Bill C-100 (Historical)

An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States

This enactment implements the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, done at Buenos Aires on November 30, 2018.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 19 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, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and gives the Governor in Council the power 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.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provisions.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and was shocked when I heard the end part.

Back home in my riding of Jonquière we have a lot of dairy farmers. In the last budget the government announced a compensation plan, but there is no date and no money going directly to our dairy farmers. Now the government is boasting that the agreement is a win-win-win.

I have some news for the government. These farmers are the hands that feed us. They work every day to provide us with fresh food. The government promised them all kinds of things they are entitled to, but they have been shortchanged again. This is a third breach of supply management. The House will soon be adjourning and we still have nothing.

How does this government plan to compensate dairy farmers and comply with the agreement it signed with them?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising an issue that is obviously of concern to our government as well.

As I indicated throughout my remarks, we were keen on maintaining a dialogue with various sectors of our economy, and that communication has been ongoing. I can tell the member that we have received every assurance that dialogue will be ongoing with dairy producers, and they have been very pleased with the progress we are making to ensure that we stand up for their interests and make the necessary changes.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is about article 22 and annex IV, which gives a carve-out to the Trans Mountain expansion project.

When we are dealing with climate change, do we not think that perhaps it would be a good idea for other state-owned enterprises to be available to us in dealing with a climate emergency?

Also, I would like to know about this carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion project. What is the plan? We have seen that it is not really economically feasible. I have read reports by Robyn Allan and others who say that this pipeline is not economically feasible.

What is the plan if the government cannot sell it to the private sector within the 10-year period, as outlined in article 22?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising a very good concern.

Of course, as with any other trade agreement, it is important to make sure that we are focused on the details as negotiations go on. The member will recall, for example, that when the original NAFTA was negotiated, Canadian negotiators made sure that there were all sorts of reservations for various things. In that particular instance, the big issue Canadians expected us to stand up for and preserve was culture.

In this particular case, it was quite obvious to our American friends and to the Mexicans that the environment is something we take very seriously as a country. However, as with all negotiations, there were some carve-outs, which is something that epitomizes the process of negotiations.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for his speech. We have done some work on some tough files together. On behalf of my constituents, I appreciate his efforts.

We keep hearing the Liberal government is committed to the creation of a national pharmacare program. Maybe this member can explain why it would sign this trade deal, which includes patent extensions that would make it harder and more expensive to create a pharmacare plan.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to reciprocate and say I have very much enjoyed working with my hon. colleague.

As the member is well aware, these issues are serious issues. They are legal matters. They are issues that require that each of the negotiating parties be familiar with various provisions. I think it would be fair to say that lawyers in the department are very much aware of some of the limitations that might exist, but that will certainly not get in the way of this government's commitment to pharmacare in the future.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak tonight. In the final days of Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not thank my colleagues in the NDP for our tireless fight for fair trade for Canadians, who represent farmers and workers, to keep the cost of pharmaceuticals low and to address the issues Canadians care about and matter to them in terms of trade.

I would like to thank my family for the time that I have been able to devote here, my husband Germaine, my sons Maxwell and Maliq. I thank them for their support and love and for the wild ride we have been on this last four years and I look forward to going further. I would like to say a quick thanks to my team. They are just so incredible. I thank Nadine, Lindsay, Katrina, Joseline and Megan and the many volunteers throughout the years.

We are back on Bill C-100 and I am pleased to rise to speak on this stage of the bill. I thank my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who brought forward a reasoned amendment, something the government should consider, which is to decline to give second reading to Bill C-100. Before I get into the reasons, which my colleague laid out quite well in her reasoned amendment last night, there has been a lot of discussion about what is happening in the U.S., the moves the Democrats are making. We know they have written four letters from the subcommittee on trade to Ambassador Lighthizer.

They are in the middle of negotiations right now and it is quite shocking to know that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be going to Washington, for Donald Trump, to pressure the Democrats to drop these progressive elements that they are trying to achieve. I do not think that is something that Canadians widely support. It is certainly not something that Speaker Pelosi has said she is willing to do. She said that the Democrat-controlled House will not take up legislation to ratify the deal until it is tweaked to address her concerns, which include issues with enforcement tools, labour reforms in Mexico, environmental protections and provisions on pharmaceuticals.

Are these not things that we in Canada should all be pursuing? Is this not something that the Liberal government should be getting behind and supporting instead of ramming this through, closing down debate in the dying days of Parliament with an uncertain future throughout the summer on Bill C-100? I understand that we are heading into an election and that it is in the best interests of Liberals to try to get this done, to put something on the shelf to show Canadians that they have achieved something on the trade file. I just say “something”. I reserve my comment as to the value of it or how this deal is being viewed.

I want to go back to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the reasoned amendment she put forward. The first reason she states is that this new deal, the NAFTA, the CUSMA, the USMCA, whichever one chooses to call it, fails to improve labour provisions necessary to protect jobs. This is entirely true. Yesterday, there were 12 witnesses at the trade committee. There was a witness from Unifor who expressed concerns about the labour provisions. Unfortunately, what was initially attempted was not fully achieved. We know the Democrats are working hard to improve it.

I want to talk about more specifics and the uncertainty that still exists. The first thing I want to talk about is working women. In the agreement that was signed last fall, there was a negotiation that included provisions for improving the conditions of working women, including workplace harassment, pay equity and equality issues, but in the scrub phase of this new deal, those things disappeared. They are completely gone from the agreement now. The Liberals have yet to answer why. They have yet to acknowledge that these important gender gains have completely disappeared and they have yet to ask what happened to them and say they need to be put back in Bill C-100. I would be curious to hear why the Liberals are not pushing for these gender changes that have now somehow disappeared.

There is a lot of discussion about the $16 U.S. per hour wage that has been talked about. The unfortunate part of this provision, and I hope that Canadians understand this, is that it is not a minimum $16 per hour; it is an average $16 per hour, and the determination of that has yet to be defined. If we use the example of an auto assembly plant or a manufacturing plant, we would have to include everyone, the CEO, all of the shareholders, all of the stakeholders, all the way down.

If we take the average wage of everyone working there, $16 an hour is not going to be what people are being paid in right-to-work states in the U.S. or in Mexico. It is simply what the average wage has to be among workers in that whole company. Again, while this appears to be something progressive on the surface, I want Canadians to understand there is no guarantee here that people will actually be paid that amount of money. That is definitely a concern to us.

We know that in the Mexican government, the people have moved toward some labour reforms. The problem is that we are taking a gamble on the backs of working people in hoping that this thing will correct the imbalance and have the jobs continue to drain down to Mexico. There are many Canadian companies that have footprints in Mexico that are not paying a fair wage to people in plants. These are North American multinational companies. Of course, when executives are looking where to put a new manufacturing facility, they know that in Mexico people are being paid a very low wage, there are no labour standards, no legitimate unions and no environmental provisions, and then they look at the Canadian standard.

This is the reason we have not had a new greenfield site in Canada over the life of NAFTA. We will continue to have this problem. It is a great gamble that is being taken, once again, on the backs of working people. We have lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs over the life of NAFTA. We lost our entire textile industry. We lost 50% of our vintners, our wineries that are in a lot of our ridings here in the House. There are a great many questions, to find out whether the provisions in this deal would actually work and would actually help the Mexican working people, the U.S. working people and the Canadians. It is a great gamble and risk that we are taking here. I do not believe that I have heard a strong argument from the other side, other than to say that this is the best that we could do. Canadian workers deserve better than that.

Most people, when they think of the U.S. and Canada and labour standards, certainly do not think of the U.S. as being more progressive than we are, but that is exactly what is happening there now. The Americans are actually trying to stand up for working people in the U.S. It is a shame that we do not see the same thing happening here in Canada.

The other thing I want to talk about, which my colleagues have touched upon and I have in my previous speech, is that this deal allows for the extension of drug patents, which would significantly increase the cost of medication for Canadians. We know that Dr. Hoskins came out with his report saying that we should move toward a single-payer universal pharmacare plan in Canada, something New Democrats have been saying and putting forward as a plan to Canadians for quite some time. It is disappointing to see the Liberals dangle that carrot once again in front of voters, saying, “Do not worry, we are going to do it”. We have been hearing that for 20 years.

Here is a deal that would make drugs like insulin, drugs that are used for Crohn's disease and drugs that are used for rheumatoid arthritis more expensive. That is so counterintuitive to where we need to be going because we know that Canadians already cannot afford the medication that they are taking. The fact is that Big Pharma is getting its way once again in a trade agreement. This is a complete TPP hangover. This was part of the original TPP that, thankfully, disappeared when the U.S. left, but it is right back on the table again.

My colleagues have rightly pointed out the impact on supply management. We heard from the egg farmers at committee yesterday. I just have to pause to point out that it is shameful that we had only 12 witnesses before the committee on a study on the new NAFTA, or the CUSMA, when we had over 400 on the TPP. We did a whole cross-country tour on the TPP, where we not only included everyone in the local communities but we also had open-mike periods. Now we have the complete opposite. While the Liberals keep saying this is our most important relationship and this is why we have to do this, I believe that is the reason it deserves proper attention and proper oversight. Certainly that is not what is happening here.

I am very pleased to rise to say that New Democrats will always fight for fair trade that is in the best interest of people, communities and workers, and we will put the poorest and most marginalized Canadians in the best position when we do so. When we continue to sign trade agreements that will have negative impacts and violate people's human rights, do not address gender inequality and do not work to make the wealth inequality in our country shrink, we are doing a disservice. We need to do better. New Democrats are committed to fair trade at every turn.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder if the NDP would like no trade agreements, without regard for the consequences.

The hon. member, who gave a very eloquent speech, described the USMCA as “something on trade”, forgetting that it was an arduous negotiation that was carried out wonderfully by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government.

However, I would like to go back to the extension of pharmaceutical patents. I would accept the hon. member's point if we were talking about traditional drugs. In the case of traditional drugs, generics are ready to pounce the moment a patent is lifted, but we are talking about biologics and biosimilars, which are the generic versions of biologics.

All experts agree that the barriers to entry into the biosimilars market are extremely high, because we are dealing with extremely complex drugs. The notion that patent extensions may be having an impact really is moot, because the barriers to entry will prevent biosimilars from quickly entering the market when there are no patent protections.

It is not really a proper parallel to make. It is alarming Canadians for no reason. Could the member comment on that?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member does not have an issue with what I am saying, but I think he should talk to the PBO.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway initiated a study on the new CUSMA with the PBO, and when the report came back, the PBO estimated that the increased drug costs would be $169 million in the first year alone.

I would encourage the member to look at that report from the PBO. I thank the PBO for the work that they have done throughout this Parliament. Certainly they have shone a light on things that the Liberal government does not want Canadians to know or understand. I would encourage the member to go and read that study. I would encourage Canadians to do the same.

I would say that the pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity in Canada is operated by the generic pharmaceutical industry, and there are about 11,000 Canadians who work in the industry. However, the true question is, if we could remove that regressive provision—because the member is saying, “Do not worry; it is not going to impact us”—as they are attempting to do in the U.S., would the Liberals not support that? That is the true question.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member speak, I think of her riding and the amount of time I have spent in the automotive industry, working on automation applications on tier 2s and tier 3s and also going on to tier 1s.

I want to correct one thing for the record. In terms of the labour value content, it states that 40% of a passenger vehicle and 45% of a pickup or cargo vehicle must be made by hourly workers who earn a wage of $16 U.S. an hour or more. There are other provisions in terms of R and D credits and credits for high labour value areas.

I have seen the automotive industry go up and down over the years. Usually it was the exchange rate that put us out of work, or it was changes in technology. Right now, we have really good conditions for the automotive industry, with the lowest marginal effective tax rate in the G7, 13.8%, and 100% writedown of investments on buildings when we are trying to green buildings. As well, our exchange rate is very stable where it is, so things should look pretty good for Windsor.

Could the member comment on any positive things that she sees developing in the automotive industry in Windsor?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that the concern that auto workers have and the concern that the auto industry has is that the 2.5% tariff rate on auto and auto parts is not prohibitive enough for companies to actually want to reach this level.

We have watched 400,000 manufacturing jobs bleed out of our country. We cannot attract investment into auto because we are competing on such an unfair playing field. The things that have been established here are easy enough for companies to get over and to pay the 2.5%.

What the member is really asking is for southwestern Ontario auto workers and manufacturing workers across our country to take a chance that what has been established here will work in practice. It is a best guess whether or not the provisions here will actually end up being meaningful, and I have to say that these provisions are not even fully fleshed out yet. We do not even have the details of exactly what they will look at.

That is also a piece that is very concerning, because there are ministerial powers that have been written into the new CUSMA. The Liberals would like to say, “Do not worry; if something happens, the minister of the day will be able to override it, or cabinet will be able to override it.” Why should we trust that they are going to go and put these provisions in after the fact? If the deal is so good—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I will let the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs know that there are about five to six minutes remaining in the time for Government Orders on this particular bill. I will give him the signal at the usual time.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to say this as we close out the debate at second reading on this very important bill, Bill C-100. This bill will enable us to take the next steps toward ratification of one of the most important and progressive trade agreements that has ever been negotiated anywhere in the world.

We went into this discussion with three primary objectives: first, to preserve important NAFTA provisions and market access to $2 billion worth of trade into the U.S. and Mexico every day; second, to modernize and improve the agreement to make it a better agreement than NAFTA; and third, to reinforce the security and stability of market access into the U.S. and Mexico for Canadian businesses. Those were the objectives, and that is what we accomplished.

I want to take a moment to commend our Prime Minister, who has a spine of steel when it comes to these sorts of issues, and our formidable Minister of Foreign Affairs, because no one can negotiate anything in the world like she can. I want to thank her parliamentary secretary, the member for Orléans, who was engaged in this process, as well as the trade negotiators, the officials, and the members of opposition parties who were engaged in the council that did this work, which is really groundbreaking work to make a difference for Canadian labour, indigenous Canadians and workers in every sector to make sure our businesses remain competitive while we continue to grow them and have access to markets in the United States and around the world with the most diverse trading program that any country has ever developed.

One issue I want to spend a bit of time on, because there has been so much misinformation tonight, is with respect to biologics and patent protection, which was negotiated as part of this whole deal.

I want to be clear about this. There are pharmaceutical drugs that are compounds created from atoms being compounded to each other to create the drugs we know so well. Of the drugs that people in this room take, 95% are those kinds of drugs, while 5% of the medications we take are biologics. These are created from living organisms in a living organism and are extremely complex and expensive to make.

My career for four years as president of the Asthma Society of Canada led me to understand the very complex way that biologics are created. On the one hand, drugs made from compounds are generic drugs that are relatively easy to create and are exactly the same as the original drug. However, a biologic will never be replicated exactly. They are biosimilars. At times, I jokingly call them “bio-differents”, because they are different. They are extremely expensive to replicate, and most companies do not want to do it.

I am really glad some people are listening to this. The reality is that a biologic drug, if we have 10 years of protection for it, most likely will be replaced by another biologic. That is the way that the industry works.

I am not simply saying we do not need to worry about this because I am, on this side of the House, arguing for this trade agreement; I am arguing this because we have a very high stake in targeted medicine and in ensuring that Canadians have access to the biologics that are part of our medical care system.

I have heard various numbers quoted, which are mathematical calculations without any nuance whatsoever. When Amir Attaran, a professor at the University of Ottawa, a biomedical scientist and a lawyer, looked at everything we are doing, he recognized it is going to be a wash. We are changing regulations on the PMPRB, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. We are obviously committed to a pharmacare system that we can see is being developed through the early steps taken in this budget. We are moving on these issues.

I would ask every member of this House to commit themselves to the science, the creativity and the imagination that goes into our pharmaceutical industry. Quit beating up on big pharma.

I have taken on big pharma as part of a patient organization to ensure that Canadians have access to medication. I am not afraid of big pharma; I am respectful of pharmaceutical scientists and the companies that bring us the medications that, frankly, keep me alive. I need those medications and I am glad they are there. NAFTA will ensure that there is moderate protection, either under the 20 years as a drug or the 10 years as a biologic.

This is not something that is scientific. It is an embarrassment that some people in the House are misusing this idea to scare Canadians. The reality is that we have a progressive trade deal. It is the most progressive and inclusive trade deal to involve indigenous people. It has labour standards that are progressive and will become a worldwide model. We have a deal that will make sure that as Canadians move into the rest of the century, we will be effective and competitive.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 9:43 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 13, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.