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.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will not get into any kind of cheese debate. It is very dangerous when among regional politicians as to everyone's proper and extreme defence of their own local cheese production, but I will say, some of the cheeses in northwestern B.C. are just out of this world and quite fantastic. It was a little cheesy of me to do that, was it not? I apologize to the House.

Madam Speaker, during question period, I became quite animated at one point and I made an accusation of a look on the Prime Minister's face. I seek to withdraw that comment. In the heat of our debates, we should always be tough on the issues but try to remove ourselves from some of the personal invectives that sometimes happen.

I have a question for my friend across the way. We have looked through this deal very closely and I have two specific points.

Speaking of dairy production and cheese, we know from the Dairy Association of Canada that we will lose just shy of 20,000 tonnes of dairy production in this country every year. That is according to the people who make dairy products in Canada. That should be a concern.

Even more specifically to his constituents back home, many of whom rely on medicines, specifically generics, we have heard from the generic drug association in Canada that this will cost Canadian consumers an extra $116 million a year, at least, in increased drug costs, because it will take so much longer to clear the patents before the drugs become generics. Very specifically for the constituents the member talks about in terms of opportunity, where exactly is the government planning to compensate Canadians for the more than $100 million in extra drug costs that are going to be on their family bills each and every year once this deal is signed?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for being very professional and standing in the House and withdrawing his comments.

I can assure members of the House that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Health want to make sure that those two issues which the member raised are addressed and Canadians have the best health care possible in the world and on a very affordable basis. That is the goal of the health minister. Also the agriculture minister will make sure that supply management is protected in Canada.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's, I suppose assurances, that Canadians will be protected, yet there were very specific issues raised both by the dairy industry, with research, and the pharmaceutical industry, with research, to show that this is what the CETA with Europe will imply. Take away the fact that the deal was constructed with the United Kingdom as part of it, and it has withdrawn, and the government has not altered course a moment. Two pretty important industries to Canadians, those of the milk supply, the dairy manufacturers, as well as the generic pharmaceutical industry, have come forward to government, testified at committee, and said that these two parts of the deal are of concern.

I do not think my friend is going to answer their specific concerns, but investor-state protection, the notion of Canada being sued by companies when Canada makes laws to protect our environment, workers' rights, or whatnot, Canada historically is one of the most sued countries in the world. We are successfully sued against by other countries because of some of the trade deals that we have signed. It seems that we are repeating the same problem again and the Liberals are just putting on blinkers and not paying attention. On that side of things, can the member give us any specific assurances that Canada will not continue to be sued for passing Canadian laws protecting Canadians?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, in this agreement we will maintain our sovereignty and the government will also be able to draft laws and regulations that will not cause issues like the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has raised.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Democratic Reform; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; and the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Port of Québec.

[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 fewer 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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest.

Evidence should be the basis of whether the trade deals as constructed by Liberals and Conservatives in the past are working out for Canadians. The member mentioned how her constituency is hurting and needs that sense of hope.

Through NAFTA and some of these other trade deals that have been invoked, the Canadian economy has actually lost just shy of half a million manufacturing jobs. As the member would well know, the announcement of a mere 1,000 or 500 manufacturing jobs in any one of our ridings would be a huge celebration because they are hard to get. It took two generations in fact to build up that manufacturing base in the country, and in my part of the world that includes things like sawmills and other added value to our natural resources. If that loss of jobs has been the result of the current trade deals that we have, the only argument the Liberals and Conservatives could possibly make is that things would have been worse somehow, yet that is not the case.

In this and many other trade deals, we simply ask the government to look solely through the lens of what the Canadian consumer and the Canadian worker need to see in the trade deals, and that is protection of Canadian interests. We see in this, from pharmaceuticals to milk marketing and all of the rest, a further degrading of the ability of Canadians to manufacture our goods and to add value to our natural wealth. I do not know why they continue down this same path when the evidence is so overwhelmingly bad.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, my region of Haldimand—Norfolk has indeed benefited from NAFTA.

We have a lot of small companies that do a lot of exporting. I did say that most of our exports are to the United States, because of the favourable treatment that Canada has with the United States in terms of tariffs and the thin border.

What is concerning, though, is a loss of jobs, particularly in southern Ontario. Just a week or so ago we heard of 600 jobs lost at the Ingersoll CAMI plant. I do not think we can blame that on NAFTA, because there are a lot of other factors at play. Particularly in Ontario, we are seeing a rapid decline in manufacturing jobs because of the high cost of doing business in Ontario, the skyrocketing hydro prices that are forcing families to choose between buying food and paying the utility bills. That is one of the key things I am hearing from my local manufacturers that could in fact be the single biggest determinant of their future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a different point. The member made reference to how the Conservative government started the ball rolling on this particular agreement. We acknowledge that. Canadians have benefited immensely by that. We are glad that between the two governments we are ultimately at the stage where we are today.

However, it is also important for us to recognize, as the member mentioned, how the Government of Canada can support expanding markets for our small- and medium-sized businesses in terms of exporting. We recognize not only different governments, the provincial and municipal governments, that all get involved, but there are also other organizations. We can talk about the chambers of commerce. I know Yes! Winnipeg it is a great company that advocates for expansion opportunities.

We all have a role. The national government has a leadership role in all of this, but would the hon. member not agree that there is a lot more to it to ensure that our businesses are maximizing the benefits for all Canadians by getting out into the world?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a Conservative, I have always been a proponent for smaller government, less government, less intrusive government. To that point, I believe there are a number of organizations that can and indeed should and probably will be helping small businesses take advantage of these new export opportunities.

That said, I do believe the government has a leadership role in making sure that all of the information that is necessary is available to these groups, to the producers and service providers that are trying to export. I know under the previous Conservative government, the minister of agriculture brought in programs that were directly supporting agricultural and agrifood exports. He was able to open new markets for many of our agricultural producers. He took them with him to open the doors, to introduce those producers to new customers, potential new clients. Many of them, and I am thinking of the ginseng industry in Haldimand—Norfolk, benefited significantly from those opportunities. Once taught, they never forgot, and they are succeeding.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to speak to the bill that would implement CETA and to speak about the ideology of trade that is being promoted by the Liberal government, not the facts of trade but an ideology of trade.

The Prime Minister has become the world's great last free trader. He pumps the idea that if we keep opening the ability of corporations to move wherever they want then we will all benefit with CETA. He is already putting up trial balloons of what is going to be on the table with the Trump government over NAFTA and the government of course is looking toward the TPP.

Let us look at this in terms of simple economics. Economics should be like an ecosystem. In a healthy ecosystem, there are broad and defined levels of support and abilities, whether it is a small manufacturer or an individual business up the food chain. Our Prime Minister believes that if we look after those at the top of the food chain somehow everyone will benefit. He is the last and the ultimate promoter of the trickle-down economics theory, which is why I want to talk about his ideology of trade.

Earlier today we were told by a Liberal that this is about allowing little farmers in Nova Scotia to sell blueberries in Europe, which is a ridiculous side issue, but it is not nearly as ridiculous as the member for University—Rosedale, who said on CBC that this is about mukluks. She gave indigenous mukluks from Winnipeg to the European Commissioner for Trade because this is about allowing little mukluk manufacturers to trade internationally. That would be really ridiculous if it not for the Liberal government, which believes everyone is as dumb as a selfie photo message. That is not what trade agreements are about.

If trade agreements were to allow for the development of small businesses and allow them to grow larger then that would be good trade, but we are seeing trade agreements that the government does not want to talk about that are protecting those at the top of the food chain. That is where trade agreements have to be discussed and challenged. For example, under the Liberal government we see once again complete support for the investor-state provisions. We have seen investor-state provisions being used time and time again to limit the tools of local and regional governments to respond to economic issues.

We were told when free trade first came in that it would make us citizens of the world, that we would all be able to travel and do things and we would not be bound by our local economies. Many of our regions have become orphaned economies because trade agreements have taken away their ability to respond in times of crisis. That is when government needs to get involved in the economy. Let me give the House an example involving the provincial Liberals, the Kathleen Wynne government, the same forces that are behind the Prime Minister. For anyone who is not in Ontario, be warned. This is not going to end well.

In 2013, the Wynne government decided to show that it was ready for free trade by opening up local rural school bus contracts to international investors. My region is a large rural area and it had little mom-and-pop operations that had maybe two or three buses that serviced rural schools in both the francophone school board and the anglophone school board. Suddenly these little operations had to compete against a large European consortium that underbid every single one of them and put them all out of business. Some people were rehired as bus drivers for this large European consortium. We were told those sacrifices were important because trade is important. As G.K. Chesterton talked about the horrible mysticism of money, the false mysticism of trade, we had to sacrifice all of these small school bus operations for the bigger vision of trade. How would that benefit us? It would not.

The investor-state provisions maintain those on the fact that we are giving up on the pharmaceuticals. That is supposed to help us so we can sell mukluks. It will cost us. Up to $2.8 billion a year will be downloaded to individual consumers on the cost of pharmaceuticals. That is all-important because it is for the ideology of trade.

The attack on the dairy sector is a crucial issue because we are talking about family farms. We are talking about regional farming economies that have a proven pattern of success that are giving up market share.

At least the Harper government was willing to compensate for the impacts because it knew those impacts would be great. However, what we get from the present government instead of actual money on the table is the Bobby McFerrin school of economics, which says, “Don't worry. Be happy. We have a prime minister who will do push-ups for you in Brooklyn and your farm sector will somehow compete.” We know that is not true.

The Liberals are more than willing to sacrifice individual jobs. We see zero words from the Prime Minister over the Chinese steel dumping that shut down Sault Ste. Marie and is crushing Hamilton.

Why are they not speaking up? Because, in the interest of trade with China, it is okay that it destroys our steel sector.

The Prime Minister, after holding his private billion-dollar fundraisers with Chinese billionaires, decided to open up for review a project about allowing the Chinese government to buy a Canadian tech company that even the Harper government opposed. Why would we sell out our tech sector? It is for the greater vision of trade. It will benefit us all.

We see that as soon as Donald Trump came into power, he started talking about opening up NAFTA. He had not even noticed Canada existed. The Prime Minister said, “Brilliant. We'll come to the negotiating table and reopen the negotiations with you.”

If we are going to negotiate a deal, we do not hold up our ace cards and show where they are in our hand; but, no, they have already started to talk about bringing in Brian Mulroney to give the Prime Minister advice. God help us. What does Brian Mulroney say? Brian Mulroney says, “Hey, we've got to get rid of supply management.”

If we are not going to send a message that this is going to be on the table, who are they representing? They are not representing us.

We are going to have the Prime Minister bring Brian Mulroney in, and he is already posting bubbles about what we are going to give up.

When it comes to international trade, the Prime Minister is like a rube at a country fair. He thinks he knows where those dollars are going to land in the little shells, but he is setting us up for failure.

We have seen him say nothing about softwood. We have lost so many forestry jobs because of softwood. We have seen him say nothing about the fact that if the United States is going to stand up for its interests, we have to stand up for ours. Yet the Prime Minister has already opened the door to putting these on the table.

Why is that? It is because his notion of economics that he studied at school is that as long as we keep allowing trade to move back and forth, we will all benefit. However, we are seeing now where 60% in urban areas are in short-term contracts.

Where is this middle class the Liberals keep talking about? We hear them all the time, and it is very insidious language they use. They talk about the middle class and those wanting to join it as though they are offering a long-term vision of development when they are not, because they continually favour those at the top of the food chain.

What do I mean by that? Look at their tax break for the middle class and working people. If people make $23 an hour or less, they get zero; but if they make 50 or 100 bucks an hour, they get full bang. I guess the Prime Minister grew up in a different middle class than I did. Most of the middle-class people I know, who are just trying to get into the middle class and 23 bucks an hour, could use a break, rather than the ministers of cabinet and bankers.

This is the false ideology of their economics. Yet they have the nerve and the gall to say they are doing it to sell blueberries, that they are here for the mukluks, that they are there for the little Joe on the street, with his mom-and-pop corner operation, that is why we are signing these international agreements, and that is false.

If we are going to talk trade, then let us talk about trade that is in Canada's interest, about ensuring that our pharmaceutical costs are not going to go through the roof to sell that out, about investor-state provisions that are based on a clear, coherent rule of law and not just a backroom deal that undermines the ability of local and regional governments and provincial governments to make the decisions that they have a right to make. This is about what trade needs to be.

Unfortunately with the trickle-down Prime Minister, we know what is happening to the people on the bottom, and we are seeing it again, and again, and again.

I will finally conclude by saying that the one honest statement by the Liberals made today is they thanked the Conservatives for leading the way because they really appreciated the road map that was laid out by the Conservative policies and they are just trying to faithfully follow it.

I do not agree with the Conservatives much, but what I do like about them is that at least they give it to us straight in the face. They tell us where they stand. They do not try to hug us and act like Teletubbies when they are delivering what they are delivering.

At least the Liberals had the decency to thank the Conservatives for this economic travesty that they continue to perpetrate on the Canadian—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in wanting to be consistent, we recognize we can go back right from the 1960s with Auto Pact to today when we are debating CETA, and New Democrats have always opposed trade agreements. Let that be very clear. They would argue that they supported Korea. When they were the official opposition in hopes of being in government, they did I believe vote in favour of the Korea trade agreement, but that was an anomaly.

Once again, it is difficult to listen to a New Democrat when we know they will oppose trade agreements. They do not have the same confidence that we have as a Liberal government in Canada's middle class and the abilities of our workers. They indeed can compete and get their products and services abroad, which will create the jobs.

I call upon the member's wisdom to explain to the House why he felt that the Korean trade agreement was worthy enough to vote for, but this agreement, and virtually every other agreement, is not. I think Canadians should try to understand why New Democrats were gung-ho on Korea, but they do not understand the benefits of the European Union agreement.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my poor colleague. Not only did the Liberals have to take all of the economic notebooks from the Conservatives, they had to take their talking points from them too. They do not have an original idea in their heads.

When they want to change the subject, they have to use those two important words about the middle class: how they are fighting for the middle class, and about how we should have confidence in the middle class. When the Prime Minister set up his exclusive cash-for-access deals with Chinese billionaires and he got caught, he said he was doing it for the middle class. When they are selling arms to the House of Saud and are asked how they can morally stand by that, they say they are doing it for the middle class.

The Liberals have to stop hiding behind the middle class when they have undermined them. Their trade policies are undermining them. They have not stood up for one job in this country. They have never stood up. At least we got straight answers from the Conservatives once in a while. They have to do a little better.