Bill C-30 (Historical)

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures

This enactment implements the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, done at Brussels on October 30, 2016.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 14 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Agreement and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenses associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and for the power of the Governor in Council to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.
Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement and to make other modifications. In addition to making the customary amendments that are made to certain Acts when implementing such agreements, Part 2 amends
(a) the Export and Import Permits Act to, among other things,
(i) authorize the Minister designated for the purposes of that Act to issue export permits for goods added to the Export Control List and subject to origin quotas in a country or territory to which the Agreement applies,
(ii) authorize that Minister, with respect to goods subject to origin quotas in another country that are added to the Export Control List for certain purposes, to determine the quantities of goods subject to such quotas and to issue export allocations for such goods, and
(iii) require that Minister to issue an export permit to any person who has been issued such an export allocation;
(b) the Patent Act to, among other things,
(i) create a framework for the issuance and administration of certificates of supplementary protection, for which patentees with patents relating to pharmaceutical products will be eligible, and
(ii) provide further regulation-making authority in subsection 55.‍2(4) to permit the replacement of the current summary proceedings in patent litigation arising under regulations made under that subsection with full actions that will result in final determinations of patent infringement and validity;
(c) the Trade-marks Act to, among other things,
(i) protect EU geographical indications found in Annex 20-A of the Agreement,
(ii) provide a mechanism to protect other geographical indications with respect to agricultural products and foods,
(iii) provide for new grounds of opposition, a process for cancellation, exceptions for prior use for certain indications, for acquired rights and for certain terms considered to be generic, and
(iv) transfer the protection of the Korean geographical indications listed in the Canada–Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act into the Trade-marks Act;
(d) the Investment Canada Act to raise, for investors that are non-state-owned enterprises from countries that are parties to the Agreement or to other trade agreements, the threshold as of which investments are reviewable under Part IV of the Act; and
(e) the Coasting Trade Act to
(i) provide that the requirement in that Act to obtain a licence is not applicable for certain activities carried out by certain non-duty paid or foreign ships that are owned by a Canadian entity, EU entity or third party entity under Canadian or European control, and
(ii) provide, with respect to certain applications for a licence for dredging made on behalf of certain of those ships, for exemptions from requirements that are applicable to the issuance of a licence.
Part 3 contains consequential amendments and Part 4 contains coordinating amendments and the coming-into-force provision.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and bears looking into. This plan would provide compensation to farmers. It may not be at the level previously done by the Conservative Party, but this plan would also open up a vast new market for our farmers, our beef producers, for Alberta and Quebec farmers.

In the long-term, it will be a benefit to all Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciate that the member referenced Jacek Chocolate Couture, which is a phenomenal business in my constituency. I had an opportunity to go on a tour there recently.

I do want to ask the member an important question about NAFTA. We have had the current government, right out of the gate with the new president-elect, basically not show confidence in the importance of this trade deal; basically throw it under the bus and say, “Sure we would be happy to negotiate it”.

We should all appreciate the benefits that come from NAFTA, a trade deal that has been in place for a very long time. The protectionist talk that we are hearing from the United States is not about trading more. It is about tightening that deal, not expanding it.

Could the member comment on the importance of international trade, and why we actually need to have a government that understands the benefits that come with NAFTA, and these other trade deals, and that is actually going to stand up and defend them?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important, now more than ever, with what is happening in the U.S., and also in various countries around the world as they start talking about throwing up protective walls. We know that it is going to do the exact opposite. We saw during the Great Depression that protectionist barriers made the economy across the entire world worse.

It is very important that we continue the great work of Prime Minister Harper and the previous government in expanding our trade markets across the world, not only to find new markets but also to counter the effects of protectionism that we see growing down in the United States and in other countries.

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

Madam Speaker, the member in his speech talked about an offer we cannot refuse. The last time I heard that line, things did not go so well in that particular situation.

All kidding aside, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the cost of prescription drugs. That issue is often forgotten in this debate. We have been talking a lot about the investor-state dispute settlement clauses and the impact on the dairy industry, particularly in my province of Quebec, and with good reason. However, the cost of medication is going to increase by approximately $850 million, which will affect not only the provinces, which administer the health care system, but also the people who have to pay for those medications.

Although we recognize the importance of free trade with Europe, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the impact this will actually have on the cost of living of people who need medication, particularly seniors.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and again, like the previous questions from my colleagues in the NDP, it probably bears a bit more thought and more investigation.

On the pharmaceutical front, we must consider that the pharmaceutical industry in Canada is worth over 27,000 jobs and involves over $1 billion in R and D. This is only going to increase as we have much greater access to the European market. I will comment that it is about $800 million in new drugs and only a small percentage of that is in generic drugs.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to support the CETA agreement.

I would like to talk about a couple of things, basically that this comprehensive trade agreement opens up opportunities to many investors on both sides of the agreement, Canadian investors and European investors. I will move on from there to talk about some of the things that an agreement like this inspires and that, hopefully, can move this country toward, including by dealing with the trade barriers that exist within our own border.

The Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, will create jobs, strengthen economic relations, and boost Canada's trade with the second largest market on the globe.

As I think back to the time I have been in Parliament and part of the previous two governments, I recall the words of Prime Minister Harper on many occasions when he spoke about getting the business fundamentals correct. What CETA and the 40-plus other trade agreements the Harper government put together did was to focus on business fundamentals.

What are the business fundamentals in this country? They include things like keeping taxes low. In fact, compared to the United States, the total business tax load in this country is 46% lower. That was something we worked on during more than 10 years of government. We made that particular goal of setting and making sure the fundamental of keeping taxes low for business was right.

Why is that important in the context of a free trade agreement? It is important because we have to look good to investors from Europe. Europeans can now come here with this free trade agreement, know that goods can flow back and forth freely between our countries and consider making investments here, such as the one that we have in my community of Brantford, which is the Ferrero Company, a family company that came to this country nine years ago. The family came to North America. They decided where they would have their North American operation, and thankfully they landed in Brantford, Ontario, for all of their North American product lines. People will know Rocher, Tic Tac, and many of the products the company makes, with close to 1.5 million square feet of production.

I bring up that example because when companies like Ferrero, an Italian family company, make a decision, they make it based on research into what type of business environment they would be going into, what type of country, and how they will be treated as investors.

Among its other benefits that CETA provides in its market access provisions is enhanced investor protection. CETA will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, transparency, and protection for their investments, easing investment restrictions. The net benefit review threshold under the Investment Canada Act will be raised from the current $60 million Canadian to $1.5 billion, following CETA's entry into force.

The advantage over other countries is very significant, especially in the Americas. None of the other top destinations for EU investment in the Americas—the U.S., Mexico, and Brazil—have investment treaties in place with the 28 EU member states, because only CETA provides that. CETA is an agreement, as I said from the outset, and many people have talked today about the scope of CETA, the potential 80,000 jobs, the potential $1,000 per family benefit it would brings if we extend the benefits across our population. It brings us into a privileged environment in the world in terms of being free traders, allowing us to say to the globe that we can negotiate a deal like this when other countries are not about to do so.

I would like to transition into talking about what we face in this country today, namely the enormous trade barriers within our own borders, the provincial trade barriers today facing certain industries. Obviously, the debate we had earlier in this Parliament that my colleague entitled “free the beer” was an aspect of that. I am going to describe it from the point of view of my background, from having been in the construction industry in Ontario and trying to do business in other provinces.

First of all, what we need in this country more than anything else is a keen focus by the current government and the provincial governments on removing those trade barriers. I was very disappointed that the government chose not to vote for the free the beer initiative of my friend. That would have been a beginning, sending a signal to other industries to do that.

In the construction industry, particularly with tradespeople, this is significant, especially when there are downturns in certain parts of the country while other areas of the country are prospering. A person can have credentials as an electrician, plumber, carpenter, or whatever, and may be a licenced carpenter within Ontario's borders, but as soon as that person wants to practice that trade in other parts of the country, those credentials are not accepted as proper. One has to go through a retraining and certification process all over again in certain jurisdictions.

More so, when electrical companies or plumbing companies expand to a certain size and want to expand across the country, when they look at projects in other provinces, they are restricted from bidding on those jobs. They are told that they are restricted, because they are Ontario-based companies. This happens right here in the Ottawa area with our neighbouring province, Quebec, all the time.

However, it depends on the province. The Quebec contractors can come over to Ottawa and do work here, but Ottawa contractors cannot go to Quebec and do work there. These are the types of provincial barriers that I am talking about, which we need to focus keenly on reducing in this country.

I recall the 1988 debates around the NAFTA agreement. The NAFTA agreement in 1988, for all kinds of reasons, was opposed by different political parties, including the opposition and the typical groups right across this country. They thought we were going to lose our national identity from all of it, that we were going to lose our autonomy, and that our water was going to be taken away from us. All of these exaggerations were disproven.

The visionary part of a free trade agreement goes right to the top, reflecting who the prime minister of the day is. I can recall in those days looking to Prime Minister Mulroney and thinking that his was leadership that could hold the ground. He had the backbone to stand up to the type of opposition at that time, fight an election over it, and bring that free trade agreement, NAFTA, into existence.

I can tell members that today I feel the exact same way about Prime Minister Harper, who made free trade agreements a focus of his. CETA is part of the legacy of his leadership. I am proud to be here today to support this important free trade agreement and to have been part of the hard work since 2007 on that by Prime Minister Harper and the leadership of the Conservative Party.

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

Madam Speaker, the member just mentioned Brian Mulroney fighting an election over NAFTA, but of course it was not NAFTA. It was the free trade agreement. NAFTA was actually brought in by the Liberals. To be sure, it was negotiated by Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives, but it was actually the Liberals who ran on a promise to change it and who gave Canadians the impression they were not very committed to it, then went ahead and brought it in.

I cannot help but notice the similarity of that to the position we are now in. For instance, in the election, the Liberals said they were not really in support of the TPP. Since coming into government, they have launched consultations within the country, but internationally, the Prime Minister has been out promoting the deals. They took CETA and picked up right where the Conservatives left it. They have been moving that project ahead despite the fact they have not presented any real evidence about how it will be good for the country, and they have not done anything to mitigate some of the real costs of the agreement.

I wonder if the member has noticed the same approach to trade by the Liberals, to give Canadians who have legitimate concerns about free trade the impression that they are on board with those concerns when they were in opposition, and then steamroll ahead when they are in government.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, this I know, that free trade agreements are good for our country. Let us remove the politics from this. The fact is, the new government should get the credit for coming in and picking up the ball and getting the deal done, just as it has given credit to our government for spending the years from 2007 to 2015 putting all the essential pieces together, so that really all the current government needed to do was to sign it.

My colleague from the NDP can go on into the weeds about the people who are against these things. Free trade has done nothing but bring prosperity to our country, and it will continue to do so. Hats off to everyone who has put this deal together.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to what the member had to say. He spoke about transparency, and I could not agree more that we need transparency on what exactly we are signing on to as parliamentarians. When we talk about pharmaceuticals, 25% of the implementing legislation of the bill is to change the Patent Act in Canada. These will be the biggest changes to our Patent Act in over 20 years. It will result in Canadians paying more for medication for years to come.

We are being asked to approve these major changes, with the majority of the details only coming out later in the form of regulatory packages. The language in the act is a blank cheque regarding pharmaceutical costs for Canadians, and it is incomplete.

Is the member concerned that CETA will lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians, particularly as Canadians already pay more for prescription drugs than nearly every other OECD country?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the quick answer is no, I am not concerned, because I believe the opposite will happen. I sat on the industry committee when we looked at the patent laws of our country compared to other countries we import products from, and at the intellectual property debates we have had in the country. Frankly, we have a big reform to do to make sure our pharmaceutical costs stay competitive with other jurisdictions', as sometimes they are not because of the rules and regulations.

The more we harmonize with developed economies, such as the 28 European countries who are part of this deal, and the United States, our neighbour, and the more we bring those harmonization rules to patenting and intellectual property, the more consumers will benefit at the end of the day. It is a process. It is a transition, but I totally disagree with the premise of that question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 Drummond, Official Languages; the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Rail Transportation; the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, International Trade.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and provide a bit of an antidote to the Conservative-Liberal love-in that has been taking place in the House of Commons today over CETA, which we cannot deny has been pretty cozy. When we have the international trade minister and the international trade critic of the Liberals and Conservatives respectively hugging in the House of Commons over a deal, I think it is fair to say if there was anything we could call a love-in within Parliament, that is it. That happened on the day they signed the deal and has continued throughout this debate.

Therefore, I am pleased to rise and provide a different perspective, one that frankly is shared by many Canadians and many people across North America who are fed up. That energy needs to be channelled in the right way, with having this kind of condescending claptrap from parties and politicians who have big business as their allies, and who, every time we criticize the fact that in some cases these deals have meant good jobs leaving the country, tell us that we just do not understand trade or that we are against trade.

The NDP is for trade. We understand well the importance of trade for our local economy and for workers. However, I think insurance is a good idea. We could pontificate on the history of insurance and that it came to be because some things were not the way they should be and families ended up in dire straits. Therefore, insurance is a great product and we should have insurance. We would not take any insurance policy and sign it without reading it, so it is not about whether we are for or against insurance that we decline a particular policy or not, and it is not that the NDP is against trade that we say that there are problems with this deal. On balance, we think the problems are not worth the proposed benefits.

What we have heard members say is that they are in favour of the possible benefit of the potential market. What we have not seen from the government is a province-by-province analysis of what this will mean for jobs. We have not seen a sector-by-sector analysis to say who the winners and the losers will be. In some cases, we do have a sense of who the losers will be. We know that they are in the agricultural sector. We know that the former government negotiated a settlement with some of those producers to the tune of over $4 billion. Nothing has changed in the agreement, and presumably nothing has changed in terms of the consequences for those producers, but the current government has arbitrarily lowered that compensation package. However, what we have not heard, and what the Liberals have not said, is why we are hurting those producers and why it is worth spending taxpayer money to compensate those producers, even though they are not doing it to the extent that the Conservatives saw fit, because these people over here will win, and these are the jobs that will be created, and these are the businesses that are just waiting with an export development plan to move their business into Europe and to capture that market, instead of just talking about the paper access that we are buying, and not inexpensively, as we go through some of the other items in this deal.

I was talking to a farmer in Manitoba just last week who was saying that it is true that for certain agriculture products there are quotas on what can be exported from Canada into Europe. It is true that CETA raises those quotas. That is great. It would be even better if those agricultural producers were actually meeting the existing quotas. However, they are not. Therefore, we will sign up for certain investor-state dispute settlement clauses, we will sign up for an agreement that will interfere with the ability of local governments to use buy local provisions in their procurements, and we will sign on to a higher cost for drugs. Why? To expand a quota that is already not being met.

When we talk about trade-offs, it seems to me that the kind of theoretical benefit of an expanded quota that producers are already not meeting is not worth the very concrete costs that are represented in higher drug costs, for example. That is an argument the Liberals should understand as it is comparable to an argument they made about the tax-free savings account when they reduced that threshold. They asked why the threshold should be increased from $5,000 to $10,000 when most people are not already availing themselves of the $5,000 limit. It is the very same argument. Therefore, why would we incur higher drug costs, which is a very real cost for Canadians, in exchange for higher quotas on certain agricultural products, when those quotas are already not being met?

I think we need to come down to earth a bit and stop making this a debate about whether we are for or against trade. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge said in his speech that he wanted to talk about what was in the agreement and whether on balance certain things were better or not. Then he launched into a diatribe against the NDP just for saying that we think there are some problems with the agreement. I did not hear him once mention something that he thought was problematic in the agreement.

I do not know how we could conceptualize a debate on the content of an agreement and the nature of the trade-offs without actually mentioning any of the trade-offs, but just launching into a platitudinous speech about how wonderful this is without concrete examples.

I already mentioned that part of the problem here, if we want to get real and assess an agreement, is that there is not enough information to do that. We do not actually have anything approaching a comprehensive study by the government, released to Canadians, talking about what the impact on jobs and industry in Canada is going to be.

We do not know what the relative impact, from province to province, is going to be. We do not know how the various sectors are going to be affected. We do not know, frankly, and we could not know, the economic impact of everything that is being given up in this agreement without a blink. This agreement covers everything except for what is carved out.

There are certain carve-outs, for instance, on the buy local provisions. Some provincial governments have advocated to say that this sector should not be touched or that sector should not be touched, when what that gives up is everything we have not already thought of.

If members in this House think that they are so smart, and everyone in provincial legislatures is so smart, as to have thought of every technological and economic development that is going to happen over the lifetime of this agreement, which incidentally is not a temporary agreement, then so be it. I am a little more modest. I think we ought to be more modest.

There are a lot of things that can change. We live in a world that changes very quickly. It is imprudent at best to sign on to agreements that essentially give up everything that we have not already thought of. We do not know what the impact of that is going to be.

No one has said why it is a good idea to sign that kind of an agreement that essentially covers everything we have not already thought of versus an agreement that just covers the things we are talking about, in the sectors that we know about today and some of those particular trade-offs. On the face of it, that seems like a better approach.

We also do not know, recently having had a referendum to leave the European Union, what the impact or consequence of that is going to be. We do know that it is going to take years for European parliaments to ratify this agreement. I simply do not understand why we are in such a rush here in Canada. I have not heard a good answer.

We heard one member say that he does not see a need to put on the brakes on a good deal. How do we know if it is a good deal when we do not even know who is in it yet? Is the member saying it is immaterial to the benefit of the agreement to Canada, whether Britain is covered by the agreement or not? That is a ridiculous thing to try to maintain.

If we do not do that, if we take the sensible approach and say that it actually does matter whether the United Kingdom is covered under CETA or not, and that that has an impact on what the potential benefits are for Canada, then the right thing to do would be to put the brakes on and take a little bit of a wait-and-see approach.

The agreement is not going anywhere. I think it would be far more prudent to come back to it when we actually have a better sense of what the lay of the land is. It is a time of a lot of change and uncertainty. To me, that says it is the wrong time to jump in with both feet into a major economic treaty.

With this agreement, there is a recurring problem, in my view, with a lot of the trade agreements that we have signed since 1993, which is the investor-state dispute settlement clauses. In my mind, those have very little to do with trade. Foreign investors who have an issue and who do not feel they have been treated fairly can go to Canadian courts and can seek fairness in Canadian courts. They can do that without tying the hands of government in terms of its ability to regulate for the benefit of the environment, for the benefit of workplace health and safety, for health benefits. That is a reasonable approach. There is nothing wrong with that.

The Canadian court system has certain principles of openness and transparency that I think we would all agree are important. No one is advocating we get rid of those principles. When we take that decision-making power out of the hands of the Canadian court system and transfer it to the international trade tribunals, for which we do not have the rules or the guidelines according to which arbitrators are going to be selected, we are doing serious damage to the ability of Canadians to make their own decisions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I understand the member still had a lot to say, but he will be able to do it through questions and comments, given that the time has expired for his speech.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is interesting because he talked about the fact that many members spoke in favour of the agreement saying it was very good news before they ever truly had the chance to look at it in detail.

What is currently going on in committee is a good example. I do not want to get into the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure, but this is an important point. At the Standing Committee on International Trade, a decision was made not to accept written submissions from witnesses who cannot physically appear before the committee, either because they do not have time or the committee does not have time to hear them.

That is the opposite of what is done 99% of the time at other parliamentary committees. This is extremely worrisome given how important it is to hear from all those affected by this agreement. In the spirit of hearing all views, I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks about this problem and this unprecedented move by the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If we compare the CETA consultation process to the electoral reform consultation process, what emerges is enough to make anyone cynical.

On CETA, the Liberals do not even want to let Canadians send in written submissions. The Liberals do not want to hear what Canadians have to say even though this is a major agreement that will have long-lasting repercussions.

On electoral reform, MPs, ministers, a special committee, and a website were all mustered for consultations. Now they even want to reach out to people by mail.

Apparently, when they do not want to do something, they hold all kinds of consultations, they talk a lot, and they never do anything. In contrast, when they want to do something, they go ahead and do it without holding consultations.