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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unless the leader of the Green Party knows something I do not know, to the very best of my knowledge, we have 28 countries abroad that are a part of this agreement, some of which were no doubt fairly persistent on having this as part of the final agreement.

When we have trade agreements, it means we have to take into consideration both sides. In this case, there are a lot of stakeholders involved, the provinces in Canada and the many countries that are part of the European Union. This is what we were able to come up with, and we need to give it a try. We have far too much to lose to not see the bill pass.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we called it comprehensive in the beginning was the involvement of the provinces as stakeholders in this. So much will be within their jurisdiction that they have been brought on board. I give credit also to the opposition for this. When the Conservatives were in government, they were a big part of bringing in the provinces, which we have continued.

There have been successful examples in the past, such as the Rio conference on environment, not so much with Kyoto, and also some good conversations with NAFTA.

By doing this now, we have created a new way of trade partnership that involves provinces. Going forward that would be essential.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up a good point. There is so much support for this document that goes beyond the national levels of government. Provinces have been a part of this agreement, and it might even be somewhat unprecedented. I do not know that for a fact.

I do know there has been a lot of reaching out by the different stakeholders, and we have come up with a fantastic agreement that will see more jobs being created, better trade, and a better relationship between Canada and the European Union.

I would encourage all members to support it, and for the Greens and the New Democrats to reconsider their position. This trade pact is worth supporting.

[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

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here awhile and have been going through CETA for quite some time, from the time I was in opposition in the third party.

I always knew that it had great benefits for the agriculture industry, so I want to thank the member for her speech because I did not realize how much was involved here, the metrics around some of this, in terms of canola, rye, barley, grains, and oilseeds. I think two examples alone caught my attention: sugar beets, at $100 million per year; and pork, at $400 million per year alone. It is a substantial amount of growth that could be achieved through this agreement.

I am from a seafood area and the numbers are similar, though probably not to the same level as pork, but nevertheless the metrics are much the same.

For most of the producers in western Canada right now, what do they need in order to transition toward a much larger market, or is there much transition involved?

I am just trying to get a grasp of some of the difficulties there could be for them to transition to getting that amount of product over to Europe, including transportation from Alberta?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to ask what our producers need to get their goods to market. Producers in my riding are incredibly resilient individuals. They are incredibly innovative individuals. They started their businesses from scratch and grown them to be quite large and quite successful. More than anything else they really need the government to sign, seal, and deliver this deal and then get out of the way.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to one of the member's colleagues yesterday, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and then earlier today to my colleague from Richmond Cove, and they both reflected not just on some of the positive aspects of this trade deal but also the exploitive nature of this deal. Canada has high standards and as far as trade markets opening up for us is concerned, it goes the other way. I am wondering if the member understands that.

Yesterday her colleague said that we need to even out labour standards and regulations across the board. I would like the member's insight. Does she think we should lower our standards, or should other countries raise theirs to meet our existing standards in these markets that we are now saying are threatened and, hence, the need for compensation?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, producers in my riding have expressed their concern with regard to standards in the agreement. They want to make sure that the standards are equivalent in both the country of origin and the country their products are being exported to.

The government has a responsibility to make sure that it negotiates well, to make sure that the provisions with regard to standards are included in this agreement. The government has a responsibility to make sure that our producers here in Canada are not put at a disadvantage because of this agreement. The former government did work hard. It was in the process of securing that for Canada. It is my hope that the government now in power would also be able to secure that for our producers here at home.

[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.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for decades from the Green Party left we have been hearing this anti-trade rhetoric and they are always nitpicking about things that really do not matter, quite frankly. What matters is creating wealth for the world. I am going to read you a quote:

According to a World Bank Study, in the three decades between 1981 and 2010, the rate of extreme poverty in the developing world...has gone down from more than one out of every two citizens to roughly one out of every five, all while the population of the developing world increased by 59 percent.

The next sentence is very important:

This reduction in extreme poverty represents the single greatest decrease in material human deprivation in history.

This is what free trade does for the world's poor. My colleagues in the Green Party left profess to care about the poor. They do not. The people who promote free and open trade and economic development are the ones who truly care about the poor and deliver real results for the poor.

Why does my colleague want to see the third world and most of the world kept in material poverty in perpetuity?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has just asked such an absurd question. I do not think the third world plays any role in the EU-Canada trade agreement, but perhaps he can correct me.

I did not say in my speech at any point that I opposed the trade provisions. I focused on the investor-state provisions which have nothing to do with trade. I really would wish that at one time in this place we could have a full debate on why Canada entered into chapter 11 in NAFTA and how it has hurt Canada, how we had regulatory chill where ministers have been afraid to bring forward regulations for fear that U.S. corporations will sue us. The effect on developing countries and the poor has been even worse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was clear in the member's comments, which were very helpful in this debate, is the unintended consequences with regard to trade deals. It is an extremely relevant point, one that is not just localized in my community, but across this country. When we joined NAFTA, one of the consequences became a challenge from Japan on our auto pact with the United States. An auto pact created tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. We were number two in the world with regard to auto assembly and production. Since that time we have dropped to 10th in the world. One of the reasons was because Japan, after we signed NAFTA, challenged this trade agreement that we had with the United States. We went to the WTO and we lost that trade dispute, so the auto pact was ripped up in Canada and that has caused consequences to this day.

The investor-state provisions are very important and I would ask my colleague to expand about that with regard to say, for example, our water. Water quality is a big issue for me with the Great Lakes and being a critic for that for our party. What can she talk about with regard to water quality and sovereignty?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of the investor-state cases under chapter 11, so far we have not had one directly related to water quality. If we as a Parliament could pass a law that removed particular contaminants, microbeads companies could decide they want to bring a charge against Canada under chapter 11, from acting to regulate microbeads. Or we could take steps to deal with other toxic contaminants that are affecting the Great Lakes.

One of the biggest water quality issues Canada is facing right now is a rise in eutrophication from runoff from mega hog farm waste such as what is now affecting Lake Winnipeg. If the regulations take effect and if one of those hog farms is owned by a Canadian company, it cannot sue. However, if one of those hog farms is owned by a foreign corporation that has a right to sue under investor-state agreement, it can. It can do so behind closed doors without Canadians having access to even go into the room to argue for water quality.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House to speak about this important step that may be taken by this Parliament and this government, regarding the whole issue of a trade agreement with our European partners.

I will begin with an exercise in semantics. Since the Liberal government was elected, we have seen many instances of a complete reversal of the Liberal Party’s positions on decisions made by the previous government, the Conservative government.

This exercise in semantics is quite simple. It is enough to take an agreement that was negotiated, drafted, and approved by the Conservatives and turn it into a progressive agreement. And how is that done? It is marvellous and magical. One need only say that it is the most progressive free trade agreement in the world, when it is in fact a cut-and-paste version of exactly what had been negotiated and approved by the Conservatives. The trick was to add the word “progressive” to the word “agreement”, and suddenly there is no longer a problem, and they are promoting what they were criticizing just the other day, namely the process, the content and the secrecy surrounding everything that went on during the negotiations.

Today, there is no longer a problem. The Minister of International Trade can pat herself on the back and call this the most progressive trade agreement around, although it is the same Conservative agreement that the Liberals were denouncing when they were in opposition. Apparently this is not the only thing that has changed since the Liberals moved from the opposition to government.

Let me be clear: we in the NDP agree that Canada is an exporting country. Our domestic market overall is not large enough to support demand for certain products, services, or innovations, and it is important for us to go and sell, all over the world, high-quality products that Canadian artisans, businesses, or producers are capable of creating. Furthermore, this must be done properly.

We also agree that Canadian exports have to be diversified. Canada is highly dependent on our neighbour to the south, the United States, which means that, to use a common expression, when the United States sneezes, Canada catches a cold. Canadian companies and exporters must be allowed easy access to different markets.

When we look at Europe, we see a natural partner with which Canada shares not only democratic values, but also values that are close to us in terms of labour legislation, environmental protection, and certain social and environmental regulations. These values lead us to want to do business with the 28 countries of the European Union. There is less chance of those countries engaging in social dumping or threatening our environmental regulations. The Europeans generally have good salaries, benefits, and pension plans that may be similar to what we have here, in Quebec and in Canada.

We say yes to a trade agreement with Europe. Europe is an ideal partner. But watch out, for there are problems. We do not want to sign a blank cheque. First of all, the Liberal government is asking us at this time to sign a cheque and trust it, more or less blindly, to do the right thing with it over the coming years. What is more, we and many of our European partners think that the dispute settlement mechanism included in the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union is a major obstacle.

Dispute settlement mechanisms allow a company to sue a state or level of government for adopting a rule or law that could eventually harm its future profits. This is not a theoretical scenario, but one that has already played out. Chapter 11 of NAFTA deals with such a mechanism. There have been dozens of legal actions under NAFTA against decisions made democratically here in Canada.

To Europe, we say yes. We will not give it a blank cheque, however. We do not want to give companies the power to sue our governments, because our governments make decisions and take actions designed to protect us. We are also worried about the price of prescription drugs, which is going to increase under this agreement, and we are worried that our cheese producers may be hard hit by this new competition. Once again, the Liberal government is breaking its promise to help out our dairy producers.

The agreement contains several extremely problematic elements, not to mention that the negotiation process began in 2009 and continued in recent years.

The Liberal government is trying to shove a trade agreement with Europe down our throats as quickly as possible. Why is it in such a rush? It has even disregarded its own rules, since the document was not tabled in the House 21 days previously, but rather the following day. In fact, the Liberals tabled the bill in the House before going off to stage a big show in Europe, where the Prime Minister signed the agreement. That is an unacceptable infringement of our parliamentary privileges.

What is more, they are trying to speed up the process as much as possible. There will be only five committee meetings to study an extremely complex, 1,600-page economic agreement. The government has decided to hear only eight witnesses, whereas for the trans-Pacific partnership, dozens of meetings were held to study the bill, and dozens of witnesses were heard. This time there will only be eight witnesses, and they are the only ones who will be able to present a written submission to the committee. This is unheard of.

Then they claim they will be conducting an intelligent, reasonable and reasoned exercise to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the free trade agreement with Europe. It simply does not add up.

Why are we in such a rush when, on the other side of the Atlantic, it will take two to five years for the agreement to be ratified by the parliaments of all 28 member states of the European Union? I do not understand why the Liberal government is in such a hurry. In my opinion, it is trying to pull a fast one on us as it keeps breaking its promises.

Let us return to the question of the cost of prescription drugs, which is extremely worrying for hospital patients and for all of the provinces, which manage our health care systems. It is currently estimated that the cost of prescription drugs will rise from $850 million to $2.8 billion per year. The European free trade agreement will delay the entry of generics into the market; generics work to control or lower the cost of drugs, which makes up a large share of the country’s health care expenditures, both for governments and for individuals.

A $2.8-billion increase in the yearly cost of prescription drugs is like every Canadian getting billed $80. Because of this free trade agreement, there is a real risk that each and every one of us will have to pay $80 more per year to get our medications. I would add that that is only an average. Remember that this will not be more expensive for those who do not take prescription medications. Those who are ill, however, have cause to worry about the strong likelihood of a major increase in the cost of drugs.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they talked about a plan to compensate the provinces for the rise in the cost of prescription drugs brought on by the European free trade agreement. Where is that promise of restitution or compensation for this extra weight on our health care systems? It is nowhere to be seen.

Disputes are happening. Lone Pine Resources is currently suing Canada because Quebec refused to let it continue its oil and gas exploration activities in the St. Lawrence River. Although we as a society have taken steps to protect our ecosystems and limit pollution, an American company is suing Canada for $250 million.

With the European free trade agreement, the Liberals are saying that it is all right to give companies the power to prosecute our governments. This is a totally undemocratic vision of trade, for we have legislative assemblies where elected officials make decisions to protect the population.

For the NDP, giving such shameless privileges to private companies which could sue our governments constitutes a major barrier to acceptance of any trade agreement. That is why we are standing up and objecting to the ratification of this free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, provinces in Canada have been part of this process, provinces of different political stripes, including New Democratic parties and premiers. Is CETA a perfect agreement? I would suggest this is the best we can get at this point in time and that millions of Canadians directly, and all Canadians indirectly, will benefit from the agreement.

I am bit surprised by the NDP attitude toward the EU and the trade agreement. Given that we have 28 countries, the provinces in Canada, and many different stakeholders saying this is something we should be moving on, why does the NDP want to resist it? All the other stakeholders are saying this is good for Canada. Even some New Democratic governments are saying that. Are they all wrong?