Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-30 at third reading today. As we know, Bill C-30 is implementing legislation for the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This debate is the last one we will have before the legislation is passed by this House and moves on to the Senate.
The Canada-EU relationship is extremely important, and perhaps it has grown in importance since Canada's relationship with the U.S. faces new challenges.
The New Democratic Party believes Canada should absolutely be deepening trade relations with the European Union. After all, our countries share deep social and cultural ties, and the EU is already our second-largest trading partner. This trading relationship is extremely important. In fact, as I have said before, it is too important to get wrong.
I would like to begin my speech by highlighting some of the testimony received by the Standing Committee on International Trade. After, I would like to revisit some of the New Democratic Party's outstanding concerns with CETA, and the challenges with this agreement, moving forward.
While the trade committee had only four meetings to hear from outside witnesses on CETA, we heard some very good presentations. I wish we could have had more meetings and more witnesses, as I felt they made very valuable contributions.
One of the challenges that is often overlooked in trade discussions is how the government will actually help micro, small, and medium-sized businesses access potential new markets. Only about 10% of Canadian SMEs do business outside of our borders.
It is the job of the Minister of International Trade to develop, and implement a new strategy to support Canadian businesses exporting to international markets. This theme was often raised at the trade committee, as witnesses discussed how the government could support Canadian exporting businesses.
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association testified that it was very supportive of CETA. However, it also highlighted critical issues around the conversion of potential markets into real trade. Canadian meat producers are essentially shut out of the European market, so they welcome the access that CETA may grant them. However, I will point out that for Canadian beef exports, the increased quota would be phased in over six years. On the other hand, EU exporters would have tariff-free, quota-free access to Canada on day one.
The Cattlemen's Association pointed out significant differences between Canada and EU food safety regulations. Its support for Bill C-30 and CETA implementation is contingent on three conditions: first, it wants a commitment from the government to develop and fully fund a comprehensive strategy to eliminate non-tariff barriers to Canadian beef; second, it expects EU beef imports would comply with Canadian food safety requirements; and third, it wants to see government investment in beef processing and beef producer operations to help them comply with the complexities of the EU market.
As we can see, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that Canadian exporters can access potential new EU markets.
The committee also heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which affirmed that trade agreements are just a starting point. Canada needs a vigorous trade strategy to help smaller businesses take advantage of new opportunities.
I would like to point out some comments provided to the committee by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses which, as we know, represents over 100,000 Canadian SMEs. Ms. Corinne Pohlmann of CFIB said:
Almost two-thirds of our members in a very recent survey are supportive of international trade agreements. However, nearly one in five small business owners felt they didn't have enough information to answer this question, suggesting that perhaps more needs to be done to inform them about the opportunities trade agreements can bring to their business.
She also pointed out that supply-managed producers have strong concerns and should be compensated for losses they would incur on CETA. According to the CFIB, smaller businesses want more consistency, fewer regulations, standards that are simple to comply with, simpler border processes, less paperwork, and lower costs. These are all principles that the NDP agrees with resoundingly.
This is exactly the kind of trade that we support. It is a shame that CETA includes so much else that we simply cannot support, like extraordinary legal rights for foreign companies to challenge our domestic environmental laws, and IP rules that favour name brand pharmaceutical companies that would drive up the cost of medication for Canadians.
These are the elements of comprehensive agreements like CETA and TPP that we simply cannot support. These elements are not in the best interests of Canadians. Canadians need elected representatives who are willing to stand up and challenge these harmful ideas.
CETA will also hurt Canada's dairy sector, and the so-called investment package offered to dairy farmers falls far short of compensating them for their losses. I would like to read a quote from Yves Leduc of the Dairy Farmers of Canada who appeared before the trade committee:
In regard to the government's announcement of a transition assistance package for CETA on November 10, DFC was pleased to see that the government decided to invest $250 million in dairy farms as well as $100 million in funding to help spur investment into updating Canada's dairy processing infrastructure...However, it only partially addresses the damage that will be caused by CETA. For dairy farmers, CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production, representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the production of the province of Nova Scotia alone. It will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million in perpetual lost revenues.
Let us take a look at the math here. Canadian dairy farmers will perpetually lose $115 million-a-year, while the Liberals' so-called transition plan will provide $50 million-a-year for only five years. This simply will not compensate dairy farmers for the losses they will incur under CETA, and some farmers will never see a penny of this money.
The government says that it supports supply management, but when it comes time to act, it turns its back on our dairy farmers. There is no action on diafiltered milk, and now the government has sent Brian Mulroney over to the U.S. on Canada's behalf, who just last week openly called for the elimination of supply management.
This is the person the Liberals have sent to the U.S. to supposedly defend Canadian trade interests. I hope the Minister of Agriculture is urging the Prime Minister to send Mr. Mulroney back to Canada, because Mr. Mulroney cannot claim to be fighting for Canada while opining that supply management has got to go.
Supply management is the backbone of our dairy industry, and it provides Canadian farmers with reliable incomes. It keeps prices stable, requires no government assistance, and supplies Canada with healthy, local milk. However, supply management has been eroded under TPP and CETA. It is time the government makes good on its word, and starts standing up for Canadian dairy farmers.
On CETA, the Liberals have completely ignored the issue of compensating Newfoundland and Labrador, which is expected to give up its minimum processing requirements under CETA. These rules are very important to Newfoundland and Labrador. They require that fish caught in the province must also be processed there. This keeps jobs in the local rural economy.
In 2013, a $400-million fisheries fund was set up, with Ottawa contributing $280 million and Newfoundland and Labrador contributing $120 million. Where is the money now? Why has the Liberal government backed away from this pledge? For Heaven's sake, why is every Liberal MP from Newfoundland and Labrador not rising to their feet and raising these concerns?
I would like to read a quote:
The abolition of minimum processing requirements is clearly of great concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and your government’s support of the CETA was earned, in part, by a promise from the Government of Canada to help the industry adjust to the new reality. That promise should be honoured.
Do members know who said that? It was the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, in a letter to the former Prime Minister.
I agree, Mr. Prime Minister, the promise should be honoured, but will the government commit today to the promised compensation, or is this just another Liberal broken promise?
There is another Canadian industry that stands to be severely impacted by CETA, and that is our maritime industry, which supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. Under CETA, foreign-owned vessels will be permitted to transport goods between Canadian ports. Opening up cabotage to foreign vessels is a first in Canada, and seafarers are rightly concerned that this will lead to Canadian job losses. These European vessels will be allowed to hire non-Canadian workers.
I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues the issue of flags of convenience, which is a practice whereby a merchant ship is registered in a country other than that of the ship's owners. Owners do this because it gives them many advantages: minimal regulation, cheap registration fees, lower or no taxes, and freedom to employ cheap labour from around the world. For workers, this means low wages, as low as $2 an hour, as well as poor onboard conditions, inadequate food, clean drinking water, and very poor working conditions.
I hope my hon. colleagues can appreciate the ramifications this may have on Canada's maritime industry. The Canadian Maritime and Supply Chain Coalition, which includes the Seafarers' International Union of Canada and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, among others, is very concerned about CETA. It estimates it could result in the immediate loss of 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs from the east coast, to the Great Lakes, to the west coast.
I would like to highlight CETA's impact on one additional Canadian industry. It is an industry that is very important in my riding of Essex. I know it is important in many of my colleagues' ridings as well, including those with ridings in the Niagara region and British Columbia. Of course, I am speaking about Canada's wine sector.
Currently, the EU exports 180 million litres of wine to Canada, but Canada only exports 123,000 litres to the EU. Under CETA, this trade imbalance will be exacerbated.
The Canadian Vintners Association is asking for federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and prepare for the implementation of CETA. I am hopeful the government has considered the implications of CETA on our wine industry, and that it will offer support to help them adapt.
With any trade agreement, there are trade-offs and concessions to be made. Canada made some significant concessions on the assumption that the U.K. would be part of the agreement. We now know it likely will not.
If CETA moves forward, some sectors will also have to make significant adjustments. I urge the government to be a strong partner to affected Canadian industries, and assist them as needed with transition support and compensation where required.
I have been very disappointed in the Liberals' apparent unwillingness to listen to Canadian concerns with CETA. As I mentioned, we have had a very limited committee study of this legislation, and even sectors that support the agreement had specific conditions and concerns regarding implementation.
This agreement has no doubt had a rocky path, and it is still very unclear whether the EU will ever fully implement it. If the EU parliament ratifies CETA, it still has to be ratified by each individual member state and in some cases, regional parliaments must ratify too.
Last month, the EU trade committee voted 25-15 to endorse the deal. However, this past December, the EU committee for employment and social affairs voted 27-24 to reject the deal. It is clear that there is still a lot of opposition, both in Canada and in the EU, to CETA. The Liberals have been trying to say all progressives in the EU support the agreement, but that is simply not the case.
In addition to political opposition, there is widespread public opposition. Last year, there were several protests with over 100,000 people in attendance at each. A German constitutional challenge against CETA garnered 125,000 signatures, and a recently launched referendum campaign in the Netherlands has already collected over 200,000 signatures.
I do not believe this opposition can be pegged on a rising tide of protectionism. There are very concrete reasons why people are opposed to CETA. Angella MacEwen, senior economist with the Canadian Labour Congress, said to the trade committee:
The gains of these trade deals are never as big as they are projected to be, and the gains for CETA are small. They are among the error bars for what our economic growth is projected to be anyway.
Of the few studies that have been done on CETA, most are based on unrealistic assumptions, such as full employment, lack of capital mobility, and equal sharing of projected income gains. Even with these assumptions, GDP gains from CETA are not projected to be beyond 0.76%. I would also like to point out that after trade agreements are implemented, there is really no way of measuring whether they create any new jobs, or how their benefits are distributed.
Studies based on a different set of assumptions have shown CETA will increase inequality, and could lead to 204,000 job losses in the EU and 23,000 job losses in Canada.
At the end of the day, I do not see a commitment from the government to mitigating these negative impacts. In fact, Liberals refuse to even speak about them whether here in the House or at the committee level. I urge the government to listen to these very real concerns around CETA.
The Liberals have spent over a year consulting on the TPP and still cannot make up their minds, but on CETA, the other Conservative-negotiated trade deal, they essentially did no consultations. They slapped a gold star on it, called it progressive, and are pushing it through Parliament. I see no difference between the trade policies of the previous Conservative government and those of the current Liberal government. With the change in the U.S. administration, Canadians are looking to this government to stand up and fight for Canadian interests. It is time the Liberals showed us what a progressive trade agenda actually looks like.
Today, The Globe and Mail reported that a new poll shows Canadians expect our Prime Minister to “stand up to the President’s aggressive America-first strategy even if it leads to a trade war with Canada’s biggest trading partner”. For New Democrats, standing up to the President means standing up for Canadian jobs. Canada must stand firm on protecting its dairy industry, softwood lumber industry, and other trade-dependent industries. If the United States wants to reopen NAFTA, there is also an opportunity for us to push for more stringent labour and environmental standards and to get rid of regressive provisions like investor-state arbitration rules similar to those we see in CETA and the TPP.
I would like to conclude my remarks today by adding a word of caution. There has been a lot of criticism of the previous Conservative government for negotiating trade deals in secret. They did that with the TPP and they did that with CETA. There is a better balance to be struck between protecting confidential negotiating details and informing Canadians of what is on the table.
The Liberals promised Canadians more openness and transparency, but when it comes to trade, I see them slipping into the Conservatives' patterns. There has been no peep from them on the trade in services agreement, nor have they given Canadians any clarity about what will be on the table in the NAFTA renegotiations.
I urge the government to be up front with Canadians. They want greater transparency and meaningful, honest discussion with Canadians on the potential impacts of any trade deal.
