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

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the member's comments in regard to CETA, or any other trade agreement. The only trade agreement that the New Democrats ever did support was one with Korea. I think they thought it was North Korea, and that is why they were in favour of it. There should be no surprise on this side or the other side of the House that the NDP would be against this.

The reality is that I cannot understand the New Democrats' logic. They talk about all these things that they want to do. They want to build the economy and the middle class so they have jobs and growth. They talk about all this stuff. I guess they know that they will never be seriously considered for government. When they were the opposition party and the South Korea trade deal went through, they thought they had a chance to maybe one day be in government. Then all of a sudden they showed up on the trade file. Now they know they will never have a chance to be in government, so they have retreated to where they have normally been, and that is basically anti-trade, anti-development, anti-growth. Anything that is positive, they are anti.

I ask this to the member. Why should we take her seriously now on the trade deal of CETA? Why should we listen to what she has to say when the New Democrats have not been constructive in anything in regard to trade in the past?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why I should take the hon. member's question seriously if all he can come up with are cheap and repeated jokes about what the NDP actually stands for.

If people were informed, they would look at our platforms. They would look at the Vanguard economists who are the ones who have developed the arguments that we have taken into our platform. We are the ones who have decided that we are going to speak up on behalf of good and effective fair trade. It is quite alarming that those economists—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in this place to speak to the concerns I have about Bill C-30, legislation to enact the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

There are a number of fallacies that have come up in the debate today, and I will try to address those. They relate, by the way, to the investor-state provisions, which I believe to be the key and most unacceptable part of the trade agreement. However, I want to make sure I do not skip over the other concerns that have been raised by many in Canada and in the European Union.

One is that this trade agreement will absolutely make pharmaceutical drugs cost more in Canada. There is no question about this. By giving greater patent protection, it will postpone the moment when drugs go to generic form, when they become much more affordable. The estimates are that it will increase the cost of pharmaceutical drugs anywhere between $800 million and $1.6 billion.

Let me give the reasons why. This is what the comprehensive economic and trade agreement commits to and that Bill C-30 would implement. It would commit Canada to creating a new system of patent term restoration that would delay the entry of generic medicines by up to two years. It would lock in Canada's current terms of data protection, making it difficult or impossible for future governments to reverse them, and it would implement a new right of appeal under the patent linkage system that would create further delays for the entry of generics.

If this trade agreement is in the interest of big pharma, the pharmaceutical industry, which I would have to mention is an economic sector that does not need a handout, can we accept that the prescription drug business, the pharmaceutical industry globally, does very well for itself and does not necessarily do well for those who need life-saving drugs?

This relates to the debates we have had in this place about the need for pharmacare and a national pharmacare program. It is even in the mandate letter to our Minister of Health to pursue bulk purchasing of prescription drugs to try to bring down the price to the level we could get if we had a national pharmacare plan, when all prescription medication could be purchased centrally to try to drive down the cost.

The reality is that the single largest growing cost within our health care system is the cost of prescription drugs. I want to reference the hard work of my hon. colleague from Oakville, Terrence Young, who lost his seat in the last election. His daughter died from taking a drug, as prescribed by her physician. Her name was Vanessa, and in the last Parliament, we passed Vanessa's Law.

It is very clear that the drug industry charges more than what it costs to produce a drug, because it can. This is the last sector on Earth we should be wanting to give yet more advantages to make the price of drugs go higher.

At the same time, litigation relating to pharmaceuticals, the notice of compliance proceedings dealing with full patent infringement, has been termed by Canadian Lawyer magazine as streamlining litigation, again, to the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry. It has a very effective lobby. Hats off to the pharmaceutical industry in Europe and in Canada for getting its own way under this agreement, but that does not mean it is in the interests of Canadians.

I am also very concerned, as is the Green Party, about the protection of procurement. This has to do with the rights of municipalities and other government sectors to say that they want the right to choose where they procure their products. They want to say that it is okay to preference their local suppliers. That will not be possible under CETA.

We also know that the way this agreement is structured around intellectual property leaves a lot to be desired and does not adequately protect Canadian companies in the large, more predatory global marketplace.

Getting to the misconceptions, one was, I thought, rather unexpected in this debate. Just to put it to rest, I heard a number of Conservative MPs use this debate on the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union to rail against having a carbon price. This was a very unusual place to make that argument, since the European Union has carbon prices. Why, in a debate on CETA, would we hear distorted arguments about the economic impact of putting a carbon price in place? It is rather the contrary. If Canada does not put a carbon price in place, we might find ourselves at the other end of discriminatory tariffs brought forward by the European Union, because they have done so, and they want trading partners to do so as well.

Other fallacies have to do with the way in which we characterize investor-state dispute resolution. It is very important that we distinguish and differentiate between terms of trade agreements to resolve disputes over trade. We have those in NAFTA. We have those in CETA. We have those at the WTO. When there is a dispute over a tariff or an alleged subsidy, there is a dispute process that resolves trade disputes. The investor-state provisions are not those. Investor-state provisions have nothing to do with resolving trade disputes. That may seem counterintuitive, but let me back up. Trade dispute mechanisms within treaties are state-to-state. If Canada has a problem with Belgium, or Poland has a problem with Canada, the investor-state dispute resolution is entirely different.

If we go ahead with CETA, it would give a Polish company the right to sue Canada if any government, state, provincial, municipal, first nations, or a court decision, made a decision that interfered with that corporation's expectation of profits. Therefore, it is not state to state, as it would be in a trade dispute. It is corporation to government.

Let us use a real life example from my home province. The people of Kamloops, B.C. are busy fighting a proposal for a large open-pit mine within the town limits. It is called the Ajax mine. It is being proposed by a Polish state-owned enterprise. Kamloops is a mining community with other mines. It is not as if it is against mines, but the majority of people in Kamloops do not want an open-pit mine in the town limits. If CETA is not in place and the Government of British Columbia decides it will not go ahead with an open-pit mine, that is the end of the story. B.C. can make a decision and Kamloops can make a decision. However, with CETA in place, it would not be the end of the story. The Polish mining company, Ajax mine, could do what Bilcon from New Jersey did under chapter 11 of NAFTA. When its open-pit mine on Digby Neck, Nova Scotia was turned down by the Conservative government of Nova Scotia and the Conservative government federally, under the previous environment minister, John Baird, Bilcon went for a secret tribunal under chapter 11 of NAFTA and sued us for $300 million. Did it allege we were wrong on the science? No. Did it say this was a secret protectionist move to protect trade in Canada? No. It just said it did not think the environmental assessment process was fair to it.

Ajax, the Polish mining company, would have the right to bring secret arbitration cases. The one thing that is different under CETA is the process would not be a secret. There would be an investment court. However, there would be no room at the table to have litigants representing the public interest. No environmental group would be allowed before the so-called investment court to argue this was a reasonable decision that our government made.

Therefore, the presence of these agreements really needs to be much better understood, investor-state agreements, the chapter 11s or sometimes called FIPA, the foreign investor protection agreement, such as the one Prime Minister Harper secretly passed in cabinet, which binds Canada to the year 2045, so the People's Republic of China has the right to sue Canada and we cannot get out of it until 2045.

These agreements need to be better understood as fundamentally corrosive to democracy. They do not belong in trade treaties. They have nothing to do with advancing trade. They are all about reducing the power of sovereign government and increasing the power of transnational corporations. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a company overseas being able to make a statement of claim against an entity in Canada. Could she comment on the reciprocal to that, a company in Canada and the rights it would have as a result of this agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an open question. In essence, there would be reciprocity but for one thing. This provision is still so controversial within the European Union, it is going to the European Court of Justice. We do not know if it will be ruled to be ultra vires of the European Union to put such a provision in its treaty. However, we know from the state of Wallonia within Belgium that the EU has now accepted the notion that individual countries within the European Union can opt out. Therefore, will it be reciprocal? I think the answer to that has to be, it depends.

If a Canadian corporation loses money in the state of Wallonia, I do not think they are going to be able to rely on something such that a Polish company brings an action against Canada. By the way, although the actions may have been provincial, municipal, or federal, the litigation is always against the federal government. Our federal government has paid out millions of dollars under previous investor-state resolution decisions for things where we did not do a single thing wrong, or that were protectionist or against the science. We just cost a foreign corporation money.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member spoke about the impact on the pharmaceutical industry, the cost of drugs, or the investor-state provision. This is on the negative side. I would appreciate if she could highlight some of the positive items of CETA. In fairness to the discussion here, it would be nice if we could hear about the positive side of CETA from the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, it should be clear by now that I think the negatives outweigh the positives, but opening up trade with the European Union is an important balance. This is one of the things that gets overlooked in these debates as well. We certainly already have the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and after the Uruguay round, the creation of the World Trade Organization means that the protectionist measures that people railed against in the call for free trade are already gone. In that sense, we already have free trade with the individual states within the European Union, because protectionist measures that are unjustified are already prohibited under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

However, opening up more connection to the European Union is certainly wise. We know that with regard to our traditional best trading partner south of the border, that its executive is at the moment in the hands of an unpredictable, reckless, and potentially damaging partner. We hope we can steer through that. We hope we can navigate that. However, trade with the European Union is going to be important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for bringing up some very valid concerns around CETA. One thing she did not touch on very much was that this will be the first time that foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews will be allowed to transport goods between Canadian ports, and it will open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers.

In my riding and in my community, we have a company called G & N Towing, which is named after the founders, Gale and Neil Botting. Their son, Gord, now runs that business, and his sons crew that boat. It is a family business where they have local knowledge. They employ people from Esowista, Opitsaht, Tofino, local communities. These jobs are critical to the lifeline of our coastal communities. Local knowledge not only saves lives, but it protects the environment. It is very important that we protect local jobs.

Does the member share our concern around the lack of analysis and the economic impact of taking away these jobs from coastal British Columbians and coastal people, coast to coast to coast?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Courtenay—Alberni, because I meant to mention the Coasting Trade Act. It is not one of the features that people hear about a lot under CETA. Starting on page 75, we find out that foreign ships, for the first time, will be exempt if they are within the European Union. They will be exempt from getting a licence, and it also affects dredging and other activities that take place in our coastal regions.

As a former Atlantic Canadian, I am very curious about the position of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. We have French islands off the coast of Newfoundland. I can see that it would very easily be the case that foreign shippers registering in Saint Pierre would say, okay now we are European and we do not have to be screened.

As far as I can see, there is no analysis from any entity within the Government of Canada on the impacts on coastal jobs in Atlantic and Pacific Canada from changes to the Coasting Trade Act. By the way, I meant to mention before the House committee on trade that the civil servants testifying on patent protection said that they had not had time to study that economic impact.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act that would implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures.

I would like to begin by thanking my hon. colleagues, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and the member for Abbotsford, for their past and current work on this important file.

Bill C-30 is a continuation of our previous government's ambitious trade agenda and I am pleased to see that the current Liberal government is continuing to push for CETA.

Bill C-30 would implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, between Canada and the European Union and its member states. The Canada-EU trade agreement is our country's biggest bilateral trade initiative since NAFTA. Including the 28 member states, the EU represents the world's largest single market for an investor and trader with over 500 million people and annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion.

When CETA comes into force Canada will be one of the few countries in the world to have guaranteed preferential access to the world's two largest economies, the United States and the European Union. This is a historic deal which would benefit Canadians from coast to coast. It would ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses are in a strong position as we move forward to an increasingly globalized world.

Most members would agree that Canada is a trading nation. Without trade, thousands, if not millions, of Canadians would lose their jobs. It is therefore crucial that we continue to expand access for Canadians and Canadian businesses to international markets, like this agreement would do. Canada needs to maximize the benefits. We are a free trading nation and we need to establish trading relationships beyond North America. That is exactly what CETA would accomplish.

As CETA approaches final implementation, we will continue to hold the government to account and ensure that Canadians reap the rewards of free trade not only with the EU, but also through other significant trade deals.

The Liberal government must also honour commitments made to vital sectors of our economy, specifically to the supply-managed dairy industry as well as commitments made to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the CETA fisheries investment fund.

Now let us talk about the benefits of this deal.

The EU is the world's largest economy. It is also the world's largest importing market for goods. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's GDP.

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

When CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines of non-agricultural products will be duty-free along with close to 94% of all EU tariff lines of agricultural products.

This agreement would also give Canadian service suppliers, which employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of Canada's total GDP, the best market access the EU has ever granted to any of its free trade agreement partners. It would establish greater transparency in the EU services market, resulting in better, more secure, and more predictable market access.

The agreement would also provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, stability, transparency, and protection for their investments. Our preferential access to the EU would attract investments into Canada from the U.S., and EU investors would look to Canada as the gateway to NAFTA.

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

Our previous government worked tirelessly to sign trade deals right across the globe, agreements with Korea, Ukraine, Honduras, Panama, Jordan, Colombia, Peru, and the TPP nations, just to name a few. I am pleased to see a continuation of the previous government's work on this file, and I hope that the Liberal government will continue to advance Canadian trade interests abroad.

During this discussion on international trade agreements, it is crucial that we take into consideration the recent comments by the new President of the United States on the renegotiation of NAFTA.

Trade with the United States is our most important relationship. Nine million American jobs depend on trade with Canada, and we have added 4.7 million new jobs to our economy since NAFTA came into force. With $2 billion in trade crossing our border every day, Canadians are worried about their jobs, and rightfully so. We need to ensure that the Prime Minister has a plan to protect high-paying jobs that are created in Canada as a result of NAFTA, including 550,000 auto sector jobs and 400,000 forestry jobs. There are also well over 210,000 aerospace jobs. We need a deal that is in the best interests of Canada.

I am now going to talk specifically about some of the benefits and opportunities for my home province and my constituents. The EU is Ontario's second-largest export destination and its second-largest trading partner. Once CETA is in force, it would eliminate tariffs on almost all of Ontario's exports, including 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods becoming duty free for major Ontario exports, including metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, chemicals, and plastics. It would also provide our exporters with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU.

Being an Ontario member, we also want to thank the provincial Liberals because Ontario needs all the advantages it can get based on the current situation.

This agreement would give us access to a vast market for Canadian goods, as I have said before. It would benefit many sectors across our economy, including my riding, specifically in agriculture. In the agricultural and agri-food sectors, which I touched on before, CETA would make almost 94% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods duty free. It would rise to 95% once all the phase-outs are complete.

This would include preferential, duty-free access for a specified amount of Canadian beef, pork, and bison. This is one of the largest industries in my riding. It provides employment and economic opportunities to many of the small communities in my area. Ensuring an advantageous position for our farmers and other sectors will help to ensure the long-term economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

As I mentioned, many people in my riding and across this country are concerned about their future, and rightfully so, with the cost of doing business in Ontario being sky high, and now with the increased taxes due to the provincial and federal Liberals. Many Canadians are struggling to get by. I am hopeful that this deal is signed and that the Liberal government's intention is to continue to build on the previous government's strong record of international trade. We are a trading nation, and we need to continue to increase market access for Canadian businesses and products.

I would like to thank all the men and women who have worked for years to get this agreement negotiated, drafted, and now before us here in the House of Commons. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the former minister of international trade commented, in Canada, in the department, we have some of the most able-minded individuals in the world to talk and negotiate on our behalf in regard to getting trade agreements. There is a great deal of confidence in this agreement that Canada will benefit immensely.

It also means, as was pointed out earlier today, that there is a role for the national government and other agencies. I made reference to Yes! Winnipeg as an economic development group, promoting my own city. Whether it is the national government, provinces, or chambers of commerce, we all have a role to play in terms of the promotion of our small and medium-sized businesses, whether it is widgets or services, and in getting the message out about the export opportunities.

We need to take a holistic approach to make sure that our communities, small and large, rural and urban, are in fact aggressive on that international selling scheme and so forth.

I wonder if my colleague across the way would comment on just how important it is that we recognize there are many organizations, private, non-profit, and government, that have a role to play in making sure we maximize the benefits of this agreement.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the parliamentary secretary wholeheartedly. Policies that restrict competition are to the detriment of Canadian firms and their workers. Free trade agreements like CETA, as I have said before, are opening new markets for Canadian products and companies. They also force them to compete against firms, countries, and whatnot across the world, and that makes for good competition.

We all know, when we talk about agricultural products, that Canada has the best quality in the world, and we know there is demand for this product, especially in my riding that has a lot of beef. Manufacturers are looking for new markets and they are seeing the demand. As the middle class grows in other countries, especially in the Asian countries, they want Canadian beef and Canadian products. I focus on beef because there is a lot of beef in my riding, but we could name anything we have and it is the envy of the world.

Therefore, by opening up new markets, continuing to look for new opportunities is a win-win for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear so much about trade. I keep hearing the words “free trade” or “free traders”. It is an ideology that everything is for free, and it makes me nervous. I feel like I am in a used car lot, where someone is trying to sell me a $40,000 car and it is almost free. The person says I will be given $2,000 if I buy the car. That is how people feel in my community.

Port Alberni had the highest median income in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Right now, it has the highest unemployment rate on Vancouver Island. What comes with that? It comes with high poverty, high suicide rates, and high teenage pregnancy. We did something wrong when we made the trade deals in the past, because coastal communities are being left out.

I want to ask the member this. What are we going to do differently in this trade deal, instead of just giving away our jobs and resources for free? How are we going to build up communities in the right way? That is what the NDP wants. We are for trade. We are for fair trade and we are for fairly protecting our communities and resources.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member from the NDP. We are not giving away anything. In fact, we are growing our market. We are going to have access to 500 million potential new customers who will want our products and services.

I should point out that the member across the way is treating exports as good and imports as bad for the economy. He is ignoring the importance that this has on raising the living standard of our country. Much more than the exports, import competition lowers prices and allows us to be more competitive. Therefore, I disagree with his comments of trade being doom and gloom. There are a number of benefits, especially one of the largest markets in the world and 500 potential new customers.

I invite the hon. member to look at that and some of the benefits.