rate of youth unemployment is twice the national average. Thirty-nine per cent of workers under the age of 30 are precariously employed. Most are working in temporary and contract work, despite the fact they are currently looking for, and certainly would much rather have, full-time employment. In provinces like Ontario, 300,000 young people are working unpaid internships and, in many case, those unpaid internships do not lead to paid work.

We heard heart-wrenching stories across the country. I remember hearing from a young worker in P.E.I. who talked about the fact that he had just graduated with a Bachelor of Science in biology, and he could never imagine having a job in his field on the island. Every morning he woke up at 4 a.m. and went to work in a fish plant. Every night he worked at Best Buy.

In Newfoundland, young people talked about the fact that their provincial government had just brought in an austerity budget. They knew they came from a province where people usually had to leave to find work. Despite the fact that they thought times were getting better, once again their generation would have to leave to find work somewhere else.

In Halifax, a young woman came forward. She told us that where she came from the most secure form of employment for young men was to join the military, a real precarious kind of work.

In Winnipeg, we heard about work, particularly in the public domain. Jobs like garbage pickup, which had been done for a very long time by younger, indigenous men, had been outsourced and devolved. These men were able to support their families with the income they made, but now they were unable to make that kind of living. As a brother told us at that meeting, they were treated as disposable as the garbage they pick up.

In Regina, we met a young woman who broke down in the meeting. She talked about how she could not afford her tuition. She could not bear to think what she would do to come out of the burden of student debt that she faced. She knew she had to find work that had pharmacare benefits to ensure she had the medication she needed.

In Calgary, we had a NDP cabinet minister tell us that for many years Calgary had been the promise land for young people from across the country. Today, even if individuals are from Alberta and are young, they can barely make it there.

In Vancouver, a young woman talked about the fact that because she was in a cycle of precarious work and because housing prices were so out of reach, she, like many young people, found it heartbreaking to know she would never be able to afford a home in the community she came from, and “heartbreaking” is the word that she used.

One of the last meetings in our 14 stops was held in Windsor, Ontario. When we talked about precarious work across Ontario and across the country, people told us to go to a place called Windsor. Windsor tells a story of how our generation has been sold out. Year after year, we have seen the impact of trade agreements that certainly have not had our best interests in mind. We have seen governments that have not had our best interests in mind and we have seen where that has gotten us. An older activist talked to us about the way in which manufacturing had been dealt a blow there for quite some time. Jobs that young people would normally do and certainly hope to raise a family with that do not exist the same way they used to. At the end of that meeting, we heard from a young woman who was finishing her law degree, her third degree. She is from Windsor. She moved back home and into her parents' basement. At the end of that meeting, she said that she did not know why anyone in the room was surprised that people of her generation could not imagine owning a home, having kids, and raising a family as that was just how it is now.

Those stories inform me and the work we do in the House, as we stand to oppose CETA, yet another trade agreement set to sell us out. It is clear from the messages we heard that both our generation and people who care for the millennial generation will not tolerate further actions from federal governments that do not have the interests of young people, and all people, in mind going forward.

In recent decades, and certainly since the start of the neoliberal era, we have seen a great many good jobs leave our country. We have witnessed the erosion of our social safety net to the benefit of corporations, millionaires and billionaires.

Today, and I have witnessed this throughout recent months as I was crisscrossing the country to take stock of the working conditions of our generation, it is clear that good jobs are becoming increasingly scarce, and that the millennial generation is living in uncertainty, with no benefits and no job security. How can we have come to this point, when we were promised an unprecedented level of prosperity if we opened our borders and liberalized trade all over the world? Well, it is because, from the start, liberalization was designed for the corporations and the billionaires, not for the middle class and the working class. We opened our borders not for human beings but for money, and massive amounts of it left. The tax havens are overflowing with profits made on the backs of workers here and elsewhere. We have allowed the rich to break our social contract, and to pay for our social services we are turning ever more to wage-earners who are paying today so that their employers can be subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars. We were promised that free trade would create jobs, but where are they? I would like someone to show me the jobs that have since been created, because after 10 months of consultations, no one seems to have found them.

We in the NDP have always been skeptical of these free-trade agreements unilaterally designed for the richest people, and time has obviously proven us right. Employment today is part-time and rarely unionized, and does not allow one to support a family or future projects. That is the sad state of our society.

Is it possible to conclude agreements that promote trade and serve the interests of Canadian workers? Of course it is, and that is why we are fighting today against Bill C-30 and the free-trade project with the European Union.

Finally, I am proud to stand up with my colleagues in the New Democratic party and thousands of Canadians all over this land who are opposed to this government’s measures.

I am proud to stand with my colleagues in the NDP and in solidarity with tens of thousands of Canadians, many of them young, who call on the government to work with us in providing a better future.

Bill C-30 and the proposal before us is not in that vein. We will continue to oppose it.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to add my thoughts on a very important bill, Bill C-30. This bill will implement a proposed free-trade agreement with Europe, an agreement which has been talked about for years here in Ottawa.

Indeed, to be quite frank, never in my life have I seen an agreement be the subject of so many press conferences and ceremonial events. I remember former prime minister Stephen Harper regularly blocking the halls of Parliament to go off once again to sign the free-trade agreement with Europe.

Our new prime minister cannot stop announcing it. He sometimes takes the plane on Sunday morning to go to Europe to sign the same agreement once again. One time it was because Wallonia had given its consent. Today we are in the process of discussing a bill, because there is still no agreement.

The reason why there is still no agreement is that certain serious questions have been raised about the very signing and content of this agreement.

When we look at the details of any trade deal, we have to look at our own past track record in signing similar deals and ask ourselves why we continue hitting our heads against the wall with some of the provisions that are in here, including, in particular, the investor-state provision.

A lot of people, when the Prime Minister rushed off for the umpteenth signature of this European trade deal, were a bit surprised to find out that the Walloon parliament had thrown in its lot with this thing, yet nothing could be further from the truth. There had been a lot of promises along the way by Canada, what is going to be changed, what is going to be modified, and Wallonia had simply decided to keep its powder dry.

There is an attempt right now to push this thing through. We all know that trade with Europe is important, but trade with Europe is so important that we have to get it right. That is why we keep asking the same questions.

I have played a role in the past in various trade deals. When the NAFTA was brought together, I was the president of the Quebec Professions Board. I did a lot of work with Americans on this. It was actually helpful in bringing down trade barriers within Canada, which is something we do not talk enough about. It was such a balkanized version of the professions, both in the U.S. and here, it put considerable pressure on the professions to make sure that any rules against free movement of professional services had an overriding interest in terms of public protection, consumer protection.

That is worthwhile. That is some of the good things that can come out of these deals. It is too easy to simply say we are going to have this new regulation or that new rule and it is all about public protection. However, we have to know whether or not that is actually the case.

Here is the rub. Who gets to decide? When we talk about an investor-state provision, what we are in fact talking about is the ability for an investor to go before an anonymous tribunal to have the very question resolved, in their favour most often. Canada has an awful track record on this. We have lost 70% of the cases under the NAFTA. What we are saying is that before we turn that over to an anonymous international panel instead of leaving it with our domestic courts, let us know what we are talking about.

The government keeps on insisting that in matters of environment and health, there is going to be a carve-off. However, that still leaves the question of who decides whether or not it is a legitimate environmental or health concern.

Again, let give a real example, one that I lived when I was the minister of the environment in Quebec. I banned 2,4-D, a widely-used pesticide produced by the Dow Chemical Company. Dow turned around, under chapter 11, and immediately started suing the Canadian government, saying, “You're not allowed to ban 2,4-D. You don't have conclusive evidence that it is directly dangerous to human health when used as directed.”

If an average suburban lawn owner gets dressed up in haz-mat outfit and starts putting this stuff around, and their kids are wearing haz-mat outfits and not playing on the lawn, and Rover is wearing a haz-mat outfit out on the lawn, that argument by Dow Chemical is true, perhaps in the immediate, without talking about how much of that is going to leach into the environment.

The Canadian government, for once, did not lose, because Dow was convinced to withdraw its lawsuit because Canada admitted that there was no conclusive evidence of a direct immediate harm to human health when 2,4-D was used as directed. However, who decides? That is the key question here.

Who has the final say with respect to health and the environment?

If we made regulations prohibiting the use of certain chemicals in the textile industry, for example, would we be immediately sued by a big European corporation such as BASF, a major German chemical manufacturer? The answer is almost certainly yes, because companies will never accept being told that a government can decide that; they will call in a group of two or three lawyers from big business and commercial law firms to win the right to continue.

Despite the many announcements, the process that has been proposed was rushed, if we compare it to what exists elsewhere. An NDP political slogan comes to mind when I look at what we have on the table, which is that we have to put people before profits.

There is a long-held view in my party that we have to put people before profits, and that was never more true than in the case of something like CETA. We are giving over to corporations the ability to sue national governments if they feel that their profits are being compromised.

There is also the risk of what we could call “regulatory chill”. The people in government who are responsible for protecting the environment and public health are going to be discouraged from doing so because of the threat of being sued under these new agreements.

Let us also look at what we are going through right now to know what the future can hold.

They say that what goes around comes around. It is astounding to see our dairy farmers, who are expecting market control in the form of supply management, currently losing several hundred million dollars per year because of incompetence and mismanagement by the Liberal government, which is pursuing old Conservatives policies.

Let me explain. Supply management protects our market for milk. When a dairy product comes over the border, it is subject to duty. Cheese is not allowed to be made if it does not contain milk. A metamorphosis does actually occur; it is all very Kafkaesque. At the border, the government says this product is not milk. With another word from this same government, a perfectly identical product suddenly and magically transforms into milk when it is used in cheese production.

We were promised $4.5 billion in compensation, but that simply evaporated. We are now left with less than one tenth of that amount.

Newfoundland is losing hundreds of millions of dollars because of our decision to do away with rules requiring processing to be done here.

It will be almost impossible to bring in national pharmacare. We are protecting companies and their profits instead of protecting people. The NDP will continue to fight against this trade deal, because we are not making Canadians' lives and our environment the priority.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to convey my constituents' concerns. I am very grateful to voters from Nanaimo—Ladysmith who have been sending me their ideas by email, Facebook, and Twitter, letting me know what concerns them about the trade deal, CETA, that is on the table and is the matter of debate today.

New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports, while remaining firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten sovereignty have no place in our trade deals. In my view, the job of government is to pursue better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, and protects the environment and Canadian jobs.

A final trade deal must be judged on its net costs and benefits. New Democrats have always been clear on this. We have opposed deals in the past that would jeopardize Canadian jobs and the environment, and that would have a net negative impact on our country.

As has been said so many times in the House, by all parties, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The NDP supports deepening Canadian-European trade ties in order to diversify our markets, but we remain with significant concerns about the proposed deal.

First, I have heard that changes in CETA will increase drug costs for Canadians, and the cost of prescription drugs is already a tremendous problem. If CETA poses a barrier to implementing a national pharmacare program, that is a problem for Canadians.

Second, local procurement could be interfered with. When I was elected to local government, we opposed the TILMA trade deal because it would have interfered with our ability as local governments to bias our procurement policies in favour of local businessmen and women.

Third, Investor-state provisions, as has been said so many times here, would have to be removed before this deal is ratified. We cannot have mechanisms inside trade deals that have the risk of inviting corporate lawsuits that would interfere, or would present a chill on Canadian democratically implemented protections for environment and labour.

Fourth, the Liberals have not properly compensated dairy farmers for the acknowledged negative economic impact on their industry. They would have a tremendous loss of market share, and that needs to be protected.

I want to speak today about two issues that are of particular concern to coastal communities and to Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the riding I am honoured to represent.

Wineries are a problem under CETA, and we are afraid it will exacerbate the already massive wine trade imbalance between Europe and my region in Canada. Currently, the European Union exports 180 million litres of wine to Canada, but Canada only exports 123,000 litres in the European direction. I note that the Canadian Vintners Association is asking for federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and prepare for the implementation of CETA, but we have not had news on that.

Two wineries in my riding are being celebrated and supported by our local chamber of commerce and by the growing food movement, where people are willing to come out and especially support local wineries. The Chateau Wolff Estate winery and vineyard is in the Jingle Pot area of Nanaimo. It is an organic, five-acre vineyard that has some of the oldest vines on Vancouver Island. It is a lovely spot. It is right in the protection of Mount Benson, on a south-facing slope, with a large rock face that helps temper the climate. It creates a very unique growing region. We are proud of it.

A second winery that I want to see protected in this trade deal is the Millstone Winery. It is a family-run, six-acre vineyard, nestled in the Millstone River valley of Nanaimo, where I am elected. These are local businesses that we are protecting, celebrating, and supporting. For them, it sounds like the CETA deal is all downside and no upside.

A second area where coastal communities have significant concern is the impact of the trade deal on maritime jobs. CETA would, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports. It would also open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers.

We have had a huge downturn in our forest industry. We are making the shift from mining to more value-added industries. To lose these highly skilled, very localized local jobs at this time is impossible to contemplate, and it should not be done.

CETA, it is said, will lead to the immediate loss of approximately 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high-quality, well-paid jobs. These men and women have been working their whole lives to get the certification to allow them to do this work on our coasts. The industry as a whole supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. It is very valuable to us on the B.C. coast.

Foreign boats will bring in foreign workers with no requirement for a labour market impact assessment. These workers can be paid as low as $2 an hour, and they could suffer from low safety standards and poor working conditions. By permitting more foreign-flagged vessels, CETA encourages tax avoidance, since foreign ships registered with the flag of convenience countries like Malta or Cyprus take advantage of tax havens and the cheapest available labour.

The Marine Workers & Boilermakers Industrial Union has issued a very strong statement about CETA. It said:

The maritime section of CETA will destroy the Canadian maritime industry as it exists today by ending what is known as cabotage.

Cabotage is the protection given to the Canadian maritime industry under an act called the Coast Trading Act. Cabotage protects our coastal trade by requiring any vessel trading within Canada - from port to port along any of its coasts - is Canadian owned, operated and crewed. It is a simple, powerful and critical protection. It provides our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers with good, safe, family supporting jobs in an industry that is vital to our economy. It ensures that Canadian industry is regulated and inspected by Canada. That protects not only jobs, but also our environment and our financial health. Canadian companies pay taxes in Canada.

The statement went on to say about the negotiations:

...are not only attacking coastal trade. They have also included dredging companies, tugboat fleets and passenger vessels.

Are you willing to see your city government unable to give preference to a local company over a foreign bidder when a harbour needs dredging, barges need towing, logs are boomed or the ferry service critical to our province is required?

That is a statement from Rob Ashton who is the first vice-president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union of Canada. He is also co-chair of the Canadian Maritime and Supply Chain Coalition.

I have heard the same concerns echoed by Graeme Johnston, the president of the BC Ferry & Marine Workers' Union, and by his predecessor Chris Abbott, and by his predecessor Richard Goode, all strong leaders on the coast who are all standing up against CETA and its impact on coastal communities and coastal jobs.

Why pass Bill C-30 now? Given all these concerns and unresolved issues, I am reminded of the words of Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. She said, “Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op?”

On the matter of indigenous peoples, we remain concerned that despite the Prime Minister's commitment to a true nation-to-nation relationship, there has been no duty to consult fulfilled here. When the Assembly of First Nations' national chief Perry Bellegarde appeared before the trade committee on TPP, he called for immediate consultations with all first nations.

I am disappointed that the government is rushing this, and I will say in closing, once again, that while we are in favour of a trade deal with Europe, as it is an ideal trading partner, we are concerned about the specific measures within CETA as negotiated. It is our job to uphold the interests of Canadians in this process. The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix CETA, but the deal is not yet done. We will continue to urge them to remove the investor-court provisions, address increased drug costs, local procurement, compensating dairy farmers, protecting coastal jobs for ferry workers and longshoremen, and protecting the interests of Canadian wineries so we can celebrate local business.

I say once again, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. We must hold out for a better deal that protects Canadian interests and keeps our ties with Europe strong.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have this opportunity to rise today to speak on Bill C-30, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states.

Let me be clear that I am in support of and in favour of trade. The NDP is in support of trade. However, we want fair trade. We want trade that respects workers' rights, the environment, and aboriginal rights, and does so in consultation with business, ensuring that the business community is protected. After all, Canada is a trading nation.

I was a small business owner and the executive director of a very successful chamber of commerce on Vancouver Island. I know firsthand the benefits that cross-border commerce can have for our economy and Canadian business.

As the progressive opposition, we believe it is important to review the details of trade agreements. We do not blindly support any trade deal. We take our time to look at a deal closely. We want to get it right, so that everyone wins on all sides of a trade agreement, which leads me to CETA.

This trade agreement is flawed, and trade with Europe is far too important to get it wrong. I am going to illustrate three ways in which this deal is flawed, including the investor-state provisions, cabotage, and the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. When it comes to the investor-state provisions, the Liberals are asking parliamentarians to sign off on CETA despite the fact that European states, such as Wallonia, have made it clear that the investor-state provisions will have to be removed before they will be willing to ratify this agreement.

Let us talk about the investor-state provisions, because that is what a lot of folks back in Courtenay—Alberni, my riding, are concerned about when discussing CETA. In February 2016, the trade minister announced changes to the investor-state dispute settlement provisions that were supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat conflicts of interest. Yet, the investor court system will still allow foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits. That gives up local decision-making and sovereignty over our decision-making. That means that foreign companies will have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws without going through domestic courts.

The government has not explained how this would ensure that environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges. The question is, why not? It is now clear that this deal will not pass Europe without significant changes to the investor-state provisions.

Another huge concern, especially in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, is the maritime section of CETA. That part is very troubling to my constituents and residents of Vancouver Island and coastal British Columbia. The maritime section of CETA is of deep concern. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union just released a statement about this portion of the trade deal. They said:

The maritime section of CETA will destroy the Canadian maritime industry as it exists today by ending what is known as cabotage.

Many members are probably wondering what cabotage is. It is a measure under Coast Trading Act that protects our coastal trade by requiring any vessel trading within Canada to be Canadian owned, operated, and crewed. This is very important. It is important that we protect our jobs, environment, and 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 labour from foreign countries to run their ships here, putting our Canadian seafarers out of work.

When I think about the people working in our coastal communities, they are our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, who have good, safe family-supporting jobs in an industry that is vital to our economy.

These foreign-owned ships also will not pay taxes here in Canada. This is unfair. It is an unfair labour advantage. It is unfair advantage.

For decades, the U.S. and Canada have fought off aggressive attempts to remove our coastal protections, but with one swipe of the pen CETA will remove that protection. CETA will lead to the immediate loss of approximately 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high-quality, well-paid jobs.

I want to talk about how CETA will affect economic development opportunities in my riding specifically.

A plan is being worked on in Port Alberni in the Alberni Valley. This plan will be a great opportunity to invest in short sea shipping. This is being done with the Huu-ay-ah first nation.

Port Alberni is a deep sea port. It is the perfect place for the proposed Port Alberni transshipment hub, also known as PATH. It is an initiative to develop a container transshipment, short sea shipping terminal to move goods from the Alberni Valley to the Lower Mainland. CETA will impact PATH because it will undercut the Canadian labourers working on the docks and the ships. We have been working hard to develop a secure, healthy marine economy to help alleviate some of the congestion in the Lower Mainland, working with the Port of Vancouver and helping to support the Pacific gateway.

One-third of the children living in the Alberni Valley live in poverty. The valley has one of the highest unemployment rates in southwestern British Columbia. We are looking at this opportunity as a way to help drive us out of this difficult challenge that we are facing, to get us back on track, as we transition from a forest economy to one built on our marine economy. This deal will threaten the huge amount of work we have done in pulling all of the stakeholders together.

This trade deal is unacceptable to Canadians, but especially to my constituents who rely on the water for their livelihood. This deal would be incredibly damaging. Rather than building our economy, it would deepen the poverty and increase unemployment in places like the Alberni Valley.

The other major concern with this agreement is pharmaceuticals. Many constituents have sent me messages, telling me they are concerned about how CETA will impact the cost of drugs for Canadians. Changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals under CETA are expected to increase drug costs by more than $850 million annually. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has warned that this deal would make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program.

When the Liberals were in opposition, we know that they demanded that the Conservative government present a study on the financial impacts on territorial and provincial health care systems and prescription drugs. The government is now telling the provinces that it will cut health care transfers while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces without any sort of analysis, which the Liberals asked of the last government.

Canadians are already paying more for important lifesaving drugs than nearly any other OECD country. I have knocked on doors in my riding and met people who tell me they have to choose between buying food or drugs. They are living in pain because they cannot afford their drugs. People have had to come out of retirement to pay for their drugs. How do I tell these people that drug costs will go up even more? We should not be considering anything that could increase drug costs for Canadians.

Right now in my riding, raw log exports have gone up tenfold in 10 years. The Liberal government, without doing a proper economic analysis, reduced and removed a 25% tariff on building Canadian ferries here in Canada, which are instead being built in Poland and Turkey now by people working for low wages. Our fish are being filleted in China and returned to our grocery store shelves. Our coastal economy is being decimated. The impact this agreement could have on our coastal communities is very concerning.

New Democrats are in favour of a trade deal with Europe. We have deep historical and cultural ties with Europe. Europe has some of the most progressive democracies in the world. However, I am concerned about specific measures in CETA as currently negotiated. It is our job as a progressive opposition to uphold the interests of Canadians during this process.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying unequivocally that New Democrats believe that it is possible to create a Canada whose economy is sustainable, just, and fair while remaining competitive on the world stage. We believe that we all thrive in an equitable society where everyone has equal access to nutritious food, a safe home, an education, decent work at fair wages, clean air and fresh water, health care, pharmacare, a secure retirement, and child care.

Just today it was reported that child care costs in Canada are unaffordable. They are through the roof. Canadian parents know that, but the current government does not seem to have a clue. After 40 years of promises from Liberals and Conservatives alike, we still have no national, affordable, regulated child care in this country.

Our trade agreements should reflect not only the importance of a strong social safety net but our values as a nation, and child care is certainly one of them.

Any trade deal should promote and protect our communities and our families. Remarkably, it is not clear that CETA serves Canadians in regard to community needs and values. Because of this lack of clarity, New Democrats cannot support Bill C-30.

The NDP supports deepening the Canada-EU trade relationship to diversify our markets, but that does not cloud our vision or divert us from our commitment to ensuring that our trade deals serve the people who have placed their trust in us.

Despite lofty promises to the contrary, it appears that once again, the current government wants to force this bill into legislation without the transparency, public consultation, and careful consideration it warrants. This kind of smoke-and-mirrors tactic invites a healthy dose of skepticism.

Canada's trade relationship with Europe is too important to get wrong. We should be working to fix problems with the current deal rather than settling for this flawed agreement.

We have significant concerns and unanswered questions about CETA. It has been called the biggest trade deal since NAFTA. Without proper security, however, and scrutiny, trade agreements such as CETA have the potential to bargain away programs, services, products, and even the values that we, as Canadians, hold dear.

Our experience with NAFTA should be a lesson to us. Under NAFTA, Canadian workers suffered when well-paid union jobs moved south to low-wage jurisdictions, leaving communities and local economies devastated. In London, the story of Siemens, ABB, Westinghouse, Philips, and Caterpillar are sad examples.

Under the investor-state dispute settlement provisions of free trade agreements, Canada has become one of the most sued countries in the world, winning only three of 39 cases against foreign governments. Under NAFTA, Canada has paid out over €135 million on these claims, mostly to the U.S., and outstanding cases worth another €1.75 billion remain and are a concern.

This past February, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are purported to improve transparency and neutralize the potential for arbitrator conflicts of interest. However, the renamed investor-court system still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions those governments make, decisions the investors say threaten their profit margins. In other words, foreign companies will have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws without going through our domestic courts.

There is evidence that private corporations have attempted to use the threat of investor-state charges under NAFTA to discourage governments from advancing legislation that is in the best public interest, threatening the progressive social values we hold dear as Canadian citizens.

Critics have argued that CETA threatens our public services, including health care; that it endangers local job creation; that it threatens our sovereignty when it comes to fresh water and a clean environment; that it threatens our food sovereignty and farmers' rights; that our cultural and communications sovereignty is in danger; and that indigenous sovereignty and human rights are threatened, as are labour rights and the quality of our existing jobs.

Several European states have already made it clear that the investor-court provisions of the agreement must change before it is implemented, yet Bill C-30 includes all the necessary legal changes to implement CETA without knowing what those changes will be. Liberals are basically asking parliamentarians to sign a blank cheque and trust them to fill out the amount afterward: Sign the contract and read it later.

It is not an exaggeration to say that our democratic and domestic sovereignty is at risk if we accept a deal whose consequences are unknown. We can do better. Some could argue that Canada and Europe have more progressive policies than the U.S., making CETA different from NAFTA in its potential to affect our democratic sovereignty. Consider, however, that most large American corporations have Canadian subsidiaries. What is to stop one of those subsidiaries from invoking the investor-court provisions of CETA to challenge the environmental, health, and labour policies of signatory states?

New Democrats have been calling for a national pharmacare program for Canada forever. Evidence shows that such a program is not only sustainable but is cost-efficient for the government to implement. It would save billions in taxpayer dollars and would make life easier for Canadians who rely on those prescriptions for their health and quality of life.

In opposition, the Liberals demanded a study of the fiscal impact of CETA on prescription drug costs. In government, they are rushing to implement CETA, while at the same time they are refusing to consider increased health care transfers to the provinces. One would think that sunny ways would require a comprehensive analysis of policies and agreements and their effects on Canadians before signing off, but that does not seem to be the case here. Canadians deserve better.

Recognizing that supply management farmers would suffer under CETA and the TPP, the previous Conservative government earmarked $4.3 billion for compensation to industries affected by the deal. The Liberal government has announced a $350-million package for dairy farmers, falling far short of their actual losses under CETA. Neither has the government explained how it will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for fish processing losses expected under the deal.

Under CETA, companies will also have the increased ability to employ temporary foreign workers without consideration of the impact on Canadians. These effects have the potential to be devastating to our local economies as well as to those workers who must accept precarious working conditions to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.

In opposition, Liberals called for further consultation with Canadians on CETA. In government, they passed a motion in camera to restrict written submissions to those who the trade committee had selected to appear. This is yet another example of Liberals campaigning on the left and governing on the right. It is understandable that Canadians might have a hard time keeping up with this Liberal sleight of hand.

Given that testimony from over 400 witnesses and written submissions from 60,000 Canadians were overwhelmingly critical of the TPP, it appears that the Liberals have learned from their TPP experience. If only they had used this hard-won knowledge to actually listen to Canadians about their very real concerns regarding CETA rather than restricting public consultation and conducting what should have been public business in a closed and secretive environment.

We know from the example of Wallonia, in Belgium, that improving the agreement is possible where there is political will to do so. Because of Wallonia's intervention, consideration of trade union concerns has been incorporated into the legally binding, interpretative instrument of the agreement.

New Democrats do not oppose trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports, but we do not believe that investor-state provisions that threaten our sovereignty are necessary evils. In fact, investor-state provisions are unacceptable evils. They serve corporations and only corporations. These provisions do not serve people.

We believe that the job of government is to pursue better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects our health care system, social security, and Canadian jobs.

We believe that better trade deals are achieved with inclusion and must involve a better consultation process than was employed by previous Conservative and Liberal governments, and now the current Liberal government. It has kept—

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-30 at second reading. This bill implements the Canada-Europe comprehensive and economic trade agreement, or CETA.

I have to say to my colleagues that, unfortunately, we will be voting against it. I would have really liked to be able to support a good agreement between Canada and Europe in order to increase trade, because we know that the European continent is ripe with opportunity for our businesses. They definitely could have benefited from a good agreement that increases trade with Europe. We do already trade with Europe, but a trade agreement would allow us to trade even more.

Unfortunately, the agreement and its implementation bill leave much to be desired. This is not simply my opinion; many Canadian and European experts have been very critical of the bill's provisions. One of the things that has been most roundly criticized is definitely the legal framework for investor-state dispute resolution. It is a parallel system that allows investors like multinationals and states to challenge our own democratic decisions made here in Canada at all levels of government. This means that we could be sued for implementing policies that could be seen as affecting the bottom line of multinationals or working against the interests of foreign states. That will be part of my speech.

I identified many other problems with this agreement. However, as I said earlier, I am disappointed that we did not manage to come up with a better agreement because Europe is a place where we must do business. If ever there were a continent we could work well with outside North America, where we live, it is indeed Europe, where there are very robust workers rights and environmental protections; very solid workplace health and safety regulations that are comparable to what we have here in Canada; and excellent food safety and product safety regulations. This is a continent that Canada can certainly work well with because of our similar rules.

Today, as we speak, many of our regulations are similar to those in Europe. It is therefore important that we increase trade with that continent. Unfortunately, the bill and the signed agreement certainly do not meet our expectations.

Bill C-30 is definitely being rushed through. It allows the government to ratify CETA in full, but does not answer key questions. For example, many measures applicable to investors and states have not yet been defined and are being staunchly opposed in Europe. Right now we have no details about an appeal procedure or how the members of the arbitration panel will be chosen. That is where things stand at the moment.

The Liberal government is asking parliamentarians to sign a blank cheque, telling us it will fill it out later. Canada and Europe tried to alleviate Europeans' concerns about CETA, but the Liberal government has yet to consider Canadians' concerns.

I want to point out four problems that I feel are really important and that must be raised. They may make government members realize there are serious flaws in the economic agreement and possibly change their mind about this bill.

I have already mentioned investor-state measures in relation to our democratic states. These mechanisms are not fair to Canada, and they are not fair to Europe, either.

That is why even European experts and politicians raised this issue. They also felt that there was a problem with allowing multinationals to challenge our laws.

Let us imagine that a political party is elected based on the promise to ban a certain product that its members felt was a danger to the public. When the party takes office, it keeps its promise by declaring the product in question to be contrary to the interests of the economy and the public. Under the agreement in question, the multinational that manufactures the product could challenge the government's democratic decision to ban it and demand compensation by saying that it sold millions of units of the product in our country.

Multinationals and corporations would thus become superior to our sovereign states, which make decisions based on their election promises. These companies could get the last word and obtain compensation under the agreement as it stands today. That is why I want to speak out against this in the House today. I want every member to understand the potential consequences of these investor-state provisions and the parallel legal system created by this economic agreement.

Even though my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did a great job of explaining how this agreement will affect dairy producers, I wanted to mention them too because they are going to suffer major losses. That is why the previous government promised to compensate them when it was negotiating this economic agreement. The previous government recognized that dairy producers were going to suffer real financial losses and that, if it disrupted our supply management system by accepting more dairy products on our market, European cheeses in this case, the sales of our producers here in Canada could be negatively affected. The previous government therefore committed to compensating dairy producers for their losses.

The government often tries to smooth things over by saying that in exchange for allowing a certain number of European products onto our market, Canadian products will also have access to the European market. This is a market of 500 million people, and it is a tremendous market for selling more products, but in reality, because of the support that European countries give their own producers and other factors, it will be very difficult for Canadians to compete over there.

As well, obviously there are transportation costs involved in exporting products there. This sets up an uneven playing field, and it is just not the case that farmers will be able to make up their losses just by exporting and by trying to sell their products in Europe.

Another issue is the rising cost of drugs, which my colleagues have spoken about. Experts have estimated that Canadians will be faced with $850 million in extra costs. When the Liberals were in opposition, they called for a public study on the additional drug costs brought by changes to the intellectual property regime for pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, once elected, they appear to have forgotten about this part, even though it was a prerequisite for supporting this agreement.

The fourth problem I wanted to talk about is that certain rules will prevent current or future rules from requiring greater local content. For example, municipal or other governments might want to see procurement rules encouraging a greater number of local companies to bid on government procurement contracts. These rules could also be deemed inappropriate under the economic agreement.

In closing, I will be pleased to answer my colleagues’ questions if they would like me to clarify what I have said, or anything else.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has long been calling for improved trade with Europe to diversify Canada's markets. However, there are many serious concerns that have not been addressed and many unanswered questions regarding the proposed agreement.

I would like to say that I will not be supporting Bill C-30, an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

The Prime Minister signed the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA for short, on October 30, at the Canada-European Union leaders' summit. However, the Liberal government put Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement implementation act, on the Notice Paper just two days prior to that, and it introduced the bill on October 31.

I would like to remind the House that this rushed process violated the government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament. This policy requires the government to table a copy of the treaty along with an explanatory memorandum setting out the key elements of the treaty at least 21 sitting days before the bill is introduced, not just two.

Trade with Europe is too important to be taken lightly. The government has to make an effort to fix the unresolved problems in the agreement instead of settling for a flawed document. There is no shortage of flaws, including in agriculture, health, the environment, and the list goes on.

Nevertheless, the Liberals are blindly forging ahead. We need to think of the people, the jobs, and the local economies in our regions. The cost of pharmaceuticals will go up. The Liberals' promised compensation has evaporated. Some 23,000 jobs will be lost. That is the number of jobs Canada will lose because of CETA.

A study published by Tufts University's Global Development and Environment Institute in September showed that we will still be experiencing the job loss fallout from signing this agreement in 2023.

According to Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, this agreement “suggests that there aren't economic gains—only job losses, inequality, and the erosion of the public sector”.

I refuse to sit here and do nothing. It is our duty to protect the interests of our constituents. While the Conservatives had promised a $4.3-billion compensation package to supply-managed farmers who will be affected by the Canada-Europe agreement and the trans-Pacific partnership, the Liberal government ultimately decided to create a subsidy program worth just $350 million for dairy farmers and processors.

I hope the Liberals realize that that amount is not nearly enough to compensate the dairy industry for the job losses it is going to suffer under that agreement.

I would like to explain what this will mean for a region like my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

The agrifood sector is really the motor for economic development in the riding I represent. I often say that I am extremely proud to represent Canada's agrifood technocity. We have a high concentration of producers in various activity sectors, including educational institutions like the Cégep de Saint-Hyacinthe, the Institut de technologie agroalimentaire, and our faculty of veterinary medicine, the only French-language school of veterinary medicine in North America. My riding is also home to laboratories, research centres, and many agrifood processing plants. My region's entire economy depends on the agrifood sector.

A retail clothing store owner recently told me that he realized that half his clients are farmers, or people who work in the agri-food industry. He realized, as a store owner, how much he relies on the agri-food industry even though he sells clothing for a living.

This is a fragile industry. Let us not forget that. I live on a concession road, on my husband's family farm. My husband is the son of a dairy farmer. When he was young, there were three dairy farmers along our road. Now there are none. I represent two RCMs, Maskoutains and Acton. There are very few dairy farms left in the Maskoutains RCM. It is almost all crop farming now.

In Acton, I have the good fortune of representing dairy farmers. If we look at the village of Upton, for example, we see that on some concession roads there is a dairy farmer at every corner, at every farm. We have to realize that every time we sign an international agreement where we chip away a little more at supply management, there are direct and immediate repercussions on these dairy farmers.

The “Strong and United” campaign was rolled out during the summer of 2015. What I found really encouraging about this campaign was that my constituents, and all Canadians, were made aware of the fact that supply management is not just the business of the farmers concerned. In fact, it is everyone's business because supply management of milk, eggs, and poultry ensures that consumers have an adequate supply. As its name indicates, the supply management system is a system based on supply and demand. It ensures that we have enough good quality products at prices that do not fluctuate.

My constituents have told me that they sometimes go the United States where a litre of milk is less expensive. I tell them to go back in three weeks to see what that litre of milk costs. Without supply management prices can fluctuate throughout the year. There can even be a shortage. In fact, two years ago, there was an egg shortage in the United States, which was followed by price hikes.

We can always count on having enough high-quality products. That is important. Under the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, 17,000 tonnes of European cheese will be imported to Canada. That is definitely going to affect dairy production. We will definitely not need to produce as much milk because we are going to be importing 17,000 tonnes of cheese. Small cheese makers are already talking about it.

In addition to the problems this will cause for dairy producers, there is also the matter of land use. I was saying earlier that I represent villages where there is a farm around every corner. When I visit the villages in my riding, I am told that the agrifood industry is the lifeblood of our villages and schools.

Earlier, I was talking about a clothing retailer, but this will also impact the village grocery and hardware stores. All of the jobs in my community are directly affected by the agrifood industry. It is therefore very important that, any time we sign an international agreement, we consider the specific impact that the agreement will have on the agrifood industry.

A few years ago, we decided to exclude culture from our international agreements because this is a sensitive field that needs to be handled in a specific way. The same is true of agriculture. It is a matter of land use and food security. Food self-sufficiency is important. When we sign an international agreement, we need to ask those questions about the agrifood sector.

In conclusion, the NDP cannot support an agreement that is harmful to our regions, our jobs, and all Canadians.

This could have been a good agreement. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not appear capable of acting in the public’s interest.

We hope that the government will take the time to consult Canadians and rework the agreement, which hurts our regions and the public. This is the only way we will be able to build healthy and sustainable trade relationships between Canada and the European Union.

I am very proud to have been able to present this message on behalf of the farmers and the constituents of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from December 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly correct that past Conservative and Liberal governments have taken the attitude that they should just sign any and all free trade agreements, without much regard for whether they are good deals, and without much regard for the actual provisions of those agreements. That is one of the ways we have been in trouble with things like investor-state provisions.

My colleague is also correct to note that there has been a shift away from this logic of free trade all the time and at all costs. There is a sort of re-evaluation of corporate globalization and what it means for working people. Rather than rushing ahead with this deal, I do think it would make sense for Canada to re-evaluate our position as well, and to re-evaluate our position in this changed world.

Certainly in terms of Brexit, as I pointed out in my speech, it removes from the European Union the one major economy with which we were running a trade surplus. The trade imbalance that Canada will suffer with what is left of the European Union is even worse, and the potential negative consequences of getting this deal wrong are even more dire.

My colleague has added some very good reasons to vote against Bill C-30.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I have many concerns about Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

Since the beginning of negotiations with the European Union to conclude a trade agreement, I have had the impression, like many of my colleagues, that things are being hidden from us. A few years ago, on the occasion of a trip with the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, the Canadian delegation, of which I was a member, had the opportunity to discuss this agreement, which was then in the negotiation stage, with certain European parliamentarians, who were very clearly much better informed than we were.

It seems that the Conservative government of the time wanted to reveal absolutely nothing to its parliamentarians, even to the members of its own party. However, the Conservative and Liberal members quickly decided to accept this agreement without even knowing its details. For the New Democratic party, the fact that Canada intends to open its trade borders to Europe is too important for us to contemplate it lightly. That is precisely what the government is asking us to do.

Even though the NDP is in favour of strengthening our trade relations with the European Union, major concerns persist and many questions remain unanswered regarding the proposed agreement. For one, the government is asking us as parliamentarians to ratify an agreement even though certain European states have clearly indicated that the investor-state clauses will have to be amended or removed before the agreement is ratified.

We all remember that last October the regional government of Wallonia prevented Belgium, and hence the European Parliament, from signing the agreement, and then agreed to sign on the condition that it retain its right to refuse to consent to its ratification if its conditions are not met. So we are being asked to ratify the draft of an agreement which is not even final yet, and to disregard the concerns raised on the other side of the Atlantic, even though, at the same time, certain concerns are also being raised in Canada.

We are not going to give the government a blank cheque to finalize the last details of the agreement without being able to examine it in greater detail before it is implemented.

To add to the absurdity of all of this, I would like to remind my colleagues that 42% of Canada’s exports to the European Union go to the United Kingdom. In fact, the concessions Canada made when negotiating this agreement were based on the assumption that the United Kingdom would be a full party to the agreement. However, the Liberal government failed to reassess the net benefits of an agreement with Europe without this major trading partner of Canada’s, which could withdraw following Brexit.

Also, and I would like to talk a little in greater detail on this point, we are being asked to approve an agreement that creates a major breach in supply management and puts many farmers, particularly dairy farmers, in insecurity.

Supply management strikes a market balance. It allows dairy producers to collectively negotiate prices and plan total milk production in order to meet consumer demand. Unlike what is happening around the world, Canadian dairy producers can sell the product of their hard labour at stable prices, which are not subject to market fluctuations. This ensures that Canada’s dairy industry is one of the only self-sufficient agricultural industries that do not depend on government subsidies to survive.

Opening another breach in supply management will mean fewer and fewer guarantees for many products in terms of income stability, and this is particularly true in the case of family dairy farms.

The Conservatives had promised a $4.3-billion compensation package to supply-managed farmers who will be affected by the Canada-Europe agreement and the trans-Pacific partnership.

The Liberal government, for its part, decided to create a $350-million fund for dairy farmers. According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, that amount is not nearly enough to compensate the industry considering the losses it will suffer under the agreement with Europe:

CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production; representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the entire yearly production of the province of Nova Scotia, and will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million a year in perpetual lost revenues.

In other words, the funds announced are not nearly enough to make up for the losses that Canadian dairy farmers are going to suffer under this free trade agreement.

It is important at this time to talk about the situation facing the smallest dairy producers and family farms, which are on the verge of extinction.

I met with Viateur Soucy in June during a protest here, in front of Parliament, calling on the government to protect supply management and farming. The protestors were worried about diafiltered milk coming into the country and the impact of the trans-Pacific partnership and the agreement with Europe on dairy farms.

At 73, he drove his tractor to Ottawa with dairy producers from across Quebec and other regions of Canada. In Nouvelle, in the beautiful Chaleur Bay area of the Gaspé, the Soucys have been running a family farm for three generations. When Viateur, the eldest son of Ovide Soucy, took over his father’s farm with one of his brothers in the seventies, he decided to turn it into a dairy operation, because he saw it as an opportunity to provide his family with a stable income.

History has proven Mr. Soucy right up to now. Significant investments were made in modernizing the farm, the herd, machinery, new fields to feed the herd, and especially in production quotas, which, as we all know, are far from being allocated.

As long as the integrity of the supply management system was maintained, he was guaranteed an income. Mr. Soucy had an opportunity that most farmers do not, that of being able to keep his business in the family. Obviously, it is always easier to find someone to take over if they can be convinced that they will have a stable income if they put in the work, and of course on a farm, that means a lot of work. Mr. Soucy was lucky enough that one of his sons, Mikaël, took over the farm in 2004.

Today, Mikaël is the one who is dealing with the stress brought on by the decisions of this government and the previous government. When we spoke to Mikaël, he was not very happy with the government's decisions. We asked him what he thought of the compensation announced by the Liberals. Unfortunately, I cannot quote exactly what he said here because he was really unhappy.

Basically, he said that the revenue that farmers would lose because of this agreement would seriously impede their cash flow and that asking producers to invest and go further into debt was not a logical solution. He also asked us to ask the government a question. I will quote him here. He said, “I would like to know how long the government is going to string me along. Do I need to sell now or should I wait until my farm is no longer worth anything and I go bankrupt?”

That gives us some idea about his state of mind. Having a stable income is one thing, but once he has paid his overhead and his employee, that is, when he can manage to find one, he does not have much left to pay himself. If his income gets cut even further, what will be left for him? No wonder he is stressed and frustrated.

There are fewer and fewer family farms in Canada. It would be great if we could protect them. The problem is that if we allow a breach in supply management and compensate producers for their losses, this decision could be overturned by a change in government.

Given the number of promises broken by this government, you have to wonder whether someone might wake up one morning and say that the government has changed its mind and is going to withdraw this compensation. Who knows, maybe a lobbyist will pay $1,500 for access to a minister and ask for the whole thing to be cancelled.

If we uphold the integrity of supply management, we avoid all these possible outcomes. When it comes to this agreement, there are still too many unanswered questions and potentially negative impacts on the economy and on Canadians for the New Democratic Party to approve it and support its implementation without amendments.

Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, said, “Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op? There needs to be a fuller public consultation process on CETA, just as the government has done with the trans-Pacific partnership.”

What is the big rush?

The Minister of International Trade often says, when talking about softwood lumber, that she wants an agreement, but not just any agreement. Well, that sums up quite well the NDP’s position on the Canada-Europe comprehensive and economic trade agreement. We want a good agreement, but not just any agreement.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I took note of your comment just a few minutes ago about time. I must admit that I am not normally someone who backs down from a challenge, but what is being proposed here this morning is utterly impossible. We are supposed to try to summarize, comment on, and analyze a treaty as comprehensive as the one in Bill C-30 in just 10 minutes.

Instead I will try to shed some light on a few aspects of this treaty that I see as particularly important and that will allow everyone listening to this debate, especially the people of Trois-Rivières who have placed their trust in me, to understand the situation I find myself in and my position on this treaty.

All too often, and this is perhaps the first point I want to make, people try to portray the NDP as a party that is reluctant to sign free trade agreements, but that is not the case. What is true, however, is that we never make any decisions about an agreement without reading it. It took quite a while for the texts of the treaty to become available. Even as we speak, not all clauses of the treaty have been finalized.

I commend the Walloons who distinctively said they would go a step further, but reserve the right to go back and say no thank you if at the end of the process their questions and aspirations have not been satisfied.

I wonder why there is such urgency in Quebec and Canada. We have more than a few weeks to ratify this agreement. We are already hearing in Quebec, partly through the leader of the official opposition, that ratifying this agreement is out of the question if it does not include meaningful compensation for Quebec's dairy industry. I will come back to that.

Of course, he is not the Premier of Quebec, but between now and the end of the ratification process, a lot can change, not only in Quebec, but also in many provinces across Canada and in many of the countries directly affected by this free trade agreement.

I heard the Minister of International Trade and many of her colleagues say that they wonder who the NDP might sign a treaty with, if not with the European Union.

In response, I would like to turn the tables and ask this: if we cannot sign the best agreement possible with the European Union, a treaty that will be a building block, a model, and that will pave the way to the signing of all the other agreements that will follow, or that fixes agreements previously signed, with whom can we make the best possible agreement?

That is why we are so insistent that our suggested improvements be heard and advanced by the government to ensure that everyone will benefit.

It will be very evident, in the two or three points that I hope I have the time to develop, what the impact will be for Quebeckers and Canadians. I am talking about monetary implications.

Take Quebec's dairy producers, for example. I am using an example I am very familiar with. That said, the same applies to fisheries, which will or could encounter exactly the same kinds of problems.

Members will recall that during the election campaign, when candidates across Quebec were meeting with the Union des producteurs agricoles or directly with farmers to discuss their problems, everyone was carefully listening. Everyone had committed to a certain number of things.

The Quebec dairy industry is based on the family farm model, a model we would like to keep. Let me be clear. When we talk about the family farm model, we are not talking about a small business. These are multi-million dollar businesses. These people have a lot of responsibility and a significant financial burden. Signing a treaty that does not guarantee reasonable accommodation, at the very least, places a great burden on their shoulders and will cause them a great deal of stress.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservative government, which initiated the negotiation of this free trade agreement, promised to provide approximately $4 billion in compensation for dairy producers, if I remember correctly.

I rarely supported the Conservatives' policies, but if I compare the financial compensation that the Conservative government planned to give the dairy industry to the compensation that is now being proposed by the Liberal government, I have to admit that they are light years away from each other.

The Liberal government is currently proposing to provide dairy producers with $350 million over five years. The promised compensation has gone from $4 billion to $350 million over five years for two programs. The first program is a support and investment program to help modernize dairy operations. The government is now going to invest only $250 million in this program, rather than $350 million. However, as I was saying earlier, each farming operation is worth several million dollars.

What does the government expect to accomplish with such a small purse? Many dairy operations in Quebec have already modernized in order to remain competitive and ensure that their products are sold at competitive prices, so what will this program do to support the industry if the free trade agreement is signed? There are serious concerns in that regard.

With regard to the second program, the remaining $100 million will be invested over four years in dairy processing. That amounts to $25 million per year. Knowing how many dairy operations are out there and how much they are worth, we can see that this amount is clearly insufficient.

That is not even to mention the diafiltered milk issue, which the Liberals have not yet resolved and which makes the agreement in its current form a disaster for all dairy producers. We need to resolve this problem before we think about signing the agreement.

We also need to address the major impact that the substantial increase in the cost of prescription drugs will have on the pocketbooks of every citizen of this country. We have an ageing population, and as a rule, the statistics show that, unfortunately, that does not necessarily mean that the people living longer are always in good health. Consequently, the portion of our collective budget that we have to allocate to prescription drugs, as to hospital care, is a variable we have to take into account.

To the extent that there is a considerable increase in the price of prescription drugs, since we would be protecting drug patents longer through this agreement and it would take two or three years longer before companies could manufacture equivalent generics, each level of government will have to pay more for prescription drugs.

In Quebec, for example, where the entire population has access to pharmacare, there are still some who do not have the means to buy their medications, even if they only have to pay the prescription fee, and who have to consider slashing their grocery budget. That is another problem we will have to resolve.

There is a third problem that I will barely have time to touch upon, given the signal I am getting from the Speaker. Perhaps I will return to it if there are any questions. I am talking about investor-state disputes. To summarize very simply, corporations currently have such great influence on free trade agreements that they can sue governments that have made decisions which they claim would limit their ability to do business. One can well imagine all the problems that ensue.

I will be pleased to respond to questions from my colleagues.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA, as it is often referred to. This landmark agreement is the result of years of hard work and I welcome the opportunity to help bring into force the deal that we as a government struck.

I congratulate the trade minister for signing and prioritizing this agreement. I do wish she would do the same for the TPP. I wish I could tell her that all the travelling and absences from her family will get easier, but, unfortunately, I cannot. However, I am sure they understand, as I do, that the work being done is to benefit their future and the future of all Canadians.

I also thank her parliamentary secretary for the work he has done on this file and for his participation at trade committee.

CETA was part of the most ambitious trade agenda Canada has ever seen. The Liberals call it the gold standard, which, of course, includes the trans-Pacific partnership. Our previous Conservative government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper; the former Minister of International Trade; and my colleague, the member for Abbotsford, were able to negotiate free trade agreements with 46 different countries.

Of course, none of that would have been possible without the tremendous work done by our country's world-class negotiators, and in the case of CETA, Steve Verheul and his team, who spearheaded negotiations with the European Union. The amazing results they were able to achieve on Canada's behalf, at times in strenuous situations, and the personal sacrifices they made to get the job done deserve a tremendous amount of respect and gratitude.

The truth is, the work they do is never complete. Even when agreements are concluded, the boots are always on the ground, helping exporters here at home, or Canadian businesses that have expanded abroad, to integrate deeper into global supply chains. They are the first to arrive and always the last to depart, carrying and leaving traces of Canada along each stop.

As members of Parliament, we honour their work not just by reading their names into Hansard, but by implementing the agreements they lost sleep over, ensuring that the deals they fought for, at the expense of countless days, weeks, and months away from their families, are realized.

To our negotiators, trade agreements are more than just tariff lines and clauses on a piece of paper. To them these agreements are a living contribution to ensuring that Canada remains prosperous and become a part of their DNA and, in turn, a part of our history and success as a long-time trading nation.

What does that success look like in terms of CETA? It looks like a full elimination of duties on all non-agricultural goods going into a market of over 500 million people. It looks like the elimination of almost 94% of agricultural tariffs when we export our goods into an almost $20 trillion economy.

CETA is projected to bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion annual increase in Canada's economy. Put in another way, this is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. That will almost make up what the Liberal government has lost this past year so far.

The Canada–EU trade agreement is our country's biggest bilateral trade initiative since NAFTA. Let us just hope that our Prime Minister is not as eager to reopen CETA after it has been ratified.

CETA is unique in many ways, but the way that sticks out is how involved the provinces and territories were. Never before have the provinces and territories been part of international trade negotiations at such a grand level. The Europeans were hesitant at first, fearful that aboriginal concerns would slow down negotiations. The fact is, the opposite was true. Because of the level of provincial and territorial involvement, we were able to conclude the agreement back in 2014 as one voice with everyone on board. It turns out that the same could not be said for the EU, as we saw in Belgium with Wallonia. Part of that problem, of course, was the trade minister's incessant need to placate every irritant of every faction she could find, all for the sake of branding the agreement as Liberal and progressive.

In the end, when we do the side-by-side comparison of CETA, between the 2014 version that we concluded as the previous government and the current progressive version, we find that the so-called progressive changes the Liberals made were all rejected out of the gate by the EU Council and its member states. That means the agreement that we have before us, when it comes into effect, will be essentially what we concluded back in 2014, with the glaring exception now of any arbitration process for the ISDS claims. Our party strongly supports the international initiatives that will generate increased economic activity, drive prosperity, and create jobs as well as foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies.

The Canada–EU agreement emphasizes the importance of secure access to international markets through a rules-based trading system. It also would allow us to establish deeper trading relationships beyond North America. The same can be said for the trans-Pacific partnership, or TPP. But why would that be important and why would we look beyond North America? Well, it is important as part of the ambitious trade agenda I mentioned earlier.

As we know, Canadian exports to the U.S. account for about 75% of the total exports. This of course has its benefits, but we have to diversify our trade portfolio the same as anyone would diversify a stock portfolio. If we rely strictly on the U.S. market, as we have done for years, when the U.S. has a problem we face the same problem.

CETA, on the other hand, is a very aged market, a very mature market. The Pacific Rim of the TPP takes into account a growing or emerging middle class that we would have access to. So between the two, we would have access to 80% of the global GDP. It is very important that we have both agreements in place.

Yet, that is exactly what is happening as six nations press ahead with the TPP agreement, leaving Canada behind. At this point, we can and must change our position.

In addition to weakening Canada's position by prematurely putting NAFTA on the table before the new U.S. President has even been sworn in, there is the government's continued indecision and Liberal foot-dragging.

The general provision of the enactment sets out rules of interpretation and specifies that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 14, or any other—

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, for the rest of today, we will debate Bill S-4, on tax conventions.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-25, the business framework legislation, followed by Bill C-30, regarding CETA.

Monday and Tuesday we will proceed with Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. In the days following, we will put Bill S-4 at the top of the Order Paper so that we can pass it before the Christmas recess.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-30 on the free trade agreement with Europe. You probably know that I was the deputy international trade critic in the last Parliament.

I am very familiar with this issue and I am pleased to now debate it because it allows me to point out the NDP position on trade agreements in general. I can talk about agreements negotiated since the last Parliament because I was elected in 2011.

We examine free trade agreements through three different lenses. First, we determine whether a free trade agreement promotes human rights, environmental rights, and the rights of workers. That is why, in the past, we opposed several free trade agreements negotiated by the government, and in this case by the Conservative government.

One in particular was the agreement with Colombia, where workers' rights and their right to associate are frequently violated. The agreement with Panama was problematic because of taxation issues arising from the fact that Panama is a tax haven. The free trade agreement exacerbated the tax evasion problem. We also opposed the agreement with Honduras, and I was a member of the committee that studied that agreement.

The second criterion is reciprocity. We look at whether free trade agreements confer reciprocal rights and responsibilities on both parties. I this case, the two parties are Canada and Europe. That was one of the lenses through which we examined all trade agreements in the past.

The third criterion is whether Canada will be better off economically with such an agreement. Will the agreement be good for the Canadian economy as a whole? Those of us on this side of the House understand that, in any trade agreement, some sectors will be winners and others will be losers.

This third criterion is the one that is problematic in the agreement with Europe. First of all, there is the issue of generic drugs. Changes are going to be made to intellectual property rights that will have repercussions on the pharmaceutical industry. Various groups have studied the agreement and the repercussions it will have on drug accessibility programs and on the provinces' ability to provide generic drugs quicker.

Ultimately, the extension of intellectual property rights under this agreement, especially with regard to drugs, could mean additional costs of about $850 million, according to some estimates.

What is odd is that the government did not do any impact studies to see how much more this would cost either the private sector or the provinces. As we all know, a number of provinces have pharmacare programs. The government refuses to study the issue of the additional costs to our pharmacare programs, which the provinces usually pay for. It just keeps telling us that this agreement is a good thing.

We know, however, that the parliamentary budget officer has asked for an assessment of the additional drug costs the provinces will incur under this agreement, and that Health Canada replied that those figures remain confidential.

A second aspect of the free trade agreement with Europe we need to look at involves compensation for the cheese and dairy industry. When the Conservatives first signed the agreement, which has been signed three times already, Prime Minister Harper arrived, and we began discussing compensation for the cheese and dairy industry, to help its members through the transition. This compensation was estimated by the Conservatives at that time at $4.3 billion over 10 years.

Obviously, the Liberal government was in the hot seat and was asked what kind of compensation would be provided to the industry to help it through this difficult period. We know that the higher cheese quotas will allow over 17,000 tonnes of different kinds of cheese into the country, which will be in competition with ours. We need compensation. The industry had asked for this compensation to help them through the transition.

The Conservative government promised $4.3 billion over 10 years. The Liberals said not to worry, that they would help with the transition, and that they would also provide compensation. However, the compensation they plan to provide is $350 million over five years. That is approximately $70 million a year, whereas the compensation that was promised previously totalled $430 million a year. Cheese and dairy producers are outraged, and I can see why. Twelve per cent of the economy of the region that I represent in the House is dependent on agriculture, mainly the dairy industry.

I therefore cannot understand why the federal government has decided to give such minimal compensation to an industry that will be so heavily affected. The government has not given any convincing arguments to justify such a low level of compensation. I see some Liberal members from Newfoundland and Labrador here. No mention has been made of the compensation promised to Newfoundland and Labrador's fish and seafood processing industry, and we still do not know what the government intends to do in that regard.

The government is calling this a progressive agreement, but ultimately, it was negotiated by the Conservatives. Some members of the House may have already noticed a disconnect. What is more, the Conservatives planned to provide more compensation than the Liberals. There are therefore a number of problems with this agreement. There may be a reciprocity issue. In order to find out, we need to conduct an assessment of the impact on the Canadian economy. We do not know if there is a reciprocity issue because the Liberals never conducted an impact assessment.

In terms of human rights, the rights of workers and environmental rights, I think we can acknowledge that Europe and Canada are pretty similar.

The third aspect involves determining whether Canada will come out ahead, that is whether the Canadian economy will benefit from this agreement. That is far from clear, because the Liberals have not managed to convince the House and the Canadian public that the free trade agreement with Europe would be generally beneficial. Yes, we hear about the trade volume numbers, but these numbers do not reflect the possible impact on the various government programs, such as pharmacare, or our industries, such as the dairy and cheese industry.

When the Liberals and Conservatives tell us that we are dogmatic when it comes to trade, they try to hide the fact that they have never turned down a free trade agreement. We are the only party in the House that bothers to look at the details of these trade agreements.

A trade agreement is like a contract. You need to look at the terms and conditions. Back when the Liberals were the third party on this side of the House, when Stephen Harper came back from Brussels saying that they had signed an agreement with Europe, the first thing the Prime Minister, who at the time was the member for Papineau, did was to congratulate him for signing this free trade agreement and to tell him that the Liberals would support it. He then asked when they would be able to look at it.

They are willing to sign free trade agreements without studying them. Is that responsible? Name someone who thinks it is responsible to sign contracts without looking at what is in them. The same can be said about the Conservatives. They negotiate agreements and accept them without even looking at them.

We, on the other hand, are doing our due diligence. We study all the trade agreements brought before us and make decisions based on what is in them, on their provisions and the net benefit we can get out of it as a country.

No one, then, can claim that the NDP's position on trade is dogmatic and ideologically driven. We are the only party that acts responsibly. In this case, since the Liberals have refused to give us the information required, I am unable to vote in favour of this bill at second reading.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this place to add comment on Bill C-30, Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation act

The overwhelmingly positive economic impacts of Canadian businesses gaining preferential access to the world's wealthiest trade area cannot be overstated. This deal will reduce or eliminate approximately 99% of customs duties between Canada and the European Union. This will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian businesses whenever they sell a good into the European market.

Conversely, this will make it less expensive for Canadian businesses to buy specialized goods, like heavy machinery and parts that may not be available in Canada.

A joint Canada-EU study concluded that CETA could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion increase to Canada's economy. That is why the previous Conservative government was relentlessly focused on signing trade agreements around the world.

This focus led to Canada's first trade agreement with a major Asian economy in South Korea, and the first major trade agreement with a South American economy in Colombia. These footholds are hugely important for exporters who want to export their products to Asia or South America. For an economy that relies on the service sector and exports, these deals are of paramount importance.

That is why the previous government launched negotiations for Canada's most ambitious free trade agreement with Europe in May 2009. After years of negotiations with the European Union and its 28-member countries, negotiations ended in August 2014, and a deal in principle was reached during the summer of 2015.

The Liberals were handed the CETA on a silver platter. Yet, for reasons that may never be explained, they nearly blew it. For several days after Wallonia, a small region in Belgium, announced that it would be supporting the agreement, there were legitimate fears that the deal had collapsed.

On October 25, as the minister was in the House defending her record on this deal, she stated, “when it comes to CETA, Canada has done its job.”. The argument that because Canada had worked hard up to that point and therefore it was acceptable to let Europe do “its job now”, was fraught with so many problems I cannot even begin to list them. These deals do not sign themselves. Canada must always fight for its interests, and not sit and wait and hope for the best.

Thankfully, the pro-trade powers in Europe that strongly supported this deal got it moving again. They did so because CETA could serve as a template for a similar agreement between Europe and the United States at a later date.

The Minister of International Trade has been repeating over and over that she got CETA over the finish line because she made this deal more “inclusive and progressive”. The only thing that has changed from the deal in principle negotiated by the Conservatives and the agreement we are discussing today is the investor-state dispute settlement process. Nothing else has changed.

Canada has always been recognized as a country with the strongest record for human rights, rule of law, democracy, regulation, and the list goes on. CETA has always been a progressive and inclusive agreement because Canada has always been a progressive and inclusive country. Saying otherwise would be disingenuous.

Concerning the investor-state dispute mechanisms I mentioned, investor-state dispute arbitration tribunals are made available in nearly 3,000 bilateral investment treaties. Even Belgium has investment provisions with 182 different parties. These are not new, and many work quite well.

Under the investor-state dispute settlement process, foreign investors can sue the host state before an arbitration tribunal, appointed on a case-by-case basis by the two affected parties, if they believe the treaty governing trade between the two countries has been violated. This system is used for dispute mechanisms in over 3,000 bilateral trade agreements, including NAFTA, and its strengths and weaknesses are known and understood.

Civil society groups have questioned the appropriateness of applying a dispute settlement mechanism created to resolve private-commercial disputes to international public law disputes, because it is felt to favour the companies from larger countries. Critics have also raised concerns over the potential for the arbitrator to have bias and the potential for conflict of interest.

In response to these criticisms and in preparation for negotiations with the United States on a free trade agreement, the European Union began developing the concept of an investment court after the deal in principle with Canada was agreed to in 2014. The investment court would be a primary tribunal of 15 judges and an appeal tribunal of six members. The members would be named by the EU and Canada. It would be administered by the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

The court of first instance would sit in benches of three members each and would decide the original complaint. As with any new process, it is hard to know exactly how this will unfold. Who within each country will be responsible for appointing judges to the court? What will their training and fields of expertise be? How long will they sit for? Will the judges be idle if there are not many challenges? Or will they be allowed to work and consult in addition to their duties on the court?

Considering Canada's population is less than a tenth of the size of Europe's, how many of the 21 jurists would be Canadian? In the case of Wallonia, how many jurists would come from that region over jurists from France or Germany? There is no common law, in international disputes between corporations and governments, that jurists could draw guidance from when deciding cases, so it is hard to speculate whether the outcomes of legal challenges would be any different.

One of the main criticisms of the investor-state tribunals is that due to their decentralized nature, the arbiters do not necessarily consider the decisions of other arbiters. Therefore, their rulings are inconsistent. However, this new system does not necessarily fix this. If these investment courts become the norm, there could be hundreds of different courts deciding trade disputes. How consistent their rulings would be remains to be seen. Furthermore, a permanent multilateral investment court would only be consistent in its rulings relative to the treaty that governs the trade between two countries.

As with any new process, as I have said, it is hard to know exactly how it will unfold. If this new court satisfies European negotiators, then it should be included as the treaty's primary dispute mechanism. The question remains, why do the Liberals believe that this has made the CETA more inclusive or progressive? The fact is that jurists on the new court will render their decisions on the evidence and the text of the trade agreement, which remains the same as what the Conservatives negotiated 15 months ago.

Quite frankly, getting this trade deal done should have been the government's first priority. Now that it is signed, I hope it will place a relentless focus on getting the trans Pacific partnership completed at the earliest possible opportunity. The more markets Canadian producers can sell into without the competitive disadvantage of tariffs, the better off we will be as a country.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that with regard to trade agreements, we supported Bill C-13, which was just introduced and which will move forward. This means we are capable of really thoroughly analyzing international trade proposals.

There are a lot of missed opportunities in Bill C-30 concerning the agreement with the European Union. As for anything related to dairy production, clearly, what the Liberals are offering is completely inadequate. They say they consulted those affected. Dairy producers were very vocal on several occasions to let them know that this was completely laughable. They are going to lose 2% of their production under this agreement. Dairy producers have been a real bargaining chip for a number of years now. There needs to be enough compensation to at least cover the $116 million per year loss. This is the bare minimum. We need to at least compensate them for that.

In the area of agriculture, wine producers are also seeking compensation because 180 million litres of wine will be coming in from the European Union. That is troubling as well. We have asked the Liberals to support the wine industry.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-30 concerns the implementation of the Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA.

Trade with Europe is much too important to be taken lightly. It is Quebec’s second largest trading partner. We export about $9 billion in goods and services, and a number of European companies, such as OVH, have set up operations in my riding, Salaberry—Suroît.

The NDP and I want to promote a stronger trade relationship between Canada and the European Union, although there are still major concerns and quite a few outstanding issues regarding this agreement. In Canada, like in Europe, this agreement has sparked a vigorous protest movement. In October, the regional government of Wallonia prevented Belgium from signing on to CETA; it believed that the investor-state provisions could adversely affect them, and several individuals, including some Canadians, also raised alarm bells and said that the matter needed another look. The Walloons agreed to sign on because they managed to retain their right to withhold consent to ratification if the investor-state provisions were not deleted or changed.

Our dairy producers expressed serious reservations about the impact of a massive amount of dairy products arriving on the Canadian market and on the Quebec market in particular. As well, a request for compensation was received this week from wine producers who fear losing their ability to produce here and their ability to sell on the Canadian market.

The Liberal government promised to compensate dairy producers, but this support falls far short of what they would find acceptable. Citizens groups have spoken up about how drug prices will be affected by changes to intellectual property and by generic drugs taking longer to get to market.

CETA is a source of concern for many. As the Dairy Farmers of Canada put it, CETA represents a 2% decline in dairy production, or Nova Scotia’s entire annual production. The dairy industry needs to be compensated for these losses.

The Conservatives had promised a $4.3 billion compensation package over 15 years to supply-managed farmers affected by CETA and the TPP. The current Liberal government decided to establish a fund of $350 million over five years for dairy producers.

The losses sustained by farmers will be permanent; they will not end five years from now. On top of that, the assistance being offered is paltry and not nearly enough to compensate this sector. According to the most conservative estimates, dairy farmers are going to lose $116 million a year.

The $50 million the Liberals are offering will therefore meet only 45% of the farmers' needs each year, which does not even cover the minimum losses that farmers are estimating. The Liberals have not appropriately compensated dairy farmers for the loss of market share.

In addition, the programs the Liberals have put in place are not meant to compensate farmers, but rather to modernize their production systems. The government is, in effect, denying that losses will occur under CETA.

The dairy farmers in my riding are already greatly affected by the diafiltered milk problem. American exporters are getting around Canadian laws by selling their diafiltered milk here. We need to enforce our cheese compositional standards immediately. The future of our dairy farmers, our family farms, and local jobs here in Canada is at stake. Across the country, the agrifood sector employs one in eight Canadians. We cannot ignore this sector when negotiating trade agreements with other countries.

It has been estimated that $200 million was lost in 2015. A farmer might lose $1,000 a week. The Liberals promised farmers that they would resolve the issue of diafiltered milk, but they have not lifted a finger so far. I am still waiting for news from the government, who is supposed to be helping farmers across Canada, as well as those in my riding, Salaberry—Suroît.

Trade relations also have to be based on equity between the partners and carried out in compliance with laws and regulations. CETA is worrisome in this regard as well. The investor-state provisions will allow foreign companies to challenge Canadian laws without going through our domestic courts.

There is so much uncertainty here that we have no idea how we can even appeal such claims or how members of the tribunal will be selected. We know full well that the companies will be able to hire foreign workers without a labour market impact assessment.

Municipal, provincial, or federal governments will no longer be able to require local employees be given priority without risking a trade challenge. Canada is already being sued and has won only three out of 39 cases against foreign investors in Canada. This is rather disconcerting.

In other words, any decision taken by any level of government could end in compensation for foreign companies. Canada is already one of the most sued countries under ISDS. This legal system has not been fully defined. We cannot give the Liberals carte blanche on this. There are many very important elements that could compromise our industries and our values.

The Liberals keep repeating that they cherish Canadian values. That is not evident in this bill. They are trying to ram it through. We even heard a member say that this bill must be passed before the end of the year. Knowing that 28 EU countries must ratify it and that this could take up to five years, why the urgency?

Why did the committee move a motion in camera to prevent those wanting to submit a brief from doing so? The committee is preventing everyone who will not appear as a witness from submitting a brief. In terms of transparency, accountability, and responsibility with respect to consultations, the Liberals are falling far short. Furthermore, they are not answering questions from farmers, wine producers, and producers from the east and the Maritimes who earn their living from the fishery. That is very troubling.

We cannot make an informed decision, for there is still much we do not know about the investor-state provisions. The Liberals also have not explained how they will protect environmental, health, and security regulations from foreign challenges.

The European states clearly indicated that this agreement would not be ratified unless the investor-state provisions were removed. Once again, the Liberals have not provided any information on this. Will they change these regulations? Will they provide a bit more information? As I said, there is a lot of uncertainty here.

The government is leaving us open to a situation where the agreement cannot be ratified by some countries in the European Union.

Let us talk about health. The changes set out in CETA may increase the cost of drugs for Canadians. The agreement will change the intellectual property rules regarding drugs. This will increase the cost of drugs by over $850 million a year, because it will take longer for generic drugs to reach the market.

Since Canada's population is aging, we will need access to drugs. This is just one more hardship for our seniors. There is no guarantee that they will be able to make ends meet since they are already struggling to put food on the table and get access to health care. Now, they may have to pay more for their medication.

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that these regulations could make it more difficult to bring down prices with a national pharmacare program.

For all these reasons and more, I cannot vote in favour of this bill.

I hope that the Liberals will do the responsible thing and consult experts, reconsider some of their positions, and make informed decisions so that we sign an agreement that is truly fair to all workers and all Canadians.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-30, one of our government's blueprints for Canada's dynamic agriculture and agrifood industry.

Agriculture is hugely important in my riding, and has played an enormous role in my life, having grown up on a large farm and having produced myself. After finishing university and coming home, I was farming on my own, learning life's lessons through the farm. I worked within primary agriculture off the farm, and in food manufacturing and food processing.

It has really helped me throughout the years to become the person I am. I would like to thank my parents for giving me that opportunity. Growing up in an agricultural household has played a significant role in my life.

I was a supply-managed egg producer for six years, up until just recently. My wife and I recently exited the egg business. Over the last six years, I have had the ability to learn about a supply-managed system and the challenges and opportunities that evolve because of it. It has afforded me the opportunity in my life to learn those lessons, and to see the opportunity that agriculture offers to allow family operations to transition from one generation to the next, not only within primary agriculture but also through secondary and finished production as well. We can link these easily to CETA.

Canada is a medium-sized open economy. Our economic prosperity depends on an open trading environment. One in five Canadian jobs depends on trade. Canada's agriculture and food exports exceed $60 billion a year. Half the value of Canada's agricultural production is exported, which is why our government strongly supports free trade.

The Canada-European trade agreement demonstrates Canada's continued leadership with regard to the opportunities for Canada's farmers and food processors on the global stage, which has been nothing short of breathtaking. I hope it continues in that same fashion.

I believe CETA will allow agricultural producers to flourish. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the global demand for food is projected to increase by 60% by 2050. Much of this demand will come from the growing middle class around the world, which is on track to exceed half the planet's entire population over the next 15 years.

A lot of this production is not going to come from new agricultural operations. It is going to come from the growth that will be sustained through the industry, through people who are able to innovate and accept technology, and grow their businesses through that. This is good news for farmers in my riding and across the country. There is no doubt of the benefits CETA will bring Canada's agriculture and agrifood industry.

We are talking about access to Europe, a region that is among the world's largest market for food. That is why timely implementation of CETA remains a top priority for our government. Since taking government, 99.991% of my constituents believe in the global economy, and our government's efforts to place Canada on the world stage. When we are talking about agriculture in my riding, we are not only talking about dairy. We have a vibrant dairy sector, but we also have a very vibrant beef sector. We also have a very vibrant maple syrup manufacturing sector, so we need to look at the total picture and include all the industries when we talk about trade.

CETA will provide a strong foundation for Canada and the EU to demonstrate leadership on an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade. At the same time, we know that some sectors of agriculture will be impacted by CETA, namely our dairy and cheese producers under the supply-managed system.

While CETA does offer enormous opportunity for many of our farmers, such as our maple producers, beef producers, and aquaculture industry, there will also be greater access for European cheeses to Canada. Canada has provided additional access to the EU on two specific dairy products, cheese and milk protein substances. New imports of European cheese under CETA will represent 4% of Canadian cheese consumption and 1.4% of milk production overall. The supply-managed system has been preserved under CETA.

The Government of Canada fully supports supply management. In fact, we were the government that created it. That is something of which we are extremely proud. Supply management provides a fair return for farmers, stability for processors, and safe, high quality food products for consumers, something I know is important to many farmers in my riding and to constituents across the country.

We recognize the importance Canada's supply-managed sectors play in ensuring a strong rural economy, accounting for over 25,000 direct jobs and over $34 billion in overall economic benefit to the country.

As my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, likes to say, Canada has the responsibility and the ability to feed the world. We need look no farther than the innovation that has already occurred within the agriculture sector, and the ability to capitalize on the innovation in the future.

Canada is the fifth largest exporter and the sixth largest importer of agriculture and agrifood products in the world. With our small population and huge production capacity, Canada is today's world leader in agricultural trade on a per capita basis. Trade accounts for one out of every five jobs in Canada. Canada's dairy industry alone generates farm gate sales of $6 billion, and processing sales of $17 billion, and 22,000 direct jobs.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his colleagues continue to consult closely with Canada's supply-managed sector regarding the transition through CETA.

The Minister of Agriculture has met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Dairy Processors Association of Canada, provincial dairy associations from across the country, and young dairy producers. These meetings were very productive with many ideas and fresh thinking. Discussions mainly focused on how to strengthen the sector in the face of domestic and international challenges, and how to transition assistance for new markets under CETA.

Responding to these concerns, the government is committed to putting in place a transition package to help the sector adapt to the new CETA commitments. This government has said from the get go that we need to help dairy producers and processors make the transition when it comes to CETA.

That is why in early November, the Minister of Agriculture announced an investment of $350 million for two new programs to support the competitiveness of the dairy sector in anticipation of the entry into CETA. The government is supporting the continued strength of the dairy sector by helping ensuring dairy producers and processors continue to innovate and improve productivity.

The two new programs identify $250 million over five years for a dairy farm investment program that will provide targeted contributions to help Canadian dairy farmers update farm technologies and systems, and improve productivity through upgrades to their equipment. I have had over two dozen calls from dairy farmers wanting to know the specifics of these programs, when they will take effect, and how they can access these funds.

There will be $100 million over four years for a dairy processing investment fund that will help dairy processors modernize their operations and in turn improve their efficiency and productivity, as well as diversify their products to pursue new market opportunities. These programs will complement the dairy sector's ongoing investment efforts, help in both current and future generations of dairy farmers and processors to remain profitable over the long-term under a strong supply-managed system.

With regard to the allocation of CETA cheese quotas, the government is currently reviewing the results of the public engagement process that concluded at the end of August. The Minister of International Trade's decision will take stakeholder views and interests into consideration before determining how to allocate the new CETA cheese quotas.

The allocation policy for the cheese tariff rate quotas will be finalized following the passage of CETA implementation, legislation, and before the agreement enters into force.

While there are challenges, the Canadian dairy sector remains a progressive, innovative industry. The Canadian dairy farmers are doing a great job of meeting the needs of consumers on food quality, animal welfare, the environment and, of course, great tastes and high nutritional value of Canadian products.

Consumers love Canadian dairy products. Production continues to grow every year. Butter consumption has risen by 10% over the last decade. Yogourt consumption has increased over 60% during the same period, and is expected to continue growing.

Canadian dairy farmers are among the global leaders in their industry when it comes to the environment. Canada's dairy sector has a smaller footprint for carbon, water, and land than most other leading dairy industries around the world.

Today, Canadian dairy farmers are able to produce 14% more milk than they used to 20 years ago, thanks to better genetics, nutrition, and farm management practices. They are able to accomplish this with 24% fewer cows while producing 20% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That is thanks to advances in animal genetics and nutrition.

Forward-thinking Canadian farmers have contributed to the success of the Canadian dairy industry in many ways. Canadian dairy genetics are exported to over 80 countries around the world, and of course, who can forget our famous Canadian cheeses which are winning top prizes at some of the world's leading competitions.

We all want a bright future for Canada's dairy sector. The agricultural sector continues to create jobs and be a leader in innovation, not only within the dairy sector but across our agricultural industries.

To help build that future, we are investing in science—

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30. I commend all my colleagues in this House who have spoken to this bill over the last few days. It is a very important bill. I especially commend the member for New Brunswick Southwest, who made a great statement today on this bill. I would also like to recognize our trade minister for all the hard work she has done on this file. She has worked extremely hard on this important agreement, and along with our Prime Minister, on representing Canada across the world as an open, trading country.

I would also like to give recognition to our international trade committee, which I am very proud to sit on as the chair. I would like to thank the members of the committee for their work and engagement during this process. It is a very active committee. We are dealing with softwood lumber and problems with the meat sector in the United States. We also, over the last year, had a dialogue with Canadians and stakeholders on the TPP. We went right across the country. We had thousands of people come forward. During those proceedings, for the first time, the committee had an open mic at the end of each meeting, so we had a lot of feedback on the TPP across this country.

I am here to talk about the agreement with the European Union. Recently we had an excellent meeting with the European Economic and Social Committee, and we will continue to work closely with our European counterparts. They are very excited about this agreement.

Thinking of how Canada was formed, we go back hundreds of years. I guess it was 400 years ago that trade started between Europe and Canada. At that time, it probably started off with fishermen, with probably Spanish and Portuguese fishermen coming and getting fish and trading it back and forth. Other immigrants came over the years and created trade. We had farmers, and of course, the fur industry was another big one, with the voyageurs. Trade with Europe was very important in the early years, and it still is.

As the country expanded and immigrants came, most were from Europe. Ukrainian people came over. A lot of them are in my riding, but many of them went out west and developed the grain fields, and those products were traded back and forth.

Our connection with Europe goes way back, with over 400 years of trade. That continues to be so, though many of the products have changed.

The proposed comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union is a modern, progressive trade agreement that, when implemented, will generate billions of dollars in bilateral trade and investment, providing greater choice and lower prices for consumers and creating middle-class jobs in many sectors. That is what our government stands for. We want to increase the middle class and have it do better, and trade is important. Countries that trade have a larger middle class and have more efficient and competitive industries.

CETA is the product of hard work and frank discussions. We have some of the best negotiators in the world on our team. There was a lot of commitment from our Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade, our committee, and countless other people behind the scenes. I also have to commend the work of the former Conservative government on this agreement. The Conservatives set the groundwork for this. They started the negotiations, and they did a good job. They did not finish it, but they started the process, and we finished it. I have to commend the former Conservative government for initiating this, getting it going, and making it happen.

Negotiating a trade agreement such as the Canada-European comprehensive economic and trade agreement benefits Canadians. It creates new job opportunities and helps many people. The United States is still our biggest trading partner, but we have to look at other markets and see other trading partners. The European Union is tremendous. I think there are over 500 million citizens there. It is a big market, and they want our products. Canada's exports to the EU are diverse and include a significant share of value-added products in addition to traditional exports of resource-based products and commodities.

We have precious stones and metals. We have machinery and equipment. Minerals, fuels and oil, mineral ores, aerospace products, and fish and fish products are some of the top merchandise we sell to the EU.

Atlantic Canada, where I am from, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, is closest to Europe. This will be a big advantage for us. Our two export sectors that will particularly benefit from CETA will be metals and mineral products, and of course, the fishing sector.

In Atlantic Canada, we have more than 400 small harbours. They each have 20 or 30 boats. We cannot eat all the fish in Atlantic Canada, and the rest of the world wants our fish, so it is very important that we have markets around the world for our fish products.

When it comes to exporting our products, Atlantic Canada has ports we can ship from. We ship our products year round. We have good deepwater ports that are ice free. We are two days closer than many other ports, such as Montreal, Boston, and New York. Atlantic Canada is well-positioned to do well, not only with products but by being the entry and exit point for products coming and going.

My home province of Nova Scotia will benefit significantly from CETA and will have preferable access to the EU market. The EU is Nova Scotia's second-largest export destination, and it is its second-largest trading partner, with a large portion of that share coming right from my island of Cape Breton.

Once in force, CETA will remove the boundaries for Nova Scotia exports and will create new markets and opportunities in the EU. Nova Scotia will benefit from improved exporting conditions. CETA will provide us with a competitive advantage over exporters in other countries that do not have free trade agreements with the EU. The United States tried to do an agreement like we did, but it did not succeed.

I have a neighbour in Cape Breton who is from Germany. His company is called PolyTech windows. They are beautiful windows. He is looking at making the windows in Nova Scotia and exporting them to the United States. We will not only benefit back and forth but we will be a gateway into the United States for a lot of products from the Europeans that we can add value to in Canada.

Between 2013 and 2015, Nova Scotia's merchandise exports to the EU were worth $465 million. As I said, fish and fish products were the largest share, at 45% of exports. Following fish and fish products were agriculture and agrifood.

Nova Scotia is unique. We have a lot of different products that have great potential, whether it is potatoes, blueberries, apples, or even beef. We have good beef in Atlantic Canada. It is grass-fed beef, and that is what Europeans like, so we have a great opportunity.

I visited an operation in Lunenburg where they grow the haskap berry, which is a very nutritious product. They are looking at exporting that product to the EU and doubling their production.

When we look at all these different products we can trade and sell, we have a great opportunity.

This important agreement also hits home on a personal note. My parents came to Canada from the Netherlands. They came to Cape Breton, and that is where we started our farm. We also trade. We sell strawberries to Iceland, calves to the Caribbean, and lettuce to the United States. As farmers, and as we have heard from farmers right across this country, whether it is beef farmers, canola farmers, or pork producers, we see this as a big opportunity.

In closing, when other countries are closing their doors to trade and immigrants, Canada is opening our doors. The benefits as a result of CETA for the Atlantic provinces are going to be tremendous. CETA is a modern, progressive trade agreement that could generate billions of dollars in bilateral trade and investment and provide greater choice and lower prices for consumers.

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing with opposition day. Tomorrow the House will consider the report stage of Bill C-29, the second budget bill, and it will continue studying that bill Monday and Tuesday of next week.

For the remainder of the week, we plan to call the following bills: Bill S-4, the tax conventions legislation, and Bill S-3, the Indian tax amendment, provided we get these two bills from the Senate; Bill C-25, the business frameworks bill; and Bill C-30 concerning CETA. All these bills are at second reading.

It is my hope that parties will be able to negotiate on how to proceed in advancing these very important initiatives. Something I have committed to is working well with other parties, and I will continue to do that.

[Marvin Hildebrand, Chief Negotiator, Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, and Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to all the committee members.

Perhaps I will begin by briefly introducing my colleagues at the table. Alessandro Longo is with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Brooke Davis is with Global Affairs Canada and is the deputy chief negotiator on this initiative. Stacy-Paul Healy is with the legal bureau at Global Affairs. Pierre Bouchard is from Employment and Social Development Canada. He was one of the negotiators on this deal, as were Stacy-Paul and Alessandro. Pierre, obviously, was involved in the labour chapter of the agreement.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will give a very brief opening set of remarks, focusing on Bill C-31, which is the legislation in question here concerning the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The bill, of course, is called the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Canada already complies with many of the obligations under the Canada-Ukraine FTA, or CUFTA, as we refer to it. However, before this agreement can be brought into force, a statutory authority is required for Canada to implement some of the provisions of the agreement.

Bill C-31 contains the provisions typically found in an implementing bill for Canada's bilateral free trade agreements. These essentially fall into three groups: one, authority to implement institutional provisions of the agreement; two, amendments to Canadian law necessary to implement the agreement; and three, coordinating amendments.

Bill C-31 starts with provisions to enable Canada to implement the institutional provisions of CUFTA—for example, establishing the authority for ministers to appoint individuals to committees and to dispute settlement panels and other bodies established under the agreement, and also the authority for the Government of Canada to pay its share of expenses related to the operation of the agreement. Bill C-31 also authorizes the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out provisions of the act, such as the suspension of benefits following dispute settlement.

Second—and this is the second group of elements of Bill C-31—the bill amends seven existing Canadian laws to enable the implementation of CUFTA. At the heart of these changes are amendments to the customs tariff to implement preferential tariffs for Ukrainian goods in line with the market access provisions in the agreement. There are also changes to the Customs Act that support these market access provisions. An example is authority to check whether goods qualify for tariff preferences under the agreement and to provide advanced rulings to assist companies in knowing how goods will be treated under the agreement.

The customs tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act are also being amended to implement provisions related to bilateral safeguard measures that may be taken if injury is caused to domestic producers due to increased imports.

The dispute settlement mechanism in the labour chapter of the agreement can result in a monetary assessment made enforceable in domestic law through amendments to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Department of Employment and Social Development Act. There are also amendments to the Financial Administration Act to authorize the Governor in Council to issue directives to crown corporations for the purpose of implementing the agreement.

Third, Bill C-31 contains amendments to coordinate with Bill C-30, which is the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement implementing legislation. Because both bills amend the same parts of the Customs Act, the coordinating amendments ensure that the amendments made by Bill C-30 do not undo the amendments made by Bill C-31, and vice versa.

That provides a brief overview of the contents of Bill C-31, Mr. Chairman.

I would be happy to address any questions that you or other committee members might have.

[Jim Keon]

With respect to retroactivity, the provisions of Bill C-30 should apply, in terms of this patent extension or certificates of supplementary protection, only to products approved after the coming into force of CETA. The amendment we have makes that absolutely clear, and I'm hoping it will be done.

On combination products, we're concerned more about evergreening, a term that's sometimes used, whereby protection goes to an underlying molecule. It gets an extension, and it's combined with a further molecule to produce a combination product, which can have a separate approval. If there have already been extensions for the underlying products, we don't think the extension product should also get extra protection. This has happened in Europe. Our colleagues in the European Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association have told us this, and they have encouraged us to be very careful with it. We're proposing this amendment to try to make sure this doesn't occur in Canada.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Okay, so we'll welcome those changes that you'll supply to the committee for those amendments.

Gus, I want to go to you quickly before you have to go.

You've also raised some amendments to the ISDS and to the chapters there that we are looking at. I think one of the things you mentioned is important and is a big piece of this. Right now, the way it stands is that it's being provisionally applied, and we're mirroring that here, although it's not entrenched in the legislation we have going forward. At this point we're basically signing on to the court system without any clear definition of what that is.

If a member state requests the removal of the investor-state provisions as a precondition for ratification, but here in Canada we pass Bill C-30 with the ISDS ICS included, what position will that leave us in here in Canada?

[Jim Keon]

There are two aspects to that. From a cost perspective, as I've said, generics on average now are selling at something like 20% to 25% of the price of an equivalent brand-name product. If you delay for two years, you're paying an extra 75% to 80% on that product for an extra two years. That affects provincial drug program budgets; it affects employee plans; and it affects people who pay out of pocket, and those costs are very significant.

Second, it is very important that we have a strong generic industrial base. We manufacture products here. We sell, as I've said, to over 115 countries. It is critically important that we're able to get on the market when patents expire in Canada and around the world. One aspect of Bill C-30 we do support strongly is this ability to export during the extension period. That is very important. We are very supportive of that, and in our view, it's nicely drafted and should go forward.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I'm sure the Liberals want to be fair too. If they're just for housekeeping, then using Bill C-30 to do housekeeping may not be the right way to do that.

Mr. Van Harten, I will turn to you since I understand you have to leave soon.

You talked about the minister being the only person involved in the appointment of the adjudicators in the ISDS, whenever this is applied after this provisional hiatus that we're talking about. How else would you see that being done? What would be your recommendations?

[Jim Keon, President, Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association]

Thank you very much.

It's nice to be back here. We were here not too long ago talking about the TPP agreement as well, which also affects pharmaceuticals.

The generic pharmaceutical companies in Canada, our industry, are primarily pharmaceutical manufacturers and exporters, and they are among the top R and D spenders across all industrial sectors. Our members operate the largest life sciences companies in Ontario and Quebec and directly employ more than 11,000 Canadians in highly skilled research, development, and manufacturing positions.

We are strong supporters of free and open trade, and we export quality made-in-Canada generic medicines to 115 countries. Our industry also plays a significant role in controlling health care costs. Generic drugs are now dispensed to fill 70% of all prescriptions in Canada but account for only 22% of the $26 billion Canadians spend annually on prescription medicines. Five or six generic prescriptions can be filled for the cost of one brand-name prescription today.

The outcome of CETA will require two main changes to Canada's pharmaceutical intellectual property laws. The first is called certificates of supplementary protection. This is the implementation of an entirely new IP, or intellectual property, measure for Canada. It will provide for two extra years of market monopoly for all new drugs in Canada. Importantly, generic pharmaceutical companies will be permitted to export from Canada during the period of additional protection. Most of the pharmaceutical IP text in Bill C-30 covers the implementation of certificates of supplementary protection.

The second large area in which changes will be required as a result of CETA is our PM(NOC) regulations, which involve the complex litigation system for pharmaceuticals in Canada, sometimes referred to as the patent linkage system. The details of these reforms will be spelled out in regulations, and draft regulations will not be published until sometime after Bill C-30 receives royal assent.

CGPA supports the general direction of the changes, which should address long-standing concerns of the generic pharmaceutical industry, such as the lack of finality to proceedings and the insufficient damages available for injured generic parties. That said, the devil will be in the details. At this point, we are both optimistic and uneasy about the impending changes.

Bill C-30 represents the most extensive legislative changes to Canada's pharmaceutical intellectual property laws in more than 20 years. In addition to provisions required to implement CETA, Bill C-30 also includes changes to the Patent Act that in some cases go beyond the requirements of CETA, and that is concerning to us.

CGPA has filed a submission with the clerk recommending six amendments to Bill C-30. On SPCs, supplementary protection certificates, CGPA believes officials generally did a very good job of drafting clear provisions that track the letter and spirit of the CETA commitments in this area. That said, we have identified three priority amendments for the consideration of the committee.

First, CGPA is proposing an amendment to make it absolutely clear that there will be no retroactivity of the SPC provisions.

Second, CGPA is proposing an amendment that would address circumstances under which a combination product can be eligible for a certificate of supplementary protection. We feel this detail is far too important to be left to regulations.

Third, CGPA is proposing a cap on the total period of drug monopoly that can be granted for a certificate of supplementary protection that's calculated from the date of market authorization. Such a safeguard exists in both the European Union and the United States.

We are proposing three other specific amendments to Bill C-30. The first pertains to what we believe are unintended consequences associated with the repeal of section 62, which has implications beyond the pharmaceutical sector. We propose that the substantive text from section 62 be reinstated.

The two amendments we are proposing pertain to concerns we have with respect to subsection 55.2(4) of the Patent Act, which is a critical provision for pharmaceutical IP litigation. CGPA is concerned that the changes to this subsection would facilitate the creation of new substantive rights or obligations that would be harmful to the generic pharmaceutical industry. At a minimum, the adoption of the changes would introduce more uncertainty into Canadian pharmaceutical IP law. These changes are not required by CETA. We have proposed that the existing language in the act be reinstated in both instances.

Now, these are overly simplistic descriptions of the issues, but we would be pleased to address them in greater detail if members have an interest. It is obviously impossible to cover such an important and complicated area in five minutes.

In addition to our proposed amendments, there are many other aspects that I would be pleased to speak to in the question-and-answer session, including the impact of the new measures on drug costs, and the role of pharmaceutical intellectual property in trade agreements.

While my remarks today were in English, we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have in either English or French.

Thank you.

[Dr. Gus Van Harten, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to apologize in advance because I will have to leave at 12:20, since I will have a roomful of students waiting for me at 12:30. I'd like to thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you.

I'm going to make five very quick points about Bill C-30. First of all, and this may not surprise you, I don't think the foreign investor protection provisions in CETA are a good idea in the relationship between Canada and Europe. My view is that the inclusion of chapter eight in particular and article 13.21 of CETA are imprudent and not a justified concession of Canadian sovereignty. But I won't dwell on that point, because my written submission to the committee goes on at length about it.

The next four points are much more specific. My second is that Bill C-30 says in clause 9 that the agreement is approved. I think that raises an important question, namely, what about the agreement is being approved?” We know that portions of the agreement will not be provisionally applied in Europe, particularly those related to chapter eight and article 13.21 of the foreign investment protection provisions, and we know that there's uncertainty about how those provisions are going to fare in Europe at the European Court of Justice, in member states, and so on. There's even a prospect that the agreement as a whole will never be ratified in Europe. So why wouldn't clause 9 say something like “the agreement is approved for provisional application in Canada to the extent that it has been approved for provisional application by the European Union and European member states as applicable”? Because otherwise, Canada is in the position of unilaterally approving parts of the agreement and exposing ourselves to costs and risks of foreign investor claims when the other side to the agreement hasn't done the same.

That brings me to my third point, a very quick one. In subclause 8(3) there's reference to causes of action being allowed under the agreement in Canadian law based on chapter eight, the foreign investor protection provisions. That's just an indicator of how in this legislation, Parliament would apparently be approving one-way claims against Canada without the same right being available to Canadian investors under CETA due to the provisional application approach.

Maybe the federal government has a good answer to that point, but as the legislation is drafted, it seems to me very much open to the criticism that we haven't clarified which parts of the agreement we're applying and which parts we aren't.

Very quickly, in clause 11 the Minister of Trade is given the power to appoint the members of the roster under chapter 8. I just want to stress that this is a very significant power, because we could think of the members of that roster as, very simply, almost equivalent to Supreme Court of Canada judges in the extent of their powers to review the passage of laws, passage of regulations, and so on in Canada. Especially when it comes to deciding the budgetary implications of laws, members of that chapter eight roster will, I think it's fair to say, have even greater power than would Supreme Court of Canada judges in Canada. So to give the power to choose the roster members to one minister only, the Trade Minister, is too narrow, and it would be advisable to think about a more broadly based, publicly representative process to allow for appointment of those roster members, because they're going to be extraordinarily powerful—much more powerful than the other adjudicators who are appointed by other ministers pursuant to clause 11.

The last point is that in the case of chapter eight of the agreement, because there is this uncertainty about what the Europeans are going to do—they're talking about making it a fully judicial process, and about a multilateral court option—it seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse to be approving chapter eight in this legislation when we don't actually know what the final version of chapter eight may look like, and it could look very different once the Europeans are finished with it. For that reason I think it really calls for a pause with respect to those parts of the agreement that are not approved in Europe.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be back.

Bonjour tout le monde.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its outstanding work to support the agricultural sector. I know you've been working hard recently on Canada's next agricultural policy framework, and I've been hearing from many agricultural groups and Canadians. I want to congratulate you for your dedication to this important topic for our agricultural sector, and I look forward to reading your report when it's finished.

I also appreciate your concern on the bovine TB situation in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It's a very difficult situation for our producers. As the investigation proceeds, we are doing everything we can to minimize disruptions to producer businesses while ensuring the protection of human and animal health.

We are exploring all options to producers whose farms are under quarantine. We are working hard with Alberta to implement an AgriRecovery initiative as quickly as possible to cover extra costs faced by producers experiencing this income decline. This would help provide financial assistance for extraordinary costs related to feed and water infrastructure, feed for the animals, transportation, as well as interest costs on loans due to the circumstances. Producers can also access immediate help to cover the costs they are facing under the advance payments program.

I have instructed my department and the CFIA to ensure that all those affected have the latest information as it becomes available. We have approved having a feedlot set up for quarantined calves and are working with the industry on this. Once they identify a suitable location, we can begin the work quickly.

I want to assure the committee and all those affected by this terrible situation that we will spare no efforts in helping get our world-class cattle producers back on their feet again. Being a farmer, I understand the difficulty of this situation and the pressures these ranchers are facing.

Moving on to today's topic of the supplementary estimates, our government is pleased to work with you to advance Canada's agriculture and agrifood industry. Our commitment to the sector is shown in the supplementary estimates you have before you. The estimates have increased by over $23 million, to a total of $2.34 billion.

This will support joint initiatives under Growing Forward 2 with the provinces and territories. These are targeted at competitiveness, market development, innovation, adaptability, and industry capacity; the agricultural youth green jobs initiative; and investments under the AgriMarketing program to support our free trade agreements and negotiations, and to work with industry to open doors in global markets.

Today I'm also pleased to update the committee on our government's work for the sector since our last meeting, specifically our work on three important priorities—trade, innovation, and the next policy framework.

As you know, trade is vital to the success of the sector. Canada exports about half of the value of its entire agricultural food production. Canada is a top-five agricultural food exporter, with exports hitting new records every year, so it was tremendous news when the Prime Minister and the president of the EU signed CETA.

CETA will eliminate tariffs on virtually all Canadian agrifood exports to one of the world's largest markets for food. CETA could boost Canada's agriculture and food exports to the European Union by $1.5 billion. That's good for our farm businesses, good for jobs, and good for economic growth across the country. Our government has introduced legislation to implement this landmark agreement under Bill C-30. At the same time, we're supporting our supply management by helping Canada's dairy industry adjust to increased access to European cheeses under CETA. We have consulted closely with the sector on the best way forward.

Three weeks ago, we announced a federal investment of $350 million to help dairy producers and processors adapt to CETA through investments in new equipment and technologies. Our goal is to help Canada's dairy sector grow and thrive so that it can take advantage of new market opportunities and address domestic and international pressures. We are working with the Canadian dairy sector to make it more competitive and to make sure that Canada's supply management remains strong for generations.

In the coming weeks, we will consult with the dairy sector to seek input on these programs. Both programs will be in place when CETA comes into force. We have also moved to support supply management initiatives such as the duties relief program and spent fowl.

Canada's Border Services Agency has sanctioned five users under the duties relief program who were improperly selling supply management commodities in the Canadian market without reporting these sales and without paying the required duties. We will sit down with industry to look at potential changes to the duties relief program and the import for re-export program. We will look at specific options regarding certification requirements for imports of spent fowl while ensuring that any such requirement would be fully consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. At the same time, officials are addressing the feasibility of a DNA test to screen imports of spent fowl at the border.

Mr. Chair, this is another example of our government's support for the supply management program. Along with Europe, another key market for Canadian farmers and food processors is China. I am just back from a major trade mission to China. We showcased Canada's world-class food, beverages, and seafood— from blueberries to beef, canola, lobster, and maple syrup—with a focus on the rapidly growing e-commerce market.

I was pleased to host events and attend trade shows to promote our products. Industry representatives have reported that these events have led to some $37 million in on-site sales and $230 million in anticipated sales over the next year.

Canada is China's second-largest customer for agriculture and agrifood with a middle class growing by the population of Canada every year.

We have set a goal of doubling the trade between the two countries by 2025. We have also agreed to expand access to Canadian beef to China as well as to continue canola exports, which average $2 billion a year.

Colleagues, when we talk trade, we must talk transportation, as they go together. You can't have one without the other. That is why our government would introduce legislation to strengthen Canada's rail transportation system, address key industry concerns such as reciprocal penalties, better define adequate and suitable service in the Canada Transportation Act, and improve access and timelines for the Canadian Transportation Agency decisions. In early 2017 we will also address the future of extended interswitching limits and the maximum revenue entitlement. Farmers have certainly indicated their appreciation for the steps we are taking. Our government will continue our work to improve the grain transportation system in this country.

Innovation is also critical to ensuring the sector can continue to take advantage of global market opportunities and keep the industry on the cutting edge. As you know, innovation is very important to our government and to me. Research and development lies at the heart of Canada's global agricultural success. Our ongoing private and public sector investments in research will be critical to Canada's ability to help feed the world and keep Canadian agriculture on the cutting edge.

For example, last month in Vineland, Ontario, I announced a federal investment of up to $920,000. This initiative will help Vineland Research and Innovation Centre develop tomato and apple varieties that are resistant to disease. That will help both the environment and the farmer's bottom line while boosting productivity for domestic and export sales.

We continue to strengthen the Canadian agricultural sector through key investments in discovery science and innovation. Our government is also investing in programs to help farmers take action on the environment, including a $27-million investment in the agricultural greenhouse gases program.

Mr. Chair, your committee is continuing its work on the next agricultural framework. Promising opportunities lie ahead for the Canadian agriculture and food industry.

A rising population and rising incomes will continue to drive demand for Canada's world-class food. We continue to hold extensive consultations with the industry, provinces, and territories. I know you are doing so as well. We certainly look forward to the result and looking at your study.

I look forward to working with you and all stakeholders to help Canadian farmers and food processors continue to keep Canadian agriculture strong and growing.

Mr. Chair, I thank you very much. Merci.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate of Bill C-18, the Rouge National Urban Park legislation. The other bills on the agenda for today and tomorrow will be Bill C-25, the business framework legislation, and Bill C-30 regarding CETA. It is my hope that we can complete second reading debate on all these important bills by tomorrow afternoon if at all possible.

Next week, we will commence debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-26 concerning the Canada pension plan. We will call this bill on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

Finally, next Thursday, December 1 shall be the last allotted day for this supply cycle.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone for presenting today. There are a lot of familiar faces in the room today.

Mr. Sinclair, I would like to thank you for your comments. Unlike my colleague, something that I'm hearing continually is the concern for the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in Canada. Canadians overwhelmingly are suffering under the high cost of drugs. Twenty-five percent of Bill C-30 is patent changes. This will have an overarching cost impact on things like Canadians' retail purchasing power. It will be taken out of their hands, because they will have to pay higher costs for pharmaceuticals.

We've asked for an analysis from the lead negotiator, and we don't have one. The Liberals in previous Parliaments also pushed for a comprehensive analysis on the impacts to provinces and to Canadians for the loss.

Can you tell me if you know of any such analysis that exists at the government level, and then can you speak to the analysis that the CCPA has done on this issue?

[Yves Leduc]

I'll start by highlighting the fact that I am accompanied by Thérèse Beaulieu. She is the assistant director for policy communications at Dairy Farmers of Canada.

I'd like to thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today in view of its study of the subject matter of Bill C-30. Before I begin, I would like to stress that DFC's preoccupations are not necessarily related to Bill C-30, per se, but rather to the impacts of the CETA agreement itself on the dairy sector. Our presentation, therefore, will focus primarily on mitigating those negative impacts.

I want to point out that the Canadian dairy sector is a huge contributor to the Canadian economy. According to the latest economic impact study that has been performed by ÉcoRessources, in 2015 the dairy sector, both at the producer and processing level, contributed $19.9 billion to the Canadian GDP, provided $3.8 billion in tax revenues, and sustained 221,000 jobs in this country. Compared to 2013, that represents a 5% increase in the contribution to the GDP, a 5% increase in tax revenues, and a 3% increase in the number of jobs that are being sustained in Canada. In addition, dairy is either the top or the second largest agricultural sector in seven out of ten provinces across the country.

It's important also to point out that unlike other jurisdictions where farmers' incomes are heavily subsidized, Canadian dairy farmers receive no direct subsidies and derive their income from the marketplace. In comparison, for example, in the European Union the common agricultural policy budget amounts to 58 billion euros, and on top of that the dairy sector alone received an extra billion in the last year to compensate farmers for the very low prices that confronted them.

In regard to the government's announcement of a transition assistance package for CETA on November 10, DFC was pleased to see that the government decided to invest $250 million in dairy farms as well as $100 million in funding to help spur investment into updating Canada's dairy processing infrastructure. This represents a recognition on behalf of the government that the dairy sector is being negatively impacted by the CETA agreement. While we would, of course, prefer that any future trade deal has no negative impact on the dairy sector, this package does set a precedent for future trade negotiations in the event that they do negatively impact the dairy sector in Canada.

The announced package is a step that will foster the continued growth of the sector for the benefit of all Canadians. However, it only partially addresses the damage that will be caused by the CETA agreement. For dairy farmers, CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production, representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the production of the province of Nova Scotia alone. It will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million in perpetual lost revenues.

I will now continue my presentation in French.

While Canadian dairy farmers appreciate seeing the government deliver in these two key areas, we remain concerned that several of our other issues remain outstanding. In particular, Canada's domestic regulations and border measures were not addressed in the transition assistance package, as we were led to believe they would be.

It should be noted that on November 18, our government announced that they are launching a consultation regarding potential changes to the duties relief program and the import for re-export program. This is a step in the right direction, and we remain hopeful that the government will take concrete actions to stop further damage to Canadian dairy farmers, and show they fully support the supply management system.

As Minister MacAulay noted himself during question period on November 14, the government is just starting what they are going to do to address the issues impacting dairy; Canadian dairy farmers are eager to see how the government delivers on that promise.

As mentioned by our friend Jacques Lefebvre from the Dairy Processors Association of Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada was also disappointed that the government did not utilize the opportunity given on November 10 to announce how the new CETA TRQs will be delegated.

When it comes to the delegation of new TRQs, DFC urges the government to ensure that only those who are negatively affected by the opening of the Canadian market—namely, cheese makers, first, and indirectly the dairy producers that supply milk to the cheese makers—should be eligible to receive a share of the new quota. Therefore, DFC strongly recommends that the new cheese TRQ only be allocated to cheese makers.

From that perspective, cheese makers who are being affected by it, big or small, whether individually or collectively—and I would like to mention here that some small and medium cheese makers are trying to band together to position themselves as acceptable importers—need to be treated fairly and should be eligible to apply for a share of the new quota. Allocating the TRQ to cheese makers will not only help to maintain the stability of the Canadian market; it will allow imported cheeses to have access to established distribution networks, therefore maximizing fill rates and avoiding speculation and disruptive marketing practices. Canadian cheese makers are best positioned to import cheeses into Canada in a way that minimizes speculation because they have no interest in negatively affecting or disrupting their own business.

Furthermore, while we believe it is important to allocate the TRQ in a manner that will assist cheese makers in developing long-term relationships with their customers and ensuring that their share of the TRQ is sufficient to develop a sustainable business, DFC is opposed to allocating the new TRQ to retailers or distributors. Notwithstanding the economic contribution of retailers to the Canadian economy, allocating any share of the CETA TRQ to them will only result in a substitution between domestically and imported cheeses, and will not generate added benefits.

In conclusion, Dairy Farmers of Canada want to continue to be strong contributors to Canada's economy, and DFC wants to continue to work in partnership with the government to ensure the sustainability of the supply managed dairy sector. We have been on record many times as not opposing the CETA deal, or any other trade agreements, provided that Canada's dairy sector is not negatively impacted. Canada's dairy sector will be negatively impacted by CETA, and as much as DFC appreciates the package that was announced, there is still work to be done; the government recognizes as much.

Thank you.

[Corinne Pohlmann, Senior Vice-President, National Affairs and Partnerships, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to share CFIB's perspective on Bill C-30, an act to implement the CETA agreement.

You should have a presentation in front of you that I'd like to walk you through over the next few minutes.

First, CFIB is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization that represents more than 109,000 small and medium-sized businesses across Canada. Our members represent all sectors of the economy, and they're found in every region of the country.

It's also important to remember that Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises employ about 70% of Canadians working in the private sector, they're responsible for the bulk of new job creation, and they represent about half of Canada's GDP. Addressing issues that will benefit them can have a widespread impact on job creation and the economy.

CFIB takes it direction solely from our members through a variety of surveys throughout the year, and we have found that a strong majority of members support free and fair trade. This is because most of them understand that trade is good for Canadian small business, for our economy, and for jobs. We also know that many of our members appear to be in a position to benefit from trade deals such as CETA.

For example, as you can see on slide 3, almost two-thirds of our members in a very recent survey are supportive of international trade agreements. However, nearly one in five small business owners felt they didn't have enough information to answer this question, suggesting that perhaps more needs to be done to inform them about the opportunities trade agreements can bring to their business.

A few others, including supply-managed producers, for example, may have strong concerns. We continue to carefully listen to our members who have those concerns and communicate them to the government. One concern we have expressed is the importance of ensuring that any economic harm to dairy producers, for example, as a result of the CETA trade deal be compensated.

Though there are some small but important exceptions, there is broad support for trade agreements even among those not involved in trade. But how many are actually involved in trade? As you can see on slide 4, about one in five have sold goods or services to other countries, while about half have purchased from other countries, with another 6% planning to get more involved in trade in the future.

What countries do they trade with? As you can see on slide 5, the U.S.A.—not a surprise—remains by far the most likely place that Canadian small businesses will trade, but second to that is the EU, and 9% of our members say they have purchased from the EU and about 6.5% have sold into the EU.

On slide 6 you can get a sense of which countries within the EU smaller firms tend to trade with. Germany and the U.K. lead the pack, with Netherlands, Italy, and France also being important for more than one third of small businesses that do trade into Europe.

We also explored what small business owners would like to see in a CETA agreement that would most benefit their business. Ultimately, as you can see on slide 7, what smaller businesses want to see is more consistency, fewer regulations, standards that are simple to comply with, simpler border processes, less paperwork, and lower costs. The good news is that CETA tries to address each of these areas, as it not only lowers tariffs, which are important, but it also starts to look at ways to reduce non-tariff barriers, which are very important, by finding ways to better align European-Canadian regulations and standards as well as look at ways to simplify border processes.

We also know it's important to communicate the benefits of CETA to more small business owners, and encourage them to consider the EU if they're looking to expand to new markets. Understanding how small businesses learn of trade opportunities in Europe might be helpful in how governments, organizations, and others might be able to support them with those opportunities. As you can see on slide 8, most learn of opportunities through business contacts, one in five conducted their own research and found their own contacts, about 15% were contacted by an EU buyer or seller, and another 15% participated in trade shows.

It's important to note that none, in this survey at least, went on a trade mission. I think there may be some lessons here for policy-makers to consider when they look at how to potentially promote the EU agreement in the future.

The good news, as you can see on slide 9, is that more than half of those already trading with Europe plan to increase their activities. This was before the CETA agreement was signed, so hopefully even more will follow as opportunities increase after the agreement is ratified.

You can see on slide 10 the reasons they wanted to increase their trade into Europe—to expand their business, which is what we ultimately want them to do, and to pursue more opportunities as the economy recovers—because they do see it as an alternative to the U.S. market. This latter issue may become even more important as a motivator for small firms in the next few years, depending on how the new U.S. administration will deal with NAFTA.

Thinking about how to encourage more small firms to consider trading with Europe, it might help to provide advice on how to overcome some of the challenges others have faced when they have tried to trade into Europe. As you can see on slide 11, providing them with guidance on how to deal with things like a fluctuating Canadian dollar, costs associated with shipping, and that type of advice would be useful. Many of the rest of the challenges they face, like high tariffs, different rules or standards, and the complexity will be somewhat addressed by CETA, so communicating how CETA addresses those issues will also be very important.

In summary, a strong majority of our members in CFIB are supportive of free and fair trade. Many of our members appear to be in a position to benefit from CETA, but a few may have some strong concerns. We have communicated these concerns, as I mentioned, to government, and have stressed the importance of finding ways to mitigate any economic harm to sectors that may be adversely affected as a result of the trade deal.

Finally, it's important that the benefits and advantages of CETA be well communicated to smaller firms so that more of them will feel confident about expanding their trade opportunities into the EU.

Thank you for the opportunity to present, and I'm happy to try to answer any questions.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-30, the legislation that will bring about the activation of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

First and foremost, I want to thank the former minister of agriculture, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and the former minister of trade, the member for Abbotsford, for their great hard work in making sure that this deal came to fruition.

I will give kudos to the government for not screwing it up at the end and for getting the CETA deal finally before us. However, I can tell members that every clause we are looking at, the way the bill is structured, and the way CETA has been negotiated and signed is because of the hard work of the previous Conservative government.

I will just say that it is indeed a momentous occasion. We are agreeing to this great agreement that will bring 28 other countries into free trade with Canada and give Canadian agricultural producers, manufacturers, and service companies access to 500 million consumers in the European Union in those 28 member states.

I can tell members that in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, this is very important. We have a huge agriculture base, with grains, oilseeds, pulse crops, cattle, and hogs, which will all benefit from the preferential access we are going to garner in having free markets in Europe. We are talking about 94% of EU tariff lines against agricultural products being eliminated.

However, there are still some challenges, for our beef products in particular. As a rancher myself and a former member of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, we have dealt extensively with all the phytosanitary and non-phytosanitary standards and actions the European Union has taken against Canadian beef over the past 30 years.

This agreement gives us a resolution mechanism for removing those artificial trade barriers, ensuring that we get back to science-based decisions rather than political decisions, which we all too often see in certain countries that like to put up barriers to trade while they try to protect certain segments of their industry. Over the next seven years, Canadian agricultural food, products, grains, and oilseeds that meet those standards will be able to access that marketplace, which is very important.

It is also important in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, because we produce steel. We have Gerdau in Selkirk, which is a very strong company. It produces steel that it sells around the world, especially its elevator rail steel. This, again, is now going to go to a zero-line tariff over the next seven years as this agreement comes into force. Some commodities are going to see line items move even more quickly than that.

Of course, in Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman we produce the best whisky in the world at the Crown Royal Diageo plant. The world champion whisky right now is Northern Harvest whiskey. It beat out all the other whiskies from Scotland, Ireland, the United States, and other places.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada, the European Union, and its member states.

A trade agreement of this nature is long overdue and has long been fought for.

Before I speak to the merits of this agreement, I want to join my colleagues in thanking the members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster for their long years of work to negotiate this agreement, as well as all of the members of the previous and current governments who had a hand in establishing, negotiating, and concluding this agreement.

I also want to thank the Right Honourable Stephen Harper for his leadership on this and many other trade files. Under his leadership, we signed more trade agreements than any other Canadian government.

Members could probably take it as a given, by virtue of my membership in this party, that I am a strong proponent of free trade. With the recent waves of protectionist sentiment sweeping the globe, it is important to once again reiterate the benefits of freer trade, and why a country like Canada must continue to reach new markets for our products, investment, and labour.

I want to talk about four points today: the objective benefits of free trade; the benefits of free trade to Canada, and the specific components of CETA that benefit Canada; the specific benefits of CETA to my home province of Alberta; and the benefits of CETA for accessing EU government procurement business.

Trade is good for Canada. We have an enormous amount of products, resources, and skills that require access to other markets in order to reach a meaningful potential. The EU represents roughly 500 million people and almost $20 trillion in economic activity. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than our entire GDP. These are customers and businesses that Canada needs to access in order to maximize our economic growth.

We strongly support international trade initiatives which strengthen the bonds with friendly countries, increase economic productivity, and drive prosperity and job creation. When we complete trade deals, Canadian job prospects increase substantially as we access larger markets. Prices for goods decrease as we eliminate tariffs on goods entering our country. The benefits to Canadian consumers, Canadian workers, and Canadian businesses are enormous, and CETA helps us realize these benefits on a bigger, global scale.

Specifically, CETA is projected to lead to a $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy, which is equivalent to adding $1,000 dollars to the average family income every year, or almost 80,000 new jobs. Nearly 100% of all EU tariffs on non-agricultural products will be duty-free, and nearly 94% of EU tariffs on agricultural products will be duty-free. This is an offer we cannot refuse.

More importantly, for my constituents in Edmonton West, and those of my colleagues across Alberta, CETA will increase Alberta's economic potential to a substantial extent. The European Union is already Alberta's fourth largest export destination, and is our third-largest trading partner. For the past five years, on average Alberta has had exports of $1.4 billion to the European Union, driven by the agricultural, metals and minerals, and advanced manufacturing sectors.

Once in force, CETA will eliminate tariffs on almost all of Alberta's exports, and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. CETA includes provisions that ease regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights, and ensure more transparent rules for market access. CETA will provide Alberta exporters with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU.

On the day CETA's provisions enter into force, 98% of EU tariffs on Canadian goods will be duty-free, including those on key Alberta exports, such as metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, and chemicals and plastics. For agricultural and agri-food products, almost 94% of EU tariffs on Canadian goods will be duty-free, which rises up to 95% once all phase-outs are complete, seven years after CETA enters into force. This duty-free access will give Canadian agricultural goods, such as beef, pork, and bison, preferential access to the EU market.

I do not think I need to tell the House how important beef is to the Alberta economy, but I do want to mention some specific potential benefits to industries affected by the tariff reductions listed in CETA.

According to the CBC, with CETA, Canada is poised to supply about 1% of the European Union's beef needs under the new pact, which could mean almost $600 million in revenue.

In addition to beef and agriculture products, CETA would also provide for increases in eligible trade for products with high sugar content. I want to talk about a small business in Edmonton that started in a basement in Sherwood Park. It is a much-renowned startup company called Jacek Chocolate Couture. It has expanded from Sherwood Park to downtown Edmonton and now to Canmore, Alberta. The company sells its famous chocolates across our entire country, and now could reach a massive new customer base, growing its revenues and creating new jobs.

We know how things are tough in Alberta right now. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we approve this trade agreement which would have demonstrable benefits to Alberta's industries. This agreement would create jobs by opening the European Union's market to more Alberta goods and would lower prices for importing EU products. Lower prices and more customers for business are exactly what Alberta needs right now.

Specific to oil and gas, CETA would increase market access for Alberta products. This comes at an ideal time, as supplier diversification is one of EU's top energy priorities. Currently, Russia holds over 30% of the EU's oil and gas market share, placing it first. Canada comes in 26th, with just 1%.

It is well known that Russian President Putin uses his country's oil and gas reserves as a weapon and, given that Russia supplies almost a third of the European Union's oil and gas, his position is strong. The EU needs to diversify and wants to diversify, and Alberta has plenty to offer. As CETA would eliminate tariffs on oil and gas products, Canada and Alberta are well poised to fill this gap and become a crucial energy ally. This is an opportunity that we should not and, frankly, cannot pass up.

The elimination of tariffs and barriers would also have advantages to procurement opportunities. Under CETA, Canadian firms could bid on contracts to supply their goods and services to the three main EU-level institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council. Canadian firms would also be able to bid on EU member-state government contracts and those of thousands of regional and local government entities.

The EU procurement market is worth $3.3 trillion annually, and holds significant potential for Canadian suppliers. This kind of preferential market access would benefit Alberta-based multinational firms such as PCL and Stantec, who both have their headquarters in Edmonton. Indeed, by virtue of the fact that Alberta has long been the entrepreneurial province, there are hundreds if not thousands of businesses in Edmonton, Calgary, and throughout Alberta that would benefit from access to this $3.3 trillion procurement market.

Trade is good. Trade lowers prices and enables competitive and valued Canadian businesses to expand, hire new employees, and prosper in a globalized world. Free trade would allow billions of dollars in Canadian exports to reach new markets, and ensure that European goods flow in at competitive prices for Canadian consumers. Free trade would help Alberta's businesses grow and prosper at a time when Alberta needs it most.

I am proud to support this agreement that would help Alberta's small and large businesses, Albertan consumers, Canadian industry, and Canadian producers, and that would also deepen the long-standing ties between Canada and Europe.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as the member of Parliament for Surrey—Newton and also a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, in support of Bill C-30. The comprehensive economic and trade agreement signed between Canada and the European Union's member states represents a new model for the world on what is possible through a well-thought-out comprehensive trading relationship.

It is amazing to think of the scope of opportunity available to Canada as a result of this agreement. The numbers cannot lie: 28 European Union member states with more than 500 million people and GDP of more than $19 trillion. This is the world's largest single marketplace and, according to a joint report released by Canada and the European Union, this kind of partnership is estimated to increase the value of bilateral trade by 22.9% and increase annual growth of our GDP by approximately $13 billion. In fact, the CETA would establish Canada as the only G8 country and one of the only countries in the world to have preferential access to the world's two largest markets, the U.S. and the European Union.

Numbers are often thrown around without context, so while they are very impressive, they are often unable to translate their impact into communities like my riding of Surrey—Newton. I want to spend a few minutes speaking about exactly that aspect of this historic bill, because ultimately it is just another piece of this government's focus to strengthen Canada's middle class and to provide more opportunities for those wishing to join it. The elimination of trade barriers means lower prices on everything from food to cars that are imported from Europe. However, it is bigger than that because, for Surrey—Newton and other communities across British Columbia, our new preferential market access would represent great opportunity.

The European Union is already B.C.'s fifth largest export destination and our fourth largest trading partner. The elimination of the tariffs I just referred to would apply to almost all of the province's current exports and would provide B.C. a competitive advantage when compared to some of our major competitors who do not have the benefit of such an agreement. For our forest products, our metal and mineral resources, our aquaculture exports, and our information and communication technologies, the possibilities for growth are endless. For B.C.'s service suppliers, who represent 76% of the province's total GDP and comprise a sector that employs 1.7 million British Columbians, the CETA would represent greater security and predictability to the new opportunities that would now be available.

For small and medium-sized businesses, European Union procurement opportunities would now also be available with a new capability to supply goods and services to EU-level institutions like the European Commission and the European Parliament, but also to EU member state governments and thousands of regional and local government entities. This is a procurement market that is estimated to be worth about $3.3 trillion annually, which is a staggering figure.

I do not want to get caught up in just trumpeting the benefits of CETA without considering the work we have in front of us to make the agreement a reality.

This is what Bill C-30 is all about. In addition to formally approving the deal and outlining the ongoing administrative and operational costs that Canada is responsible for, it would also amend several pieces of legislation in order to ensure that our country is able to live up to the obligations to which we signed on. The numerous changes needed to the acts that govern import and export, patents, and investment, both from and to Canada, represent adjustments to our laws to ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses are able to enjoy the maximum amount of benefit from this agreement.

These changes also present an opportunity for opponents of CETA, and indeed opponents of all multilateral trade agreements, to spread misinformation and create fear and confusion.

The reality is that it has taken more than seven years to ensure that we had a deal that protected public services for Canadians; that the government continued to have oversight on regulating environmental, labour, health care, and safety standards; that our public health care system and the quality of care that Canadians have come to expect are not threatened; that our water resources and the standards to which they must adhere are protected and maintained; that Canadian laws and regulations cannot be compelled to be changed by foreign investors or corporate interests; and most importantly, that Canadians continue to have access to information and complete transparency on the terms of this agreement.

These are the considerations that Canadian negotiators fought for, to ensure that Canadian sovereignty was not just given away.

Over the past year, I have listened to the testimony of many organizations that have presented their comments and concerns. I stand here today to state that the Minister of International Trade and all of our members of the Standing Committee on International Trade carefully considered each and every piece of testimony.

CETA is not a threat to the public interest. In fact, it is always with the best interests of Canadians that the government has engaged in negotiations over the past year. This means that compromises were always balanced with benefits and that, once again, the powers of the Canadian government and of our provincial and municipal counterparts are not at risk.

I want to conclude by stating that our sovereignty is more valuable than any trade figure, and CETA is not a threat to it, as many of the fearmongers would have Canadians believe. Canada remains as strong as ever and, as a result of this agreement, we are poised to enter a new era of prosperity and opportunity that would bring benefits to all British Columbians and to all Canadians.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to join in the debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures.

I must admit that, at first, I was worried for certain sectors of the economy in my riding, dairy production in particular. I want to congratulate the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for their work in responding to the concerns stemming from this agreement. It is only a start, but I will get back to that a little later in my speech.

For the past year, I have met with multiple stakeholders from the agricultural sector and heard various points of view. One consistent point is that food production must increase by at least 50% by 2050. Canada has a unique opportunity to position itself as the go-to supplier for world demand for food. But in order to do that, we will need to provide our farmers, our processors, and the agrifood supply chain a competitive advantage. That is where CETA comes in. While not perfect, it would provide a greater opportunity for our farmers and the agrifood sector to position themselves as key players in the European market. The EU is among the world's largest markets for food. Removing barriers for our agricultural sector would be part of this agreement.

We need to consider these important facts: almost half of the value of Canada's agricultural production is exported; and two-thirds of our pork, 80% of our canola and canola products, and 90% of our pulse crops are exported.

Let us consider this, then: tariff barriers currently stand at approximately 14%, on average. That means that Canadian agricultural businesses are at a competitive disadvantage compared with those in the European Union. CETA will allow them to be as competitive as European farm operations. When the agreement comes into force, nearly 94% of tariff barriers will be eliminated. This is good news.

However, I would encourage my colleagues not to take my word for it, but rather that of the experts at Cereals Canada, which includes the Producteurs de grains du Québec and the Grain Farmers of Ontario, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council, to name a few. They all support this agreement. This is good news for agriculture.

What is more, we intend to stay the course. We will continue to fight so that Canadian agriculture can thrive and the supply management system is maintained. It is true that the agreement is not perfect, but the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, my colleagues and I have worked relentlessly to ensure that our dairy sector can continue to prosper.

Several meetings were held with Canadian dairy farmers, processors, provincial associations, and many young farmers. Discussions focused on the best way to strengthen the sector so that it can face the national and international challenges that lie ahead, and on the transition assistance in light of new market access under CETA.

Our government has been clear from the beginning regarding the need to help dairy farmers and processors make the transition with respect to CETA. That is why we announced a $350-million investment in two new programs aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of our dairy industry in anticipation of CETA's implementation. The government is committed to preserving the vitality of the dairy industry by contributing to farmers' and processors' continued ability to innovate and increase productivity.

The first program is the dairy farm investment program. This five-year, $250-million program will provide targeted contributions to help Canadian dairy farmers update farm technologies and systems and improve productivity by upgrading their equipment.

The second program is the dairy processing investment fund. This four-year, $100-million program aims to help dairy processors modernize their operations and thereby increase their productivity and efficiency, and also diversify their product lines so as to profit from new market opportunities.

These programs will complement the dairy sector's ongoing investment efforts, helping both current and future generations of dairy farmers and processors to remain competitive for the long term within a strong supply management system.

We have already seen the positive impact of this announcement. Already, Gay Lea Foods in Ontario has announced an investment of $140 million to create an ingredient plant.

However, that is not all. We have heard loud and clear about the ongoing problems that negatively impact our supply managed sectors, particularly our dairy and chicken farmers. We need to address the duties relief program and spent fowl. Consultations will be launched with industry stakeholders regarding potential changes to the duty relief program and the import for re-export program.

We are exploring measures regarding inventory reporting in an effort to improve the predictability of these imports. Our government will also look at specific options regarding certification requirements for imports of spent fowl while ensuring that any such requirements would be fully consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. These are key concerns for our supply managed industry, and our government is taking action to support these sectors.

With regard to the allocation of CETA cheese quotas, the government is currently reviewing the results of the public engagement process that concluded at the end of August. The Minister of International Trade's decision will take stakeholders' views and interests into consideration in determining how to allocate the new CETA cheese quotas. The allocation policy for cheese tariff rate quotas will be finalized following the passage of the CETA implementation legislation and before the agreement's entry into force.

These are the actions of a government that is committed to the people it represents. Some will say we are taking too much time, but as my mother used to say, “better late than never”. One is better off making the right decision than the wrong one.

Although there are challenges, the Canadian dairy sector continues to be progressive and innovative. Canadian dairy producers are doing an excellent job meeting the needs of consumers, whether in terms of food quality, animal welfare, the environment, or good products with high nutritional value.

Consumers like Canadian dairy products. Production continues to grow every year. Butter consumption increased by 10% over the last decade. Yogurt consumption increased by over 60% during the same period, and should continue to rise.

Canada’s dairy producers are among the industry’s world leaders with respect to the environment.

Canada’s dairy industry has a smaller ecological footprint for carbon, water and earth than most of the other big dairy producers worldwide. This is good news.

Today’s dairy producers are able to produce 14% more milk than 20 years ago, thanks to better genetics, better nutrition and better farming practices. They are able to do this with 24% fewer cows, while generating 20% less greenhouse gas. This is reason to be proud of our dairy producers.

The announcement of November 10 contributes to the industry’s success by further modernizing our dairy sector. Much progress has been made, but we must always continue to innovate.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have heard our dairy producers loud and clear, and they will continue to listen to them, while the government will continue to consult other industry players to get their advice and thereby orient the program’s design and help to ensure that these programs meet the needs of producers and processors in tangible ways.

I undertake to do the same, continuing to work closely with producers and processors in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the riding I represent.

Supply management is a system that works, and it is through collaboration that we will ensure its sustainability. When I was little, it was “Never without my milk”. I will never forget those who produce that milk.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I said that, in 2008, we pretty much only had NAFTA, with the United States. All our eggs were in the same basket. Now we want to open up markets and diversify the places where we can export our products by removing tariffs.

This trade agreement is an opportunity from which Canada will be able to benefit. It will offer new opportunities for our small and medium-sized businesses, including those in my riding. Bill C-30 will implement this agreement, and will bring growth for our middle class. I am very happy that our government signed this agreement on October 30.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech on Bill C-30 that she gave before question period. She had good things to say about free trade agreements but offered no concrete examples of economic and trade agreements having a direct impact on job creation in her riding, in Quebec, or in Canada.

Can the member give an example? Can she do more than just speculate and actually provide some concrete evidence of how this economic and trade agreement with Europe will create jobs? Has the ratification of trade and free trade agreements every really resulted directly in job creation?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Minister of International Trade—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 3, 2016, by the hon. member for Essex regarding the tabling of treaties in Parliament.

I would like to thank the member for Essex for having raised the question, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their comments.

In raising the question of privilege, the member for Essex contended that the government violated its own 2008 policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament when, on Monday, October 31, 2016, the Minister of International Trade tabled in the House of Commons a copy of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states without an explanatory memorandum and, immediately after, introduced implementing legislation for that treaty, Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures.

In particular, the member indicated that the government's policy in this regard stipulates that a waiting period of at least 21 days be observed before introducing implementing legislation in Parliament and that treaties be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. In her view, the government's negligence in fulfilling the obligations of its own policy infringed on members' privileges, as it left them unable to scrutinize the voluminous agreement and its implementing legislation.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons replied that the process governing the tabling of treaties is in fact a government policy and, thus, not a matter of parliamentary procedure.

For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that departmental activities do not fall under the purview of the House or the Speaker and that, in any case, CETA had been granted an exception to the 21-day waiting period pursuant to section 6.3 of the government’s policy.

Members may recall, as was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, that the Chair was faced with a very similar point of order regarding the same policy on treaties in the last Parliament. In response, my predecessor concluded on May 12, 2014, on page 5220 of the Debates, that, and I quote:

It is clear to me that the policy in question belongs to the government and not the House. It is equally clear that it is not within the Speaker's authority to adjudicate on government policies or processes, and this includes determining whether the government is in compliance with its own policies.

He went on to say:

...the distinction between governmental procedures and House procedures remains and must be acknowledged.

In fact, the member for Essex acknowledged this very distinction when she stated on page 6557 of the Debates:

I am aware that the minister's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament is not governed by the Standing Orders of the House.

It bears repeating my predecessor’s explanation that, although many Standing Orders and statutes require that certain documents be tabled in the House, as described on pages 430 and 609 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, there is no mention in our Standing Orders of a specific requirement regarding the tabling of treaties or accompanying explanatory memoranda, nor of any prescribed time limits with respect to the tabling of implementing legislation.

Thus, it is clear to the Chair that, as was the case in May 2014, this policy cannot be regarded as part of the current body of rules that govern the House's procedures and practices. It is equally clear that when members request redress with respect to rules external to the House, as Speaker I can neither interpret nor enforce them. It has long been the case that the Speaker's role is limited to ensuring that the body of rules and practices that the House has adopted are respected and upheld.

Therefore, the Chair cannot find evidence to support the member's contention that she was impeded in the fulfilment of her parliamentary functions. Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures.

Having had the unique opportunity of sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade for almost a year now, I can attest that we have dealt with a number of priority issues, including the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA.

Personally, I believe that implementing CETA and passing Bill C-30 is a real Canadian success. Many economies were hit hard by the 2008 world economic crisis, and even as we speak, some nations are still dealing with systemic social and economic challenges.

Fortunately, Canada has recovered, and so has the province where I was born, Quebec. During the economic crisis, our policies were applauded, and now we appreciate how lucky we all are to be Canadian.

When I was a member for the riding of Groulx in the National Assembly from 2007 to 2008, I can recall a number of conversations behind the scenes about the possibility of implementing an ambitious and exclusive trade deal between Canada and the European Union.

Back then, the idea was that, once CETA was implemented, Canada would have access to the two largest economic markets in the world: our natural ally, the United States; and Europe's major economies. At the time, the purpose of implementing such a massive trade agreement was to diversify our economy.

Now that it is really happening, I feel very privileged to participate in the debate on Bill C-30 as the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. However, we must be clear-headed about this because we all saw what happened in 2008. The reeling U.S. economy had a major impact on Canada and its provinces and territories too.

The main purpose of the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement is to diversify our economy because it is never a good idea to put all our eggs in one basket. Greater access to European markets is the natural next step because we have similar values and we want to strengthen our ties to our allies.

I am especially proud to be part of a government that will go down in history for building stronger ties with Europe. Our inclusive values, our belief in innovation, our progressive philosophy, and our professionalism have not only charmed Europe but have also secured the implementation of a quality trade agreement that will benefit Canada in many ways. Trade leads to growth, and growth leads to more jobs here in Canada and in our communities.

It was a pleasure for me to see the government officially sign CETA at the Canada-European Union Summit on October 30. This historic signature represents one more step toward implementing CETA. It goes without saying that, behind this treaty, there are men and women who have been standing up for Canada's most profound interests at the negotiating table since 2009. It is vital that we recognize their important work and their passion for implementing an agreement that will demonstrate Canada's and Europe's leadership on an inclusive and progressive approach to international trade.

I know that this agreement will result in growth and real opportunities to strengthen the middle class. As the world's second-largest economy, the European Union market represents an unprecedented opportunity for Canadian businesses.

The implementation of CETA will have an unprecedented impact on a number of businesses in my riding. The aerospace industry, the parts manufacturing industry, and the innovative technology industry in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, for instance, will be able to increase their production now that the European markets have opened to them.

As a result of this agreement, more Canadians will be working, the innovation chain will grow, and small and medium-businesses across the country in every sector will thrive.

The agreement has a number of chapters that are worth noting in the House.

First of all, CETA will provide privileged access not only to commodities and processed products, but also to the EU services sector, which is one of the most developed in the world. Conversely, it is our services sector that will benefit the most from the agreement, since the EU is the world's largest importer of services.

CETA also includes an important chapter on the environment and sustainable development, which are values that this government and European governments hold dear. With this trade arrangement, Canada continues to show environmental leadership on the international scene. The European Union understands, just as we do, that in order to leave a healthy planet for our children and future generations, we need to act now.

Furthermore, Canada can take advantage of an important opportunity presented by CETA, which includes a detailed framework for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. This important provision will help guarantee labour mobility, as well as the mobility of brain power between Canada and Europe. This measure allows not only labour forces to move freely, but also ideas and best practices. Absolutely everyone wins.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I would like to reiterate my support for Bill C-30 and for all of the provisions that bring into force one of the most progressive trade deals that has ever been on the table. Canada will benefit in many concrete ways from CETA, which will enable Canadian companies and small businesses to seize new business opportunities and diversify Europe.

Canada is a highly educated nation. We have an extremely skilled workforce, and the knowledge economy is the economy of the future. We can all be proud of signing this agreement and opening new markets with Europe thanks to the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement .

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-30, the act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the European Union and Canada.

It is my intention to focus on the investor-state provisions within CETA. I want the record to show that the Green Party shares the concerns of many that this will drive up pharmaceutical drug prices for Canadians. We really do need pharmacare and we do not need to give pharmaceutical companies more advantages than they now have in terms of patent protection. We do need to protect the rights of municipal governments to put out local bids for tender, and not take away their ability to have local procurement. There are impacts on various economic sectors in Canada, including the dairy industry, that need to be better examined.

I want to focus on why this agreement remains so controversial that it is not yet a done deal in Europe. I think Canadians have been somewhat bamboozled on this point.

Certainly, the Conservatives have made the case that all the Liberals had to do was open up a gift package and it was all ready to go. That is clearly not the case. Why is the comprehensive economic and trade agreement in the EU so very controversial to this day? It is because this is the first time, the first proposed agreement, in which the European Union will be accepting an investor-state clause. That is why it remains controversial. That is why it is still to be ruled on by the European Court of Justice. The provision within CETA that many European parliamentarians think is not legal is the investor-state provision. That is why the European Court of Justice will be ruling on it. If it rules that it is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Union to take away the rights of states and give foreign corporations superior rights, that will blow a hole through CETA.

The same thing will be true when this trade agreement goes to the whole European Parliament for a vote sometime between December and February. If it clears the European Parliament, it then goes to the various parliaments. There are 38 national and regional governments that will still have to vote on this, which is a process that could take two to five years.

Therefore, my first point is this. Why the rush to put through Bill C-30? Why are we not having proper consultations across Canada, and proper and lengthy efforts to hear witnesses, as the government of the day has done under the TPP? This is being rushed despite the deal not yet even existing on the European side. Certainly, the European commissioners have accepted it, but it is not a done deal, and that is because the next trade agreement Europe is looking at having is with the United States. If members can imagine the European governments at the local and national level having a problem with the idea that Canadian corporations can come and sue them in these phony courts, they can be sure they would be even more worried about that happening with U.S. corporations.

Therefore, the first reason, and the number one reason, this agreement is controversial in Europe is the investor-state provisions. I want to back up and explain what these are.

In debate today we heard them conflated with dispute resolutions systems. Everyone understands that when we have a trade deal, the two or three countries involved, in this case a large trading block like the EU, may end up having disputes on trade issues. We have had enough softwood lumber disputes between Canada and the U.S. to explain dispute resolution on the commercial aspects of trade quite well. This is not that. This is not a process to resolve disputes over trade.

What are investor-state provisions doing in a trade deal? That is a good question. They should not be there at all. They are provisions that initially came into the trade world, I would say, by stealth. In all of the national debate, in all of the concerns that Canadians expressed, no one talked about chapter 11 of NAFTA. It was basically hidden away. I have to say that I have spoken to the negotiators of NAFTA. Even they did not know how this provision would be used. Chapter 11 of NAFTA, they thought, merely said that if a foreign government expropriated the assets of a corporation, like a scenario in Cuba where Fidel Castro has the Government of Cuba nationalize all U.S. assets, it would then owe that corporation money for the expropriation of assets. Everyone understood that. It is common law internationally. What chapter 11 did was put in some language that appeared benign but turned out to be a disaster for domestic democratic governance. It put in the words “tantamount to...expropriation”.

Therefore, chapter 11 of NAFTA waltzed through without any controversy, and then very clever lawyers got hold of it. This has created a cadre, a term I will use later as well, of global ambulance chasers, lawyers who went out to find corporations.

The lawyers said that when our government passed the rule that we cannot use that toxic gasoline additive, they thought the corporation had a case against the government under this investor-state dispute. Therefore, Canada, under chapter 11 of NAFTA, was sued for getting rid of a gasoline additive. Under chapter 11, there was the Ethyl Corporation case, where we were sued for banning the export of PCB-contaminated waste. AbitibiBowater sued. However, Bilcon is the worst and most recent case. This is a U.S. corporation that opted not to go to Canadian courts to seek a domestic remedy, but went to the secret Chapter 11 tribunal to get a judgment against Canada to overturn a very strong, solid, defensible, reasonable assessment.

There are no trade aspects to any of these cases by the way. These are not trade disputes. These cases are saying that, as a foreign corporation, a domestic decision by democratic governance has cost it money and its expectation of profits, and so it is bringing a case.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA gave rise to a proliferation of bilateral investment treaties. Generally speaking, the larger economic power is doing business in a small developing country, like a Canadian mining company operating overseas, and the international collective of investment treaties has created real hardships on smaller developing countries. The pattern is clear, and it was put forward and documented by a European think tank. It put together a review called Profiting from Injustice. There is a pattern: the bigger economic power is going to win.

The arbitration process, in other words, is neither fair nor neutral. The global ambulance chasers are a small cadre of international lawyers who get paid $1,000 an hour to be an adjudicator or to be a lawyer for a foreign corporation that is suing a domestic government. The larger economic power is going to win. Therefore, if Canada is being sued by the U.S., we lose.

The worst of all of these agreements has to be the Canada-China investment treaty, which Harper brought in and pushed through with a cabinet vote. It was never debated in the House and never voted on in the House, but it will bind Canadian governments until the year 2045, and it is all completely in secret.

We can now look at chapter 11 secret tribunals and the Canada-China secret tribunals. If our yardstick is those regressive anti-democratic trade deals, and we compare them to the European Union's efforts here with Canada to create an investment court, they are doing everything they can to try to take an inherently anti-democratic system of corporate rule over governments and dress it up to look more democratic, but they have not done the job. It is still an anti-democratic notion at its essence that foreign corporations have the right to sue governments for decisions that have been made with no trade motivation whatsoever but to protect health, safety, and environment within a country.

Why should we agree to these at all?

Earlier in the debate today, I said that CETA creates an investment court. It has adjudicators who are semi-permanent. In other words, they are not being paid for one case and the next day they can go out and be an advocate within the CETA process. The hon. member with whom I was discussing this made that point. I was not able to come back and explain that they can be both a judge in the investment court in the EU and a global ambulance-chasing lawyer on a NAFTA case, or on a Canada-China investment treaty case. They can actually be in the pocket of someone who has hired them, because there are corrupt lawyers who work for companies like Bilcon. These lawyers can be in the pocket of a company like that and then sit as an adjudicator at the investment court between the EU and Canada without having to disclose that they have already been working and are already a lawyer for the very corporation that they would rule over in the case at the investment court in the EU.

These provisions are toxic. As Steven Schreibman, a leading Canadian trade lawyer, said, investor-state agreements are “fundamentally corrosive of democracy”. They have nothing to do with trade.

If Canada wants to get this deal approved in Europe, and if the Liberals want the support of the Green Party in this place, they have to take the investor-state provisions out.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of CETA and Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation bill.

Canada is an exporting nation. From the voyagers to the Hudson's Bay Company to the cod fisheries of our east coast, Canada has been a place of abundant natural resources that have been harvested for exports.

As a grand nation that spans the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, that was united by bands of steel through our national railway, our identity as Canadians has been shaped by our export economy.

Whether it is beaver pelts, cod, grain, beef, minerals, oil and gas, or cars and trucks, all these products helped build our great nation into the prosperous land we call home today.

For those who might be hesitant to support CETA, here are some contextual facts about the importance of exports to Canada, the country we love and serve.

International trade represents more than 60% of Canada's gross domestic product. One in five Canadian jobs is linked to exports. This means there would be three million fewer jobs without international trade, and that is a big deal. This then would drive up Canada's unemployment rate to more than 25% if we were to all of a sudden stop exporting tomorrow.

Clearly our shared prosperity as a nation is very dependent on opportunities to get our goods to international markets, which is why it is so important for us to enter into free trade agreements.

This is why the Canada-EU free trade agreement will give Canada unprecedented access to 500 million EU customers. The size of the European Union's combined economy is $18 trillion, an economy that Canada's businesses will now have barrier-free access to. The European Union is the world's largest importing market for goods, with annual imports that are worth more than Canada's total GDP. The European Union is already the fourth-largest export market for Alberta agriculture after the United States, China and Japan.

A joint Canada-EU study that supported the launch of negotiations concluded that a trade agreement with the EU could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade, and a $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy. This represents the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to every family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

CETA is in fact good news for our country.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance estimates that when fully implemented, this trade agreement could result in $1.5 billion in new Canadian agrifood exports to the EU. When this trade agreement comes into force, 98% of EU tariffs on Canadian goods will be entirely eliminated.

Every region of Canada stands to benefit from the opportunities contained in this agreement. Of course I am very interested in my riding of Lethbridge.

Lethbridge is a hub for agricultural exports, from grains and oilseeds, to poultry and beef, the fertile soil of southern Alberta provides an abundance of food that is available to be sold around the world. In conversations with many of my local agricultural processors, I have heard overwhelming optimism and support for the CETA agreement. Traditionally, EU tariffs on agriculture and processed food products have been quite high, particularly on products such as beef, pork and wheat.

Canada has also faced many non-tariff barriers in the European market. This is why the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers creates fantastic opportunities for Canadian agricultural producers, again, particularly affects my riding.

This agreement establishes a joint committee that will ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary measures to protect human, animal, and plant life do not unnecessarily harm trade. This is very important. This body will determine which certifications and standards should be deemed as equivalent. These non-tariff barriers have been the primary obstacles that in the past have stopped Canadian agricultural exports.

Our Conservative caucus will be paying close attention to the non-tariff barriers and will be holding the present government to account with regard to advocating on behalf of our Canadian producers.

For the grains and oilseeds producers in Lethbridge, this agreement would completely open up a market that was previously blocked by very high tariffs. Here are some examples of the EU tariffs that would be eliminated for grains and oilseeds producers once the agreement is fully implemented: the $114-per-tonne tariff on grains, including oats; the $122-per-tonne tariff on low to medium-quality common wheat, a product that currently sells for only $225 in the EU; the $120-per-tonne tariff on barley and rye; the tariff of up $190 per tonne on durum; and the tariff of 9.6% on oils, including canola oil, a crop that currently sells for $540 a tonne in the EU. All of these tariffs would be eliminated by the CETA agreement. Alberta Barley estimates that an additional $100 million in grains and oilseeds exports would result from signing CETA.

Lethbridge also has a sugar beet industry and the Rogers Sugar refinery plant is very nearby. The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance estimates that this agreement would boost exports of sugar-containing products, such as sugar beets, by $100 million per year. Again, that is excellent news for the producers in my riding.

Canada is also a major meat exporting country, a significant amount of which is produced and processed in southern Alberta. The Canadian Meat Council reports that Canada currently exports $1.3 billion worth of beef, $3.2 billion worth of pork, and $5.7 million worth of bison. Sixty-five thousand Canadians depend on this industry for their job each and every.

For the agricultural producers in my riding, 94% of goods would be tariff-free once CETA is signed, sealed, and delivered.

Lethbridge is also a hub for the Maple Leaf Foods processing plant, which, of course, is processing pork, to a great extent. The Canadian Pork Council has projected that for specific cuts of pork, this deal could create sales of $400 million per year. This is excellent for the pork producers in Lethbridge.

Lethbridge is also home to a large number of beef producers in Canada. In fact, we are known by the nickname “Feedlot Alley”.

Canada has some of the greatest beef genetics in the world and our breeds are known for their excellent quality of meat. Canada has world-leading safety systems, including complete traceability of each and every animal.

Once CETA is fully implemented in three to seven years from now, 65,000 tonnes of beef would be allowed to flow into the European markets duty-free, which would represent more than $600 million in new exports.

That said, reaching an agreement on the equivalency of phytosanitary measures is absolutely critical for this agreement to benefit the producers in my riding and the producers across this country. Phytosanitary measures is simply a fancy way of saying “measures to protect human and animal health in the farming process”. Because of our different climates and the different scale of industry, Canada uses different methods from the EU to ensure the safety of meat. These methods are backed by the latest science and technology. The challenge for the government in negotiating this agreement would be to ensure that science-based equivalencies are negotiated before this agreement comes into full effect.

In summary, this trade deal is excellent news for Canadian exporters. It would create jobs, it would help to grow our economy, and it would increase Canada's standing on the world stage.

I am thankful for former Prime Minister Harper and the members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster for all the work they did in the previous government to negotiate and seal this deal through to it signature.

The farmers, agricultural businesses, and exporters in my riding of would enjoy a more prosperous future because of CETA.Lethbridge

[Louise Barrington]

First of all, I just wanted to mention to you that there is a code of conduct for arbitrators and mediators. It's set out in the papers that go along with Bill C-30. I have it here. It's annex 29-B. You can look at that. That code of conduct is very similar to other codes of conduct that you'll find for arbitration and mediation specialists in the industry.

As to why not use the domestic courts, traditionally there has been a certain distrust of courts that are not our own. That's one of the reasons that arbitration grew up. It's to give a level playing field, so that if there were—

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, CETA.

I would like to first acknowledge my Conservative colleagues, the Right Hon. Steven Harper, the hon. member for Abbotsford, and the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. Thanks to their dedication and hard work over the past few years, this agreement has now been made possible.

CETA will give Canadian firms new and secure opportunities to supply both goods and services to all 28 member states of the European Union. While this trade agreement has many different components, all of which provide immense opportunities for the Canadian economy, I will be focusing my speech on the implications this agreement has on the business and private sectors in Canada.

An early study of this agreement, when it was in the negotiating stage in the last government, indicated that a trade agreement with the European Union would likely result in almost 80,000 new jobs for Canadians. This is exactly what the Canadian economy needs now: jobs. One of the reoccurring aspects of CETA is the agreement to eliminate almost all trade tariffs for Canadian goods and services. It is expected that 99% of tariff lines to the EU will be duty-free once the agreement is fully implemented. By eliminating this type of trade barrier, Canadian producers will have increased access to the EU market and a competitive edge over other global producers who do not have the same kind of trade agreement.

As the critic for small business, I hear this conversation frequently. Business owners want to have better access to global markets. This agreement will help answer that call. What smaller companies will now need to know from the government is how SMEs can become important partners in the supply chain.

To ensure that Canadian businesses are able to effectively operate in the EU market, CETA also includes a regulatory co-operation component. The regulatory co-operation forum will provide Canadian and EU regulators with information to ensure that regulatory measures in both markets are compatible and of mutual interest. This will dramatically diminish the barriers often experienced by businesses entering a new market.

In addition to Canadian-made goods, services such as management, financial, and engineering will have better access to the EU markets. Once CETA has been fully implemented, Canadian service exporters will have the same level of access and be bound by the same regulations as those service providers in the EU.

One of the most important aspects of CETA is the investment provisions. Investment is a critical way to engage with the global economy and stimulate economic growth and job creation. CETA will allow both Canadian and EU investors to capitalize on new opportunities while also ensuring stability and transparency in the market as a means of protecting their investments. There are many reasons why the EU market should wish to invest in Canada, and CETA will encourage such investment.

Although there are many positive and exciting aspects to this agreement, there are also some missing pieces. There have been several unilateral declarations made between member states that have not been agreed to by either Canada or the EU.

Additionally, while there are many positive aspects of the investment chapter of this agreement, there is still some uncertainty. As it becomes clear which provisions in the protection and investment dispute resolution aspect of the agreement will be implemented and which will be removed, I ask that the government be forthcoming on these decisions. It is important that any implications these declarations may have on our industries are explained to Canadian exporters and it is important that the Canadian best interests are maintained.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I would like to also comment briefly on the many opportunities CETA will provide to my home province. Services that are critical to B.C., such as environmental services, communication technology services, and energy services, will have new and unprecedented access to the EU markets and economy.

Just last week I met with a business representative from the aerospace industry and he explained the types of growth CETA will be able to provide to his line of work. B.C. companies understand how important this agreement is and I look forward to hearing of the success they will find in the EU market. As the entire service sector is of critical component of B.C.'s GDP and employs a majority of British Columbians, this sort of competitive edge will greatly benefit the province and my riding of Richmond Centre.

B.C. also represents diverse agricultural and agrifood products from seafood to produce and is known for its high food safety standards. Opening up the market to these producers will encourage further growth and world-class excellence.

I am very pleased that, after all of the hard work done by many over the past few years, an agreement has been made. Although I have noted a few of my concerns on the agreement, I look forward to the many benefits CETA will provide to our Canadian businesses and our country on a national level. Canada will be one of a few countries that has been able to secure such access to the world's two largest economies, the United States and the European Union, and that is something to be extremely proud of.

My next question for the current government is how we are going to deal with the trans-Pacific partnership, which the president-elect of the U.S. has openly declared that he is going to withdraw from. I have had the opportunity of joining our former prime minister, the trade minister, and the minister of agriculture to explore business opportunities in Asia in a good number of years. I certainly hope that even without the U.S., our government is able to go forward with the TPP and open up an even larger market for all Canadians.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Davenport, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in support of Bill C-30, Canada's ratification of the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, more commonly known as CETA.

I know that in my riding of Davenport, a wonderfully diverse riding with the majority of resident families coming from European countries like Portugal, Italy, Spain, and even Greece and France, they are excited at the prospect of this agreement and bill coming into force.

I should note that not all trade agreements are seen equally in my riding. There are many concerns about the TPP, but for CETA there is large support and people are very excited about it. They are excited at the prospect of stronger economic ties with their home countries and the chance to help their home businesses succeed, in addition to all the benefits this agreement will have for Canadians.

The residents of Davenport know that the EU is the second-largest market in the world for Canadians. CETA means more growth, more jobs, a more robust economy, and a stronger economic future for all Canadians. Through CETA, the government is demonstrating its commitment to growing our economy and strengthening the middle class by increasing and expanding Canada's trade.

As a medium-sized economy competing in the global marketplace, Canada has long recognized free and open trade as critical for our economic prosperity. CETA will offer new export opportunities and new consumers for our products. People around the world are hungry for the goods, skills, and services that Canada has to offer. Partners around the world want to do business with Canadians. We are seen as being reliable and committed to providing quality services and products.

The European Union and its 28 member states is an important market for Canada, and CETA will continue to expand the opportunities for Canadian companies in this market. In 2015, our bilateral trade in merchandise with the EU was worth $99 billion, and trade in services was $38 billion, making the EU our second-largest trading partner.

Trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy. Canadian jobs and prosperity depend heavily on trade flows with other countries. In fact, one out of every six Canadian jobs is related to exports, and Canadian exports amount to more than 30% of Canada's GDP. It is because trade is so vital to our economy that our government has undertaken to advance a progressive trade agenda.

The concept of progressive trade is what helped us to conclude CETA with our EU partners. I will pause for one minute to say how very pleased I am that at the EU-Canada summit where CETA was signed by the president of the European Council, the president of the European Commission, and our Prime Minister, a joint statement was also issued that outlined our mutual shared values and interests beyond trade.

They signed a statement that included agreement on shared values and goals, like peace and democracy, prosperity, protection of human rights, the rule of law, the environment, and inclusion and cultural diversity. The commitment to and promotion of these values and goals is not only important to me, but I know is also really important to the residents of Davenport.

Canada engages in CETA because we believe that it will lift up all Canadians. We believe that CETA will open up new markets, and it has the potential to significantly increase Canadian wealth. Small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, are looking to our government to open up new markets for potential exports, and our government is committed to this goal.

We have heard directly from Canadian businesses, many of them within ethnic communities, like the Portuguese, Italian, and Spanish communities, which are found in ridings across Canada, like Davenport. They have asked us to do more to help them grow. They want us to increase sales, increase profits, reduce risk, lower costs, and reach beyond saturated domestic markets.

For trade in goods, CETA will help foster such opportunities by eliminating virtually all tariffs, and establishing mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers to create more predictable trading conditions. These are some of the things businesses want, and we will help achieve these goals by standing against the protectionist ideology that is unfortunately emerging across the globe.

Stakeholders from across the country in a wide range of economic sectors continue to tell us how trade has positively impacted their business. With our government's continued commitment to trade, we will keep this positive trend alive.

CETA would also provide Canadian companies 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 would allow Canada to establish customer relationships and networks and to join projects first. CETA would offer Canada the opportunity to be part of a broader global supply chain anchored in the EU. Opening up new markets for our manufactured and processed products means that our country would be at an advantage in exporting more automobiles, medical devices, agriculture and agrifood products, machinery, fish, and everything in-between. Opening up new markets in our agriculture and agrifood products would mean more opportunities for abundant and delicious blueberries from Nova Scotia; potatoes from P.E.I.; processed products and pet food from Ontario; prairie grains; ciders, cranberries, and maple syrup from Quebec; and the best pork and beef in the world, just to name a few.

Preferential access to the EU under CETA means that almost all Canadian products would be free from EU tariffs. In some cases, tariffs account for more than 50% of the product price, such as the current EU tariff on Canadian oats.

I have mentioned a few of our vibrant sectors, and there are many more sectors whose exporters would benefit from CETA. But now I would like to highlight another important opportunity that CETA would open up for Canadian exporters of goods and services. CETA would expand access to EU's $3.3 trillion government procurement market, in many cases for the first time to any trading partner. Thanks to CETA, Canadian firms would now have access to all levels of government procurement. This would especially benefit Canada's producers of world-leading technologies, who would have guaranteed access to European public utilities in the areas of water treatment, electricity, gas, and heat; and to the EU's mass-transit authorities.

Members will note that when discussing procurement, not only have I mentioned exporters of goods but also of services. The EU services market is worth an astounding $12 trillion. It is in fact the world's single largest importer of services, accounting for 20% of the world's total imports. CETA would give Canadian service suppliers the best market access the EU has ever granted to a free trade agreement partner. Through mechanisms such as national treatment, most-favoured nation provisions, along with the automatic ratchet mechanism, Canada's access to the EU services market would improve over time. This means that not only would CETA open up new markets for Canadian service exporters upon implementation, but it would also guarantee that Canada's access would improve in the future.

In conclusion, I believe it is now evident that CETA is a big deal for Canadian companies. It is a big deal for Canadians, including the businesses and residents of my riding of Davenport. We are making good on our promise to create opportunities for small and medium-sized companies and to generate jobs and economic growth that will benefit all Canadians. This agreement would tear down barriers and create a bridge across the Atlantic for Canadian exporters of goods and services. Through CETA, Canada would receive unprecedented access to the EU and its 28 member states. With CETA, Canada would send a clear signal to the world that not only does it support progressive trade for its own economic well-being, but that it is also a leader in countering the rising protectionist sentiments in Europe and south of the border. The ratification of CETA would be seen as evidence that our nation never gives up on supporting our economic well-being and continues to lead by example in pursuit of prosperity for its citizens.

I support this bill and all the benefits that it would bring to Canadians and to EU citizens. I urge all hon. members to support this bill. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had three minutes in my speech yesterday so I will be continuing along today. The point I want to underline is that we in the NDP will be here to provide reasoned and progressive elements to debate in this implementation act for CETA.

As I was saying in my saying in my speech on the bill yesterday, it remains a mystery as to why the government is trying to ram the bill through without letting parliamentarians conduct their proper research and oversight. I want to refer all members of this House to the open and accountable government publication from the Prime Minister that ministers were to treat Parliament with respect and provide the necessary information for parliamentarians to do their job. I quote from that document:

Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account.

The Prime Minister expects ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process. However, if we look at the facts surrounding the introduction of the bill, on October 30 the Prime Minister signed CETA at the EU-Canada Leaders' Summit, and it was only two days later that the implementing legislation, Bill C-30, was introduced in Parliament.

This rushed process violated the government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty, along with an explanatory memorandum that outlines the key components of the treaty, at least 21 sitting days before we debate. That was violated, and I would argue that the spirit of open and accountable government was clearly violated by ignoring that process.

Furthermore, we know that the international trade committee has already passed a motion that will restrict written submissions to only those witnesses who are selected to appear. Let me make that clear. No Canadians who do not appear before the committee will be allowed to provide written submissions, and only those who have the means to travel to Ottawa and the time to do so will be allowed to do so. We are in effect closing down exactly from whom we will hear on this.

If we compare that with the government's process on the trans-Pacific partnership, where the committee heard from over 400 witnesses and received written submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians, there really is no comparison.

The underlying point here is that Parliament is essentially being asked to write a blank cheque with this implementation bill, despite the fact that each of the 28 EU member states will have to ratify CETA for all of the provisions to apply, and it is a process that is expected to take between two to five years.

I ask again, what is the rush? What is the government trying to ram through here? Why is it not letting parliamentarians do due oversight when there is obviously enough time for us to examine the bill?

The next part I want to look at is on the investor-state dispute mechanism. New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports, but we will always remain firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten our sovereignty have no place in trade deals.

The new investor court system still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits. Furthermore, the Liberals still have not explained how they will ensure that environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges. Even the joint interpretive statement about the investor court system falls outside the text of the treaty, and therefore does not have full legal weight.

If we look at the quote from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, it states that CETA “will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism....” It goes on to say that it will really “impact the federal and provincial governments' authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.”

The other part I want to examine is particularly important to me, both as the NDP seniors critic and the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It is the impact this deal would have on the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. I take the issue of pharmaceutical costs very seriously, because I have helped enough seniors over the last eight years to know that the high cost of these drugs can have a real impact on the quality of life of our seniors.

The chapter on intellectual property rights goes well beyond Canada's existing obligations. The increased patent protections granted to brand-name pharmaceuticals will have the effect of delaying the arrival of cheaper generics and will increase the cost of prescription drugs to Canadians by between $850 million and $2.8 billion per year.

This is a cost that I do not think seniors are prepared to take on. Furthermore, I would argue it would hamper any efforts of bringing in a national pharmaceutical strategy both at the federal level and in what individual provinces are trying to do with their already ballooning health care costs.

I also want to quote Jim Keon, the president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, who said:

A study prepared for the CGPA by two leading Canadian health economists in early 2011 estimated that, if adopted, the proposals would delay the introduction of new generic medicines in Canada by an average of three and a half years. The cost to pharmaceutical payers of this delay was estimated at $2.8 billion...

Therefore, we do have validators of this opinion, we do have the research to back it up, and it is certainly a very real concern that we should be bringing up.

In conclusion, we are in favour of a trade deal with Europe. As I have stated previously, we have deep historical and cultural ties, and they are some of the most progressive democracies. However, we are concerned with specific measures in CETA as it is negotiated, and it is our job on this side of the House to uphold the interests of Canadians in process.

The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix this agreement, but the deal is still not done. We will continue to urge them to fix it. Furthermore, if Liberal members of Parliament are not prepared to stand up for the progressive interests of their constituents, we in the NDP are always ready to take on that rein, and we will do so proudly.

The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I realize I have one of those lucky spots, where I get about a four-minute speech, seeing as we are getting close to 6:30 p.m.

I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member of Parliament for Essex, for the incredible work she has been doing in raising these issues.

I have been quite sorry to hear some of the condescending tones emanating from the Liberals. I would like to be there when their constituents start raising issues, asking the Liberals where they were when we talked about dairy compensation, or about the high cost of pharmaceuticals, or about the application of sovereignty, the ability of local and provincial governments to make laws for their own citizens and not have some super-national body overrule them. I would very much like to be there when their constituents ask them where they were when we were bringing up these very real concerns with this agreement.

I will unapologetically stand here and bring these concerns, as is the job of a progressive opposition, to signal that we are in favour of trade, but the agreement is so much more than just simple trade. It goes far above and beyond simple trade, and we have to bring forward these important points.

Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. We support the deepening of Canada-EU relationships. These are member countries to which we have significant historical and cultural ties. We have received many waves of immigration from European countries, which represent some of the most progressive democracies in the world. However, this is such an important agreement that we must ensure the scope of it remains in Canada's interests.

The Liberals are essentially asking Parliament to sign-off on CETA, despite the fact that European states have made it clear that the investor-state provisions would have to be removed before they ratify it.

I want to reference how quickly the Liberal government is trying to ram this through.

On October 30, the Prime Minister signed CETA at the EU-Canada leaders' summit. Two days later Bill C-30 was put forward as the implementing legislation. This process violated the government's own policy on tabling treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty, along with an explanatory memorandum outlining key components of the treaty, at least 21 sitting days before the legislation is presented. The Liberals also neglected to table a mandatory environmental assessment of the free trade agreement, as per a 1999 cabinet directive on environmental policy plans and program proposals.

Seeing that my time is short, tomorrow I will continue my speech and go over some of the costs to our drug provisions, as the seniors critic, and some of the investor-state provisions. I look forward to continuing that conversation tomorrow.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

First, I would like to thank the member for Essex, our international trade critic. In my opinion, she and her team do an extraordinary job. She exhibited great strength during today's debate. I would like to congratulate her on the work she did in committee and commend her for her dedication.

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures. I am also pleased to rise to represent the people of Berthier—Maskinongé.

It is important for me to mention in the House that the NDP is in favour of international trade agreements as long as they are fair. The word “fair” is important. It is not simply a matter of engaging in free trade. We need to ensure that we are engaging in fair trade. The problem with the current government and the previous government is that they are quick to sign any agreement just so that they can brag about signing free trade agreements.

We had a fine example of this in fall 2013. During question period, the leader of the second opposition party, the current Prime Minister, congratulated the Conservative government for concluding an agreement in principle with the European Union without ever having read the agreement, which was not yet available. That is the Liberal Party in a nutshell.

Now that it is in government, not much has changed. The Liberals had several good opportunities to improve the agreement, but they chose instead to sign something that is not fair to Canadians. They were in such a hurry to see CETA come into force that they botched their own process. They are asking us, the members of the House, to give them carte blanche by voting in favour of a flawed document that will be end up being changed, especially with respect to the investor-state provisions. I think it makes no sense that hon. members are not voting on the final document.

This agreement and trade with the European Union are too important for us to take this lightly or rush through it.

A number of problems need fixing before we move forward. First, for the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, changes to intellectual property rules will cause drug prices to skyrocket. Considering our aging population and household incomes below the Canadian average, rising drug prices make me fear the worst for my fellow citizens. The government should address this before moving forward.

Second, there are a number of problems related to the agriculture and agri-food sector. I should point out that the government allowed an additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese from Europe over and above the 13,500 tonnes it already exports. In total, Europe will be allowed to export 31,200 tonnes of cheese to Canada, most of it fine cheese.

This problem provision will increase the percentage of dairy product imports from 4% to 9%, and dairy producers will lose between $116 million and $150 million. We must not forget fine cheese producers; this will cost them too. Of the additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese, 16,000 tonnes will be fine cheese. The impact of this will be felt most keenly in Quebec, which produces 60% of the country's fine cheese. Many cheese makers have said that allowing fine cheeses in will cause businesses to close.

Our manufacturing standards combined with generous subsidies for European producers make it almost impossible for our cheese makers to compete.

For a few years now, dairy and cheese producers have been investing and working hard to grow the fine cheese market. Because of this problem provision, however, their efforts will only benefit the Europeans.

Here is an example of how this agreement will affect a fine cheese producer in my riding, the Fromagerie Domaine Féodal. Last Friday I had the honour of attending a wine and cheese tasting to mark that business' 15th anniversary. The owners, Guy and Lise, just invested over $1 million to modernize their facilities, and they did so without any Canadian subsidies. I would also like to point out that they won a silver medal just last week for a cheese called Cendré des prés. I want to thank everyone who works with Guy and Lise and their family: Charles, Pierrette, Chantale, Annie, Mélanie, Justine, and Marie.

The arrival of fine cheeses from Europe will just eat into the profits they would have made on their investments. This cheese factory from the Lanaudière region will be able to absorb the blow from CETA, but that is not the case for all cheese makers in Quebec. They believe that many of the artisanal cheese factories from Quebec will close up. It is very hard for our cheese makers to compete with European cheese makers who are highly subsidized and have lower food safety standards than we do. Once again it will be our rural communities that will end up paying for this flawed trade agreement.

The government is absolving itself of the problems the agreement is causing the dairy industry with its transition plan. The government promised dairy farmers a $100-million investment fund over four years to help them modernize their operations and increase their productivity and efficiency, as well as diversify their range of products in order to capitalize on new European markets.

Clearly this program will be reserved for the largest processors and our artisanal cheese makers will be left out. The amount budgeted for the processors is far from adequate, as it does not even cover the $150-million losses the producers of fine cheeses will suffer.

The investment fund for dairy producers is even more appalling. The amount of $250 million over five years in light of annual recurring losses that could reach $150 million is not just inadequate but is an insult to dairy producers, who work very hard to make very high-quality milk.

Like artisanal cheese makers, several producers will never see this money because they have already modernized their facilities. However, above all, it simply makes no sense that our producers have to pay to access this money. How utterly deplorable of the Liberals to want to go forward with this agreement before examining its impact on the dairy industry. There is too much uncertainty for producers.

CETA will be problematic not just for the dairy sector, but also for the pork and beef industries. The previous government and the current one repeatedly boasted about the share of the European beef and pork market they gained. However, there is much to do before producers can really benefit from this market share. In fact, due to current European regulatory obstacles, none of our beef and pork producers will benefit.

I do not understand why the government is willing to move forward without resolving these issues. Stakeholders in other areas of the agriculture and agri-food sector welcome the export opportunities offered by this agreement. However, there is always a big “but” or a “maybe”. Compared to Europe and other industrialized countries, Canada provides its agriculture and agri-food sector with very few subsidies. The same goes for technical support and funding for research and innovation.

I repeat: I understand that the government wants to move forward with this agreement. However, we need to ensure that all of the programs are in place. What is more, in order to prevent unfair competition, the government needs to stand up for producers and ensure that this agreement is in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

It is with pride that I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive, economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA.

I will frame my remarks by reminding the members of the House that our government has chosen an ambitious agenda to strengthen the middle class and those trying to join it. Job creation for Canadians depends on our domestic as well as our foreign trade policies.

Our government promised to review the trade agreements that were in process when we took office one year ago. We reviewed the provisions for CETA and through the extremely hard work of our Prime Minister and our very capable Minister of International Trade, we were able to get it done.

Based on recent statistics, almost 1.7 million highly-skilled Canadians are employed full time in Canada's manufacturing sector. By eliminating all tariffs on manufactured goods and creating a mechanism to address non-tariff barriers to trade, this agreement will unlock opportunities for Canadian businesses and advance our government's commitment to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class.

Bill C-30 would cover a wide breadth of economic sectors and issues. Under CETA, certain skilled professionals will find it easier to work temporarily in the EU. This aspect of CETA is welcome in my riding of Don Valley East, which is home to skilled professionals from all around the globe. Working in the EU for these skilled professionals will not only boost their skill sets, but will provide cultural opportunities that they may have never considered possible.

We live in a world which is increasingly interconnected and where the free movement of people, goods, services and ideas happens at rapid speed. Progress and availability of opportunities for Canadians cannot increase unless we look beyond our borders. In 2014, Canada was the 12th largest trading partner of the EU-28. The EU is Canada's second largest partner after the United States.

From 2013-2015, Canada exported an annual average of almost $33 billion worth of manufactured goods to the EU. On average, these exports currently face tariffs of between 4% to 22%.

Under CETA, 99% of Canadian manufactured goods will enter the EU market tariff free. Within seven years, 100% of Canada's manufactured goods, including autos, will benefit from the duty free access.

Canada stands to gain even more by way of investment, opening new markets for our goods and services, and creating more stable jobs for our workforce. Workers in Canada's multi-billion dollar chemical and plastic industry will also benefit directly from CETA.

Canadians are world leaders in research, innovation and production in advanced manufacturing sub-sector, for example, scientific instruments, construction equipment and aerospace products to name a few. These goods, including robotics, are in high demand. In this area, Canadian exports to the EU totalled $9.2 billion. Current tariffs are as high as 22%. Under CETA these tariffs will be eliminated

In the agriculture field, we will be well positioned to reap benefits to the new market. This is a win-win for our agri industry across Canada.

CETA will not only open new markets for Canadian businesses and employees, but CETA is also the first trade agreement which has a stand-alone chapter on regulatory co-operation.

This very important provision will promote good regulatory practices and level the playing field. Our government is committed to creating opportunities for our businesses and our citizens. We want to expand the horizon, think outside the box, and ensure that Canadians are not disadvantaged by non-action.

It is with this in mind that CETA also contains provisions under which dispute settlement will be more open, transparent, and institutionalized. Our government will always protect the interests of Canadians and Canadian businesses. My riding contains some of the most innovative and forward looking technological small and medium-sized companies. Under CETA, companies such as Neuronic Works, Thales, Pearson Printing, Jansen, etc., will have access to European markets on a fair and even basis. Europeans and Canadians will benefit from a shared knowledge base and mutual higher standards of living.

In the area of safety and environmental protections, CETA builds on previous trade agreements that have explicitly safeguarded provided health, safety, and environmental protections. These protections are critical for our government and we will not abandon our principles. Under CETA, any EU producer interested in exporting goods to Canada will have to abide fully with the Canadian regulations on environmental protection.

Canadian culture will continue to thrive, as it will have new markets under CETA. I have spoken to many arts and cultural organizations who see this trade deal an an opportunity to expand into the global markets.

CETA is a progressive way forward for Canada and the EU. This trade agreement will set a precedent for the way international agreements are negotiated and agreed upon. We are a country rich in technology and innovation. We know how to operate businesses, whether in pharmaceuticals or manufacturing or family farms. Canadians have always been forward looking. In this increasingly connected world, we cannot afford to be insular. This trade agreement will provide opportunities for all Canadians and ensure real protection of our environment, our indigenous peoples, and the diversity of our cultures.

I hope all members of the House will support our collective effort in making Canada a highly competitive global player that wishes to see Canadians benefit from growth and opportunities.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the government implementation bill, Bill C-30, for the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, and about the government's ongoing progressive trade agenda.

Canada is a trading nation and our government recognizes the importance of supporting free and open international trade for our collective prosperity. However, in many countries in the western industrialized world, there is a growing populist backlash against immigration, international trade, and globalization in general.

Beyond what we have seen in recent months from political campaigns in the U.S., the most recent report from the World Trade Organization and other international institutions on trade barriers, published in June, noted that G20 economies introduced 145 new trade restrictive measures between mid-October 2015 and mid-May 2016. That is 21 a month, the highest monthly average since 2009.

This is an issue of global concern, but it is particularly worrisome for a trade dependent country such as Canada. As a medium-sized economy competing in the global marketplace, Canada has long recognized that free and open trade is critical for our economic prosperity. That is why CETA and the government's broader progressive trade agenda are so important for Canada's continued economic prosperity.

People around the world are feeling powerless and anxious in the face of unceasing change. Globalization and technological change have created wealth and opportunities for many. However, parts of the middle class and those working hard to join it feel they are falling behind. Their concerns are not entirely wrong.

Credit Suisse found that the top 1% of the world's population owns 50% of its wealth. The bottom 50% combined owns less than 1%. People with a net worth of less than $10,000 account for 71% of the world's adult population.

Trade, immigration and international openness are increasingly blamed for economic hardships and inequality. However, our government believes we cannot turn our backs on trade or turn back the clock on globalization. Done properly, increased trade can raise living standards, create more jobs, increase prosperity, and help to strengthen the middle class. Closing our borders will only lead us to a less prosperous and more closed-off, insular, and fearful world. This is one of the reasons that our government is pursuing a progressive trade agenda in concert with our like-minded partners around the world.

The progressive trade agenda advances higher standards of living and fosters sustainable and inclusive economic growth. It includes an emphasis on transparent and inclusive approaches. The government is committed to a consultative process on international trade that allows all segments of our society to contribute and be heard. It will ensure that governments can continue to pursue broad societal objectives.

The government firmly believes governments should defend the best interests of their people, particularly the most vulnerable. It ensures the government's continued right to regulate. It supports strong rules on food safety, consumer protection and the environment in addition to world-class publicly funded health care, and other public services.

Our trade agenda will continue to actively promote labour rights and strong environmental protections. It will also include a more progressive approach to an investment dispute resolution that is recognized as fair, open and impartial, including exploring the establishment of a multilateral approach.

We are still in the early stages of developing this new approach to trade for Canada, but we can already see some concrete results. The landmark example of the progressive trade agenda so far is CETA. CETA will create economic opportunities for Canadians across the country, and will do so in a progressive way that is in keeping with the inclusive values of Canada and the EU.

CETA's progressive provisions include stand-alone chapters dedicated to labour, the environment and sustainable development, a very clear recognition of the right of governments to regulate in the public interest, making the process of the resolution of investment disputes more independent and fair, and further increasing its transparency.

On that last point, Canada and the EU have truly innovated with the most progressive investment dispute resolution mechanism to date. In CETA, we have moved away from ad hoc arbitration and established permanent tribunals. CETA establishes a new process for the selection of permanent tribunal members, sets detailed commitments on ethics for all tribunal members, and introduces an appellate system, which, in sum, demonstrates Canada's leadership in promoting progressive 21st century investment protection provisions.

Beyond these progressive provisions, CETA will translate into real benefits for Canadians and contribute to Canada's long term prosperity. CETA addresses the full range of conditions that shape modern international trade, including goods, services, investment, intellectual property, government procurement, non-tariff measures, regulatory co-operation, and more.

It also covers issues never before included in any of Canada's previous trade agreements, including NAFTA. For example, CETA is the first to include a stand-alone chapter on co-operation in regulatory matters. Another unique feature of CETA is its protocol on conformity assessment, which will allow Canadian producers in a number of sectors to have their products tested and certified for the EU market right in Canada.

In many areas, Canada and the EU have negotiated market access and improved conditions for trade that go beyond the NAFTA. For example, in the area of public procurement, CETA is the first to cover all levels of government in Canada and the EU. Once implemented, CETA will set the stage for progressive trade agreements fit for the 21st century. Our government is proud of signing that agreement.

This government has been proactive from day one in placing emphasis on the importance of supporting the middle class, transparency, and broadening consultations on trade agreements. In other words, Canada saw the need for change in this area early on and put things into motion before most others, and remains ahead of the pack.

Going forward, the government will continue to advance progressive approaches in other trade initiatives, including bilateral and regional trade agreements and at the World Trade Organization, and will be looking to co-operate on these issues with like-minded partners around the world.

We welcome the views of all citizens and parliamentarians on how Canada can advance this more progressive approach to trade for our collective prosperity.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recognize the excellent work of my colleagues from Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster. In their speeches today, they gave a good overview of why we are all gathered here today to talk about C-30, which was introduced in the House by the Minister of International Trade. My colleagues talked about all the work that led up to this economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. They spoke about the difficulties encountered and the work done under the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper. He was able to obtain the unanimous support of his troops and convince them that an agreement with our European Union neighbours was critical. This government had a vision that it shared with its team, and today we are seeing the fruits of that labour with the introduction of Bill C-30. We firmly believe that this is a good agreement that will be good for Canadians.

I will talk abut two very interesting topics: the work that was done and the current situation, and what we can gain from this agreement or how it will benefit our regions and our ridings. Then I will talk about the small mistakes that sometimes happen when conducting negotiations and when we want to have our cake and eat it too, as it seems to be the case with the government, especially when it comes to dairy producers.

By introducing this bill, the government is taking a lot of credit for finalizing this agreement with the European Union. As we know, however, negotiations were well under way and the agreement was practically finalized in 2014. If not for the government's desire to reopen this agreement, we could have finalized it quite some time ago and this bill would have been introduced much earlier in the House of Commons. It almost did not materialize, but, fortunately, the Europeans discerned the imminent danger and were able to rally around a position that, although not quite as positive as in the previous agreement, is now acceptable and will open many markets for Canada.

The main goal of the canada-european union comprehensive economic and trade agreement is to promote trade by reducing tariffs between the European Union and Canada and harmonizing standards and regulations, which governments and businesses call non-tariff barriers.

The previous Conservative government worked on this agreement, which will provide privileged access to a market of 500 million consumers. This trade agreement will give Canadian service providers, which employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of Canada's GDP, the best market access that the European Union has ever given its free trade partners. This agreement will establish greater transparency in the European Union services market by ensuring more secure and predictable access.

It is worth mentioning that Canada and the European Union conducted a joint study that supported launching negotiations and concluded that a trade agreement between the European Union and Canada could stimulate and boost bilateral trade by 20% and inject $12 billion per year into the Canadian economy. That is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or creating 80,000 new jobs in our economy.

Conservatives are very proud of the fact that signing this agreement may help improve the Liberal government's economic performance. If the Liberal government's economic performance improves, Canadians' economic situation will improve too. It seems to me that they need a helping hand with that, and we are extremely pleased to have made such an invaluable contribution.

This is all about hard work and trade, so I would like to talk about a company in my riding that celebrated the grand opening of a $35-million investment project on March 21. The company is called Fruit d'Or, and its president is Martin Le Moine. We marked the grand opening of a new cranberry processing plant in Plessisville. I will read part of what La Tribune had to say about it:

We are producing 20% faster than before and we are producing better products. This investment will help us better position ourselves in the free trade agreement with Europe and help us maintain our position as a leader in organic cranberry production.

Now that is what a free trade agreement is about, and that is an example of a business with a vision, one that believed in the previous government and believed that the government would continue on that path. What will this mean? This will create jobs in my riding and in Canada, and jobs in an industry that is super important.

Having visited that business myself for the official opening, I can say that the president is incredibly and exceptionally dynamic. He is truly dedicated to and passionate about his business. I am convinced that all Canadians will benefit from this new passion. However, there is still work to be done. Like Fruit d'Or, everyone needs to invest, and the investments made today will benefit everyone in the future.

The mayor of Plessisville, Mario Fortin, mentioned that it was the largest investment anyone had made in Plessisville in recent years. This is the direct result of an agreement that had not yet been signed, one that we were certain would be signed. This will produce results. Why? Because people have a vision.

Some people in my riding are happy, but some are not, including dairy farmers. They think the Liberals want to have their cake and eat it too, in that the compensation program announced at the conclusion of the agreement with the European Union is not nearly good enough. It is rather ironic that our dairy producers, without whom we could not make cake, are being shortchanged by the changes made to the compensation program that we put in place to ensure that they could weather the difficult transition period as this large market, the European Union, opens.

I want to share some comments by a dairy farmer in my riding, Michel Couture, who says he is rather worried. He laments the small $250-million contribution for dairy farmers. By telling his story, I hope to paint a clearer picture of the reality of a dairy farmer.

In 2014, he made some improvements to his farm that helped him streamline his processes. How much did he invest? He had to make upgrades of $1.4 million to remain competitive. He made them because he believes in the future of his industry. Today he is being told that he will receive $4,500 a year over five years in compensation as an incentive to upgrade his equipment. I will read what he said because his words carry more weight than mine: “...what can you do with that amount of money?”

We are talking about $4,500 in the hope that farmers and dairy producers will invest $1.4 million to modernize and meet the new challenges arising from the free trade agreement. Farmers and dairy producers do not have it easy. They have a lot of work. It is a little bit like playing the lottery for them. They invest a lot of their own money, several thousands of dollars, to purchase equipment and remain competitive, without really knowing the outcome or financial return, and without being listened to by this government, which has not even been able to resolve the diafiltered milk issue after one year.

What can be done to restore our dairy farmers' confidence and really encourage them to invest and profit from this free trade agreement? What the government needs to do is send them a clear message that they will be properly compensated. I urge the government to draw inspiration from the compensation programs that we put in place for dairy producers, the same way it drew inspiration from the negotiations we held to enter into this free trade agreement with the European Union.

In closing, I must say that I am very pleased with the work that the previous government did to make this agreement a reality. I am very pleased to know that, today, Canadian companies and SMEs will have access to a market of 500 million consumers on one side and 300 million on the other, putting Canada in an enviable position compared to other countries in the world.

However, we will continue to be very vigilant and hold the government to account in order to ensure that Canadians reap the benefits of free trade, not only as a result of the agreement with the European Union, but also as a result of other free trade agreements that are currently being negotiated, such as the much talked-about trans-Pacific partnership, which is just as important.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of Bill C-30 and the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

Canada is a trading nation. A trade agreement with the European Union is good business for Canada. The European Union market opens incredible opportunities for Canadian businesses. The EU is the world's second largest economy and is Canada's second largest trading partner after the United States. It is also the world's second largest importing market for goods.

CETA is a comprehensive trade agreement that would cover virtually all sectors and aspects of Canada-EU trade. Once implemented, approximately 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods would be duty-free.

Canadian service providers would benefit from greater access to the EU, the world's largest importer of services.

CETA would also provide investors with greater stability, transparency, and protection for investments in the EU while significantly expanding Canadian access to EU government procurement contracts.

To make a specific case for CETA, I would like to reflect on the advantages of CETA to my community of Oakville. Oakville is home to many advanced manufacturing companies, which form a dynamic cluster of businesses supporting innovation and growth. Our manufacturing standouts include Ford Motor Company of Canada, UTC Aerospace Systems, GE Water & Process Technologies, and Dana Incorporated, an auto parts manufacturer.

With respect to the aerospace industry, CETA would offer tariff elimination, opening of government contracts, and regulatory co-operation.

With respect to automotive parts, given the integrated nature of Canada's automotive supply chain, it is important that there are rules of origin that accommodate significant levels of foreign value-added. CETA would allow Canadian passenger vehicles that meet a minimum percentage of domestic content to qualify for duty-free exchange.

For other manufacturers, the EU represents an unprecedented opportunity for Canadian businesses. Pre-Brexit, with its $22-trillion economy and more than 500 million consumers, the EU is the world's largest integrated market. The potential value of access to the EU is quantified in a 2008 study, which estimated that CETA could lead to a $12-billion increase to Canadian GDP and an increase in bilateral trade of over 20%.

A growing cluster of financial and professional service companies are taking advantage of Oakville's workforce capabilities to drive innovation and build sector leadership. In Oakville, there are 13,000 highly skilled and experienced knowledge workers. Also, Oakville is home to Sheridan College, one of the world's leading animation centres.

Oakville has the people, the partners, and the business knowledge to bring new technology to the world. For ICT workers, professionals, and businesses, CETA allows for tariff elimination, regulatory co-operation, temporary entry permits, and access to government procurement contracts.

CETA also has provisions for recognition of professional certifications, including legal, accounting, and architectural designations.

Ford Canada, located in my riding of Oakville, is very supportive of CETA. The EU market represents a significant global market for vehicles. In 2015, total vehicle sales in the EU countries were 15.5 million vehicles, ranking the EU as the third largest vehicle market in the world behind number one China, with over 24 million units sold and number two, the U.S., with over 17 million sales.

Access to this large new vehicle market for Canadian produced vehicles would help diversity and grow Canadian exports of vehicles and our auto parts. Dianne Craig the president and CEO of Ford Motor Company of Canada, states that, “Ford is a global company built on free trade. ...Ford has supported trade deals with trading partners that result in the opportunity to increase the two-way flow of trade.” That is what CETA does.

In 2016, Ford of Canada began exporting the Ford Edge, built in Oakville, to the EU. This includes building vehicles in Canada with right-hand drive and diesel engines designed for that market. Canada's decision to sign CETA contributed to Ford's decision to expand production of the Ford Edge in Oakville for export to the EU market.

Caroline Hughes, director of government relations at Ford states, “...we support a manufacturing-driven trade strategy that starts with the belief that Canadian manufacturing truly matters and that Canadian manufacturing can compete on a level playing field against the best competition from around the world.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has spoken out quite clearly in favour of this agreement.

Locally, the Oakville Chamber of Commerce has supported the ratification of CETA. John Sawyer, president of the Oakville Chamber of Commerce recently stated that:

CETA is an important agreement that would benefit Oakville businesses by reducing trade barriers with the world's large economy. It will offer more opportunities for exporters and lower prices for consumers.

I do need to say that several people and groups in Oakville have raised concerns with me. They say that some of our recent free trade agreements have surrendered the state's ability to regulate and to act in public interest in favour of multinational corporations' interests. This has been the result of complex investor-state conflict resolution processes.

I want to reassure residents of Oakville that CETA represents a significant break with the past, at two different levels.

First, it would include an explicit reference to the right of governments to regulate in the public interest. CETA makes clear from the outset that the EU and Canada preserve their right to regulate and to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as public health, safety, environment, public morals, social or consumer protection, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

There is a clear instruction to the tribunal for the interpretation of investment provisions.

Second, CETA would create an independent investment court system, consisting of a permanent tribunal. Dispute settlement proceedings would be conducted in a transparent and impartial manner.

Contrary to the traditional investment dispute settlement agreements, the tribunal would be composed of 15 members nominated by the European Union and Canada, and not by the arbitrators nominated by the investor and the defending state.

It is also explicitly foreseen that governments could change their laws, including in a way that would affect investors' expectations of profit and that the application of law would not not constitute a breach of investment protection standards.

It is worth repeating that CETA would explicitly safeguard health, safety, and environmental protections and that nothing in CETA would prevent governments from providing preferences to aboriginal peoples or from adopting measures to protect or promote Canadian culture.

As vice-president of the Canada-European Parliamentary Association, I have recently had the opportunity to speak about the advantages of CETA to our European parliamentary counterparts at meetings in Canada and in Europe.

There was general agreement that there were advantages for European countries to participate in this trade agreement, just as there are advantages for Canada.

I was part of panel that met with business owners in Bratislava, Slovakia, who were very excited about the opportunities opened up by the trade agreement with Canada.

I also have had the opportunity to tour auto parts manufacturing plants in Europe and to see a Volkswagen assembly plant creating VW Touaregs, Porsche Cayennes, and other luxury SUVs, many of which are destined for my community of Oakville. Just as Oakville currently exports the Ford Edge to Europe, we are importing European automobiles to Canada. This trade already exists. CETA would simplify the rules and make the products more affordable to consumers in both jurisdictions.

Like many communities across Canada, Oakville depends upon free trade and open global trade to maintain our high standard of living. This is a modern agreement, and an extremely positive one for the Canadian economy, which relies upon open markets and trade.

I have relatives in Germany, Poland, and Sweden. Many Canadians, like me, have family and friends who live in the European Union. This is a good trade relationship for people; this is a good trade agreement for Oakville and my town's businesses; and this is a good trade deal for Canada.

I hope every member of Parliament gets behind CETA and supports Bill C-30.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as we debate Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation act.

This agreement, which we refer to as CETA, is indeed comprehensive. It includes 33 chapters, ranging from traditional trade topics, such as trade remedies, tariffs, and trade facilitation, to less traditional areas, such as investor court provisions, intellectual property, financial services, and government procurement.

I will begin my remarks by discussing the deal and how Canada got to this point. Next, I will discuss some of the outstanding concerns with the agreement and how the Liberal government has neglected to listen to these concerns. Finally, I will conclude by talking about how the New Democratic Party thinks that the government should proceed.

CETA faces a long road ahead before its full ratification, with likely opportunities for improvement. Trade with Europe is deeply important to Canada's economic prosperity. By addressing outstanding concerns with this comprehensive agreement, Canada can forge deeper trading relations with our friends in the European Union, while ensuring Canada's interests and sovereignty are protected.

Canada and the European Union first entered into negotiations back in 2009 under Stephen Harper's Conservative government. In 2010, Canada signalled that the negotiations could soon be finished but concerns persisted. In 2013, Canada and the EU announced a deal in principle, and the then prime minister, Stephen Harper, flew to Brussels for a signing ceremony. In 2014, another signing ceremony took place, this time in Ottawa.

However, behind the pomp and circumstance, concerns over CETA's controversial investor-court dispute settlement mechanism, or ISDS, continued to simmer both in Europe and in Canada. Investor-state provisions empower companies to sue governments for regulating in the public interest. Under NAFTA, chapter 11, Canada is the most sued country.

Critics point out that both Canada and the EU have sophisticated legal systems that are fully equipped to handle complaints from companies. Thus, it is not necessary to grant special privileges to foreign companies beyond those that exist for domestic companies. Despite continued opposition to ISDS, Canada insisted on the inclusion of ISDS in CETA.

As CETA's legal scrubbing phase continued into 2016, the newly elected Liberal government announced that the controversial investor-state dispute settlement mechanism would be revamped as an investor court system, or ICS. However, critics of ISDS, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Council of Canadians, and Canadian labour unions clearly stated that replacing the ISDS arbitration system with a new court system failed to address their concerns.

In October, we saw more changes around CETA, but not to the actual text itself. Canada and the EU signed a joint interpretative declaration, now called a joint interpretative instrument, which was intended to allay concerns that investor-court provisions empowered foreign companies to sue government for regulating in the public interest. However, the declaration is outside of the CETA agreement and therefore does not carry full legal weight.

Canada's Trade Justice Network issued a strong rebuttal stating, “in a display of arrogant condescension, the Declaration simply reiterates and clarifies what is already in the agreement, as if the various legitimate concerns that it purports to respond to have neither merit nor substance.”

Later in October, the Belgian regional government of Wallonia blocked Belgium and therefore the EU Parliament from signing onto CETA. Eventually, Wallonia agreed to sign the treaty if it could maintain its right to refuse to give its consent to Belgium to ratify CETA unless controversial investor-state provisions were significantly changed or removed from the agreement, exactly what many Canadians are calling for.

On October 30, the Prime Minister signed CETA at an EU-Canada leader summit. Two days earlier, the Liberal government put implementing legislation, Bill C-30, on the the Notice Paper, and the Liberals introduced the legislation on October 31.

This rushed process violated the government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty, along with an explanatory memorandum, outlining key components of the treaty at least 21 sitting days before legislation is presented. The Liberals also neglected to table a mandatory final environmental assessment of the FTA, as per the 1999 cabinet directive on the environmental assessment policy plan and program proposals.

Where is the commitment to protecting the environment?

I stood in this place on a question of privilege, challenging the government on its own omissions and failures to adhere to its policies. I questioned the necessity of the government granting itself an exemption on the explanatory memorandum, given that CETA was first signed back in 2013. Between the Liberals and the Conservatives, they had three years to draft this memorandum, which is intended to assist parliamentarians in analyzing the treaty.

Furthermore, given CETA's significant potential environmental impacts, the government must follow though on its requirement to complete a final environmental assessment.

CETA is not yet a done deal. Parliament should take its time in carefully considering the legislation before us today. We know that Canada and the EU intend to provisionally apply approximately 98% of the treaty in early 2017. The European Council decided that provisional application would not include investor-state dispute settlement, portfolio investment, and criminal sanctions for intellectual property crimes. These are the areas of member state jurisdiction.

Before CETA can be ratified, each of the 28 EU member states will have to vote on the deal in their respective legislatures. This process could take between two to five years. If just one of the 28 EU countries decides against ratifying CETA, as we saw with Belgium last month, the entire agreement could fall apart.

Bill C-30 would enable the government to fully ratify CETA, including investor-state provisions that Wallonia has already stated it will refuse to accept. Bill C-30 would provide the strokes for an investor-court system, but would leave out key pieces of information, such as details on an appellate mechanism or how panellists would be selected.

Going through the intellectual property provisions, we see that much of the patent law changes would be done through regulations. These changes would have significant impacts upon the availability of generic drugs to Canadians and therefore the overall cost of prescription drugs.

Greater parliamentary oversight is needed. The Liberal government is essentially asking parliamentarians to sign a blank cheque that it will fill in after.

Over the past year, we have seen a series of actions intended to address the concerns of Europeans with CETA. At every turn, I have risen in this place, as the New Democratic critic for international trade, and have called on the government to truly improve this deal. Yet, every time the government dismissed the concerns of Canadians and focused on making CETA palatable to Europeans.

I would like to now discuss in greater detail outstanding concerns of Canadians with CETA.

We discussed the investor-court system. The changes to ISDS provisions were supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new system will still allow foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits.

At the end of the day, foreign companies will have to access a special court system to challenge Canadian laws, without going through domestic courts.

As I have mentioned, Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under ISDS. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments. The Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases, while continuing to be the subject of ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Existing ISDS measures have also contributed to a regulatory chill where governments fail to take actions in the public interest that they fear may trigger an investor claim.

The Liberals have not explained how they would ensure environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges. It is now clear that the deal will not pass in Europe without the removal of or significant changes to investor-state provisions.

In trade deals, there are always winners and losers. With CETA, there is no doubt that some Canadian sectors will be negatively impacted by this agreement, including supply managed sectors and Newfoundland and Labrador's fish processors.

When the Conservatives were still in office, they acknowledged the significant losses dairy farmers would incur in both CETA and TPP. They promised a $4.3-billion compensation package, intended to offset the long-term perpetual losses.

For one year, the Liberal government refused to comment on whether it too would compensate dairy farmers. It required an extraordinary level of patience from Canadian dairy farmers. On diafiltered milk, the government continues to drag its heels. It is promising a solution, but refusing to provide any sense of timeline. The trade committee heard from the Minister of Agriculture on this file. His lackadaisical attitude was incredibly frustrating to listen to.

Dairy farmers are also frustrated with the government's inaction on tightening on the duty deferral program. These are serious trade issues that the government must address.

In this context, let us look at the government's recent announcement to invest in Canadian dairy farms and producers. It never admits the funds are compensation, only an investment package. The Liberals announced a $350 million package for Canada's dairy sector, which indeed is a welcome investment. However, the sector anticipates CETA will cost it $116 million per year in perpetual lost profits. The Liberals' funding announcement is for $350 million over five years. This falls far short of compensating dairy for the losses it will incur under CETA.

The Liberals also have not explained whether and how they will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for giving up its minimum processing requirements. In 2013, the Conservatives included a $400 million fisheries renewal fund, with the federal government contributing $280 million and the provincial government contributing $120 million. However, in 2014, Newfoundland and Labrador believed the Conservative government was signalling its intention to renege on the deal. The leader of the Liberal Party made clear commitments that he would follow through on compensating Newfoundland and Labrador. How can the government consider CETA a done deal without addressing its commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador?

I am also deeply concerned under CETA about changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals, which will increase drug costs by more than $850 million every year. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that CETA could make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program.

I find this deeply disturbing. Canadians already pay some of the highest drug costs in the OECD. CETA's patent provisions are not a concern to the EU. It already grants brand name pharmaceutical companies longer patent protection, but Europeans also pay much less for their prescription drugs than we do in Canada.

People in my riding of Essex already struggle with the high costs of prescription medications. Yet the Liberal government is cutting health care transfers to the provinces and has given no indication that it will take action on a national pharmacare program.

Under CETA, Canadians will pay even higher drug costs, while the federal government shows no concern or even acknowledgement of this reality. When the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded that the Conservatives present a study on the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government, they are telling the provinces that they will cut health care transfers, while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces.

At every opportunity it would seem the Liberal government has refused to provide greater analysis of CETA. In June, the world watched as the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. This raised immediate concerns about the impact of Brexit on CETA. In fact, the U.K. is Canada's biggest trading partner in the EU. Forty-two per cent of Canadian exports to the EU go to the U.K. Canadian concessions in CETA were based on the premise that the U.K. would be part of CETA. Yet the Liberal government has provided, again, no analysis re-evaluating the net benefits of CETA without the U.K.

In consultations with indigenous people, the Liberal government made a clear commitment to nation-to-nation relationships, which includes a commitment to consulting on international trade deals. The Liberals have given no indication that they have fulfilled their duty to consult. We know they have not fulfilled this duty with the TPP.

Also in CETA there are provisions stating that above a certain threshold, minimum local content policies will be outlawed, even in municipal and provincial government procurements. We also see provisions granting companies an expanded ability to use temporary workers without a study of impact on Canadians.

I have also heard significant concerns over the ability of all levels of Canadian governments to protect public services. These are all important issues that warrant greater study than what the government has offered.

Many of the concerns we are discussing today were consistently raised in two studies conducted by the Standing Committee on International Trade. The studies, undertaken in 2012 and 2014, were deemed by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party as interim or pre-studies, as both took place before the final text of CETA was made available to parliamentarians.

In the Liberals' 2012 dissenting report, they called for further consultation with Canadians on CETA. They highlighted that while the committee's work was a good start, further consultation was required. However, now that the Liberals are in government, they have completely changed their tune. They are no longer concerned by the lack of consultation, the inclusion of investor-state provisions, or the impact of increased drug prices for Canadians.

Today, the Liberal-dominated trade committee has made it clear that it only wants to hear from groups that will benefit from CETA. It has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrict its brief study of CETA from receiving input from Canadians, by passing a motion that restricts the committee from accepting written submissions except for those from the handful of witnesses who are selected to appear.

On the other hand, the committee held dozens of meetings on the TPP, travelling to every province in Canada, and holding video conferences with witnesses from the territories. We heard from over 400 witnesses, and received written submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians. With 95% of submissions critical of the TPP, it is no wonder that the government does not want to hear from Canadians on CETA. After spending half a million dollars on this study, not to mention the time and money spent by the minister and her parliamentary secretary on their own consultations, the Liberal government still has no position on the TPP.

As a first-time MP, I find the Liberals' disregard for due process on CETA deeply disturbing. It makes me wonder what they are trying to hide by pushing through this comprehensive agreement without proper memorandums, consultations, compensation, or analysis. I reference the two previous committee studies. In both studies, the NDP made clear its concerns but also its hopes that these concerns would be addressed and CETA would be fixed. The NDP has long argued for better trade with Europe. This will help diversify our markets, particularly as we face the uncertainties raised by the election of Mr. Trump.

However, Canada should not ratify the biggest trade deal since NAFTA as merely a reactionary or symbolic gesture. As I have outlined, significant concerns and unanswered questions remain about the proposed deal for many Canadians. Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The government should work to fix problems with the current deal rather than settling for a flawed agreement.

New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports while remaining firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten sovereignty have no place in a trade deal. In our view, the job of the government is to pursue better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects Canadians jobs. I am deeply suspicious of the Liberal claim of having a progressive trade agenda. This is a party that supported free trade agreements with Honduras and the controversial FIPA with China.

A final trade deal must be judged on its net costs and benefits. New Democrats have always been clear on this, and we have opposed deals in the past that would have net negative impact on Canadians, including Honduras and the China FIPA. Furthermore, better trade must also involve a better process. Far too often, Canadians have been kept in the dark during backroom talks by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. We saw this with the TPP, and Canadians rejected this.

In 2014, the hon. Minister of International Trademade the following statement in this place:

Mr. Speaker, on CETA, we in the Liberal Party are adults and we understand and respect the fact that, if trade agreements are going to be done, they need to be done behind closed doors.

The Liberals promised greater transparency, but given the minister's own attitudes, it is clear they have no intention on delivering on this promise. New Democrats cannot accept this position. We will continue pushing for greater transparency in trade negotiations, and meaningful, honest discussions with Canadians on all the potential impacts of any trade deal.

Europe is an ideal trade partner, and deepening trade relations with the EU has always been an aim that New Democrats support. Today, we have an agreement before us, and there are specific measures that raise significant concerns. As the progressive opposition, it is the job of New Democrats to uphold Canada's interest in this process.

The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix CETA, but the deal is still not done. It faces a lengthy complex ratification process in the European Union. Wallonia has said it will not accept a CETA that includes investor-court provisions. I call on the Liberal government to remove investor-court provisions from CETA and this legislation, address the increased drug costs, and give Bill C-30 due process at the committee.

Without these key elements, I cannot in good conscience advise my caucus colleagues to support this agreement. New Democrats will vote no to Bill C-30, and we will continue pushing the government for an agreement that provides a stronger net benefit for all Canadians.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, the culmination of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU, or CETA as it has become well known.

This landmark and progressive trade agreement, as the minister commented, is the result of years of hard work from 2009 to 2014 when we signed the agreement in principle. I welcome the opportunity to bring this deal that we struck as a government into force here today.

I congratulate the current trade minister for taking the next steps with this agreement, but I do wish she would do the same for the TPP. It is as progressive as, if not more so than, CETA. We would like to see it on the agenda soon as well.

The trade minister commented that she had just gotten back from Lima at five this morning. I just got back from Russia a little before that, so I have had maybe an hour's more sleep than she has. I do wish I could tell her that it is going to get easier, that the time away from family and so on will be made up for in the deals that we strike and the work we do on behalf of Canadians. However, it does not. We are in opposition, but there are still those international functions that we have to attend to continue that work to benefit Canadians and make sure that our future is bright.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention her parliamentary secretary, the long-suffering gentleman that he is. Having said that, he is a tremendous resource for us on the committee. He does a great job there. He is very stable, calm, and collected. Although he does not take part in much in the day-to-day operations, he is there as a resource when we go in camera and so on. I have had the opportunity to sit on a number of media panels with him, as well. He is a gentleman. Having been a trade professor for a number of years on trade, he understands the importance of trade to Canada's economic prosperity.

CETA at the time was cutting edge and one of the most ambitious trade agendas we had ever seen. That is why the Liberals have begun calling it the “gold standard”, which of course is true for other agreements that we did, like the TPP.

In the previous government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, my colleague and friend, the minister, the member for Abbotsford, and I were able to negotiate, together with a number of our cabinet colleagues and a number of people from what is now called Global Affairs Canada, agreements with 46 different countries. That was unprecedented in this country's history. I am proud to have been a big part of those successes and for the role that my staff played in that as well.

None of that could have been possible without all of the people who work with and for us, right from front to back benches, side to side, people of all stripes. At the end of the day, I would be remiss if I did not mention someone like Steve Verheul . I got to know Steve some 10 years ago, when he was our long-suffering representative at the WTO, carrying that sort of schizophrenic trade agenda that we had, protecting these portions and putting them up for trade agreements. Steve did a fantastic job. He is one of those soft-spoken, quiet gentlemen who always had his finger on the pulse of what was going on.

I remember a number of instances in Geneva over the years at the WTO, when the leadership at that time loved to take five major countries, sort of the same ones that have a veto at the UN, into a little, dark room at midnight to try to hammer out a deal that the rest of us would then accept. None of that ever worked.

It was amazing to be with Steve during those clandestine meetings that the director general called at that time. His BlackBerry was always lighting up with messages, “China said this; Russia said that; or America said this, how should I handle it?” Steve always had the answer, always had the way forward. If anyone was the arbitrator or mediator of what kept the WTO alive for a lot of years, it was Steve Verheul with his hand on the lever. We cannot say enough good things about Steve. He's world class. I am not sure what he will do for an encore after CETA. It has cost him some personal time and a tremendous amount of energy. As I said, I am sure he will land on his feet and continue to be be as well-respected as he is.

Even when the work is done, it is not complete. We saw this over this past year, as the minister stirred the pot and everyone told her not to do it. Our chamber of commerce told her not to renegotiate. I know that people from global affairs said do not do this. I will not say who they are because they could get fired. Also, the European business councils that I continue to be in touch with said not to do this.

We covered off all of these little warts and blemishes when we signed the agreement in principle some two years ago, and all of this was not swept under the rug but adjudicated and addressed at that point. With the minister going back in and sort of ripping the scab off, opening Pandora's box, it created the crisis we saw in Wallonia. At the end of the day, we have escaped with a deal that is more or less intact. It is pretty much, I would say 99.9%, exactly what we signed in principle over two years ago.

Since that time, it was not a stalled deal, as the Liberals like to say, but it was moving forward with a legal scrub and translation into a myriad of different languages and texts. Members know how important that is to do.

We see that here. A lot of times when we scrutinize our regs, one word in French will not correlate with a word in English, and we go back and change something that has been written incorrectly for years. A lot of work goes into the legal scrub with that many languages and different legal systems in the EU, the same as we have in Canada with civil law and common law. The European Union has a myriad of different legal options as well.

It is so important that we get this deal right. It was done right. We have 99.9% of it going forward. We do have a vacuum when it comes to the adjudication of future ISDS claims, and there is no doubt in my mind that there will be some. The NDP and some of its cohorts who came before committee, mostly on the TPP, love to say that Canada is the most sued country in the world. While that might be technically true, the reality is that out of several trillion dollars worth of economic activity, we have paid out $170 million in legal costs, and well over two-thirds of that is due to one little misstep by former premier Danny Williams when he took back an American company, saying that he did not like what it was doing and that he would nationalize it, which he did. Under NAFTA, WTO standards and so on, we paid out some $130 million for that. Canada is sued like every other country, but very few claims come to fruition and get paid out. As I said, that is out of more than several trillion dollars worth of economic activity. CETA is a little different from that, in that we have written guidelines.

We will see the elimination of some 94% of the agricultural tariff lines, and that will allow us to export our goods into a $20 trillion economy.

The European Union is a mature market, unlike the TPP, which is an advancing market. We need both. I often call the CETA agreement the “family reunification trade agreement” because a lot of areas in Canada were settled by Europeans almost a century ago.

I see my friend, the chair of the committee, nodding his head. His family came across and took advantage of the Canadian opportunity. CETA will enable us to work with our cousins at home to bring in different products and facilitate that. I am sure we will be able to get a lot more Scottish, Irish, and English products, all of that good stuff that my colleague's family grew up on. We look forward to that.

We have done an economic agenda. The minister made a nod toward that some years ago. That agenda showed that this agreement would return about $1,000 per middle class family and 80,000 new jobs. That is almost enough to make up for what the Liberals lost this past year. The sooner we get this done the sooner we will be back to zero and can move forward with TPP and start to recoup what we lost and gain what is available in that regard.

It is a unique investment. It is a unique opportunity, in that the European Union has a number of trade agreements with countries around the world, but this is the first one that addresses some subsets of labour standards and environmental standards. It provides the EU with a proper way to negotiate new access to some of our GM products. It is a regulatory package that will allow our beef and pork producers to export their produce using different types of wash facilities and so on. There are still some details to be worked out with respect to that, but at least there are guidelines to move forward with the European Union in a timely way so things are not tied up for months and years.

We will see immediate results once CETA is implemented. Our process here is a bit more arcane than some of the Europeans' processes. They will have to work through all of their 28 member states, as we will with the provinces. The minister also pointed out that when we were negotiating this agreement, my friend and colleague from Abbotsford, and of course Steve Verheul, sat down every time it was required with the provinces and territories that were there, along with industry, which had signed non-disclosure agreements. We had some of the biggest fan clubs. The number of those fan clubs for the CETA deal almost measured up to the number of people the Liberals take along with them on environmental deals. These people were there to get the work done and to make sure that the provinces were looked after. I do not see any type of push-back. Some negotiations are still going on with Newfoundland and Labrador on the payments that will be required. That province has stipulated that a certain amount of fish caught in our waters has to be processed in Canada. There will be some changes in that regard.

Kathy Dunderdale, who was the premier at the time, said that all of the $250 million belongs to her province, which was never true. It is for all of Atlantic Canada to drive efficiency and effectiveness in our fish processing system. The Liberals have that one to work out yet before they will get Newfoundland and Labrador onside, but it is certainly in the works.

It is important that we look at trade writ large. We are fully in favour of CETA. In our view, we could not have done any better. A few steps at the end had our heart in our mouths, but in the end it has all worked out, other than for the vacuum we are going to see in the adjudication of any ISDS claims. There is still work to be done in that regard.

The important part of all these trade agreements is that we take more and more eggs out of that American basket. We rely on the Americans for 75% of our overall trade, 98% when we talk about energy products and, depending on what the issue is, we are very much tied to their economic value. As they pull back on the TPP, there is no reason to believe that we cannot join the other six countries that are gung-ho guaranteed to move forward on it, that we cannot join them and rewrite TPP without the Americans. Let us get it done.

Why would we wait for President Obama to decide whether his legacy will be bad or not? He has gone from being in a lame duck session to a dead duck session, so we have to start moving forward, get this done, join Mexico, Japan, Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. All of them have got it working through their parliaments right now. We have to look at trade writ large. We need that diversity to move away from those holdings in the American market.

We see that when the Americans arbitrarily bring forward things like country-of-origin labelling. There are whispers down there right now again that they will reinvent that. They cannot. We won that fight at the WTO. They would have to change it considerably to bring back anything that looked like Buy America or country-of-origin labelling. As much as that raises red flags, they are only at half-mast, because we did win that particular fight, and we would certainly take up that fight again. We would from the opposition side, I can guarantee that.

At the end of the day it was a good win, but it takes time and there is trade hurt when that is done, so having regulatory packages built in to things like CETA and TPP that really nip those types of negative movements in the bud are very important to take advantage of, and we intend to make sure those are there.

Having both CETA and the TPP in our park would give us access to 80% of the world's GDP, almost a billion consumers who are willing to buy. The difference between CETA and the TPP is that CETA is a mature market. It has been around for a long time. It has trillions of dollars in market potential for us. All we have to do is double or triple a couple of things that we have the capacity to do and we are talking a huge win on both sectors.

The thing with the TPP is it is an emerging market. We are talking middle classes that are growing, their palate is changing, and they are asking for more types of westernized cuisine. In some cases, God help them, but in other cases, it is good for our exports. We will ship them all the burgers and beer they can handle and make money doing it.

It is in our best interests to have that diversity in our trade portfolio, having both the mature markets that take certain cuts of the beef and having the opening markets to take other cuts. We have countries in that Pacific Rim that will make use of a lot of products that we do not when it comes to a livestock animal or when it comes to grain products and pork products and so on. It then adds to the value of that product here in Canada. It changes our processing somewhat. We have to learn to sell what they want, not what we have, but that is just an educational thing that the market will take care of.

It is one of consistency. Canada has been a trading nation since beaver pelts were currency. We are going back a long time. Having said that, trade is still currency. It is still what drives our economy. The little discussion that the minister and I had was on moving forward on trade, setting the standard, and the social side of it that we have to talk to people about. There is a lot of angst out there on media websites and so on about what could go wrong, but there is very little on what goes right in these types of agreements, driving our economic agenda.

We have seen in the last few days our Prime Minister roll over and say, “Sure, we will sit down and renegotiate NAFTA, why wouldn't we?” but at the end of the day we do not start with a position of surrender to having any kind of positive drive on that. Certainly, NAFTA is 20-some years old. There are things in there that need to be modernized. There are things happening now that were not even discussed 20-some years ago, the digital age and all of those things that need to be addressed.

Yes, there are certain things that we need to look at, certain things we need to get on top of, and if we can roll in irritants like the softwood lumber agreement into a new, improved, long-term NAFTA agreement, everybody would benefit. We would not have these legal fights that cost billions of dollars and hurt our industry overall.

Before the Prime Minister sidelines our economic activity by saying we will take whatever the Americans give us, we should be negotiating from a power position. We have resources the Americans are envious of and require. Keystone XL is a case in point. We saw the president of the day in the U.S. veto it, not based on science or on his economic standards, because it has passed all of that, but based on the fact that his major fundraisers were against it.

Hopefully with the new president, who really does not require the same fundraising, we will see some movement on that. He has already been very positive in that regard, but if the Americans are to take that sector of our energy and our resources, then they have to take our energy and our resource sector writ large. What is very important in renegotiating things like NAFTA is to set the standards of what it is we will not take less than, rather than just saying, “Hey, let us do this” and leave it open-ended.

We are seeing a lot of the TPP countries questioning what the Americans have up their sleeve when it comes to trade and when they start talking about renegotiating NAFTA. It is one thing to do it during a political cycle when one is campaigning hard. At that time, we saw Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and president wannabe Bill Clinton both decry NAFTA. They said they would never sign it, they would tear it up, that it would never be in their best interests. Within months, both of them signed it and never looked back. However, they all took credit for it stating, “Look at what wonderful things we did.”

NAFTA was a negotiation by the Conservative government of the day, which faced the wrath of Canadians at the election at one point. That was one of many issues that led to its downfall. However, to be progressive and to have an open society we have to do what we are good at. We are good at trade. We are good producing grapple grommets. The one thing we have never come to grips with is doing some value-added to the grapple grommets before we ship them out of the country and get that side agreement on labour standards, and so on.

We have already seen major changes in our automotive sector. As a political neophyte, I remember during the NAFTA discussions thinking that our our wine industry would be decimated before it even got up and running, and yet it has become an international success story. We cannot go anywhere in the world without seeing some Canadian wines on display. We take international awards every year for the great quality products that we ship out. Therefore, there is from trade that underlying driver of efficiencies and innovation, which make us even stronger and better. Certainly, there are transition times required. We have seen that with our dairy industry and the compensation package that has been offered for the 17,000 tonnes of cheese that will be coming in on an annual basis. However, that will not grow. It is a static number. At the same time, we have unlimited access back into the European market once our guys figure out how to do that with a global cost-pricing structure. They have done it for pizza kits here in Canada, so we know they can do it moving forward.

At the last Paris show that I was involved in, there were 30-something Canadian groups there marketing their products. That was a tremendous opportunity. Although maple syrup is well known, many of them were winning awards for their fine cheeses. Therefore, we know we are world class. We know we can step up and provide whatever is required by the world. We know we can grow our trade. However, we need a government that is ready, willing, and able to take those steps. We are seeing some final steps here, such as getting to the podium to accept the medal after the relay race is done. I was happy to be part of that relay race. However, at the end of the day, there is a lot more trade that needs to be looked at and moved on expeditiously, including the trans-Pacific partnership. We hope we will see these types of actions moving forward on the TPP soon.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate that we should be beginning this debate following our discussion of the private member's motion that celebrates the close and historic connections between Canada and Germany. As we have just heard, Germany has indeed been one of the driving forces in getting this historic agreement signed.

I am delighted to rise in the House today in support of legislation to implement the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA.

This is a historic day for everyone, a moment that I know very many hon. members of the House have worked hard to achieve. CETA is the most progressive trade agreement ever negotiated. It will help redefine what trade can and should be. It will lead to increased prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic, create well-paying middle-class jobs, which I will speak to further in a moment.

Our government believes strongly in an open global economy, and we will continue to champion the open society and open global trade. However, we cannot ignore the reality that, today, we are living in the most protectionist environment I have experienced in my lifetime, probably the most protectionist environment since the Second World War.

There is a reason for that. Many people simply feel that 21st century global capitalism is not working for them. This anxiety is manifesting itself, among other things, in a powerful backlash against globalization. For those of us who support the open society, and I hope and believe that includes all members of the House, it is incredibly important for us not to be in denial about the importance of these sentiments that are sweeping so much of the western industrialized world.

This is real. It is tempting for us to say that if only we could explain to people how positive the open society is, how valuable trade is, how costly protectionism is, if only we could find better words, everything would resolve itself. However, that is not going to be enough. We need to look more deeply than that and understand that this powerful wave of populist anti-globalization sentiment is based in the very real, very concrete experience of so many people in western industrialized countries, including our own. The answer has to be in more than trade deals, because the anxiety is about more than trade deals. It is about the impact of 21st century global capitalism.

The concerns people have, the economic concerns, the concerns they have for themselves, for their retirement, and for their children, are very real, and we need to address them. That is why our government is very proud to have cut taxes for the middle class. We are proud to have raised taxes on those who can afford them, the 1%. We are very proud to have created the Canada child benefit for the families most in need, and have boosted CPP for our seniors.

We are making essential investments every day that strengthen and support our middle class. We know and believe that that is why we can still proudly say in Canada that we have broad public support for the open society and globalization.

It is also why CETA is all the more important. Canada is raising the bar with CETA and establishing more inclusive trade and higher standards for how global economies must function in the 21st century. This agreement that we are debating today cements the paramount right of democratically elected governments to regulate in the interest of our citizens, to regulate the environment, labour standards, and in defence of the public sector.

We are proud to have made these changes to CETA since coming into office. We will continue to champion aggressive trade policies. As the Prime Minister said about CETA:

That leadership that we were able to show between Canada and Europe is not just something that will reassure our own citizens but should be an example to the world of how we can move forward on trade deals that do genuinely benefit everyone.

I must say, having just returned at five o'clock this morning from Lima, Peru, from the APEC trade summit of Asia Pacific countries, CETA was much discussed and seen as an example of how it is possible, even in 2016, to do progressive trade deals.

Most importantly, CETA will benefit Canadians. It will give benefits to consumers through lower prices and more choice; it will help workers with better quality jobs, because we know that jobs in export-oriented sectors pay 50% more; and it will help small and medium-sized businesses by lowering the tariff barriers their products face.

CETA sets new standards for trade in goods and services, non-tariff barriers, investment, and government procurement in addition to its very high labour and environmental standards.

CETA offers Canada, Canadian workers, and Canadian businesses preferential access to a dynamic market of more than half a billion people. This is the world's second largest market for goods. In fact, the EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's entire GDP.

Of the EU's more than 9,000 tariff lines, approximately 98% will be duty-free for Canadian goods the moment CETA comes into force, and almost all of the remaining tariff lines will be eliminated when the agreement is fully implemented. This will translate into better market opportunities and more jobs for Canadian businesses of all sizes, in all sectors, and in every part of the country.

Consider Guelph's Linamar, a Canadian manufacturing success story with operations in Europe, which now stands to be even more competitive in the EU market as tariff barriers on products like its Skyjacks go down to zero; and Northland Power, with its clean and green power projects, which can expand even further into Europe; or one of my favourites, Manitoba Mukluks, a Métis-founded business, whose mukluks and moccasins are currently subject to a 17% tariff in Europe. That tariff will go down to zero when CETA enters into force.

Whether it is technology and software, aerospace, telecoms, clean tech, life sciences, agriculture, or infrastructure, Canadians working across our economy stand to benefit from this deal. This is great news for our middle class and those working hard to join it.

My hon. colleagues know, though, that trade today is about more than just tangible goods. It also includes services. In Canada and the EU, the service sector is responsible for most of our economies—more than 70% in both cases. CETA, a gold standard, modern agreement, recognizes the increasingly important role services play in global trade and creates a wealth of new business opportunities for Canadian service providers.

CETA offers Canadian businesses new opportunities to access EU government procurement contracts, which are estimated to be worth $3.3 trillion. In addition to increased access to markets, CETA also includes many other important benefits.

CETA is the first bilateral trade agreement in which Canada has included an entire chapter on regulatory co-operation. It includes a conformity assessment protocol, which will allow Canadian businesses in certain sectors to sell their products tested and certified in Canada without the European Union having to duplicate those testing and certification requirements.

CETA also includes a detailed framework for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which is a key factor for labour mobility.

CETA is a progressive and modem trade agreement that fully integrates labour rights and environmental standards. It emphasizes the role played by public services and the right of states to pass regulations.

Our common objective is to ensure that globalization is a positive force based on our shared values and high aspirations. That is this agreement's raison d'être and why it is so important.

I will now address some of CETA's more progressive elements. CETA's preamble recognizes that the agreement's provisions reaffirm the parties’ right to regulate within their respective territories to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, the environment, public morals, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

Article 8.9 of the chapter on investment makes it clear that the parties to the agreement preserve the right to regulate in order to achieve legitimate policy objectives.

Changes were made to the investor dispute settlement provisions to include more detailed commitments on the independence and ethical behaviour of members of the tribunal, as well as establish a revised process for selecting members of the tribunal and an appeal mechanism.

Nothing in CETA prevents governments from regulating in the public interest, including by granting preferential treatment to indigenous peoples or adopting measures to protect or promote Canadian culture.

CETA will not necessarily lead to the privatization of public services. Canada has a great deal of experience using the negative list approach and is sure that CETA will give it free rein when it comes to policy making.

Articles 23.2 and 23.4 under the labour and trade chapter address labour rights and recognize the right of Canada and the European Union to set their own labour priorities and protections and stipulate that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the levels of protection afforded in their labour law and standards.

In the chapter of CETA on trade and the environment, Canada and the European Union also reaffirm that environmental standards cannot be lowered in order to promote trade or attract investment. Those are two very important points for both us and the European Union.

CETA also recognizes the European Union's and Canada's right to define their own environmental priorities and levels of environmental protection and to pass or amend their own laws and policies accordingly.

What is more, CETA includes a commitment to co-operate on trade-related environmental issues of common interest, such as environmental assessments, climate change, and the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

Our government has been tireless since the day we assumed office, pushing this deal forward and leaving no stone unturned. I would like now to recognize some of the people who have worked so hard on this historic agreement.

I would like to start, of course, with my Prime Minister, whose relentless advocacy, in public and in private, whose work directly with Europe's leaders, and whose work at home and abroad, were essential in getting to where we are today. I thank him for his leadership on CETA, and more generally for his voice in Canada and the world in speaking for the open society.

Many of my cabinet colleagues, as well as my exceptional parliamentary secretary, have worked extremely hard on this agreement, both in Canada and in Europe. Their engagement has been absolutely essential. In fact, my parliamentary secretary and our CETA envoy have spent a great deal of time over the past weeks and months across Canada, and particularly working with our partners in Europe.

Hon. members in this House, and particularly our Quebec caucus, worked very hard in the final days before the signing of CETA, personally reaching out to our European partners, to legislators in Europe in national and subnational assemblies, explaining to them how important this agreement was, and speaking about the shared values between Canada and Europe, including our shared membership of La Francophonie.

I would like to sincerely thank my colleagues for this absolutely critical work.

Our provincial and territorial partners have been extremely engaged in working on CETA. I am very proud to say that when we were in Europe a few weeks ago to sign CETA, the Europeans pointed to Canada as an example of effective federalism, of federalism that works. The degree of co-operation between the provinces and the federal government on this essential deal has been outstanding, and I would like to strongly thank the trade ministers of Canada's provinces and territories and their chief negotiators, who worked so hard on the agreement.

I would like to single out the role that Quebec has played in working on the agreement. The leadership of Quebec, including strong advocacy for CETA in Europe, was very important, and played a particular role in securing the support of francophone Europe for this deal.

I would like to thank my Quebec colleagues.

I would like to very warmly recognize and thank the exceptional work of our public service. We in Canada are extremely lucky to have outstanding public servants, and, as trade minister, I say our trade negotiators are the best of the best. They have done an outstanding deal on CETA.

I would like to personally recognize Steve Verheul, our chief negotiator for CETA. I would like to thank him for his years of dedicated work to ensuring that we as a country could conclude negotiations on this progressive gold standard agreement. It will serve as an international standard and also offer tremendous specific, concrete benefits to Canadian workers and Canadian businesses.

I would also like to recognize the hard work of the previous government on getting this deal done. Canada's strength is when we can work together across party lines, across this aisle, and pass the ball from one government to another and finally get it over the finish line. I would like to personally recognize the leadership of the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, on this issue.

CETA will set the bar for future trade agreements, and it forms the cornerstone of our government's progressive trade agenda. This is an agenda linked to our government's core focus here at home on reducing income inequality and enhancing inclusive growth that benefits all Canadians. CETA sends a clear signal, at an essential moment, to the whole world, that we in Canada believe in an open society. We believe in a society that welcomes immigrants and welcomes investments, and believes that by doing that we have more jobs and more growth. After all, at our core, we are a trading nation, a nation of immigrants, and we are very proud of that.

CETA sends a message to the world that Canada and the EU reject protectionism and we are committed to a freer and more open global economy. At a time when so much of the world is saying no to trade and no to the global economy, I am very proud that on Canada's behalf, and through CETA, we can resoundingly say yes.

We are sending an unmistakable signal to the rest of the world that even now, at a time of some uncertainty, Canada believes in building bridges, not walls. Now is the time to embrace stronger partnerships with our friends around the world. Now is the time to pursue prosperity and economic growth with a progressive trade agenda, built from the ground up, to help strengthen the middle class here at home.

I welcome this week's debate on CETA, and I hope all members will support this important agreement.

Minister of International Trade

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to provide further comment on the question of privilege raised by the member for Essex concerning the government's treaty tabling policy. As I have previously stated, the matter raised refers to government policy and does not concern parliamentary procedure.

The treaty tabling policy that the member has referenced relates to governmental and departmental activities. As such, I submit that the issue does not fall under the purview of the House and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker.

Furthermore, rulings made by the House consistently support this notion. Speaker Bosley, in his May 15, 1985 ruling, said, “I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.”

Mr. Speaker, in his ruling on February 7, 2013, your predecessor stated, “It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in government processes, no matter how frustrating they may appear to be to the member.”

He further echoed this in his ruling of May 2, 2014, in response to a point of order regarding the very matter that is before us today. In that ruling, the Speaker referred to the treaty tabling policy and said, “It is clear to me that the policy in question belongs to the government and not the House. It is equally clear that it is not within the Speaker's authority to adjudicate on government policies or processes, and this includes determining whether the government is in compliance with its own policies.”

The member for Essex contends that her ability to properly discharge her parliamentary functions was impeded by the tabling timeline of CETA. The member opposite should know that in the acting legislation to implement the terms of the treaty, Parliament has no formal role in treaty processes. The tabling of the treaty helps members to prepare for debate on the enabling legislation. Therefore, I submit that the tabling of the treaty before the bill was introduced in no way affects the ability of the member to fully discharge her duties in scrutinizing the bill.

I would note that the bill was introduced on October 31 and has yet to be called for debate at second reading. Moreover, a technical briefing was provided to the member on November 2, and the text of the treaty itself has been publicly available online since February of this year. Furthermore, the committee, of which the member for Essex is a member, was briefed about CETA last March.

The government's policy on tabling of treaties provides that enabling legislation wait 21 days following the tabling of a treaty. Section 6.3 of the tabling of treaties policy provides for exceptions. An exception for CETA was granted.

We have seen exemptions granted by the government in the past. Under the previous government in the last Parliament, five exemptions were made for the amendments to the International Convention against Doping in Sport.

I would like to draw the attention of members of the House to the fact that in the previous Parliament, the NDP voted in favour of a free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea in 2014, which was also subject to an exemption. The Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement was signed on September 22, 2014, and the enabling legislation was introduced in the House the next day.

I submit that the matter raised by the member for Essex does not constitute a legitimate question of privilege. On the contrary, the tabling of the treaty in advance of the introduction of Bill C-30 will only serve to assist the member in fully scrutinizing the bill and exercising her parliamentary duties.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-26 on the Canada pension plan.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-16 on gender identity. If time permits, we will also examine Bill C-25, the business framework bill.

On Monday, I will call Bill C-30, the CETA implementation legislation, for consideration at second reading. The bill will be on the agenda for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. It is my hope that this bill will be referred to committee on Wednesday evening.

On Thursday, we will consider second reading of Bill C-23 respecting pre-clearance.

Next Friday, I will call Bill C-18, the Rouge national park legislation, for second reading debate.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Just quickly, I wanted to say something about the auto sector, because my colleague asked about it. The 2012 study commissioned by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada said that for the Canadian automotive sector a Canada-EU CETA would lead to a 0.16% decline in automobile production, and presumably those very integrated supply chains would be impacted.

My question is actually in regard to my colleague's last point about the cost of drugs. Twenty-five per cent of Bill C-30 is changes to patents. At this point, unfortunately, we have no IP witnesses scheduled to come before the committee on such a significant change. I believe the generics companies say that this is the most significant change in over 20 years in Canada.

Picking up on her point about what we can do to address this, you mentioned pharmacare and bulk buying, but I wonder if you could speak to the implications that CETA could have for the ability of Canada to bring in some form of pharmacare or bulk buying.

[Angella MacEwen]

No. It's specifically the extension of patent protections in Bill C-30 that will cause prices to rise.

[Angella MacEwen]

I want to get to the Coasting Trade Act. Wages and working conditions vary greatly in the global shipping industry. In recognition of that, Canada and the U.S. have placed significant restrictions on shipping within Canada. Bill C-30 undermines cabotage in three ways: government dredging; EU companies of any flag will be able to move empty containers; and EU-registered vessels will be permitted to move cargo between Montreal and Halifax.

The standard work week on a vessel is 44 hours, plus 85 hours of overtime. The standard wage for that internationally is $670 U.S. per month, which works out to $2.50 an hour. The standard wage on Canadian steamship lines within Canada is $23 an hour at the lowest level, and for overtime, $34 an hour. You can see that they are simply not comparable.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much.

I apologize to the translators because this isn't in my speech, but at the top I want to say that I'm very concerned that some people are drawing the wrong lessons from Brexit and from Trump.

Economists like Dani Rodrik at Harvard University and Thomas Piketty in the EU point out the flaws in a purely pro-free trade agenda. There are market failures, distributional impacts, and very real concerns that workers have, because trade deals can increase inequality if you don't take proper action to make sure they don't. The answer isn't in rushing more trade deals through. The answer is in taking a minute to examine those very real concerns that people have and those very real negative impacts to see how you can mitigate them. I'll leave that there.

The labour movement is keenly aware that trade is and has always been an important feature of the Canadian economy. We understand that all governments have an interest in fostering open trade. Distributional impacts from trade and investment agreements have long been ignored. We are told that trade deals have winners and losers, but “don't worry, we can compensate the losers”. Historically, Canada has done an inadequate job on this front, especially for workers.

The gains of these trade deals are never as big as they are projected to be, and the gains for CETA are small. They are among the error bars for what our economic growth is projected to be anyway.

The main gains from open trade come from reducing tariffs, as the beef producers commented, but much of this, outside of agriculture, was already accomplished by the 1990s. So-called modern trade deals are often more about advancing investor rights. As such, they do not necessarily increase trade, improve economies, or benefit Canadians.

CETA also goes farther than existing trade deals by putting restrictions on local governments. This is despite the fact that more than 50 communities, including Toronto, Victoria, Baie-Comeau, Sackville, Hamilton, and Red Deer—even communities in Alberta—are saying that they sent a clear message to federal and provincial governments that buying local and other public spending policies, as well as municipally delivered public services, should be excluded from CETA.

While we're sold free trade deals on the opportunities for Canadian business and the savings for Canadian consumers, as you've already heard today and we hear ad nauseam, the majority of this 140-page bill features changes to Canada's intellectual property rules, requiring changes that largely serve European interests. I note that you have had no witnesses who are intellectual property experts yet.

One of the biggest concerns regarding CETA is the impact on Canada's health care system. On a per capita basis, Canadian drug costs are already among the highest in the world, exceeded only by the United States, and they are among the fastest-rising among comparable nations. Bill C-30 devotes 30 pages of amendments to the Patent Act. These amendments will further exacerbate the rise in costs by committing Canada to creating a new system of patent term restoration, thereby delaying the entry of generic medicines by up to two years, locking in Canada's current term of data protection by creating barriers for future governments wanting to reverse it, and implementing a new right of appeal under the patent linkage system that will create further delays for the entry of generics.

Analysis conducted by Professor Marc-André Gagnon and Dr. Joel Lexchin estimates that CETA's provisions will increase Canadian drug costs by between 6.2% and 12.9%, starting in 2023. This is in line with internal government estimates that expect the patent changes to cost between $1 billion and $2 billion per year, and the generic industry's own research that put the price at $3 billion.

The previous federal government committed to compensating provinces for this increase in cost, but that simply means that the federal government will ask Canadians to pay pharmaceutical companies through higher taxes or cuts to services elsewhere. It also doesn't take into account that some of this increased cost will fall directly on low-income workers who don't have drug plans. As Lexchin and Gagnon point out in their paper: “cost-related nonadherence is 35% among people with low income and no insurance”. What this means in real life is that people won't go to the doctor because they know they can't afford the cost of the prescription.

The new legislation on pharmaceuticals is a very good example of the outdated approach being pursued through CETA. In 1987, we made a bargain with pharmaceutical companies. We strengthened patent protection and asked them to increase their R and D to 10% of sales. Since 2003, they have failed to meet this target.

[Dan Darling]

That's the good news. The concern we have now is to convert this immense potential into real trade.

There are critical food hygiene procedures used in Canadian meat production to ensure that consumers are not exposed to potentially harmful bacteria such as E. coli. Unfortunately, the EU does not allow the use of these procedures. Naturally, Canadian packing plants are unwilling to risk the health of Canadians to comply with European procedures. This likely means that we will see only a very modest increase until the EU approves the procedures.

Our concern becomes even more acute in the knowledge that Canada has removed all barriers to EU beef and they will have unlimited duty-free access to the Canadian market on day one of CETA. In short, we are worried about the trade imbalance, where we will see enlarged levels of EU beef in our market but will remain unable to realize the export potential.

Clearly, there is more work to be done, but due to the large potential and the history of our positive collaborative industry/government effort to achieve market access, we are supporting the passage of Bill C-30 and implementing the CETA, with three conditions from the beef sector.

First, we will expect a commitment from the Government of Canada to develop and fully fund a comprehensive strategy utilizing technical, advocacy, and political skills to achieve the elimination of the remaining non-tariff barriers to Canadian beef.

Second, we expect that any EU beef or veal imported into Canada is in full compliance with Canadian food safety requirements.

Third, we expect that the beef sector will be afforded Government of Canada investment into both beef processing and beef producer operations to help us comply with the complexities of the EU market.

I believe that it will likely take some years yet to achieve the resolution of these technical issues, but I also believe that by working together, and with the commitment of resources from the government, we can get the job done.

I will leave it at that. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Brian Kingston, Vice-President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, Business Council of Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the invitation to take part in your consultations on Bill C-30.

The Business Council of Canada represents the chief executives and entrepreneurs of 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors and regions of the country. Our member companies employ 1.4 million citizens, account for more than half the value of the TSX, contribute the largest share of federal corporate taxes, and are responsible for most of Canada's exports, corporate philanthropy, and private sector investments in R and D.

The Business Council strongly supports the ratification and implementation of CETA. On behalf of the council, I would like to congratulate Minister Freeland, Steve Verheul, the team at Global Affairs, and the previous government for their tireless efforts in achieving signature of this world-class agreement.

There are four key reasons why we believe CETA will benefit Canada and support its swift implementation.

First, CETA will boost economic growth. While this may seem like a very obvious point, it deserves to be emphasized, given that we're living in a time of slow growth in Canada and around the world. The agreement will benefit Canadian businesses of all sizes by giving them preferential access to the world's largest and wealthiest economic bloc, with a population of over 509 million people and a combined GDP of $17 trillion.

The EU is the world's second-largest importer of goods and also a major services importer. According to a recent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada, tariff elimination on goods alone will result in over $1.4 billion being added to Canada's merchandise exports to the EU by 2022. At a time of lackluster Canadian trade performance, this will serve as a significant boost.

Across Canada, in industries from food processing to chemicals, health sciences, and professional services, the removal of tariffs and other barriers that currently impede Canadian exports will create jobs, improve productivity, and promote growth. At the same time, the agreement will benefit Canadian consumers by eliminating tariffs. This will enhance competition and will lower prices for Canadians, while businesses will have access to cheaper inputs.

Second, CETA is Europe's first comprehensive economic partnership agreement with a western developed country. This gives Canadian companies a significant first-mover advantage over their competitors.

With the U.S.-EU transatlantic trade and investment partnership—TTIP—negotiations stalled, Canadian companies will be positioned to take advantage of preferential access over the U.S. competitors in the large European market. For many small, medium-sized, and large Canadian employers, this will mean new opportunities and, potentially, increased sales. The first-mover advantage will also help to attract investment to Canada. Companies looking to increase sales to Europe through CETA can use Canada as an export platform, and we believe this will attract investment and jobs to communities across Canada.

Third, CETA sends a positive and hopeful signal to the rest of the world about the benefits of international economic co-operation and open markets. Since the end of the Second World War, trade has been the principal means by which countries around the world have grown and prospered. As trade has flourished, incomes have increased and workers have benefited from new opportunities.

Despite the clear benefits of trade, we are unfortunately witnessing a rise in protectionism around the world. Since 2008, according to the WTO, G20 economies have introduced nearly 1,600 new trade-restricting measures, while removing just 387. This has contributed to slowing global trade growth, with the WTO forecasting that global trade will expand by just 1.7% in 2016. This is well below a previous forecast of 2.8%. Most notably, if this forecast holds, 2016 will be the first time in 15 years that the ratio between trade growth and world GDP falls below 1:1. In short, I believe that CETA builds on Canada's reputation for openness to the world at a time when others are turning inward.

My last point is that CETA will help to diversify Canada's trade. With last week's U.S. election outcome and the uncertainty created by potential NAFTA renegotiation, Canada's trade diversification efforts are more critical then ever to sustaining our collective prosperity. Canada must do everything possible to find new customers for our exports and new economic opportunities for our citizens. The best way to do this is to position Canada as one of the world's most open and global markets through a renewed trade strategy. The swift implementation of CETA must be the first component of this strategy.

With that, I'll conclude my remarks and look forward to questions.

Thank you.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, before I make a few remarks, let me thank the committee for its work on the Navigation Protection Act and for the work that I know you're doing on Bill C-30. I understand you'll be looking at drones fairly shortly. Thank you very much for the work that is being done by this committee.

Thank you for inviting me to appear and talk about the Transportation 2030 strategic plan that reflects the government's vision. I will first make a few remarks, after which I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

It is my great pleasure to provide you with an overview of Transportation 2030, a strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada, that I announced on November 3, 2016, in Montreal.

With the significant body of work and inputs from Canadians in the report of the Canada Transportation Act review as a starting point, last April 27, I asked Canadians for their feedback on priorities and initiatives.

Transportation 2030 is a balanced reflection of, and response to, what we heard from Canadians.

A key recommendation of the Canada Transportation Act review was to envision Canada's transportation system 20 or 30 years from now and invest today to build that future.

Our vision for Canada's transportation system in 2030 is of an increasingly electrified system, supporting alternative fuels like hydrogen, increasingly using rail and renewable fuels in more efficient planes like the C-Series.

We also know that trade in 2030 will have shifted significantly to Asia and other developing regions. We must have access to gateways with advanced logistics and integrated infrastructure and be able to get Canadian products, services, and people to key markets safely and efficiently while protecting our environment. These changes are happening today, and if we're not ready, we're going to be left behind.

Transportation 2030 is based on five themes that were validated by Canadians as being the right framework for directing immediate and future actions to encourage trade, boost economic opportunities, and support a growing middle class.

The first of these five themes is the traveller. Under this theme we will work to support greater choice, better service, lower costs, and new rights for travellers. Near-term actions to support this theme include pursuing legislation to provide greater transparency, clarity, and fairness for Canada's air traveller, including clear standards for treating and compensating passengers under specific circumstances; pursuing legislation to change international ownership restrictions from 25% to 49% of voting interests for Canadian air carriers; and working with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA, to ensure that travellers at Canadian airports go through security faster while maintaining the same high security standards.

The second theme, safer transportation, focuses on building a safer, more secure transportation system that Canadians trust, including in the near term, by, first of all, moving up our review of the Railway Safety Act from 2018 to 2017 in order to further improve railway safety; and second, amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to allow us to compel vehicle manufacturers to recall defective and unsafe vehicles.

Under the theme of green and innovative transportation, we will look to reduce air pollution and embrace new technologies to improve Canadians' lives. We are looking at two ways to accomplish that. First, we look forward to working with provincial governments on a pan-Canadian framework that includes a strategy for transportation to reduce carbon pollution by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. Second, we want to support the development of a modern and agile regulatory framework for emerging technologies, including connected and automated vehicles and drones, that is to say unmanned air vehicles.

The fourth theme, waterways, coasts and the north, will build world-leading marine corridors that are competitive, safe and environmentally sustainable, and enhance the northern transportation infrastructure.

The $1.5-billion national oceans protection plan announced by the Prime Minister on November 7—last week, in fact—in Vancouver represents a significant, concrete step forward under this theme. The plan will protect our coasts in a modern and advanced way through four main priority areas: first, creating a world-leading marine safety system that improves responsible shipping and protects Canada's waters; second, restoring and protecting the marine ecosystems and habitat, including using measures to address abandoned vessels; third, strengthening partnerships and launching co-management practices with indigenous communities, including building local emergency response capacity; and fourth, investing in oil spill cleanup research and methods to ensure that decisions taken in emergencies are evidence-based.

As the Prime Minister noted in his announcement of this initiative, these strong measures are urgently needed and long overdue. This represents the most significant investment ever made to protect our oceans and coastlines.

The fifth theme is trade corridors to global markets. Actions under this theme will improve the performance and reliability of our transportation system to get products to market to grow Canada's economy, including, first of all, by investing $10.1 billion for transportation infrastructure to help eliminate bottlenecks and building more reliable trade corridors; second, establishing a new data regime to support sound investment decisions by government and make sure that data is available to all who operate, oversee, analyze, and use the transportation system; and third, pursuing greater transparency and reliability for the rail transportation supply chain and supporting a more competitive and efficient rail sector that invests in much-needed capacity improvements.

I wish to emphasize that in the weeks and months ahead, I will be outlining our major undertakings in greater detail—so all Canadians are aware of the improvements we plan to make, and the benefits they will bring.

Madam Chair, the launch of this strategic plan is only the beginning of our work. We must now turn our efforts to implementing the initiatives we have announced and defining further actions to come, in close collaboration with governments, industry, and Indigenous partners, to benefit all Canadians.

This concludes my opening remarks. I would now welcome your questions.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Along that line, Belgium and Wallonia have already said they won't accept the ICS, but if we get to a point where the EU member states are successful in removing this provision, will we then see legislation tabled to remove it from Bill C-30?

[Steve Verheul, Chief Trade Negotiator, Canada-European Union, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone.

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. My name, as many of you know, is Steve Verheul. I am the chief negotiator for CETA. I am joined today by Caroline Charette, who is the director of the CETA secretariat at Global Affairs, and Colin Barker, who is the deputy director in the CETA secretariat.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss CETA with you today. We feel that CETA is a progressive and modern free trade agreement that will have significant economic benefits for Canadians across the country. This trade represents 60% of Canada's annual GDP, and one Canadian job in five is tied to exports. That's why we need agreements like CETA, especially during a time of rising protectionist, anti-trade sentiment in many parts of the world.

The EU is already Canada's second-largest trading partner and export market. CETA is expected to increase bilateral trade in goods and services, significantly fostering growth and employment on both sides of the Atlantic. Once implemented, CETA will give Canadians unprecedented access to the world's second-largest import market for goods. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's entire GDP. Of the EU's more than 9,000 tariff lines, approximately 98% will be duty free for Canadian goods on the day CETA comes into force, with almost all the remaining tariffs to be eliminated once the agreement is fully implemented.

CETA also recognizes the increasingly important role that services play in global trade, and it will create a wealth of new business opportunities for Canadian service providers. CETA provides for increased freedom of movement for professionals and service providers in sectors such as information and communications technology and for professionals and service providers in other areas such as telecommunications, financial services, engineering services, and architectural services.

CETA will also open up opportunities for Canadian businesses in the EU's estimated $3.3-trillion government procurement market.

This agreement sets new standards for trade in goods and services, non-tariff barriers, investment, and government procurement, as well as other areas such as labour and environment. In that regard, CETA incorporates guarantees to make sure economic gains do not come at the expense of the vital progressive elements of CETA.

CETA's preamble recognizes that provisions in CETA preserve the right of the parties to regulate within their territories for legitimate policy objectives such as public health, safety, environment, public morals, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

We have maintained a high level of protection for investors while also bringing transparency, independence, and openness to investor dispute resolution procedures.

CETA will not lead to forced privatizations of public services. Canada has a long experience with the protection of public services in all trade agreements and is confident that CETA allows for full policy flexibility. Canada's trade and labour chapter recognizes Canada's and the EU's abilities to set their own labour priorities and levels of protection. It encourages high levels of labour protection and recognizes that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the levels of protection afforded in labour laws and standards.

In CETA's trade and environment chapter, Canada and the EU also encourage high levels of environmental protection and have reaffirmed that environmental standards cannot be lowered in order to encourage trade or to attract investment.

With respect to the next steps, with the agreement signed at the Canada-EU summit on October 30, Canada and the EU now need to obtain their respective domestic approvals to implement CETA.

At the same time as the agreement was signed, a joint interpretive instrument was also issued by Canada and the EU. This instrument serves to clarify our shared understandings of some elements of CETA and will have legal value as an interpretive document in any future legal proceedings that might occur, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The text of CETA and the joint instrument are what Canada and the EU and its member states have agreed to. You may be aware that the European Commission, the EU Council, and some member states have also made a number of unilateral declarations, but of course Canada and the EU have not agreed to any of those declarations.

In terms of next steps, first of all, starting with the EU, the European Parliament will now need to approve CETA. This requires a simple majority vote of 50% plus one in that parliament, and that vote is expected to happen as early as December 2016, although it could slip into January of next year. As a mixed agreement, CETA will then need to be ratified by all 28 EU member states, according to their own internal procedures.

However, CETA can be provisionally applied following approval by the Council of the EU and by the European Parliament. The European Commission and the EU member states have agreed that almost all of the agreement can be provisionally applied, with very few exceptions.

The only exceptions relate to provisions on investment protection, which is one part of the investment chapter, and investment dispute resolution and the corresponding provisions in the financial services chapter. This also affects portfolio investment and, under the intellectual property chapter, camcording.

Everything else will be provisionally applied, so all of the economically significant aspects of CETA will be provisionally applied. Provisional application of CETA will continue until every member state ratifies the treaty, which typically takes several years, based on previous EU agreements. Once all member states have ratified the agreement, Canada and the EU will take the necessary steps to bring CETA fully into force.

With respect to the CETA implementation act, it was introduced on October 31, and it will amend a number of federal statutes, including the Export and Import Permits Act, the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act, the Investment Canada Act, and the Coasting Trade Act. The modifications are necessary in order to comply with Canada's obligations under the CETA.

The CETA implementation act also provides for reductions to Canadian tariffs and related mechanisms, such as tariff quotas, and it makes amendments in several areas, including trademarks and patents, coasting trade, and the review of foreign investment.

Following passage of the CETA implementation act, relevant departments will need to complete their regulatory amendments and, in parallel, provinces and territories will need to make their respective legislative and regulatory amendments within their jurisdictions. We have been working closely with the provinces and territories to bring CETA into force.

Once both parties have completed their internal processes, Canada and the EU will notify one another through an exchange of diplomatic notes, and then we will agree on a date for the entry into force of CETA, sometime early in 2017.

When it comes to provisional application, Canada's implementation of CETA will mirror the EU's. In other words, whatever they are not provisionally applying, we will not provisionally apply on our side. Provisional application will continue until all member states ratify CETA through their own domestic procedures.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. Thank you again for inviting us to appear before you today. We are happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We'll continue with our meeting.

Welcome, everybody. As you know, we're dealing with Bill C-30. This deals with the trade agreement with Europe, and there are officials here.

Thanks for coming and for waiting for us. As you know, the Hill works in mysterious ways and when votes come up, we have to go. Thanks for waiting for us and for coming here to do briefs and give us information on this agreement. Without further ado, we'll give you guys the floor for your presentation.

Mr. Verheul, you've been a very good negotiator over the years for us—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome.

Welcome to our officials. As everyone knows, we're here to deal with Bill C-30.

Minister of International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on a question of privilege on the manner in which the Minister of International Trade has been treating Parliament and due process in relation to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU. The flagrant disrespect of Parliament shown by the minister and her government is alarming and unwarranted, but more importantly, the impact of this disrespect has obstructed me in the discharge of my duties as a member of Parliament.

I will, through the course of my remarks, ask the Speaker to agree with my belief that there exists a prima facie case that my privileges as a member of Parliament have been breached, and I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker agree with my intervention.

Before getting to the matter at hand, I would like to remind the House that obstruction in the discharge of parliamentary duties can take many forms, both physical and non-physical. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, tells us, at pages 108 and 109:

If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions...there would be a case for the Chair to consider.

I will beg the House's indulgence to provide the proper context of what has happened and give an account of events leading up to this question of privilege. I will start with the facts of the matter at hand.

To begin with, the Government of Canada adopted a policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament in 2008. That policy sets out specific guidelines and timelines on how international treaties will be presented to Parliament for debate and consideration. In section 6.2, “Tabling period for Treaties”, the policy states:

b. For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession...the Government will:

Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament;

On Friday, October 28, the Minister of International Trade put an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures on the Notice Paper, even before having signed the treaty. The Government of Canada signed CETA two days later, on Sunday, October 30. The Minister of International Trade tabled CETA in the House on Monday, October 31, and not 21 sittings days but about 21 seconds later, she introduced Bill C-30 to implement the provisions of CETA.

The Minister of International Trade and the government are aware of this policy and obligation to Parliament. They have respected it as recently as this fall with regard to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. On September 19, 2016, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade laid upon the table a copy of the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine and an explanatory memorandum.

Twenty-eight sitting days later, which was this morning, as it turns out, and in full compliance with the policy, the Minister of International Trade introduced Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. However, in the case of CETA, the government acted in direct violation of its own policy when it came to the tabling of the treaty and the introduction of the implementing legislation that followed immediately afterward.

Furthermore, the policy statement in the government's policy is as follows:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs will initiate the tabling of all instruments, accompanied by a brief Explanatory Memorandum in the House of Commons following their adoption by signature or otherwise, and prior to Canada's expression of its consent to be bound by ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

This policy provision was followed when the Canada-Ukraine FTA was laid on the table and is something we are used to hearing the minister and her parliamentary secretary announce when they table international treaties, agreements, and other similar documents in the House. The explanatory memorandum is an important piece of this process, so important, in fact, that it has its own provisions in the policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. Section 6.4 of the policy states:

An Explanatory Memorandum will accompany each treaty that is tabled in the House of Commons.

a. The purpose of the Explanatory Memorandum is to provide the House of Commons with information regarding the content of the Treaty.

The document tabled by the minister on Monday was over 1,700 pages long, so an explanatory memorandum is particularly important in this case. Further, a long list is given of what materials must be included in the explanatory memorandum.

Among other items, the policy states that the explanatory memorandum will cover the following points.

First is subject matter. Second is a national interest summary. Third are policy considerations and how the treaty's obligations and their implementation will be consistent with the government's policies. Fourth are federal-provincial-territorial jurisdictional implications. Fifth are time considerations, with any upcoming dates or events that make the ratification a matter of priority. Sixth is a brief description of how the treaty will be implemented in Canadian law, including a description of the legislative or other authority under which it will fall, and seventh is a description of the consultations undertaken with the House of Commons, self-governing aboriginal governments, other government departments, and non-governmental organizations prior to the conclusion of the treaty, as appropriate.

There may have been 1,700 pages tabled by the Minister of International Trade on Monday, but there was no explanatory memorandum accompanying them, blatantly showing that the Government of Canada was negligent in fulfilling its obligations under this policy.

The government responded to a question on the Order Paper from the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster in a particularly alarming way. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster put a question on the Order Paper on May 3, 2016. Among other things, Question No. 193 asked:

With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when;

The minister's honesty about violating her own policy is commendable, however alarming. She responded on September 19 by saying:

Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), Global Affairs Canada, GAC, has not been tasked with drafting an explanatory memorandum for the tabling of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA.

This question was first asked in May and was responded to four and a half months later with a response essentially indicating that the government intends to violate its own policy obligations to Parliament.

The government had time to react. The minister could have realized that Canada was in the process of negotiating a complex and multilayered treaty with 28 countries and that she would have an obligation to fulfill when she tabled the treaty, but she chose not to. Even after she responded to the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster on September 19, she still had another 42 days to instruct her officials to respect Canadians and their duly elected representatives in Parliament, but she chose not to.

Clearly, there was enough time to prepare. Europe is indicating that it is still not on board with CETA, so the timelines that are being presented to us provide more than enough time for the minister and Global Affairs to fulfill this obligation to me as a parliamentarian and to everyone who sits in the House.

On May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of Debates, Speaker Fraser stated:

The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions.

Seventeen hundred pages is a lot for any parliamentarian to digest. We need to do a full analysis. We need time to do so, and the time that is normally allocated needs to be respected by the minister for all members in the House so that we can have the full information and analysis necessary to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement.

Furthermore, the international trade committee is now being asked to pre-study the bill four days after the 1,700-page document and the 131-page bill were tabled. That is unacceptable.

I am aware that the minister's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament is not governed by the Standing Orders of the House, but given the context of what has transpired over the past week, it is undeniably true that my ability, and the ability of all members of Parliament, to properly discharge our functions, to properly study and analyze more than 1,700 pages of text, and to adequately scrutinize government proposals and legislation are being impeded by the Minister of International Trade's deliberate decision to violate her own policy.

She had time to remedy the situation regarding the explanatory memorandum, and she did not. She had time to table the treaty and wait 21 sitting days before introducing the legislation, but she did not.

I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to agree that all members of Parliament are equal in their privileges in this House of Commons and that no one should be interfered with or disadvantaged in any way in the discharge of their duties as a member of Parliament, especially by other members in this House.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that there was a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)