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

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It is a bit of a fly in the ointment too, not knowing that. The member opposite and I were on the trade committee as we travelled throughout Atlantic Canada, and the underlying theme is that they are not against trade but they want to make sure of that compensation package. We were not there on CETA, we were there on TPP. Still, there was discussion on that compensation package. There seemed to be a bit of buyers' remorse that they had sent 32 Liberals alone, with nobody out there, and all the provincial governments have fallen in line too. Because if they step outside, then all of a sudden there is no infrastructure money, there is no flood mitigation money. There is a bit of political hanky-panky, blackmail if they want to go that far, going on out there. Certainly they need to see what that compensation package is and how it would actually underscore the processing that is required and will be needed moving forward. The European Union is a large fish-buying market, so they would actually look at increases in their ability to supply that market, not decreases.

The other one that is still out there for discussion is the cheese distribution, and I am sure the member's colleague will get up on this question. It is one thing to talk about compensation for dairy farmers, but the real money is in the distribution of that cheese coming in. We had stipulated as part of the agreement that of that 17,000 tons, 30% of it had to be allocated to new entrants. That means the small cheeseries throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec could actually take on the distribution of a cheese similar to their own so they could compare when they sold it out through the distribution network.

There is still some fine-tuning to be done; not enough for us to say “whoa” to the deal, but just enough to point out that these little hiccups still have to be addressed.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in the House today.

My colleague briefly mentioned the negative impact of this agreement on the dairy industry and fine cheese processors.

When the Conservative government was in power, it announced a $4.3-billion transition support plan. After a year in office, the Liberal government recently announced a $350-million plan. That is peanuts, really.

The dairy industry and the producers I represent are very worried because they do not see the Liberal government doing enough to protect our supply management system.

I would like my colleague to comment on the importance of having a transition support plan and protecting our borders. The Liberals have been in power for a year, and we are still having problems on diafiltered milk.

Can my colleague comment on these two issues?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It is stability and predictability, both in trade and at the actual farm gate, that allow people to make investments and carry on. Dairy farmers are going to have to know exactly what the package is going to be. It is one thing to offer the $250 million to the dairy farmers and $100 million to processors. That is fine and it is all well and good. But at the end of the day how is the cheese going to be distributed? Is it going to come into the country in a rush that would be problematic for the market? Are certain valuable cheeses going to all come in at Christmastime? At the same time, we see our own dairy farmers not being able to fill the market. We have seen supplementary quotas all year long on butter. The first one was 4,000 tons and butter is a valuable commodity. A quarter of the CETA is coming in because our dairy guys cannot produce to keep up.

There is work to be done on both ends, with our own dairy farmers and processors deciding between them what they need to do to maintain the Canadian market but at the same time making allocations for these cheeses that would be coming in here. At the end of the day, the growth rate in Canadian content or Canadian consumption of cheese will more than offset that amount coming in from Europe as it works its way through the system and gets here over a staged period. We looked at all of that before we decided to allow that amount of tonnage to come in.

Of course, when we were negotiating, the Europeans started out wanting 60,000 tons, if I remember the numbers correctly. It was just an astronomical number. They always talk about milk lakes and butter mountains in Europe because of what their subsidies did. We have never hit that level. They just basically wanted to transfer their largesse and their problems to Canada. We said, “None of that.” We were able to negotiate a deal that gave us the beef and pork access as well as letting in that small amount of cheese that would be distributed across Canada.

As I say, there are some hiccups and other lines that the Liberals need to continue working on to make sure this deal transitions in smoothly and does not affect our industries negatively.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as we debate Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation act.

This agreement, which we refer to as CETA, is indeed comprehensive. It includes 33 chapters, ranging from traditional trade topics, such as trade remedies, tariffs, and trade facilitation, to less traditional areas, such as investor court provisions, intellectual property, financial services, and government procurement.

I will begin my remarks by discussing the deal and how Canada got to this point. Next, I will discuss some of the outstanding concerns with the agreement and how the Liberal government has neglected to listen to these concerns. Finally, I will conclude by talking about how the New Democratic Party thinks that the government should proceed.

CETA faces a long road ahead before its full ratification, with likely opportunities for improvement. Trade with Europe is deeply important to Canada's economic prosperity. By addressing outstanding concerns with this comprehensive agreement, Canada can forge deeper trading relations with our friends in the European Union, while ensuring Canada's interests and sovereignty are protected.

Canada and the European Union first entered into negotiations back in 2009 under Stephen Harper's Conservative government. In 2010, Canada signalled that the negotiations could soon be finished but concerns persisted. In 2013, Canada and the EU announced a deal in principle, and the then prime minister, Stephen Harper, flew to Brussels for a signing ceremony. In 2014, another signing ceremony took place, this time in Ottawa.

However, behind the pomp and circumstance, concerns over CETA's controversial investor-court dispute settlement mechanism, or ISDS, continued to simmer both in Europe and in Canada. Investor-state provisions empower companies to sue governments for regulating in the public interest. Under NAFTA, chapter 11, Canada is the most sued country.

Critics point out that both Canada and the EU have sophisticated legal systems that are fully equipped to handle complaints from companies. Thus, it is not necessary to grant special privileges to foreign companies beyond those that exist for domestic companies. Despite continued opposition to ISDS, Canada insisted on the inclusion of ISDS in CETA.

As CETA's legal scrubbing phase continued into 2016, the newly elected Liberal government announced that the controversial investor-state dispute settlement mechanism would be revamped as an investor court system, or ICS. However, critics of ISDS, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Council of Canadians, and Canadian labour unions clearly stated that replacing the ISDS arbitration system with a new court system failed to address their concerns.

In October, we saw more changes around CETA, but not to the actual text itself. Canada and the EU signed a joint interpretative declaration, now called a joint interpretative instrument, which was intended to allay concerns that investor-court provisions empowered foreign companies to sue government for regulating in the public interest. However, the declaration is outside of the CETA agreement and therefore does not carry full legal weight.

Canada's Trade Justice Network issued a strong rebuttal stating, “in a display of arrogant condescension, the Declaration simply reiterates and clarifies what is already in the agreement, as if the various legitimate concerns that it purports to respond to have neither merit nor substance.”

Later in October, the Belgian regional government of Wallonia blocked Belgium and therefore the EU Parliament from signing onto CETA. Eventually, Wallonia agreed to sign the treaty if it could maintain its right to refuse to give its consent to Belgium to ratify CETA unless controversial investor-state provisions were significantly changed or removed from the agreement, exactly what many Canadians are calling for.

On October 30, the Prime Minister signed CETA at an EU-Canada leader summit. Two days earlier, the Liberal government put implementing legislation, Bill C-30, on the the Notice Paper, and the Liberals introduced the legislation on October 31.

This rushed process violated the government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty, along with an explanatory memorandum, outlining key components of the treaty at least 21 sitting days before legislation is presented. The Liberals also neglected to table a mandatory final environmental assessment of the FTA, as per the 1999 cabinet directive on the environmental assessment policy plan and program proposals.

Where is the commitment to protecting the environment?

I stood in this place on a question of privilege, challenging the government on its own omissions and failures to adhere to its policies. I questioned the necessity of the government granting itself an exemption on the explanatory memorandum, given that CETA was first signed back in 2013. Between the Liberals and the Conservatives, they had three years to draft this memorandum, which is intended to assist parliamentarians in analyzing the treaty.

Furthermore, given CETA's significant potential environmental impacts, the government must follow though on its requirement to complete a final environmental assessment.

CETA is not yet a done deal. Parliament should take its time in carefully considering the legislation before us today. We know that Canada and the EU intend to provisionally apply approximately 98% of the treaty in early 2017. The European Council decided that provisional application would not include investor-state dispute settlement, portfolio investment, and criminal sanctions for intellectual property crimes. These are the areas of member state jurisdiction.

Before CETA can be ratified, each of the 28 EU member states will have to vote on the deal in their respective legislatures. This process could take between two to five years. If just one of the 28 EU countries decides against ratifying CETA, as we saw with Belgium last month, the entire agreement could fall apart.

Bill C-30 would enable the government to fully ratify CETA, including investor-state provisions that Wallonia has already stated it will refuse to accept. Bill C-30 would provide the strokes for an investor-court system, but would leave out key pieces of information, such as details on an appellate mechanism or how panellists would be selected.

Going through the intellectual property provisions, we see that much of the patent law changes would be done through regulations. These changes would have significant impacts upon the availability of generic drugs to Canadians and therefore the overall cost of prescription drugs.

Greater parliamentary oversight is needed. The Liberal government is essentially asking parliamentarians to sign a blank cheque that it will fill in after.

Over the past year, we have seen a series of actions intended to address the concerns of Europeans with CETA. At every turn, I have risen in this place, as the New Democratic critic for international trade, and have called on the government to truly improve this deal. Yet, every time the government dismissed the concerns of Canadians and focused on making CETA palatable to Europeans.

I would like to now discuss in greater detail outstanding concerns of Canadians with CETA.

We discussed the investor-court system. The changes to ISDS provisions were supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new system will still allow foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits.

At the end of the day, foreign companies will have to access a special court system to challenge Canadian laws, without going through domestic courts.

As I have mentioned, Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under ISDS. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments. The Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases, while continuing to be the subject of ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Existing ISDS measures have also contributed to a regulatory chill where governments fail to take actions in the public interest that they fear may trigger an investor claim.

The Liberals have not explained how they would ensure environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges. It is now clear that the deal will not pass in Europe without the removal of or significant changes to investor-state provisions.

In trade deals, there are always winners and losers. With CETA, there is no doubt that some Canadian sectors will be negatively impacted by this agreement, including supply managed sectors and Newfoundland and Labrador's fish processors.

When the Conservatives were still in office, they acknowledged the significant losses dairy farmers would incur in both CETA and TPP. They promised a $4.3-billion compensation package, intended to offset the long-term perpetual losses.

For one year, the Liberal government refused to comment on whether it too would compensate dairy farmers. It required an extraordinary level of patience from Canadian dairy farmers. On diafiltered milk, the government continues to drag its heels. It is promising a solution, but refusing to provide any sense of timeline. The trade committee heard from the Minister of Agriculture on this file. His lackadaisical attitude was incredibly frustrating to listen to.

Dairy farmers are also frustrated with the government's inaction on tightening on the duty deferral program. These are serious trade issues that the government must address.

In this context, let us look at the government's recent announcement to invest in Canadian dairy farms and producers. It never admits the funds are compensation, only an investment package. The Liberals announced a $350 million package for Canada's dairy sector, which indeed is a welcome investment. However, the sector anticipates CETA will cost it $116 million per year in perpetual lost profits. The Liberals' funding announcement is for $350 million over five years. This falls far short of compensating dairy for the losses it will incur under CETA.

The Liberals also have not explained whether and how they will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for giving up its minimum processing requirements. In 2013, the Conservatives included a $400 million fisheries renewal fund, with the federal government contributing $280 million and the provincial government contributing $120 million. However, in 2014, Newfoundland and Labrador believed the Conservative government was signalling its intention to renege on the deal. The leader of the Liberal Party made clear commitments that he would follow through on compensating Newfoundland and Labrador. How can the government consider CETA a done deal without addressing its commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador?

I am also deeply concerned under CETA about changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals, which will increase drug costs by more than $850 million every year. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that CETA could make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program.

I find this deeply disturbing. Canadians already pay some of the highest drug costs in the OECD. CETA's patent provisions are not a concern to the EU. It already grants brand name pharmaceutical companies longer patent protection, but Europeans also pay much less for their prescription drugs than we do in Canada.

People in my riding of Essex already struggle with the high costs of prescription medications. Yet the Liberal government is cutting health care transfers to the provinces and has given no indication that it will take action on a national pharmacare program.

Under CETA, Canadians will pay even higher drug costs, while the federal government shows no concern or even acknowledgement of this reality. When the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded that the Conservatives present a study on the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government, they are telling the provinces that they will cut health care transfers, while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces.

At every opportunity it would seem the Liberal government has refused to provide greater analysis of CETA. In June, the world watched as the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. This raised immediate concerns about the impact of Brexit on CETA. In fact, the U.K. is Canada's biggest trading partner in the EU. Forty-two per cent of Canadian exports to the EU go to the U.K. Canadian concessions in CETA were based on the premise that the U.K. would be part of CETA. Yet the Liberal government has provided, again, no analysis re-evaluating the net benefits of CETA without the U.K.

In consultations with indigenous people, the Liberal government made a clear commitment to nation-to-nation relationships, which includes a commitment to consulting on international trade deals. The Liberals have given no indication that they have fulfilled their duty to consult. We know they have not fulfilled this duty with the TPP.

Also in CETA there are provisions stating that above a certain threshold, minimum local content policies will be outlawed, even in municipal and provincial government procurements. We also see provisions granting companies an expanded ability to use temporary workers without a study of impact on Canadians.

I have also heard significant concerns over the ability of all levels of Canadian governments to protect public services. These are all important issues that warrant greater study than what the government has offered.

Many of the concerns we are discussing today were consistently raised in two studies conducted by the Standing Committee on International Trade. The studies, undertaken in 2012 and 2014, were deemed by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party as interim or pre-studies, as both took place before the final text of CETA was made available to parliamentarians.

In the Liberals' 2012 dissenting report, they called for further consultation with Canadians on CETA. They highlighted that while the committee's work was a good start, further consultation was required. However, now that the Liberals are in government, they have completely changed their tune. They are no longer concerned by the lack of consultation, the inclusion of investor-state provisions, or the impact of increased drug prices for Canadians.

Today, the Liberal-dominated trade committee has made it clear that it only wants to hear from groups that will benefit from CETA. It has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrict its brief study of CETA from receiving input from Canadians, by passing a motion that restricts the committee from accepting written submissions except for those from the handful of witnesses who are selected to appear.

On the other hand, the committee held dozens of meetings on the TPP, travelling to every province in Canada, and holding video conferences with witnesses from the territories. We heard from over 400 witnesses, and received written submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians. With 95% of submissions critical of the TPP, it is no wonder that the government does not want to hear from Canadians on CETA. After spending half a million dollars on this study, not to mention the time and money spent by the minister and her parliamentary secretary on their own consultations, the Liberal government still has no position on the TPP.

As a first-time MP, I find the Liberals' disregard for due process on CETA deeply disturbing. It makes me wonder what they are trying to hide by pushing through this comprehensive agreement without proper memorandums, consultations, compensation, or analysis. I reference the two previous committee studies. In both studies, the NDP made clear its concerns but also its hopes that these concerns would be addressed and CETA would be fixed. The NDP has long argued for better trade with Europe. This will help diversify our markets, particularly as we face the uncertainties raised by the election of Mr. Trump.

However, Canada should not ratify the biggest trade deal since NAFTA as merely a reactionary or symbolic gesture. As I have outlined, significant concerns and unanswered questions remain about the proposed deal for many Canadians. Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The government should work to fix problems with the current deal rather than settling for a flawed agreement.

New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports while remaining firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten sovereignty have no place in a trade deal. In our view, the job of the government is to pursue better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects Canadians jobs. I am deeply suspicious of the Liberal claim of having a progressive trade agenda. This is a party that supported free trade agreements with Honduras and the controversial FIPA with China.

A final trade deal must be judged on its net costs and benefits. New Democrats have always been clear on this, and we have opposed deals in the past that would have net negative impact on Canadians, including Honduras and the China FIPA. Furthermore, better trade must also involve a better process. Far too often, Canadians have been kept in the dark during backroom talks by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. We saw this with the TPP, and Canadians rejected this.

In 2014, the hon. Minister of International Trademade the following statement in this place:

Mr. Speaker, on CETA, we in the Liberal Party are adults and we understand and respect the fact that, if trade agreements are going to be done, they need to be done behind closed doors.

The Liberals promised greater transparency, but given the minister's own attitudes, it is clear they have no intention on delivering on this promise. New Democrats cannot accept this position. We will continue pushing for greater transparency in trade negotiations, and meaningful, honest discussions with Canadians on all the potential impacts of any trade deal.

Europe is an ideal trade partner, and deepening trade relations with the EU has always been an aim that New Democrats support. Today, we have an agreement before us, and there are specific measures that raise significant concerns. As the progressive opposition, it is the job of New Democrats to uphold Canada's interest in this process.

The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix CETA, but the deal is still not done. It faces a lengthy complex ratification process in the European Union. Wallonia has said it will not accept a CETA that includes investor-court provisions. I call on the Liberal government to remove investor-court provisions from CETA and this legislation, address the increased drug costs, and give Bill C-30 due process at the committee.

Without these key elements, I cannot in good conscience advise my caucus colleagues to support this agreement. New Democrats will vote no to Bill C-30, and we will continue pushing the government for an agreement that provides a stronger net benefit for all Canadians.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly, a lot of homework went into that presentation on a lot of well thought-out issues.

However, I want to explore the investor protection provisions. If I go to some place and invest my money to build a plant and hire people, and then all of a sudden that jurisdiction changes the rules after I have made the commitment, I would ask the hon. member whether she does not agree that there should be some provision to protect me and the investment I have made, which could have gone someplace else in the world, against someone changing the rules in the middle of the game. If she agrees with that, what kind of mechanism would she prefer to see rather than the one that is in place?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. In NAFTA, for the very first time, we have an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism between two developed countries. We are talking in CETA about the EU. It has developed, progressive court systems that exist, the same as ours here in Canada.

I would challenge the member to say that our court system in Canada is not completely capable of fulfilling any need that any investor would have if they felt they had been infringed upon. Why are we not hearing these cases in our domestic court system? This is exactly why Wallonia stood up. This is exactly why European countries are standing up and saying they have their own progressive court systems and a mechanism, in a state-to-state resolution, to have these disputes heard. We do not need a separate court system.

I want to be clear that in CETA, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We are being asked to sign on to a court system that is not defined and not laid out. We will not see legislation before the House outlining what the investor court system would look like. We are being asked, in CETA, to sign off on essentially a few lines that exist. That is not acceptable to Canadians. We have a progressive court system here in Canada. If investors feel they need to use it, it is there for them to do so.

I believe firmly that we do not and should not engage in any investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, in any trade deal we engage in. India has refused to sign trade agreements with these provisions. Around the world, there are many conversations about these provisions and the fact that they are hurting countries.

In NAFTA, chapter 11, these are the exact same provisions that we are talking about. We are the most sued country in the world under these provisions. This has not worked well for us as a country. We have paid out $190 million. It is not just the money that we have paid out, but it is the impact it has had on our ability to regulate and legislate for public good, public safety, and public health in our own country, and to protect our environment. That is a key pillar of what the government is promising to do for Canadians.

We could come under threat of being sued in this court system that has absolutely no definition around it. We do not even know what the appellant mechanism is going to look like, who is going to be appointed.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that struck me from my colleague's speech was that the approval process in European legislatures is going to take between two to five years. Here we are in Canada's Parliament, where the Prime Minister signed the agreement on October 30, and the legislation was brought in on October 31. That violated the memorandum that outlined that 21 sitting days needed to pass before legislation was tabled in the House. Furthermore, we learned that the trade committee is restricting witnesses to only those who provide submissions to the committee.

From all perceptions of these actions, the ramming through of this legislation without the proper notification period, the fact that the committee is restricting the witnesses and the submissions, gives the perception that the government is trying to ram this through without proper oversight.

I ask my colleague where the rush is when it is going to take European legislatures two to five years. Why is Canada giving a blank cheque to the government and not doing due oversight?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is something that I have asked myself. We certainly have enough time. We are going to be provisionally applied in CETA, which will mirror what happens in the EU.

My concern is that we are not taking the time here at home. The minister has spent a great deal of time this year in Europe trying to make this deal palatable to the European member states that have had push-back issues around the courts system and around their agricultural sectors. We have not seen that at home. We have not seen a consultation. We have seen over 400 witnesses around the trans-Pacific partnership at committee, and now we are likely to see fewer than 20 witnesses round CETA. This is the largest deal that we will be signing on to since NAFTA. It is very important that we get this deal right.

Trade with Europe is so important to our country. Europe is our second-largest trading partner. As I said, there is absolutely no conversation around the U.K. leaving, in Brexit, and what the implication will be. I am not sure what the rush is for the current government to push it through, other than to have some form of success on the books.

However, that success will come at an expense for Canadians. It will come at the expense of every single Canadian who will pay higher drug costs from the day that the deal is ratified in this House going forward. I challenge every member in this House to tell me that they have spoken about this issue to people in their own riding, that people in their own communities are not already calling their constituency offices on a daily basis because they cannot afford medication. Yet here we are, with a provision in this deal to increase drug costs in Canada. We need this deal to be done right. We need provisions in here to protect Canadians, and increasing pharmaceutical costs in Canada will hurt many people in communities, including seniors, who have largely been left out by the government in previous legislation.

I am urging all members of this House to take their time. It is unfortunate that there is not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, time and again, whenever we are talking about trade, surprise, there is one party that always stands up against us, or maybe two, that stand up against trade, against jobs, against providing our Canadian producers and businesses with more opportunity, more markets, to sell their product but promote jobs.

Canada is a trading nation One in five jobs is tied to trade, especially for the hon. colleague in her riding, which has probably had massive benefit from the trade agreements that our previous government have signed, and indeed what CETA would bring to our country. Why is she so against trade?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought my colleague was going to say that we in the New Democratic Party were fighting for Canadians, that we want trade to be right for Canadians, that we want trade that is going to benefit Canadians in their everyday lives.

This trade agreement, with these particular provisions, can be fixed. It can end up as a trade deal that works for Europeans and works for Canadians, but unfortunately we are not going to be taking the time to ensure that is the case here in this House.

Trade is critical to my riding, and everyone in my riding supports trade. New Democrats support trade. However, we have to support trade in a way that benefits all Canadians. Increasing the cost of drugs should never be part of a trade deal. It is 25% of the legislative changes inside of this implementing legislation. That is wrong. Canadians do not support that. Again, I challenge these members, and I challenge the member for Cariboo—Prince George, to speak to members in their own ridings and ask if they would support increased drug costs in Canada going forward.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville.

I will first address free trade in general by way of introduction and then address the comprehensive economic trade agreement in particular.

In properly managed economies, free trade regimes result in increased prosperity for all partners. This is uncontroversial economic theory and practice. This increased shared prosperity results from efficient economic specialization; each partner does what it does best, and this results in more efficient production within partner economies. More efficient production means increased net wealth for free-trading partnerships. Properly devised free trade results in a net increase in jobs and decreased prices for consumers. More employment and lower prices combine to increase the wealth available for free-trading societies.

This legislation would implement such a properly devised, progressive free trade agreement.

However, we have seen skepticism about free trade around the world lately. Why is there legitimate worldwide concern about free trade? There is such concern because governments have not always properly addressed the broader implications of free trade. With this fair and responsible agreement, our government will do so.

What are the often ignored implications of free trade? They are basically twofold. Governments have not always properly recognized that free trade hurts some citizens, despite the general increase in prosperity. Governments have not always helped sufficiently those negatively impacted. Such assistance can include measures for retraining; assistance to shift to new sectors, markets, or products; and measures to deal with unemployment and economic disruption. Our government will take the necessary measures to assist those negatively impacted by this agreement.

A further legitimate concern is that governments have not always had the wisdom and willingness to ensure that the general prosperity resulting from free trade is equitably shared throughout society. Many governments have been content to see the economic benefits flow disproportionately to the very few. Our government will take measures to ensure that any general increase in prosperity, including that flowing from increased free trade, will be shared in an inclusive manner, including especially the middle class and those working hard to join it.

After consulting and listening to Canadians, and guided by our principles, we are addressing these two areas. We are pursuing free trade in a fair and responsible way. Our free trade will reduce inequality and enhance inclusive growth.

There are other less valid reasons to oppose free trade. Some opposition to free trade flows from xenophobia, a fear of and unwillingness to deal with foreigners. When people struggle economically, they can become fearful and susceptible to calls for protectionist measures. The world saw this phenomenon in the years preceding World War II. Such inward turning contributed to the start of that horrific conflict.

We reject xenophobia. We will keep Canada open to and engaged in the world.

This is the right thing to do. It is also Canada's surest route to continuing inclusive prosperity.

History has useful lessons to consider. What was the world reaction to the Great Depression of the 1930s? There was a general protectionist response by the world's economies. Countries erected trade barriers. Countries pulled back from free trade. Did these fear-based responses help these countries and the world? The answer is no, they did not. In fact, these measures exacerbated the problem. They prolonged the Great Depression and caused more economic disruption.

These economic lessons were so clear that after World War II, the international community signed GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in 1947, which is now the World Trade Organization. This reaction was specifically designed to combat self-destructive trade protectionism. The free trade effects of that regime were largely responsible for the unprecedented, prolonged post-war prosperity.

How should we respond to our great recession of 2008, under which shadow we still live? Should we make the same mistakes our ancestors made in the 1930s? Should we retreat from free trade? Should we become more protectionist? Will becoming less open to international trade help us? The clear answer is no.

Now I wish to deal specifically with the free trade agreement before us, the comprehensive economic trade agreement. CETA is an ideal complement to our current trading arrangements with the world's largest market, the United States, with whom, with Mexico, we are now linked in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

We came to this agreement only after extensive consultation with stakeholders, and only after listening to interested Canadians. CETA will now link us to the world's second-largest market, the European Union. Acknowledging the long-standing, mutually beneficial effects of NAFTA does not prevent us from duplicating the benefits of that arrangement with other countries. We can now forge a new and exciting free trade relationship with Europe.

Canadians can only benefit from diversifying our trading markets and supply sources to the broadest possible number of countries in the world. Free trade links us with a broad range of countries, grows our economy, and protects us from the inevitable ups and downs in different countries' and different regions' economic and political cycles.

In addition to the benefits of the size of Europe's markets, Europe has the further advantage of sharing with Canada much history and culture. There is a natural affinity between Europe and Canada.

While free trade does not require a similarity of outlook, such similarities make all relationships, including economic relationships, that much easier.

We have much in common with Europe. We share approaches to the rule of law, democratic government, workers' rights, investment, research, and even government regulations. All these linkages will ease our interactions with Europe on multiple levels. Examples of these similar views in CETA are its provisions recognizing labour protection and priorities. In addition, each partner has the right to set distinct environmental priorities.

Many Canadians can trace their roots back to Europe. Many Canadians still have links with Europe. Canada and Europe can use those linkages for our mutual benefit.

Canadians of Dutch heritage will help us sell to the Netherlands. Canadians of Portuguese ancestry can help us invest in Portugal, and Polish Canadians can help forge economic links with Poland.

Let us consider snapshots of some likely effects of CETA. Bombardier will be able to strengthen and grow its European market, keeping good jobs here in Ontario and Quebec. Clearwater Seafoods in Atlantic Canada is well positioned to take advantage of this trade agreement to provide Canada with more exports and Atlantic Canada with more jobs.

The Canadian Agri-food Trade Alliance applauds the government for signing CETA. Its members, including cow producers and soy and canola farmers, many in Canada's prairie provinces, are eager for this agreement, because they will sell more products to Europe, bringing back profits and keeping jobs in Canada.

Canada's forest products companies will be able to sell more to Europe. We are currently only 11th as a supplier of such products to Europe. Tariffs on forestry products will drop from 10% to 2% to 0%. This means more jobs and prosperity in British Columbia and elsewhere across Canada.

For these reasons, this agreement has extensive support from our business community. They see opportunity. CETA will provide direct benefits to Canadians, who will find temporary access to Europe enhanced under its provisions for the increasingly important service sectors. Not only will they take Canadian ideas and approaches to Europe, they will bring European ideas and approaches back to Canada. This will vastly increase the ability of the Canadian organizations to which they belong to compete, innovate, and thrive around the world.

The comprehensive economic trade agreement is one of those rare golden opportunities for Canada to live up to its progressive principles and for Canada, along with its European partners, to reap economic benefits and an increase in generally inclusive prosperity. We are standing by our ideas of openness and engagement. We are also pursuing inclusive and enduring prosperity for all Canadians.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Liberal government embracing trade and actually doing so in a fashion that will benefit all Canadians.

I am just curious. We have had different testimony on ISDS and the provisions on ISDS. Could the member tell the House exactly what is in the agreement and how it will come into effect?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his work on the international trade committee and for the work he has done for many years on this agreement. I know that he is in full support. He sees the benefits that will come from this agreement.

I know the member has heard from the parliamentary secretary and the minister about the work that is ongoing as they look at investor protections and at making sure they are there for investors. On the other hand, there is also an understanding of the sovereignty of all the countries involved in this agreement and of making sure that the environmental protections and labour protections are addressed. It is a well balanced, progressive agreement, and these are the types of standards we want going forward.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is praising CETA, but I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the government is rushing this bill through despite the many shortcomings the NDP has found in terms of both the process and the bill's contents.

A number of industries will suffer, including the dairy industry in Quebec and in my riding. The Conservatives had previously agreed to compensation totalling $4.3 billion over 10 years, but the Liberals are offering only $250 million over five years. That represents a huge loss, $116 million a year for the dairy farmers in my riding, even though this sector creates one out of every eight jobs in Canada.

I would like to quote our dairy farmers, who feel cheated:

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 entire yearly production of the province of Nova Scotia, and will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million a year in perpetual lost revenues.

What does my colleague have to say in response to the concerns of Canadian dairy farmers?

Can he also reassure us? Apparently, people are not allowed to submit reports to the committee, unless they appear in person as witnesses. This shows a serious lack of transparency—