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

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît just said, we on this side of the House believe that trade with Europe is too important to be taken lightly.

If we look at all the flaws in the agreement before the House, we see that indeed, the government did not do its homework. It should do its homework before introducing such a bill.

We have concerns about some of the aspects of the bill. In fact, the same concerns have also been raised in Europe. Of course, the issue of financial compensation for dairy farmers affects Quebec, Ontario, and farmers in western Canada.

The Conservatives were planning to provide financial compensation that would have eased the transition for farmers and those working in supply management.

If we look at what the Liberals are offering, we see that the Liberal Party members who were elected in dairy farming regions did not defend the interests of the farmers. The financial compensation they are offering is a drop in the bucket. The farmers are going to need a lot more than that if we are to move forward with this agreement.

It is very clear that there are problems with this agreement. When we look more globally at how both of the old parties have approached trade issues over the past decade and a half, we can see that there needs to be a much more progressive fair trade approach when we talk about these trade agreements.

As members are well aware, we are now living under a record trade deficit. It was bad under the Conservatives; it is even worse under the Liberals. Obviously there is something that is not working when we see a larger and larger trade deficit over the course of the years. What does that mean? We are certainly seeing a debt load for the average Canadian family that is increasing as well; a debt load that increased substantially under the Conservatives and is even worse under the Liberals.

When we look at what the result has been over the past 10 or 15 years, particularly in the manufacturing sector, we see that under the Conservatives we lost over half a million good manufacturing jobs. These are family-sustaining jobs. These are the kinds of jobs that people can work at during the day, come home, feed their family, and think about investing in the future. These are family-sustaining permanent jobs in the manufacturing sector. The Conservatives lost over half a million of them over the decade that they were in power.

Now, the Liberals came with the idea that they would take a different approach, and indeed they have not. We have seen further hemorrhaging of over 30,000 good manufacturing jobs, the kinds of family-sustaining jobs that Canadians depend on, over the course of just the last year alone.

We have seen under both parties an approach that, when we look at their economic files and their approach on trade, has not been to the benefit of regular working families. We have to ask why it is that both the previous and current governments seem to say that they have trade as a priority and have managed not only to provoke real problems with this particular agreement, as we saw in Europe just a few weeks ago, but have managed over time to lose so many good, family-sustaining jobs and at the same time put us at the worst level Canada has ever been in terms of trade deficit.

Part of the answer to that question is the emphasis of both governments on exporting raw logs, raw bitumen, raw minerals. We have seen the value-added sector evaporate and we have seen manufacturing jobs destroyed because we have governments that just want to ship raw materials out of the country. They do not want to provide the value added, to have Canadians make things, which has always been the hallmark of Canadians. Canadians are proud to make things, and we do it very well. I come out of the manufacturing sector myself. I was a factory worker, and I believe strongly that the quality that Canadians produce is the best in the world. Yet we have seen just over the past decade and a half under successive governments, and it does not seem to matter whether it is a Liberal or a Conservative government, a gutting of those types of jobs that used to sustain communities right across the country.

We have had some of my colleagues, like the member for Essex and the member for Salaberry—Suroît, very articulately talk about the problems with this agreement. How is it, when we go back to the issue of trade, that there is a broader problem with how successive old-party governments have approached trade issues? I want to put out a few of those problems in the few minutes that are left to me.

First off, both governments, Conservative and Liberal governments, seem to forget about regular working folks. We have seen that with the destruction of the manufacturing sector. They want to export raw goods, rather than having Canadians do what we do best, which is make things.

Second, both parties reject the fair trade model. We have not seen Liberals or Conservatives, at any point, bring forward some of the fair trade models that we have seen around the world that have been effective. Mercosur is one example, where they actually have poverty alleviation as part and parcel of the trade agreement. At no point, have we seen, from either of the old parties, any reference to fair trade.

Third, we look at the export supports. As a former trade critic I can speak to this. I met with trade commissioners in various parts of the world, in Europe and in South America, and there is not even a budget, often, for trade commissioners to even buy a cup of coffee for a potential client of Canadian goods or services.

All other trading nations invest in export supports. They put money into providing product supports and product publicity. In Canada, we asked the question a few years ago and found out about $13 million globally was spent to support all Canadian products. If we look at Australia, they invest half a billion dollars in the same area. The European community spends many times what Canada spends, just on its wine sector. The Americans, just in their beef sector, spend many times what Canada spends for all products and services.

Both of the old parties have simply not understood that exports are not just signing an agreement; it is very much having people on the ground providing support for those products coming from Canada.

Another problem has been the lack of due diligence from both governments, whether Conservatives or Liberals, it has not made any difference. There is no really intense economic analysis prior to signing these agreements. There is certainly no due diligence. Committees are just supposed to push it through without any due regard to what the actual impacts are afterward, and there is no evaluation after the fact, either. We have trade agreements that largely benefit other countries. When we actually look at who benefits as we sign each of these agreements, imports from those countries tend to grow and exports from Canada, not necessarily. In some cases, yes; in some cases, no; in all cases, there has not been due diligence.

As my colleagues have pointed out, there seems to be a saying “no” to manufacturing, saying “no” to value added, saying “no”, as we have seen, to dairy farmers and the supply-managed sector, with the Liberals cutting over 90% of the compensation that should have been due to those dairy farmers and the supply-managed sector.

Yet, at the same time, there is a “yes” to lobbyists; particularly, lobbyists who are pushing for intellectual property extensions that increase the price of drugs on the Canadian markets, in the Canadian health care system.

If the old parties had done their homework, they would understand that adding $850 million onto the cost of drugs, in the Canadian health care system, is simply not a good idea. We need a better health care system, not a worse one.

And, of course, there is the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that has created such a reaction in Europe. Of course, this is something that most countries have backed away from. Canada, under both of the old parties, whether Liberals or Conservatives, continues to push investor-state, even though most people around the world would disagree with that approach.

There are reasons why this agreement has had so many imperfections and there are reasons why we have a record trade deficit and a record debt load on Canadian families. It strikes to the heart of how these parties govern. They do not govern in the interests of regular families. I would suggest that has to change.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech and for his work on the trade files in previous Parliaments. He certainly has been an asset to me in helping me in my new role. I want to talk about what he spoke about, around working-class people.

There is another section of working-class people who will be impacted dramatically in CETA and that is those who are in the maritime jobs sector. CETA will for the first time legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports, which is called cabotage, 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-paid jobs.

The industry as a whole supports over 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. Foreign boats will bring in foreign workers with no requirement for LMIAs. These workers can be paid as little as $2 an hour. We are going to be permitting more foreign flagged vessels and we are going to hurt yet another sector, but unfortunately, the Liberal government does not want to speak about the impacts of this deal and address them so that we can get it right.

Does the member agree that these are serious concerns that deserve parliamentarians' consideration before we rubber-stamp this agreement?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to praise the member for Essex as a very strong member of Parliament who is actually a bit of a canary in the coal mine saying to the Liberal government it should not be ramming through this bill, they should be examining the implications of it before they sign off or ram through something that is going to have negative impacts on so many Canadian jobs.

The member for Essex does a wonderful job of standing up for her constituents and standing up for all Canadians and I would like to praise her for that work. She raises the issue of cabotage. The Liberals have absolutely no idea because they did not do any of the economic analysis or impacts before they rushed through this Conservative agreement. They have no idea what the actual negative impacts are. We have already talked about the dairy sector. We are talking about cabotage. We are talking about a whole range of areas where the Liberal government has not even done its homework. How many jobs will be lost in these sectors?

The question has been asked consistently and yet the Liberals have been unable to answer because they have not done their homework. They do not actually know. I think this as good as any other reason should mean rather than ramming this through, they should be going to a full analysis before any parliamentarian votes on something like this.

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

Madam Speaker, in fairness to people who might be watching this, they should be aware of the fact that traditionally New Democrats do not vote in favour of any trade agreements. They might mention one or two in which through a voice vote there might have been an occurrence or an implication that they might have actually voted possibly, maybe, who knows. The bottom line is that they have not been behind a trade agreement.

We need to recognize the many countries that have seen the value of this trade agreement. Many provinces, many stakeholders who are onside with this agreement see the value because they recognize the importance of Canada being a trading nation. Overall, this agreement is good for Canada. It is good for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it and every region of our country will benefit by this agreement.

Outside of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons, could the member indicate if there is any other government in Canada that actually opposes CETA?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleagues have already mentioned the agreements that we voted in favour of. This is the big question that the Liberals need to answer at some point: Why are they so opposed to fair trade? When they talked about real change a year ago, they said they were going to bring real change. Real change is bringing forward bad Conservative deals, no matter how many jobs are lost. Without the economic analysis, they have been unable to answer the jobs lost in the cabotage sector, in terms of manufacturing, what the impacts are of adding another $850 million on drug costs. Liberals have not been able to answer a single question and they have not explained why they are so opposed to fair trade.

Back to the member, why are they so opposed to fair trade agreements?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this place to add comment on Bill C-30, Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation act

The overwhelmingly positive economic impacts of Canadian businesses gaining preferential access to the world's wealthiest trade area cannot be overstated. This deal will reduce or eliminate approximately 99% of customs duties between Canada and the European Union. This will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian businesses whenever they sell a good into the European market.

Conversely, this will make it less expensive for Canadian businesses to buy specialized goods, like heavy machinery and parts that may not be available in Canada.

A joint Canada-EU study concluded that CETA could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion increase to Canada's economy. That is why the previous Conservative government was relentlessly focused on signing trade agreements around the world.

This focus led to Canada's first trade agreement with a major Asian economy in South Korea, and the first major trade agreement with a South American economy in Colombia. These footholds are hugely important for exporters who want to export their products to Asia or South America. For an economy that relies on the service sector and exports, these deals are of paramount importance.

That is why the previous government launched negotiations for Canada's most ambitious free trade agreement with Europe in May 2009. After years of negotiations with the European Union and its 28-member countries, negotiations ended in August 2014, and a deal in principle was reached during the summer of 2015.

The Liberals were handed the CETA on a silver platter. Yet, for reasons that may never be explained, they nearly blew it. For several days after Wallonia, a small region in Belgium, announced that it would be supporting the agreement, there were legitimate fears that the deal had collapsed.

On October 25, as the minister was in the House defending her record on this deal, she stated, “when it comes to CETA, Canada has done its job.”. The argument that because Canada had worked hard up to that point and therefore it was acceptable to let Europe do “its job now”, was fraught with so many problems I cannot even begin to list them. These deals do not sign themselves. Canada must always fight for its interests, and not sit and wait and hope for the best.

Thankfully, the pro-trade powers in Europe that strongly supported this deal got it moving again. They did so because CETA could serve as a template for a similar agreement between Europe and the United States at a later date.

The Minister of International Trade has been repeating over and over that she got CETA over the finish line because she made this deal more “inclusive and progressive”. The only thing that has changed from the deal in principle negotiated by the Conservatives and the agreement we are discussing today is the investor-state dispute settlement process. Nothing else has changed.

Canada has always been recognized as a country with the strongest record for human rights, rule of law, democracy, regulation, and the list goes on. CETA has always been a progressive and inclusive agreement because Canada has always been a progressive and inclusive country. Saying otherwise would be disingenuous.

Concerning the investor-state dispute mechanisms I mentioned, investor-state dispute arbitration tribunals are made available in nearly 3,000 bilateral investment treaties. Even Belgium has investment provisions with 182 different parties. These are not new, and many work quite well.

Under the investor-state dispute settlement process, foreign investors can sue the host state before an arbitration tribunal, appointed on a case-by-case basis by the two affected parties, if they believe the treaty governing trade between the two countries has been violated. This system is used for dispute mechanisms in over 3,000 bilateral trade agreements, including NAFTA, and its strengths and weaknesses are known and understood.

Civil society groups have questioned the appropriateness of applying a dispute settlement mechanism created to resolve private-commercial disputes to international public law disputes, because it is felt to favour the companies from larger countries. Critics have also raised concerns over the potential for the arbitrator to have bias and the potential for conflict of interest.

In response to these criticisms and in preparation for negotiations with the United States on a free trade agreement, the European Union began developing the concept of an investment court after the deal in principle with Canada was agreed to in 2014. The investment court would be a primary tribunal of 15 judges and an appeal tribunal of six members. The members would be named by the EU and Canada. It would be administered by the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

The court of first instance would sit in benches of three members each and would decide the original complaint. As with any new process, it is hard to know exactly how this will unfold. Who within each country will be responsible for appointing judges to the court? What will their training and fields of expertise be? How long will they sit for? Will the judges be idle if there are not many challenges? Or will they be allowed to work and consult in addition to their duties on the court?

Considering Canada's population is less than a tenth of the size of Europe's, how many of the 21 jurists would be Canadian? In the case of Wallonia, how many jurists would come from that region over jurists from France or Germany? There is no common law, in international disputes between corporations and governments, that jurists could draw guidance from when deciding cases, so it is hard to speculate whether the outcomes of legal challenges would be any different.

One of the main criticisms of the investor-state tribunals is that due to their decentralized nature, the arbiters do not necessarily consider the decisions of other arbiters. Therefore, their rulings are inconsistent. However, this new system does not necessarily fix this. If these investment courts become the norm, there could be hundreds of different courts deciding trade disputes. How consistent their rulings would be remains to be seen. Furthermore, a permanent multilateral investment court would only be consistent in its rulings relative to the treaty that governs the trade between two countries.

As with any new process, as I have said, it is hard to know exactly how it will unfold. If this new court satisfies European negotiators, then it should be included as the treaty's primary dispute mechanism. The question remains, why do the Liberals believe that this has made the CETA more inclusive or progressive? The fact is that jurists on the new court will render their decisions on the evidence and the text of the trade agreement, which remains the same as what the Conservatives negotiated 15 months ago.

Quite frankly, getting this trade deal done should have been the government's first priority. Now that it is signed, I hope it will place a relentless focus on getting the trans Pacific partnership completed at the earliest possible opportunity. The more markets Canadian producers can sell into without the competitive disadvantage of tariffs, the better off we will be as a country.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, rules in international trade are very important. They prevent dumping, for instance.

Our Canadian companies can benefit. For instance, in drywall, American companies have been dumping a lot of their product here. For me, it is very important that we protect Canadian jobs and also have uniform rules in international trade that people respect. These international tribunals can be used in a good way. They can be used to protect Canadian jobs. However, we have to ensure that other nations and companies respect that.

I hope the hon. member can agree that at the end of the day we are here to protect Canadian jobs and Canadian industry, and to allow them to have a fair and even playing field. We are also here to project our influence into the world in manufacturing and other businesses.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his observations on the benefits of trade agreements to the parties that enter into them.

As I noted in my remarks, a joint Canada-EU study concluded that CETA would bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and up to a $12 billion increase in Canada's economy.

As with any trade agreement or government policy for that matter, some industries will definitely benefit more than others. It is really up to government to ensure that the needs of everyone are taken care of and that everyone benefits.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservative government recognized that CETA would lead to significant losses for Canadian dairy farmers, it offered $4.3 billion in compensation. The Liberal government has stated that only $250 million is needed over five years.

Why is there a big gap from the last government to the present government? Could my colleague comment on that please?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that is a question I can answer. I do not know how governing members came up with those numbers.

What I can tell you is that I have met with a number of dairy farmers and their organizations. They said that they were satisfied with the transition package that the previous Conservative government had put forward. Does that mean the work is done? No, there is still work to be done.

Our dairy farmers and processors need to decide between them what they need to do to maintain or grow the Canadian market when more European products come into Canada. At the end of the day, they will be able to do that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address her answers through the Speaker and avoid the word “you”. That will save a lot of interruptions.

We have time for a brief question, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it will be a more of a comment.

When the agreement was signed and the minister came forward, she clearly indicated that this had been a high priority for the Government of Canada. That was why she spent as much time as she did overseas. The minister also made reference to the fact that the agreement was initiated by the Conservative Party.

Would the member not recognize at the very least that this agreement was achieved not because of just one government, but it took two governments to make it ultimately happen?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, this agreement is the result of years of hard work, especially by our world-class trade negotiators who did all the heavy lifting. We welcome the opportunity to see this deal come into force.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-30 on the free trade agreement with Europe. You probably know that I was the deputy international trade critic in the last Parliament.

I am very familiar with this issue and I am pleased to now debate it because it allows me to point out the NDP position on trade agreements in general. I can talk about agreements negotiated since the last Parliament because I was elected in 2011.

We examine free trade agreements through three different lenses. First, we determine whether a free trade agreement promotes human rights, environmental rights, and the rights of workers. That is why, in the past, we opposed several free trade agreements negotiated by the government, and in this case by the Conservative government.

One in particular was the agreement with Colombia, where workers' rights and their right to associate are frequently violated. The agreement with Panama was problematic because of taxation issues arising from the fact that Panama is a tax haven. The free trade agreement exacerbated the tax evasion problem. We also opposed the agreement with Honduras, and I was a member of the committee that studied that agreement.

The second criterion is reciprocity. We look at whether free trade agreements confer reciprocal rights and responsibilities on both parties. I this case, the two parties are Canada and Europe. That was one of the lenses through which we examined all trade agreements in the past.

The third criterion is whether Canada will be better off economically with such an agreement. Will the agreement be good for the Canadian economy as a whole? Those of us on this side of the House understand that, in any trade agreement, some sectors will be winners and others will be losers.

This third criterion is the one that is problematic in the agreement with Europe. First of all, there is the issue of generic drugs. Changes are going to be made to intellectual property rights that will have repercussions on the pharmaceutical industry. Various groups have studied the agreement and the repercussions it will have on drug accessibility programs and on the provinces' ability to provide generic drugs quicker.

Ultimately, the extension of intellectual property rights under this agreement, especially with regard to drugs, could mean additional costs of about $850 million, according to some estimates.

What is odd is that the government did not do any impact studies to see how much more this would cost either the private sector or the provinces. As we all know, a number of provinces have pharmacare programs. The government refuses to study the issue of the additional costs to our pharmacare programs, which the provinces usually pay for. It just keeps telling us that this agreement is a good thing.

We know, however, that the parliamentary budget officer has asked for an assessment of the additional drug costs the provinces will incur under this agreement, and that Health Canada replied that those figures remain confidential.

A second aspect of the free trade agreement with Europe we need to look at involves compensation for the cheese and dairy industry. When the Conservatives first signed the agreement, which has been signed three times already, Prime Minister Harper arrived, and we began discussing compensation for the cheese and dairy industry, to help its members through the transition. This compensation was estimated by the Conservatives at that time at $4.3 billion over 10 years.

Obviously, the Liberal government was in the hot seat and was asked what kind of compensation would be provided to the industry to help it through this difficult period. We know that the higher cheese quotas will allow over 17,000 tonnes of different kinds of cheese into the country, which will be in competition with ours. We need compensation. The industry had asked for this compensation to help them through the transition.

The Conservative government promised $4.3 billion over 10 years. The Liberals said not to worry, that they would help with the transition, and that they would also provide compensation. However, the compensation they plan to provide is $350 million over five years. That is approximately $70 million a year, whereas the compensation that was promised previously totalled $430 million a year. Cheese and dairy producers are outraged, and I can see why. Twelve per cent of the economy of the region that I represent in the House is dependent on agriculture, mainly the dairy industry.

I therefore cannot understand why the federal government has decided to give such minimal compensation to an industry that will be so heavily affected. The government has not given any convincing arguments to justify such a low level of compensation. I see some Liberal members from Newfoundland and Labrador here. No mention has been made of the compensation promised to Newfoundland and Labrador's fish and seafood processing industry, and we still do not know what the government intends to do in that regard.

The government is calling this a progressive agreement, but ultimately, it was negotiated by the Conservatives. Some members of the House may have already noticed a disconnect. What is more, the Conservatives planned to provide more compensation than the Liberals. There are therefore a number of problems with this agreement. There may be a reciprocity issue. In order to find out, we need to conduct an assessment of the impact on the Canadian economy. We do not know if there is a reciprocity issue because the Liberals never conducted an impact assessment.

In terms of human rights, the rights of workers and environmental rights, I think we can acknowledge that Europe and Canada are pretty similar.

The third aspect involves determining whether Canada will come out ahead, that is whether the Canadian economy will benefit from this agreement. That is far from clear, because the Liberals have not managed to convince the House and the Canadian public that the free trade agreement with Europe would be generally beneficial. Yes, we hear about the trade volume numbers, but these numbers do not reflect the possible impact on the various government programs, such as pharmacare, or our industries, such as the dairy and cheese industry.

When the Liberals and Conservatives tell us that we are dogmatic when it comes to trade, they try to hide the fact that they have never turned down a free trade agreement. We are the only party in the House that bothers to look at the details of these trade agreements.

A trade agreement is like a contract. You need to look at the terms and conditions. Back when the Liberals were the third party on this side of the House, when Stephen Harper came back from Brussels saying that they had signed an agreement with Europe, the first thing the Prime Minister, who at the time was the member for Papineau, did was to congratulate him for signing this free trade agreement and to tell him that the Liberals would support it. He then asked when they would be able to look at it.

They are willing to sign free trade agreements without studying them. Is that responsible? Name someone who thinks it is responsible to sign contracts without looking at what is in them. The same can be said about the Conservatives. They negotiate agreements and accept them without even looking at them.

We, on the other hand, are doing our due diligence. We study all the trade agreements brought before us and make decisions based on what is in them, on their provisions and the net benefit we can get out of it as a country.

No one, then, can claim that the NDP's position on trade is dogmatic and ideologically driven. We are the only party that acts responsibly. In this case, since the Liberals have refused to give us the information required, I am unable to vote in favour of this bill at second reading.

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe that the member would stand up and say that his is the only party being responsible. Let us flash back to the TPP. Before the TPP details even came out, everyone knew that the NDP was going to vote against it.

The only consistent thing that comes from the New Democrats on the trade file is no, no, no. I am hearing through the grapevine that they might actually support the Ukraine deal, but to try to give the impression that they are responsible on trade, to quote my daughter the other day in the chamber, really?

Does the NDP not recognize the hundreds of millions of dollars in benefit? This is really important, because it would help all Canadians in every region of our country if this bill were to pass.