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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House at the point of calling the question on Bill C-30, the bill that would bring in the comprehensive economic trade agreement between the European Union and Canada.

I have the honour to represent the only party in this place that has voted against all investor-state agreements. Although mostly the NDP members vote against them, they do not always. I would urge them to reconsider and ensure, for the future, that all investor-state agreements be rejected. They really have nothing to do with trade at all. I want to dive into that aspect of the investor-state agreement and touch briefly on the other aspects Canadians should be concerned about.

First, as many members in this place have already raised, it will increase the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. It is very clear that this will happen. Numerous independent studies have looked at the implications of the so-called CETA on drug prices for Canadians.

Second, it is also clear, and it has been raised by a number of groups, that the language the European Union wants in the text on the question of municipal powers for procurement will also be negatively affected by CETA, including access to procurement for municipalities, academic institutions, school boards, and hospitals. If they should decide that they want to make sure they are buying locally, they could be offending the provisions of CETA.

The third part is the most controversial. It is certainly the most controversial in Europe. It is why Canadian parliamentarians are being sold a bill of goods when we are told that there is any urgency here. I am really surprised that the Liberal government chose not to have significant review and consultation nationally. We had that on the trans Pacific partnership agreement but not on the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. This is surprising, given that there can be no need for urgency in Canada to ratify when there are 28 countries, and an additional 10 subnational groups throughout the European Union, that have yet to ratify, and given that there is still a pending decision from the European Court of Justice as to whether the comprehensive economic trade agreement is compatible with European law.

The controversy within Europe is overwhelmingly about the one piece of this agreement that I think could be very conveniently and easily removed without affecting the trade aspects at all. This takes some underscoring. What kind of trade agreement has an entire section that has nothing to do with trade? The answer, these days, is almost all of them. We are being sold, hook, line, and sinker, the notion that a trade agreement must include something called investor-state dispute resolution systems, or FIPAs, foreign investment protection agreements.

The first of these anywhere in the world was chapter 11 of NAFTA, and we have a lot of experience with it. I do not believe that even the negotiators of NAFTA believed that they were introducing anything novel when they negotiated chapter 11. As much as Canada had a national debate on NAFTA, chapter 11 never came up, because it was a sleeper provision. It might have stayed asleep, actually, if it had not been for the ingenuity of a Toronto lawyer, Barry Appleton, who decided that chapter 11 of NAFTA could be interpreted in a completely novel way.

The essence of the legitimate protection of investor interests in other countries is that we do not want a government coming along and nationalizing the assets, saying, “You have built a lovely refinery here. We are now going to say it belongs to the government of 'fill in the blank', and you, as an investor, are not going to get your money back on that.”

That is what people thought chapter 11 was initially, because it talked about protection from expropriation, but chapter 11 used some novel language. It talked about governmental measures that were tantamount to expropriation. Here is where the clever lawyering came in.

The first chapter 11 came to us when this Parliament banned the trade and use of a toxic gasoline additive, a manganese-based gasoline additive, that had a human health threat component. It also gummed up the diagnostics of the on-board catalytic converters for automobiles, so car manufacturers were worried that it would void their warranties. Environment Canada was worried that it would cause more air pollution. Neurotoxicologists, like Donna Mergler, at the University of Quebec in Montreal, was worried about it causing an increase in a disease that looks a lot like Parkinson's, but it is manganism.

Well, Parliament banned it, but because of a chapter 11 NAFTA challenge from a private corporation in Richmond, Virginia, Ethyl Corporation, Canada found itself in an arbitration case. This was just the first of many, and we keep losing them, or we keep having them settled out of court, although we cannot call these places courts, unless we use the word “kangaroo” first. These are arbitrations in hotel rooms with private arbitrators. They make money being arbitrators. They are expert lawyers. We can find Canadian lawyers who claim to be environmental lawyers suddenly selling out to be expert lawyers for U.S. corporations at these secret hearings.

The secret hearing process under NAFTA in chapter 11 is egregious. Just as egregious is the Canada-China investment treaty. I would have to say that it is more egregious, because every investor from the People's Republic of China is going to be a state-owned enterprise for the People's Republic China. Therefore, their ability to sue us is virtually unlimited. Of course, the Canada-China investment treaty never had even as much debate as we are getting on CETA. It never went through Parliament at all, because previous Prime Minister Harper approved it in cabinet, confidentially. The treaty binds the Canadian government until the year 2045 to the People's Republic of China, and its state-owned enterprises have more right to challenge decisions made in Canada than any Canadian corporation does.

CETA falls somewhere in between. CETA is being sold to us by many as the gold standard. It was the head of trade negotiations for the European Commission, Cecilia Malmström, who came up with the idea that since this investor-state provision in CETA is so controversial and is attracting so much protest from within the European Union, maybe we can make it look more like a real court and end the fact that it is so clearly profit driven.

Can members imagine arbitrators who are one day working in their big downtown law firms and the next day are essentially judges determining whether the decisions passed through parliaments around the world are going to hold up to their private scrutiny? There is no appeal, no oversight, and no room for intervenors to make the case as to why it was appropriate to ban a gasoline additive or to stop the export of PCB-contaminated waste or to not put a toxic waste disposal facility next to a town's freshwater supply. These are all real-life examples under chapter 11 where the polluters have won and the citizens have lost, and it happens over and over again.

CETA proposes some improvement, no question. It is much better than chapter 11 of NAFTA and better than the Canada-China investment treaty, which we seem to have forgotten ever even happened in this place. When I hear Conservative members getting up and asking whether the new administration under the Liberals is moving too close to China, I kind of want to run over, shake them, and ask if they do not remember that they passed, in secret, or their cabinet did, the Canada-China investment treaty, which is the worst of all of these.

Professor Gus Van Harten, of Osgoode Hall Law School, literally wrote the book on the bad investment deal with China. The book is called Sold Down the Yangtze, if members want to pick it up to find out how our sovereignty was sold out by the Harper administration.

Gus Van Harten has done a careful study of what is being offered in this so-called gold standard, and there definitely are flaws.

The arbitrators will have a more permanent roster. Can members imagine if our judicial system picked judges at random from the private sector, and they did better on cases where the rich guys won? Can members imagine how fair our judiciary would be seen to be? Well, CETA makes an improvement on that. There will be a permanent roster of such judges. They will still be drawn from private-sector work, and although they will be prohibited under the CETA terms from acting as advocates and lawyers before a CETA investment court, they will not be barred from operating as advocates and lawyers under other dispute resolutions, such as chapter 11 of NAFTA.

There is still this culture of an elite group of corporate lawyers who are literally global ambulance chasers. They find companies and tell them that they can sue a government if they want to.

The sad part, as well, is that, for a moment, Cecilia Malmström's proposal called for allowing civil society to come forward as intervenors. That part of her proposed gold standard was dropped.

My plea to the current government, and my plea to all parliamentarians, is to dig in our heels on this. I commend the NDP caucus for digging in its heels on this. We should dig in our heels and say that these are anti-democratic by definition.

There is no chance in the world that a company that emanates from the European Union is going to expropriate Canadian property in Europe, contravening all the laws and international common law practice. We are in a safe zone here, developed country to developed country. Let us get rid of the unfair investor-state provisions and fix CETA so that it is about fair trade.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that fools rush in where wise people fear to tread. My question has to do with rushing in to sign this agreement.

We know that CETA will not be fully ratified until all 28 EU member states have passed the agreement in their own parliaments. Clearly, we have time. We should take that time.

I wonder if the member has any thoughts in regard to taking time so we can address the issue of investor-state provisions and the very clear concerns expressed by CELA in regard to environmental degradation. Of course, there are our dairy farmers and those who produce the good food we rely on. Can we accommodate those folks? Can we slow down? Should we?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely we should slow down. This is going to take a minimum of five to seven years to get through the European parliaments we are dealing with. We also still have the very substantial, some might say risk but I say hope, that the European Court of Justice will say that it is not in accordance with European law to allow Canadian corporations to sue European governments.

The shoe is on the other foot. It is something like the Ajax mine they pushed in Kamloops, B.C. that local residents do not want. It is owned by a state-owned enterprise from Poland. If CETA does not go through, the B.C. government can turn down the Ajax mine without the risk of a corporate suit against B.C. taken at the national level. Goodness knows how much money we could lose.

I have to underscore this: The decisions under investor-state provisions have nothing to do with trade. They do not involve Canada doing anything wrong. They do not involve us violating any scientific principles or acting against evidence. We just have to be shown to have cost them money. That is it. It is completely corrosive to democracy.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, many European countries had reservations about signing this agreement, and many have now signed but with the proviso that they have not yet ratified. The debate within Europe, especially about the investor-state dispute settlement clauses, is far from over.

There are other aspects of the agreement that could be positive, and there are some negative ones too.

I am wondering who the member thinks is putting on all this pressure. If the investor-state dispute settlement clauses are what risks having the deal fall through in Europe, who is pushing for them? If it is the Canadian government, why would the Canadian government be willing to risk the rest of the deal for the sake of keeping these provisions? Certainly not many of the governments in Europe are pushing for these. In fact, that is where they are getting the push-back from their own population on this deal. Who is defending these, and why is it so important to keep them in there if it jeopardizes everything else the Liberals and Conservatives say is good about the deal?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is, as they used to say on the old TV show, the $60,000 question. Adjusted for inflation, I guess it is now the $6-trillion question.

We have issues with some of the trade aspects, and I am glad my friend from London—Fanshawe mentioned the dairy threat. I mentioned pharmaceuticals. There are the procurement provisions, but even they are not primarily about trade.

What we are talking about here is increasing the powers of transnational corporations while decreasing the regulatory powers of governments. In whose interest is that? It is not in any sovereign nation's interest. It is in the interest of transnational corporations. It is the first plank of global corporate rule, and it is being advanced by the corporations.

The current Liberal government should look at who pushed it in the last round of negotiations, realize it was the Harper administration, not the Europeans, take it out, and start a rethink of all these investor-state provisions and renegotiate them so they make sense and defend the sovereign rights of governments to protect public health, safety, and workers' rights within their own countries.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to speak to CETA in the House, because there is a lot to talk about and I do not think we have done a good enough job yet of discussing what is in this deal. We have heard a lot of platitudes by those who support the deal and, I would say, not a lot of information. The government has certainly not provided any detailed study of the anticipated economic impact of this deal. Canadians are supposed to just take it on faith that somehow it is going to be good for them, their jobs, and their communities.

It is reasonable for Canadians to expect at any time, and particularly from a government that has promised to bring back evidence-based decision-making and a scientific approach to government, to be provided with information and analysis on the particular ways that the government thinks this deal would be beneficial. However, we have not received that at all. Instead, we get an ideological repetition of the idea that these deals must obviously be good.

The NDP, instead, has been trying to offer an example of how to look at an agreement's details, to evaluate the various clauses, and to come to a conclusion about whether, overall, it is a good agreement for the country. I do not think it is any secret that the conclusion New Democrats have come to on this particular deal is that it is not, on balance, good for Canada. I will get to why.

There is one thing we need to recognize, first and foremost, which may sound silly to say. When considering the positions and arguments advanced by other parties, it bears repeating that trade deals are an important part of public policy. It is not as if trade, on the one hand, is separate and divorced from all the other public policies of government, on the other hand. Trade deals have important implications for governments, particularly these kinds of comprehensive trade agreements. They set the economic framework and a number of other important rules under which government can or cannot apply other levers of public policy.

Consider, for instance, a previous trade agreement that Canada once had with the United States called the Auto Pact. It was an agreement on the trade of a particular good, in this case automobiles, across the border. The people who negotiated and concluded that agreement recognized that trade deals were public policy. Therefore, the public policy goals of that agreement were not just to create more wealth for transnational corporations. They said that if they were going to sign a trade deal, they needed to enunciate what their public policy goals were. An important public policy goal was to ensure that jobs were created within Canada and that the goods being sold in Canada actually meant that Canadians got a slice of the production of that good and received wages for the goods sold in Canada.

When we talk about trade deals of different kinds and the values that can be represented in them, here is an example of a trade deal that we should not need to approve just because it concerns trade. Let us face it, multinational corporations have negotiated with themselves, because they are advising all of the various governments involved in these negotiations. These are not negotiations including union leaders and people representing the interests of the environment and ordinary Canadians. They are largely negotiations with government representatives and representatives of multinational corporations meeting behind closed doors and coming up with rules. Then, when they come out of that negotiating room, we are told that either we agree with trade or we do not, and that this particular set of rules that has been negotiated behind closed doors represents the best possible scenario for ordinary Canadians. That is a laughable claim. They never provide any evidence to back up that claim and we are supposed to just take it on faith. When we look at agreements like this, it is not clear what the public policy goal is.

Consider CETA, for instance. This agreement, we know, because it has been confirmed by a number of independent studies, will raise the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in a country that already has among the highest such costs. We need to go from where we are right now with respect to the costs of drugs and to find ways to bring those down, and we know that CETA would move us in the wrong direction. What gain would we be making that would offset that loss, unless the public policy goal, perversely, of the government is to fatten the wallets of international pharma?

I do not think that is a defensible public policy goal. However, if that is the goal of the government, let it say so; and if it is not, let it tell us what we are getting out of this deal that counteracts that effect on Canadians. If everyday Canadians are made to pay more for their pharmaceutical drugs, that is a tangible cost, and what tangible benefit can they expect to see in return?

There are lots of other ways we could pursue other public policy goals within the context of these kinds of trade agreements. For instance, we could say that because we want green public transportation in Canada and with our trading partners, whether they be in Europe, the United States of America, or wherever else, we want a firm commitment, with timelines and penalties if these goals are not met, to work toward a common charger for electric vehicles. That would be a legitimate thing to do. Certainly, if a trade deal like CETA can pronounce on the minuscule details of municipal procurement, we could certainly reach a deal that would bring its member parties together to pursue a common charging standard that would allow that industry to reach economies of scale, increase production, whether in Canada or the other member countries, and begin greening public transportation in those various areas.

However, we never hear about that because we do not actually get into a debate about what the public policy goals of a trade deal are. Rather, we are just told that this will create massive wealth, that it will be great for everyone, and that everyone is going to get a job after we pass this.

The evidence does not support that at all if we look at the historical record of what has happened in the Canadian manufacturing sector since the late 1980s and early 1990s when we began signing these kinds of agreements. No further evidence has been provided. When we look at the historical track record, I would argue it is not particularly good, and we are not given any contrary evidence.

We might also say that when it comes to labour mobility, for instance, these agreements tend to have lots of provisions on how companies can bring in their own workers from wherever to perform work here in Canada that ought to be performed first and foremost by Canadians who are looking for this kind of work. That is not the right way to go about this in these provisions, but we do know that there are labour mobility challenges. For instance, trade unions who have hiring halls have people here who are out of work and there are places with labour demand in the United States, and those people cannot get that work because in order to be authorized to do the work, they first need an employer and a visa. However, because there is an agreement in which the employers go to the hiring hall to fill their labour demands, the workers need to be cleared to work at the hall first, but until they are cleared at the hall they do not have an employer so they cannot apply for the visa and cannot be cleared at the hall until they have a visa. That is a legitimate labour mobility issue.

We could be working to address labour mobility issues in that way rather than encouraging the import of temporary foreign workers who then work only for that company and who are thus, frankly, under the dictatorship of that company, because if the company decides for whatever reason that those workers are complaining too much about their working conditions or if the company does not pay them what they were promised when they came over, the workers can be sent back by the company. That is not a fair arrangement for those workers. It is not a fair arrangement for Canadians who are expected to then compete against them. There are other ways to do that, but these do not come up when we are talking about these deals.

What the NDP is trying to do in this debate is to say that there are other ways of doing this and there are other important public policy goals that ought to be taken into consideration when we pursue trade agreements. However, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to do this. That is the problem. That is what we are trying to zero in on. We are trying to show that, yes, trade deals and trade is important, but there is more than one way to do it. There are an infinite number of ways. This particular way, in which we take away the ability of democratically elected governments in Canada and elsewhere to make decisions about health, the environment, and working conditions within their own jurisdiction and to put them at the mercy of trade tribunals that are more concerned about whether transnational corporations are losing money than about the substance of those issues, is the wrong way to do it. That is not to say there is not a way to do it, but it means that we have to ask more of our governments here in Canada when it comes to negotiating a trade deal.

Conservatives and Liberals alike have shown that they are not up to the task. Although we have seen a change in government, we have yet to see a change in approach. We saw the same when David Emerson switched from being the Liberal international trade minister to being the Harper international trade minister, and we saw it when the current Minister of International Trade hugged the former international trade minister on the floor of the House of Commons the day CETA was signed. There is no difference between the two.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my friend from Elmwood—Transcona for his opposition to the investor-state agreement.

Getting back to the core of this, we really do need to ask how we became so ensnared in so many of these agreements that only privilege the rights of foreign corporations. Canadian corporations cannot sue under such provisions if the Canadian government makes a decision that hurts their profits, but if we accept this agreement, companies from Germany, Poland, Belgium, or wherever, would be able to sue the Canadian government just how U.S. corporations can do now. The People's Republic of China's corporations can, and if the TPP goes through, another nine countries' corporations can bring these private cases against Canada.

Would the member agree with me that we need to reopen the whole bundle of investor-state agreements and renegotiate them globally to ensure that they fairly balance the rights of corporations versus the sovereignty of governments?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that there is something fundamentally broken at the conceptual level with the investor-state dispute settlement clauses. There absolutely is. Giving foreign companies the ability to intervene in areas of domestic policy-making, which we elect democratically governments to do, is just completely backward.

The idea that somehow in order for those companies to get fair treatment in Canada we need these investor-state provisions, when we have a whole body of common law and other international agreements that give reasonable assurances to those companies they will not be treated unfairly, is also wrong. Added to that is a mechanism by which these transnational corporations can use the threat of serious financial punishment of a government in order to direct its policy behaviour. That is what is wrong about this. It is not about fair treatment. That already exists under the law before we sign these agreements. This is about whether we are going to give these companies the hammer and the threat of it use to direct government policy. That obviously is wrong and should not be a component of deals going forward.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up jobs, and we need to have an understanding of what we face in terms of employment under CETA, but, unfortunately, we do not because the current Liberal government has not done any analysis. We do not know what the projected job losses could be, but we do have one study coming out of Tufts University in the United States saying that Canada would lose 30,000 jobs from CETA. It is not just Canada that is concerned. In the EU as well, just last week the European Parliament's employment and social affairs committee voted for a motion saying that the EU parliament should refuse to approve CETA because it would lead to the loss of some 200,000 jobs in the EU.

There is no evidence to back the potential number of jobs that we hear the government and the trade minister talking about all the time; but quite the contrary, what we only see going forward in Canada and the EU are job losses.

Does the member for Elmwood—Transcona believe that we should have a full analysis of the job losses that would incurred in Canada?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is exactly what is required. I cannot imagine a large company embarking on a new contract with a new supplier or new partner without doing some serious due diligence. I cannot imagine that they sit down in corporate boardrooms and say they have the opportunity to have a partnership with a major new supplier or a competitor who wants to join with them and that they are going to approve the merger simply because bigger is better and mergers are good. I cannot imagine their saying they do not need to take the time to study it, they do not need any numbers, because they believe that bigger is better is a good economic principle and therefore that they just need to go ahead. I cannot imagine their saying that all of the questions are just slowing them down and that the board needs to stop asking questions about the money and the jobs and about their obligations under a new contract and just plow ahead because it is a great principle, that they run the company based on principles, not on spreadsheets or numbers.

There is not a company that would last a day in the market if it ran itself that way, and Canadians should expect better from their government.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Agriculture and Agri-Food; the hon. member for Essex, International Trade; and the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Justice.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this may well be my last speech before the House adjourns for the holidays, so I would like to take this opportunity to wish my constituents a very happy holiday and to thank my team members: Francine, Sébastien, Nesrine, and Catherine. They have been very patient with me during the especially long five weeks of House sittings coming to a close this week. While some might say, “Finally”, those of us on this side of the aisle have just begun. We would like to wish everyone a very happy holiday.

I am pleased to rise today. I like saying that I am pleased to rise, and people seem to say that all the time. Still, I am not exactly ecstatic here because there are lot of problems with this Canada-European Union free trade agreement. When we oppose Bill C-30 and the agreement as written, it is very important to emphasize that we did the same during the previous Parliament. What really bothers me is having to make the same arguments that we used with the Conservatives in debates on international trade issues. Our stance on free trade keeps coming up. We are in favour of free trade, but it has to be fair and not at just any cost.

Unfortunately, that is what is missing from the approaches taken by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. It is clearly missing from this agreement, as well as other agreements, such as the trans-Pacific partnership, which is also before the House, in a way, considering the conversations that have taken place with various civil society groups.

There are several aspects that are of concern, and I would like to begin with the most troubling one, the one that has been raised most often in this debate, namely the investor-state provisions. This is fundamental. If you were to go door to door, something every MP has done, and you asked everyone if it seems appropriate that a private company could sue its government for making a decision after it was elected, and the government has to defend itself, or even compensate the company using taxpayers' money, I think virtually everyone would unanimously agree, and no one in Quebec or Canada would think that was acceptable. However, that is exactly what this agreement allows.

The problem with those provisions is that they undermine two pillars that the NDP sees as the most important pillars of free trade and free trade agreements, namely regulations on environmental protection and the protection of workers.

These investor-state clauses would allow a company to sue the Government of Canada if the federal government or a provincial government introduced regulations or legislation that the company felt hurt its bottom line and its ability to make money. This is completely unacceptable. A perfect example of this problem is the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico. Quebec passed laws to ban fracking in certain areas of the St. Lawrence River. In 2011, if I am not mistaken, a company took the federal government to court because Quebec passed environmental legislation. This completely compromised environmental protection and violated one of the pillars that the New Democrats consider essential in order to support a free trade agreement, which is to be able to trade with a partner with environmental legislation similar to ours.

I am choosing my words carefully because the answer we will probably hear from the other side of the House is that this is what makes the European Union an ideal trading partner. Certainly, we share values with the European Union as a political unit, but the problem arises when a private sector company can begin pitting its interests against regulations made by elected governments here in Canada. There we have a serious problem.

The same applies to worker protection. Even the most responsible of companies require a certain degree of government oversight with legislation to ensure some minimum protections for workers.

That is the purpose of the Canada Labour Code and the Quebec Labour Code. They ensure that workers have a minimum of rights. In a society such as ours it would be unacceptable for a company to take legal action against the government on the basis that such rights are detrimental to its business.

The government has told us not to worry because these provisions will not affect workers' rights, environmental protection, or any other area. However, as the member from Outrement so clearly pointed out earlier today, there will be two sides to the debate. The investors will take legal action against the state, who will argue about the importance of environmental protection. The company will only have to justify its position by saying that it does not harm the environment and that they can proceed. That is the problem.

As the member for Outremont said so well, to date, Canada has done nothing to demonstrate that it can win in these circumstances, in these secret tribunals, and protect the people we are here to protect and that this agreement does not protect.

The other problematic aspect is that the government has not come up with a concrete solution for Brexit. The majority of our EU trade is with the United Kingdom, which is now preparing to leave the European Union. The government does not seem to have taken this fact into account. When, unlike the past few days, government members decided to participate in the debate, they were asked that question, but their answer was not convincing.

There is also the issue of higher prescription drug costs, which will affect the daily lives of Canadians. The members opposite are good talkers, but they still do not have a plan to reduce drug costs like the one the NDP proposed during the last election campaign. The government should acknowledge this problem.

In the 2012 dissenting report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Liberals specifically requested a sectoral study to explain the costs associated with the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, and especially its impact on the cost of prescription drugs.

I do not understand why the Liberals were calling for such a study when they were in the opposition, and today everyone acts as if it never existed. I will not even speak of the debate on health transfers, where the same reduced transfers proposed by the Conservative government have been maintained.

Since time is passing, I will close by addressing the final point, which is the most important one for the people in my riding. I am of course referring to the way that the dairy producers have been swindled. Despite the real change promised in the last election campaign for Quebec’s dairy producers and craft cheese makers, the Liberal government is doing worse than the Conservative government that preceded it.

In the last Parliament, a motion by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé was passed unanimously. Every party in the House, including the Liberal Party, voted in favour of this motion, which called for the producers to be compensated. That is the least that can be done after putting supply management on the table, something Stephen Harper’s Conservative government had promised not to do.

The Conservatives had promised to compensate producers in the amount of $4.3 billion. That was a very fine commitment on their part. Today, however, the Liberals have dropped that to a mere $300 million. That is staggering. It is a betrayal of dairy producers, one of the many betrayals they have suffered at the government’s hands.

Take for example the diafiltered milk issue, which is still not resolved. This is the sort of issue that demonstrates that the Liberals are acting just as the Conservatives did, if not worse.

It is for these reasons that we are opposed to Bill C-30 and that we are demanding that the government reflect upon and renegotiate these important matters. It is not too late to make these fundamental changes which will allow us to exercise our duties as parliamentarians, that is, to protect the citizens we are representing here, the citizens whom this sort of agreement will not be protecting, the citizens it will be betraying.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the good fortune of representing a riding where cheesemakers have set up shop over the last two decades and work hard to make quality products. These include Fromage au village, Les fromages Fromabitibi and La vache à Maillotte. They are being threatened, just like the dairy producers that are going to suffer major financial losses, by this free-trade agreement.

At this time, however, there is a good deal of talk of climate change and doing more for the environment. Does my hon. colleague not find this a little illogical?

From the environmental standpoint, it would be logical to consume local products so far as possible; yet we are importing greater quantities of products from across the ocean, perishable products that cease to exist once they are consumed.

I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on this.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know French cheeses are among the most subsidized in the world. We are creating a situation where cheese made in Quebec and Canada will not be able to compete on a level playing field.

As my colleague said so well, we want to encourage people to buy local and reduce greenhouse gases, and food transportation is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. There is even talk about food sovereignty and food waste. It is all related. That is the problem with the government's approach. In an agreement like this one, which includes investor-state provisions, has an impact on the price of drugs and betrays our dairy farmers and cheese makers, the government once again makes all kinds of fine promises, but as it has shown since it arrived in power last year, it does not walk the talk. That is what we have a problem with.

It is good to encourage people to buy local, but the government also has to give people the tools to do that. The government is telling people that international products are on an equal footing with our own, local products, even that they present some advantages. That is not good for our local economies or for our local producers. It is yet another broken promise.

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

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who sent me here expect this place to operate by a certain set of rules and principles. The government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament very clearly states that 21 sitting days have to pass before implementing legislation can be laid before the House after a treaty is signed. Had the government followed its own rules in that policy document it could have legitimately laid this legislation on the table on December 5. Instead, it decided to present it a day after. This just seems like an incredibly rushed process given the fact that all 28 member states of the EU still have to ratify this.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this rushed process, on the fact that the government is breaking its own policy in that regard, and what that means for the government's intentions as we go forward in this 42nd Parliament.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This is a point that was raised by my colleague from Essex. Incidentally, I will take this opportunity to congratulate her for all the excellent work she is doing to express a position as the NDP international trade critic. That position is based on certain principles and on an equitable and intelligent approach to international trade.

She spoke of government policies, that is, the same thing that my colleague was just explaining. The argument we have heard from the government, namely that it is no big deal and optional in nature, is very disappointing.

We have indeed found many problems in this agreement. With only 10 minutes at my disposal, however, I was not able to address the procedural issue.

I note in passing that when the Conservatives announced this agreement, the Liberals supported it without even having read it. But in offering their support, they nonetheless said that it was important for Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives to take an inclusive approach, to hold consultations and to organize committee meetings. However we saw just the opposite from that government, in spite of its commitment to transparency.

A good example is the fact that the committee cannot even do appropriate study—the problem raised by my colleague. With all the consequences that an agreement has on the lives of citizens, the least one can do is satisfy the expectations that were created for transparency and respect for citizens.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to rise today to share my thoughts on Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states. This bill includes all necessary legal changes to implement the free trade accord with Europe, commonly known as CETA.

Today, I wish to raise four major concerns. The concerns are very important to the people I represent in North Island—Powell River. They want to hear more about prescription drug costs and what it will mean to them in their everyday lives. They want to make sure that we are not participating in investor-state provisions. They want to know that Canada has the ability and the right to protect itself. They are also concerned about the compensation for dairy farmers, the loss of market for the people in Comox with dairy farms, as well as, very importantly, maritime jobs.

The four motives in this bill will negatively impact my riding of North Island—Powell River, and because of this, I cannot in good conscience support it. Might I also add how sad it is for me to stand in the House today and realize we are not having a rigorous debate on these very important issues that will have long-term impacts. It is very simple for the government to point out that it feels the NDP is not interested in supporting trade agreements, but that is false. New Democrats are asking for these serious concerns to be addressed in a meaningful way. We absolutely have the time to do this work, and it is imperative for government to work with us to make sure that work is done.

Simply put, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The NDP supports deepening the Canada-EU trade relationship in order to diversify our markets, but there remains significant concerns and unanswered questions about this proposed deal. The government should work to fix the problems with the current deal rather than settle for a flawed agreement.

In my riding, there is a major concern about prescription drug costs. I have had the chance to meet with some of the most wonderful people over the last year who live across my vast riding, including many seniors. In the first year of my first mandate, getting to know people and understanding their needs was not only essential but paramount. I conducted a series of town halls focused on the demands of seniors in the riding, and I am proud to be continuing this series in the new year.

Unfortunately, the reality for many seniors is that they cannot afford their medications. I have heard on many occasions that Canada badly needs a strategy in place to meet the needs of seniors, and they want to know why it does not exist. One of the many challenges they face is the increasing cost of drugs. I am under the impression that legislators in the House have an abstract understanding of our social safety net, but the reality is that seniors are often vulnerable, on fixed incomes, and have to choose whether they purchase medications, food, or heat. This is a reality, and these decisions are happening daily across Canada.

Let me be very clear: this does not fit my vision of a prosperous Canada. We know that drug costs in Canada are already too high. According to the most recent data available from the Canadian Institutes for Health Information, Canadians pay the second most per person for drugs in all of the OECD countries, second only to the United States, and our costs are significantly higher than the average.

We know that that there needs to be a coordinated effort to contain these costs. What do we do to ensure that seniors can afford the necessary prescription drugs at a reasonable cost? Respectfully, one of the issues now is the reality we are facing with CETA, which would change intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals. Under this agreement, consumers, including seniors on fixed incomes, can expect their drug costs to increase by more than $850 million annually.

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that it would make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program. While in opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study of the financial impacts on provincial and territorial systems around these issues, but now they are cutting this and not listening to these important voices that need to be heard.

The second flaw in this piece of legislation is the investor-state provisions, which allow corporations to sue governments over regulations they claim negatively impact their businesses. The Liberals are asking parliamentarians to sign off on CETA, despite the fact that European states have made it clear that investor-state provisions will have to be removed before they ratify it. I do not understand why Canada will not say this as well.

In February 2016, during CETA's legal scrubbing phase, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new investor-court system allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions that they feel impact their profits. Foreign companies would have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws, without going though domestic courts.

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, and the Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases, while continuing to be subject to ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages. Existing ISDS measures have also contributed to the regulatory chill, where governments fail to take actions in the public interest for fear they may trigger an investor claim.

Another concern of the investor-state provisions brings us back to my first point on pharmacare. According to Natalie Mehra, from the Ontario Health Coalition, the ability for investors to sue the government puts much more significant risk on the federal government. It would limit our ability to create a national pharmacare program, which would be the single biggest step we could take to containing drug costs, improving safety, and improving access all at once. The Liberals have not explained how they would ensure environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected, and how they would be protected from foreign challenges.

I am proud to represent the Comox Valley. Farming, agriculture, has been a mainstay for a long time and remains incredibly vibrant. It is one of the few locations in Canada that has tracked a surge of agri-investment activities. This has helped culinary tourism in our area. For example, we have great artisan yogourt and award-winning cheese makers.

Many small and medium-size cheese makers across Canada want to continue to grow the market for high-quality Canadian dairy products. Under CETA, European dairies would receive tariff-free access for an additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese, representing 2% of the Canadian milk production. According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, this will cost them $160 million a year in perpetual lost revenue.

The previous Conservative government recognized that CETA would lead to significant losses to Canadian dairy farmers, offering $4.3 billion in compensation. Instead of honouring this commitment, the Liberals have offered an investment package worth $250 million over five years. This falls short of the losses that dairy farmers would incur.

CETA would, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports, and will open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers. CETA will lead to the immediate loss of approximately 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high-quality, well-paying jobs. The industry as a whole supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. Foreign boats will bring in foreign workers with no requirement for a labour market impact assessment. These workers could be paid as low as $2 an hour and suffer from low safety standards and poor working conditions. This is not the Canada that I want to see. By permitting more foreign-flagged vessels, CETA would encourage tax avoidance, since foreign ships registered in flag-of-convenience countries take advantage of tax havens and the cheapest available labour.

Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. It is important that we have a vigorous debate about these issues. I do not understand why the government is not standing up for Canadians, standing up for the jobs and the realities we face. I know in my riding of North Island—Powell River, we hold sacred our commitment to keeping Canadian jobs local. We are a small riding that has faced many challenges, and we keep rising again and again. We do not need to have the government not negotiate in a positive way so we can see the results that we so desperately need.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was carefully listening to the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, and she was mentioning that the NDP is not against trade. As far as I can recall, and I am certain you can recall as well, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a single trade agreement that the NDP has ever supported.

I also come from British Columbia, and when I am out on the ground, I can tell you that B.C. is a very diverse province. People from all over the world have settled in British Columbia. People of the European region are very excited about CETA.

The member talked about the negatives of CETA. However, there are definitely positives about the agreement as well. I would ask the hon. member if she could point out the positives of signing CETA.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my job as the representative of North Island—Powell River is to do the work of my riding and to listen to the industries that will be impacted.

The reality is that in my riding we have a large number of seniors. We live in a beautiful location, we have affordable housing, and people are going there to retire and spend time with their families. However, they are all coming to me, because they are very concerned about the reality that they are already struggling to afford their medication. What are these trade agreements going to mean for them when they are on a fixed income and challenged every single day?

My job in opposition is to make sure that the government is doing its job. I hope the member will be take an opportunity to reflect on the real impacts that this agreement will have on real people's jobs in B.C., and the reality that it is going to have negative impacts.

Our job is to protect those folks and protect those jobs, and that is what I would like to encourage the government to do.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech. She has skilfully laid out the reasons why we are opposed to this agreement. It is not because we are against an agreement with Europe. On the contrary, we are in favour of a good agreement with Europe. She gave a good review of the problems there are.

With regard to cheese producers, there are three in my riding of average size: Fromagerie St-Guillaume, Fromagerie Agropur de Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil and Fromagerie Lemaire, which produce around 17,000 tonnes of cheese, or roughly the production of Drummondville. So imagine the repercussions that this agreement may have on a region like ours and like that of my hon. colleague.

Why does the member think that the government has failed in its task of helping the cheese companies? Why has it not resolved the diafiltered milk issue either?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that across Canada, especially in Comox, where I will always argue that our cheese producers are the very best, there are substantial dairy farming communities that create local jobs. They really are focused on developing their communities and making sure that there are good jobs in that area.

I cannot answer why the government is turning its back so profoundly on the dairy farming industry. These farmers need to see that support if the government goes through with the significant transition that CETA would impose upon them. Therefore, I would like to see the government follow through to raise the amount to a more appropriate number, which will actually help those industries as we go through that transition, and make sure that we remember that many of these smaller communities desperately need these jobs. These are meaningful employment opportunities for businesses that pay taxes and are looking after the communities they live in.

Dairy farmers need to be respected for the long-term work that they have done, and it is shameful that the current government is not respecting them in the way they should be.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed that the Liberals are ready to shut down debate on CETA. No Liberals are even speaking today to Bill C-30 in this House. It is incredibly important that Canadians hear that their concerns are being listened to, and the New Democrats are proud to be doing that today along with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I appreciate her words today as well.

This agreement is far too important to get wrong, and it is far too important for parliamentarians to simply rubber-stamp before we fully consider the range of implications that it would have for Canadians. I have participated in the second reading debate on Bill C-30, and what I saw was that the few Liberal and Conservative MPs who rose to debate this legislation completely ignored the very real concerns around this agreement. It is easy to look at one side of an agreement and only speak about the positive. What takes courage and dedication to the people we represent is to stand and also address the negative aspects.

This deal is far from perfect and it is far from done. In Europe, each of the 28 EU member states, as well as Belgium's regions, must approve the parts of CETA that fall under their regional competencies. If any of these states or regions refuse to ratify, the deal falls apart. I also hope that my colleagues are aware that in the Netherlands right now activists are collecting petitions of signatures to trigger a referendum on CETA. There is still a lot of opposition to this agreement. Just last week, the European Union's employment and social affairs committee voted 27 to 24 for a motion saying that the EU parliament should refuse to approve CETA because it would lead to the loss of some 200,000 EU jobs.

The reality that my colleagues do not want to face is that these kinds of massive, so-called trade agreements actually lead to job losses and greater inequality. Deals like the TPP and CETA are not traditional trade agreements. They go so much further than just reducing tariffs. They set new rules of commerce that benefit the largest multinationals. People push back against these agreements not because they are afraid of trade, but because they know these agreements would continue shrinking the middle class; eliminating good-paying manufacturing jobs and jobs in seafaring; and trading away the public interest in favour of corporate interests.

Canadians support trade. It is vital to our economy and supports jobs in every single region of our great country. New Democrats support deepening trade with Europe and expanding those opportunities for Canadian exports. We also take very seriously our duty to evaluate trade deals on the balance of what they offer to Canadians, and we want the government to do the hard work to fix the remaining problems with this deal.

As I have said before, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. Yet my colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative parties seem to have their blinders on. They are so ideologically supportive of any and all trade and investment agreements that they refuse to properly study these massive trade deals before passing them into law. Canadians deserve better.

There are still so many unanswered questions and unaddressed concerns, including the following:

Why does this bill include investor-state provisions, when EU member states have said they will not ratify the agreement if these provisions are not removed?

If Bill C-30 goes through, how will the minister appoint judges to the investor court? These judges have enormous powers. Will the minister have all the power to select them, unilaterally and with no oversight or consultation?

What would be the implications of changes to the Patent Act on prescription drug costs in Canada? How much more would Canadians be paying? How would the provinces and territories be compensated?

If Bill C-30 is meant to be implementing legislation only, why are there clauses that go above and beyond what is in the actual CETA?

Why will the government not provide clarity to Canada's maritime sector about which cabotage routes would be open to Europeans? How many jobs would these new rules cost us? Why are these provisions not reciprocated by the EU? Why are we opening up cabotage for the first time in Canadian history when we know how many well-paid Canadian maritime jobs are on the line? Why do we not insist that foreign-flag vessels employ Canadian and not foreign crews?

The list just goes on and on.

Just last week we heard from the Canadian Vintners Association. They support the removal of tariffs but are concerned that CETA will deepen the already large trade imbalance on wine between Canada and the EU. In fact, they estimate the EU exports to Canada 180 million litres valued at $1.16 billion, compared to Canadian exports to the EU of 123,000 litres valued at $2.77 million. They state that they support CETA, but that, “Ratification must include federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and take advantage of, and prepare for the implementation of major trade deals, such as CETA.”

We have a thriving wine industry in my riding of Essex, and we all want it to continue to grow. I ask my Liberal colleagues if they have considered this important industry and what kinds of support should be offered to them to ensure they can remain competitive should CETA come to pass.

All of these concerns that I have mentioned have not been given the proper attention in this place or at the international trade committee. We have only held a handful of meetings on CETA, giving it just a fraction of the time and attention that we devoted to studying the trans-Pacific partnership. We have barely made time to hear from witnesses on CETA's intellectual property provisions and changes to the Patent Act. We still have not heard from the maritime industry, which will be significantly impacted by CETA.

Even the beef industry, which supports this agreement, has several recommendations and outstanding concerns that they would like to see addressed before CETA is implemented.

I feel compelled to ask my colleagues in this place to consider the many outstanding concerns with CETA and to push for those changes that this agreement needs.

We should remove the ISTS rules that give foreign companies special rights and privileges that our own domestic companies do not enjoy. If they want to attack our rules and regulations, they should be obligated to go through our domestic courts first.

We should study how much CETA will increase prescription drug costs in Canada. Canadians already pay some of the highest cost drugs among the OECD countries, second only to the United States.

I frequently hear in this place that Parliament should not worry about studying CETA because we have known about the deal for a long time. It is true that negotiations started many years ago, and that the trade committee studied CETA in 2012 and 2014. I have read these reports, but I wonder if any of my Liberal colleagues have done the same because when I read their dissenting reports from 2012 and 2014, I was left with the impression that they felt more consultation, study, and analysis was needed before CETA was ever finalized.

In 2012, the Liberals recommended the report be titled as an interim report, and that further hearings be held, given that the committee's meetings were “deficient” and that CETA would have a greater impact on Canada than NAFTA. They recommended that the government share with the committee an analysis that clearly indicates both the benefits and costs of the agreement identified by the sector.

The Liberals talked about the impact of CETA on prescription drug costs. They said. “it was of concern that the federal government has provided no third party analysis with respect to the entire issue.”

Where is this concern today? When I raise the issue with the minister, she accuses me of fearmongering and says that there will not be any impact for eight years, so it is no big deal. The hypocrisy is truly astounding.

I also read the Liberals dissenting report from 2014, and I have to say that they restated their support for the 2012 recommendations and made even more. The Liberals, in 2014, said, “it is hard for Canadians to give outright support to an agreement when they haven't yet seen the text but only the technical summary.” So much seems to be speculative. All that witnesses are able to do is speculate about the possible gains, losses, and/or other impacts of CETA.

Here we are, in the next Parliament, and we have done very minimal consultation. We have heard from witnesses at the trade committee in a very few meetings. There are many other people who want to appear before the trade committee on CETA and are not able to do so. They are not even able to provide a written report to the committee.

I would be happy to share with my Liberal colleagues copies of their own party's reports so that they, too, can get a sense of the work remaining to be done on this agreement. I simply cannot understand how they can now turn around and pretend to have no concerns with CETA.

I appeal to my colleagues from all parties on both sides of the House to vote against the motion to shut down debate. At the beginning of my speech, I outlined some of the many issues and concerns that we, as parliamentarians, should consider before rushing through an agreement of this size and scope. There is no reason we cannot do our job as MPs and take our time with this NAFTA-like agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have not touched in the debates is how investor-state agreements operate to create regulatory chill. I will give my friend, the member for Essex, a chance to think about this.

I have seen what happens first-hand under chapter 11 of NAFTA. Under Prime Minister Chrétien, the government avoided the decision of the arbitration panel by making, and we cannot call it out of court because it is not a real court, a settlement provision. It took the money that was paid to Ethyl Corporation, a manufacturer of leaded gasoline and this toxic replacement of manganese-based gasoline, as I recall it was $12 million at the time, out of the A-based budget of Environment Canada, just to add extra punishment to the regulators who thought it was important to protect the environment.

For many years, and I think to this day, the effect of that was regulators were afraid to take action against toxic chemicals. Action that was being promoted at one point by Health Canada to get rid of carcinogenic chemicals used in people's backyards for the purpose of having a nicer looking lawn was blocked when the trade minister contacted the health minister to say that everybody could be sued by U.S.-based chemical manufacturers over the loss of profits, even if it was in the interest of Canadian public health.

That is called “regulatory chill”. No one sees it, we cannot document it, but yet another investor-state agreement will increase the number of times Canadian regulators do not act because they are worried about being sued.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying is incredibly valid. As regulators and legislators in the House, we are here to protect public health, public safety, the public good. We are here to ensure that everything we do benefits Canadians, that it will have a positive outcome for Canadians.

When she talks about the regulatory chill, it is very real and it does exists. What happens is that when we start to bring in progressive legislation, we find ourselves being sued. We need look no further than to Quebec and what happened on the moratorium on fracking there.

A company came in and decided it wanted to do fracking underneath the St. Lawrence River, a body of water that all Canadians respect and understand the ecological and freshwater, and how important it is to that community. What ended up happening was the province of Quebec decided to put in some legislation to regulate and prevent fracking. Immediately, a company from the United States turned around and sued the province of Quebec.

Something the member has said is very important. All of this comes out at the federal level. Even if provinces and territories are making decisions that are being challenged by investor-state, whether it is the court system in CETA or under chapter 11 in NAFTA, it always come to the federal level. Therefore, the responsibility falls on the federal government.

Are we sitting here as parliamentarians, saying that we are going sign ourselves on to a provision that could prevent us from legislating in the interest of Canadians? I think not.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Essex, for her impassioned speech. It reminds me of something that goes back to 1997. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you were a mere child then, but I do recall the election of 1997. The Liberals stood up on their hind legs and said that they would bring in pharmacare and they would have it in place by January of 1998. We know where we are now.

That brings me to my concerns about what is in this agreement with respect to the establishment of pharmacare. We know that to preserve our health care system and reduce those waiting lists, we have to find ways to reduce costs and reinvest in things that produce results. Pharmacare and bulk buying is one of those things. In fact, they reckon we can save $11 billion a year if we had pharmacare. This agreement puts pharmacare in danger. In the fact, the nurses association says that CETA could increase drug costs by more than $850 million.

How on Earth are we going to maintain a universal health care system with this kind of situation?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from London—Fanshawe has asked an excellent question, a question I posed for the trade minister and for many Liberals in the House. No one seems to want to address it. No one wants to talk about the fact that 25% of the implementing legislation we are talking about today consists of patent changes that will cost Canadians more money.

The minister has said that it will be eight to 10 years off. Eight to 10 years is not a long span of time. Many drugs will be coming forward to be patented, such as the biosimilar drugs. These drugs could be the future. They could cure cancer and diabetes. When those drugs are patented, Canadians will have to pay more. The government has absolutely no plan to deal with that cost to the provinces. There was mention of that under the previous Conservative government, but absolutely nothing under the Liberals. I have yet to receive an answer to that question.

We would be hard pressed to find one Canadian outside of the chamber who thinks that signing a trade deal that increases the cost of drugs for them, their neighbours and loved ones is a good idea. No one thinks this is a good idea.

The other issue is pharmacare. Canadian nurses have told us quite clearly that we will likely never see pharmacare in our country, that we will be sued for trying to bring such a plan into Canada. Many countries in the EU already have—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time has expired for the hon. member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation act.

This is not the first international agreement that we have considered. In the past, we examined NAFTA, an agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. One part of NAFTA still sticks in our memories today, years later, and that is the infamous chapter 11, which allows companies to sue a government.

Governments that want to legislate on environmental, health, and worker safety issues can be taken to court by companies that are unhappy with these laws, even though every government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens.

When NAFTA was signed, I was still a university student, and I clearly remember talk of the free trade area of the Americas, or FTAA, which resulted in many protests. I remember that, at that time, there was a protest in Montreal. People there even tore down fences because they were so opposed to an even broader free trade agreement that did not respect the right of governments to legislate.

What is happening with the Canada-European union comprehensive economic and trade agreement is unbelievable. This should be an easy deal to reach since Canada and Europe are so similar. It should not be so hard to reach a deal. We should not be having so many problems.

However, once again, this deal is being negotiated behind closed doors with very little public consultation. Once again, there are also many flawed provisions, including those that will allow companies to sue governments that are seeking to protect the environment, health, and worker safety.

If we tried to explain this to people who are unfamiliar with these types of provisions, they would not believe us, and yet it is true. As a result, as I was saying, it is unbelievable because Canada and Europe should be able to easily reach agreements. We should be able to reach a deal without too much difficulty, and yet we are being faced with these types of problems.

Another problem is the fact that Canada has what is called the supply management system. It is extremely important for producers in my region and other areas of Quebec and Canada, particularly dairy, cheese, poultry, and egg producers. These sectors have a supply management system that does not rely on government subsidies.

People sometimes say that supply management is expensive. That is absolutely not the case, because it does not cost people a cent. The government does not subsidize either producers or processors. The supply managements system ensures a balance. Unfortunately, this agreement opens up the market to cheese. Basically, 17,000 more tonnes of cheese will come into the country, and that will have a direct impact on citizens as well as dairy and cheese producers. I will say more about this shortly.

I would also like to talk about the notorious investor-state provision that makes it possible for an investor to take legal action against a state. I can already picture how surprised people will be about that; I can hear them tell me that there is no way and it is just not possible. It is, though. In recent years, there have been 39 cases, and Canada came out on top in just three of them. In the rest of the cases, Canada had to pay billions in damages and interest to foreign investors. Why? Because we, as a government, decided to protect health and the environment and ensure better working conditions.

We should be proud of that, but instead we are taken to court. It costs us billions of dollars that we can no longer invest in the shift towards green energy or give to our dairy and cheese producers who are going to suffer during this transition. Indeed, some 17,000 tonnes of cheese is going to enter Canadian markets.

Let me give a concrete example. The people of Drummond know very well what I am talking about. I want to talk about shale gas. I have been working very hard on the shale gas file for many years now. Something terrible happened. An American company, Lone Pine Resources, sued the Government of Canada. That company wants to do hydraulic fracking. Without going into too much detail, I can say that that practice is extremely polluting, dangerous, worrisome, and unsafe, and the science has not yet shown that Canada can afford it.

There is a moratorium on the practice in Quebec, specifically for the St. Lawrence Valley. In the Drummond region, we are very happy about that moratorium, since permits had been granted for fracking in my region, Drummond. Tens of thousands of citizens spoke out to prevent it from happening.

Under NAFTA's famous chapter 11, this company sued the Government of Canada for $250 million. Unfortunately, if we look at how other suits against the Government of Canada played out, we are going to lose this one too. That is money that could have been invested in health, in protecting the environment, or in supporting our dairy farmers and cheese makers, for example, during a transition period like the one we are about to enter into.

One of the reasons I am extremely upset is that the negotiations have resulted in this kind of thing, which we see in so many international agreements. It is embarrassing and shameful that governments can be sued for wanting to protect their citizens.

The other problem affects our dairy farmers and cheese makers. For a little over a year now, I have been touring the dairy farms back home in Drummond. In fact, I had the opportunity to see my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who came to meet our dairy farmers and cheese makers. They told her that they are quite concerned about the agreement between Canada and Europe. They were concerned even before the arrival of the Liberal government, when the Conservatives were in power.

At least the Conservative government promised $4.3 billion in compensation. Right now, all the Liberals are promising is $350 million. This is just another embarrassing moment for the Liberals on top of the diafiltered milk issue. It is shameful because they could have resolved that problem in no time at all.

It is really quite simple. It is a matter of applying the same definition at the border and the processing facilities. What is considered milk at the border should be considered milk at the processing plant. What is not considered milk at the border, the issue we are currently dealing with, should not be considered milk at the processing plant either. This issue could have been resolved during the government's first 100 days in office. Dairy producers in the greater Drummond area and across Quebec and Canada are suffering as a result of this situation. It is extremely serious because they are losing millions of dollars a year. A dairy producer in Drummond can lose between $10,000 and $15,000 a year because this situation has not been resolved, even though it would have been a relatively easy fix.

I began visiting the cheese factories in my riding: Fromagerie St-Guillaume, Fromagerie Lemaire, and Agropur's Fromagerie de Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil. They are saying that, right now, the government is not doing enough to compensate dairy and cheese producers. They are extremely concerned. They want something to be done to improve the situation. That is why we cannot give the government carte blanche on this agreement. We want an agreement with Europe, but we want a good agreement.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech.

Members may know that my colleague from Drummond and I are neighbours not just here in the House, but also in our ridings. When he speaks about dairy production in his riding, he is referring to what is happening in both our ridings, because the two are adjacent.

The member quite rightly spoke about the fact that the previous Conservative government had earmarked and promised $4.3 billion in compensation. That was the estimated loss of dairy producers caused by the entry into Canada of 17,000 tonnes of European cheeses. The $350 million program, which includes $250 million for producers and $100 million for processors, cannot be called a compensation program. It is a new modernization subsidy program.

My colleague from Drummond spoke about it. Last year he invited me to visit a dairy farm in his riding. Producers in our ridings have already modernized their operations. They are ahead of the curve, and a $350 million spread over a few years will barely pay for the electricity that powers the milking machines they already have.

I would like our colleague to comment on the fact that the current government is not acknowledging the losses caused by 17,000 tonnes of imported European cheeses. It is not acknowledging the detrimental impact on the industry and our regions' economies.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who has the good fortune of representing a constituency whose reputation for agrifood technology is well deserved. When it comes to agriculture, she knows what she is talking about. Her riding has a lot going on in terms of agriculture.

The Liberal government's handling of the dairy products file is an epic failure. It started with diafiltered milk. How is it that diafiltered milk is still an issue? The government was supposed to keep that promise in its first 100 days. If the NDP were in power, we would have dealt with the issue because it is really not that hard. All it takes is harmonizing the definition at the border with the definition for the processing industry.

Adding another 17,000 tonnes of fine cheese to what we already import is a major concern. I have talked about cheese makers in my riding: Saint-Guillame, Lemaire, Agropur. These three cheese makers may go out of business. The equivalent of their combined output is what could be coming into Canada.

Of course, these three medium-sized cheese makers employ not two or three people, but hundreds of the people who live in my region. There are regional economies. This is about the regions. Saint-Guillaume and Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil are great little municipalities. Their economies are diversified and bustling thanks to these great, prize-winning businesses. Given the time, I would list all of the prizes that Saint-Guillaume and Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil cheeses have won. It is incredible.

The point is that the government said it would deal with this in its first 100 days. It did not, and now it is making things even worse. Of course we will not stand for that. We have to make things better. We need a good agreement with Europe, one that the NDP can back too.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, trade between Canada and Europe is already free. There are very few tariffs between Canada and the members of the European Union, which raises the question of why we need a comprehensive economic and trade agreement. However, if we are to evaluate this agreement as a trade deal, a logical starting point is to examine the current pattern of trade between Canada and the European Union.

In 2015, Canada exported $38 billion of merchandise to the European Union and imported $61 billion of merchandise from the EU. This imbalance meant a trade deficit of $23 billion.

An implication of this is that if CETA functioned as advertised and boosted bilateral trade flows, it would increase our trade deficit with the European Union. For example, a 10% increase in bilateral trade would boost exports by $4 billion and imports by $6 billion. That would raise our trade deficit with the EU by $2 billion, which is a subtraction from Canadian output and employment.

The economic models that were used to argue for CETA simply assumed balanced trade and full employment, but of course we know those assumptions are not realistic in the real world. Furthermore, these models take no account of Brexit. The United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union, which is of course very consequential for CETA. The United Kingdom is the only major European economy with whom Canada is running a trade surplus.

In 2015, Canada exported $16 billion of merchandise to Britain and imported $9 billion. If we looked at the remaining European Union countries, Canada exported only $22 billion of merchandise and imported $52 billion. In other words, Canada imported more than twice as much as we exported to the European Union, excluding the United Kingdom, and that means a trade deficit of $30 billion with what remains of the EU.

In that scenario, a 10% increase in bilateral trade would boost our exports by just $2 billion and would increase our imports by $5 billion. That would raise Canada's trade deficit with what remains of the European Union by $3 billion, an even larger subtraction from Canadian output and employment.

When we look at the actual trade flows between Canada and the EU, particularly the EU excluding the United Kingdom, there is very little reason to believe that CETA could increase Canadian output and employment; but even if it did, CETA also makes it easier for European companies to bring in temporary foreign workers. Even if there were some increase in employment in Canada, there is absolutely no guarantee that it would go to Canadian workers.

Beyond trade, I think it is important to recognize that CETA has many other provisions that have nothing to do with free trade. As other New Democrats have mentioned in this debate, CETA would increase the duration of pharmaceutical patents. That is the opposite of trade liberalization. It is a restriction that would make it harder for generic drug manufacturers and harder to have competition in pharmaceuticals and it would boost the price of those medications for consumers.

Another aspect of CETA that is very controversial and has very little to do with trade is the investor-state dispute provisions. These provisions have been watered down somewhat to try to make CETA more palatable to Wallonia and other areas of Europe that were concerned, but nevertheless there still are investor-state provisions, and CETA for the first time extends these to the municipal level of government.

The question I would ask is, why do we need these provisions at all in CETA? The origin of investor-state provisions was in NAFTA where Canadian and American investors may have had doubts about the Mexican judicial system. However, clearly Canada has a well-functioning court system. Clearly, Europe has a trustworthy judicial system. Why is it even necessary to set up a special tribunal process that is only accessible to foreign investors? Why can Canadians not use the European court system, and why can European investors not use the Canadian court system? We really have not heard an answer to this question from the government side.

It is worth reviewing some of the outrageous cases that have been brought against Canada under the investor-state provisions of NAFTA. If we go back to the 1990s, there was the Ethyl case, in which Canada tried to ban a gasoline additive, MMT, that was already banned in the United States. However, the American producer of it sued Canada under NAFTA, and the Canadian government not only lifted the ban, but also paid $13 million U.S. in compensation.

More recently, we had the AbitibiBowater case, where AbitibiBowater, a Canadian pulp and paper company, shut down its last remaining mill in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial government reclaimed water rights that it had given to AbitibiBowater to operate those mills. The company, which had registered itself in the United States, was able to present itself as an American investor and sued Canada under NAFTA for the loss of these water rights that it was no longer even using. What happened? The Canadian government paid AbitibiBowater $130 million in compensation.

To talk about an even more recent case, Lone Pine Resources is an Alberta-based oil and gas company that registered itself in Delaware and then used NAFTA to sue Canada because of Quebec's ban on fracking. Lone Pine Resources is claiming $250 million in compensation.

What we see in all of these cases is that companies are abusing the investor-state provisions of NAFTA to directly challenge democratic laws, regulations, and public policies that arguably interfere with their potential future profits. Given the bad experience we have had with the investor-state provisions of NAFTA, it is totally unclear why Canada is pushing to include these provisions in CETA. Again, it is not just a matter of re-including in CETA what is already in NAFTA. CETA actually goes farther, in the sense that it imposes this regime on municipalities, something that NAFTA and previous trade deals did not do. There is a real objection to the investor-state provisions in CETA, notwithstanding the government's efforts to water them down somewhat.

In conclusion, there is no case for CETA as a trade deal, if we look at the actual trade flows between Canada and what is left of the European Union after Brexit. Furthermore, there are many negative non-trade aspects of CETA, such as more temporary foreign workers, longer pharmaceutical patents, and more of these outrageous investor-state disputes. For all of these reasons, the NDP is opposing Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are diving into the investor-state provisions. I thank my friend for mentioning the ones under chapter 11 that we have already lost.

One of the most recent decisions that I think is particularly egregious was a split decision, two arbitrators against one, in the Bilcon decision, a U.S.-based open-pit quarry company. Bilcon is from New Jersey. It wanted to do open-pit mining in Digby Neck, Nova Scotia to get material to build highways in New Jersey, but it threatened extinction to one of the most endangered whale species on the planet, the right whale.

The Canadian arbitrator in dissent said of the Bilcon case, “a chill will be imposed on environmental review panels, which will be concerned not to give too much weight to socio-economic considerations”. It goes on about some of the details of the case and continues with “the decision of the majority will be seen as a remarkable step backwards in environmental protection.”

This is the kind of thing that happens in secret tribunals where there has been no offence under Canadian law. A Canadian corporation would have no right to complain, but Bilcon of New Jersey was able, under chapter 11 of NAFTA, to sue Canada for $300 million.

I would ask my colleague if it is not time to actually open up all of the investor-state agreements, stop taking on new ones, such as in the TPP, and take investor-state out of the comprehensive economic trade agreement.

It is the number one reason why I do not believe CETA will ever be, in its current form, ratified sufficiently in the EU to enter into effect. It is because of this kind of impact, of which Canada has been a major victim in investor-state agreements.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the proposition that we should be trying to remove these investor-state provisions from existing trade agreements. The U.S. president-elect has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and I would submit that one of Canada's objectives in those negotiations should be to remove chapter 11, because, of course, Canada has been victimized by these investor-state challenges more so than either the United States or Mexico.

I also want to pick up on the point that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands made about a regulatory chill. We have talked about specific investor-state cases and the negative effects they have had, but another effect they have is often to deter regulators from trying to strengthen standards or improve public policies in the first place. It is very difficult to measure this negative effect of investor-state provisions, but it is clearly pernicious to have regulators constantly having to second-guess whether some sort of improvement they might want to make to public interest regulation might attract one of these investor-state challenges. This is another reason to take these provisions out of trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague on his speech.

Does my colleague share our concerns regarding the possibility of higher drug costs for patients in Canada?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, I do share that concern. I think it is rather clear that that agreement is going to cause an increase in drug prices. It really has nothing to do with free trade. The agreement is going to make it harder to produce and sell drugs at a modest price. This is really going to drive up prices, not only for individuals, but also for provincial governments that have to purchase drugs for their public health care systems.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this important subject, Bill C-30, regarding the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

Canada is a trading nation. As we have heard so many times in this debate, we need good trade agreements, and we need to diversify our trading markets. Trade is too important to get these agreements wrong, especially with such an important partner as the European Union. We have to take the time to get it right. However, the Liberal government seems to be in a real rush to get this treaty ratified. The government signed CETA on October 30. The government has a set policy for the tabling of treaties in Parliament. That policy states that the treaties must be tabled with explanatory notes 21 days before the enabling legislation is presented. What happened with CETA? Bill C-30, the enabling legislation, was put on the Order Paper two days before the agreement was even signed, and it was tabled in Parliament on October 31, the day after the signing. What is the hurry? The European Union nations will be taking their time to make sure that this deal is good for them. Why are we giving them that advantage when we should be taking our time to make sure we get it right as well?

There are obviously good things about freer trade with Europe. We are happy to see the reduction or elimination of tariffs on Canadian industries, particularly those in the agricultural sector, such as beef, pork and canola. We like free trade when it is fair trade.

There is a forest products mill in my riding called Greenwood Forest Products, which creates laminated pine shelving and furniture parts. It sells its own products across western North America, but to serve eastern Canada and the eastern United States, it imports finished products from Romania. It is cheaper to do that than to ship products across Canada. That is another story. Therefore, it depends on trade with the European Union to survive. It does not pay any tariffs on products coming from the EU now, so CETA will not directly benefit it, but it does appreciate any strengthening of trade ties between Canada and Europe. It may likely have to do more business in Europe in the near future because it is deeply concerned about the direction that the softwood lumber agreement is taking with the United States. Its products have never been hit by countervail duties or tariffs in the past with the U.S. However, the recent moves in the United States between the U.S. lumber industry and the U.S. Department of Commerce have apparently expanded the number and types of products covered under the industry complaints to include a wide variety of value-added products, instead of being restricted to the dimension lumber, as it has been in the past. Therefore, it is very disappointed with the Liberal government's inaction on the softwood lumber front.

That is a good example of why we need to diversify our trading relationships. We need good trade deals with other nations and other regions. However, we do not want bad deals that will result in decreased market share for Canadian companies, unfair competition, reduced sovereignty, and significant job losses.

We are particularly worried about the investor-state dispute provisions brought in by this agreement. Under similar trade agreements, Canada has become one of the most sued countries in the world, winning only three of 39 cases against foreign interests, as we try to maintain our sovereignty in legislating protections for the environment, health, and other social interests.

I would like to quote something from the Canadian Environmental Law Association about this. It states:

[CETA] will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, the liberalization of trade in services, and the deregulation of government procurement rules will impact the federal and provincial governments’ authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.

Yes, there are carve-outs for some of these categories, but that will not stop corporations from initiating litigation, forcing us to prove that we are protected, and putting a regulatory chill on governments across this country, stopping them from enacting progressive legislation as they fear possible litigation. Since some European regions are clear that they want this provision removed, why does Canada feel compelled to insist on this part of the agreement when it is clearly not in our national interest?

I am also concerned about what CETA would do for drug costs in Canada. Changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals under CETA would be expected to increase drug costs by more than $850 million annually. This would not only be harmful to individual Canadians and their families who are struggling to get by but would make it increasingly difficult to bring in a national pharmacare program in Canada, something this country desperately needs.

We in the NDP are also concerned about compensation for sectors that would be negatively impacted by CETA. The dairy industry was promised compensation by the previous Conservative government, but the current Liberal government is now offering dairy farmers less than 10% of the amount previously on the table. There are other sectors that would be directly or indirectly affected by this agreement.

As many members know, my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay produces the finest wines in Canada. I will admit that good wines are produced across the country, from Vancouver Island to Nova Scotia. I have sampled a nice wine produced from grapes grown by the President of the Treasury Board, and I hear that the member for Brome—Missisquoi makes a great late-harvest Vidal.

The Canadian wine industry is a very important sector in the Canadian economy, contributing $8 billion to the national bottom line. It almost died after the free trade agreement with the U.S. in 1988, but through hard work on the part of a few small wineries, a long-term vision, and attention to high-quality products, the industry survived to live another day and now produces some of the best wines in the world.

In 2004, Canada signed a wine and spirits agreement with the European Union. Since that time, imports from the European Union to Canada have increased by 40 million litres to 180 million litres a year, valued at $1.16 billion. This compares to Canadian exports to the EU of only 123,000 litres, valued at $2.7 million. It is a significant imbalance.

Canada has one of the fastest-growing wine markets in the world. More and more Canadians are drinking wine, but three-quarters of that growth has gone to imported wines. The Canadian wine industry is not asking for protection or tariffs under CETA. Members of the industry are in favour of continued free trade in wine with Europe, but they are asking for help from the federal government to build the domestic industry to a level at which they can fairly compete with Europe and other wine regions of the world. The Canadian wine industry, through the Canadian Vintners Association, is asking the federal government to implement a 10-year wine industry innovation program to support the growth of this industry and to create jobs across Canada.

We need to be supporting Canadian industries at this time so they are not unduly harmed by these trade agreements but can truly take advantage of them.

To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of trade. We are very much in favour of good trade agreements. We simply want to ensure that these agreements are in the best interests of Canada, that they help grow local industries, and that they support job creation across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his extremely clear and detailed speech on the many dangers and pitfalls of this free trade agreement with the European Union. Actually, it is a proposed agreement, since it is far from a done deal.

I wonder if the member could explain how it is that an agreement negotiated by the Conservatives, for which the Liberals asked for studies on the impacts and the costs of various aspects, magically and suddenly became a progressive agreement because it is now endorsed by the Liberal Party.

What does that say about this new government's true beliefs?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, when the Liberals were in opposition in the previous parliament, they were very concerned about CETA and asked for more studies. Now we are presented with a bill and a trade agreement. The Liberals accuse the New Democrats of being against all trade agreements. We just wanted to look at this and look at the details to find out how this would help Canada. We did not want to say yes to a deal we had not seen. Now that we have seen it, we would like time for Canadians to comment on it and for industry to comment on it. I am still getting comments from people and from industries in my riding about their concerns. We have to take the time.

There are good things about this bill. There are good things about this agreement, but there are some things that are deeply troubling and certainly are not very progressive. We talked about the investor-state provisions and the intellectual property extensions that would raise the price of drugs across Canada. Those are things that are not progressive and that we would like to see changed.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know how important the agrifood file is to him.

I will not compare the quality of the wine in his riding to that of the wines in other ridings, as he did. However, as many MPs have said today, it is important to go over this agreement as it applies to the particularities of each of our ridings.

Every member of the House has the duty to go over such an agreement and assess its impact on people, jobs, economic development, and our regions.

Like my colleague, I have demonstrated how bad this agreement might be for the dairy industry in my riding. Importing 17,000 tonnes of cheese from Europe will further erode the supply management system. Under this system, our constituents are guaranteed an adequate supply of high quality products at set prices.

I am sure, knowing my colleague's interest in agrifood, that he also has an opinion on the impact of this agreement on this industry.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, agriculture is certainly one of the most important industries in Canada. We hear more and more about eating local produce, about supporting our local agriculture for health reasons, for economic reasons, for climate action reasons, and for reducing the cost of transporting these products. It makes real sense to make sure that our local agricultural industries are well supported.

Agriculture is a large part of my riding. It is mainly fruit, grapes and wine as I have mentioned. There are real issues with trade around these products.

We want free trade but it has to be fair trade as well. It cannot make the trade imbalance larger. My colleague from Regina—Lewvan mentioned the effect that would have. I talked about wine. If we make it easier to import and export wine without other measures, the Canadian wine industry may suffer as wine imports increase. The same goes with the dairy products my colleague mentioned. We have to be careful about keeping the playing field level.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my NDP and Green Party colleagues who participated in today's very important discussion on this bill.

This bill is about approving a free trade agreement with the European Union that could have a major impact on thousands of workers, our communities, the provinces, and hospital patients. It was worth taking the time to discuss this.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government seems to want to cut the debate short after spending very little time consulting people. That is the opposite of what happened with the trans-Pacific partnership, which got people up in arms. I get the feeling the Liberals did not want to go through that again. That is too bad because we could have made time for individuals, organizations, members of civil society, and experts to unpack a massive agreement that may have hard-to-predict consequences.

Besides, the Liberal Party members have been completely absent in this debate. It feels as though they want to completely wash their hands of this, like Pontius Pilate, and be done with it as quickly as possible. I remember a song from a few years ago called “What happened to all the real rebels?” Today we could be asking what happened to all the Liberal members. You could say the Liberals are missing in action. It is too bad, because they keep saying that they are proud of this free trade agreement, and yet we have hardly heard anything about it today from the governing party.

It is important, because the European Union is a natural trading partner for Canada. Our countries are western democracies governed by the rule of law with a minimum of protections for workers, some freedom of association, as well as environmental standards. The European Union is definitely a natural trading partner for us. If we want to export our products, goods, and services to a more diverse range of markets, Europe seems to be just the place for us to do business.

However, just because something seems promising does not mean that it is. When we examine the details, we see that there are major pitfalls. The main one I would like to talk about is the dispute resolution mechanism. We have experience with that in North America as a result of chapter 11 of the North-American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, negotiated with our partners the United States and Mexico.

NAFTA's infamous chapter 11 allows companies to sue different levels of government over decisions that could diminish their current or forecast corporate profits. A similar dispute resolution mechanism is in the free trade agreement that the current Liberal government is trying to sell us.

First, it threatens our democracy and our sovereignty because it gives multinationals the right to sue in certain tribunals over the decisions of our elected representatives. That is not fantasy, it is reality. The NAFTA experience was a rather painful one for Canada because 70% of corporations' lawsuits under NAFTA against federal, provincial, regional, or local governments were lost by Canada.

In 2013, Lone Pine Resources sued Canada for $250 million after the Quebec government stopped oil and gas exploration projects in the St. Lawrence River. We have a duly elected government that wants to take steps to protect the environment and ecosystems, as well as the jewel that is the St. Lawrence, and a company that complains and sues because the government's actions will deprive it of future profits. This case could cost us $250 million and it is just one example of many.

As long as there is this sort of charter of corporate rights that flies in the face of people's democratic rights, the NDP will stand up and oppose it, and we are not the only ones.

Members will recall that the Walloon parliament recently took a stand against the agreement for the exact same reason. Let us remember that the Walloon parliament did not accept the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement as it stands. It agreed to sign on the condition that the dispute resolution mechanism is removed or drastically changed. It is still opposed to that mechanism. We are far from an agreement because the 28 national parliaments of the European Union still have to go through the ratification process. We therefore cannot understand why the government is in such a rush. This process is going to take months if not years to complete.

The price of drugs is another concern for us because it affects people's lives and their health. This free trade agreement will change the intellectual property rules regarding drugs, which will drive up the cost.

Some organizations are saying that the cost of drugs may even go up by $2.8 billion a year, which is an average of $80 per Canadian per year. However, that average includes those who are not sick and who are lucky enough not to have to pay for drugs. Under the Liberals' free trade agreement, drugs could cost an average of $80 more per person and even more for those who are sick.

I think that these reasons are sufficient for us to oppose this harmful free trade agreement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The. hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has three minutes remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I concluded my speech. However, I am prepared to answer my colleague's questions.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague for providing time for this question. Forty-two per cent of Canadian exports to the European Union are to the U.K. Canadian concessions were based on the premise that the UK would be part of CETA. Those concessions include things that we are very concerned about, such as the loss of income for dairy farmers. There was supposed to be compensation and now is now questionable whether it would be adequate. There is also the cost of pharmaceuticals. Will we be able to afford drugs in our country? The joint interpretive instrument, which is outside the treaty, is supposed to be the government's right to regulate and yet it has very little weight in regard to the CETA document.

Now that the U.K. is re-evaluating its position within the European Union after Brexit, the Liberals have failed to re-evaluate the net benefit of CETA. Could my colleague comment on this change? The world has changed but the Liberals have not accounted for that change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Indeed, the Liberal government is being inconsistent. When the Liberals were in the opposition, they criticized the free trade agreement negotiated by the Conservatives. The agreement has suddenly become progressive now that it has the Liberal stamp on it. They criticized the lack of impact assessments and cost analyses. My colleague is absolutely right when she says that nothing has changed in that regard.

The government is rushing the process unnecessarily without taking into account the unanticipated change in the European Union with Brexit. While 42% of our exports to the European Union go to the United Kingdom, the Liberal government is not taking into consideration the fact that the United Kingdom will likely no longer be part of the European Union once this process has been concluded. This smacks of amateur hour. They are in a rush to be done with this.

I would also like to thank her for her question about pharmaceuticals. In an early 2011 study commissioned by the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, two eminent Canadian economists, experts in the health field, estimated that, if the provisions go through, they will delay generic drug entry in Canada by three and a half years on average. For those buying the drugs, that delay is likely to cost $2.8 billion per year, according to Jim Keon, president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association. That should worry everyone from ordinary citizens to the provinces, which, because of hospitals, will have to absorb a significant portion of rising drug costs. The Liberal government did not account for that or figure out how much it would cost.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the theme of Brexit. The member for London—Fanshawe asked about the effect it would have on trade flows. I would like to ask whether the decision to leave the European Union by Britain reflected a turn away from this orthodoxy of free trade, corporate globalization, and whether that change in the temperament of the times should influence Canada's evaluation of CETA and other free trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This should force the government to reconsider the whole process. I will have other opportunities to talk about this and criticize the Liberal government constructively.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the division on the motion be deferred until tomorrow after the time provided for government orders.

The House resumed from December 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-30.

The question is on the motion that the question be now put.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you see it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the previous vote to this one, with Liberals voting yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply, and we will be voting yes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, but this time we are voting no.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote, but we are voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone forgets about me. The caucus is absolutely unanimous and votes no.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #178

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The next question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #179

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)