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.

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what else my colleague has to say. I do not think he said everything he wanted to say, so I would like to hear the rest.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, basically what we are saying in the speech is that at the end of the day, a trade is a trade is a trade. We must trade.

With a smaller population in this country, we have to trade. We have to go as far as we can, in exporting our crude oil from Alberta, our beef, any other goods or farm stuff. We have to take it to the market. We need a free market where we can trade freely, without any tariffs or anything else.

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

Mr. Speaker, when this agreement was negotiated, the United Kingdom was still part of the European Union. Nearly 50% of our trade is with the United Kingdom, so the negotiators had that in mind.

I am wondering whether the member is as worried as we are about the fact that the United Kingdom is no longer part of that agreement.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. When this agreement was negotiated, it was negotiated with the U.K. in the situation. Unfortunately, things happened.

I strongly suggest that the Liberal government negotiate separately with the United Kingdom. Again, we need more and more trading partners. I know where the concerns of the member are coming from, but, on our side, we favour more trade with the entire world, including the United Kingdom.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I took note of your comment just a few minutes ago about time. I must admit that I am not normally someone who backs down from a challenge, but what is being proposed here this morning is utterly impossible. We are supposed to try to summarize, comment on, and analyze a treaty as comprehensive as the one in Bill C-30 in just 10 minutes.

Instead I will try to shed some light on a few aspects of this treaty that I see as particularly important and that will allow everyone listening to this debate, especially the people of Trois-Rivières who have placed their trust in me, to understand the situation I find myself in and my position on this treaty.

All too often, and this is perhaps the first point I want to make, people try to portray the NDP as a party that is reluctant to sign free trade agreements, but that is not the case. What is true, however, is that we never make any decisions about an agreement without reading it. It took quite a while for the texts of the treaty to become available. Even as we speak, not all clauses of the treaty have been finalized.

I commend the Walloons who distinctively said they would go a step further, but reserve the right to go back and say no thank you if at the end of the process their questions and aspirations have not been satisfied.

I wonder why there is such urgency in Quebec and Canada. We have more than a few weeks to ratify this agreement. We are already hearing in Quebec, partly through the leader of the official opposition, that ratifying this agreement is out of the question if it does not include meaningful compensation for Quebec's dairy industry. I will come back to that.

Of course, he is not the Premier of Quebec, but between now and the end of the ratification process, a lot can change, not only in Quebec, but also in many provinces across Canada and in many of the countries directly affected by this free trade agreement.

I heard the Minister of International Trade and many of her colleagues say that they wonder who the NDP might sign a treaty with, if not with the European Union.

In response, I would like to turn the tables and ask this: if we cannot sign the best agreement possible with the European Union, a treaty that will be a building block, a model, and that will pave the way to the signing of all the other agreements that will follow, or that fixes agreements previously signed, with whom can we make the best possible agreement?

That is why we are so insistent that our suggested improvements be heard and advanced by the government to ensure that everyone will benefit.

It will be very evident, in the two or three points that I hope I have the time to develop, what the impact will be for Quebeckers and Canadians. I am talking about monetary implications.

Take Quebec's dairy producers, for example. I am using an example I am very familiar with. That said, the same applies to fisheries, which will or could encounter exactly the same kinds of problems.

Members will recall that during the election campaign, when candidates across Quebec were meeting with the Union des producteurs agricoles or directly with farmers to discuss their problems, everyone was carefully listening. Everyone had committed to a certain number of things.

The Quebec dairy industry is based on the family farm model, a model we would like to keep. Let me be clear. When we talk about the family farm model, we are not talking about a small business. These are multi-million dollar businesses. These people have a lot of responsibility and a significant financial burden. Signing a treaty that does not guarantee reasonable accommodation, at the very least, places a great burden on their shoulders and will cause them a great deal of stress.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservative government, which initiated the negotiation of this free trade agreement, promised to provide approximately $4 billion in compensation for dairy producers, if I remember correctly.

I rarely supported the Conservatives' policies, but if I compare the financial compensation that the Conservative government planned to give the dairy industry to the compensation that is now being proposed by the Liberal government, I have to admit that they are light years away from each other.

The Liberal government is currently proposing to provide dairy producers with $350 million over five years. The promised compensation has gone from $4 billion to $350 million over five years for two programs. The first program is a support and investment program to help modernize dairy operations. The government is now going to invest only $250 million in this program, rather than $350 million. However, as I was saying earlier, each farming operation is worth several million dollars.

What does the government expect to accomplish with such a small purse? Many dairy operations in Quebec have already modernized in order to remain competitive and ensure that their products are sold at competitive prices, so what will this program do to support the industry if the free trade agreement is signed? There are serious concerns in that regard.

With regard to the second program, the remaining $100 million will be invested over four years in dairy processing. That amounts to $25 million per year. Knowing how many dairy operations are out there and how much they are worth, we can see that this amount is clearly insufficient.

That is not even to mention the diafiltered milk issue, which the Liberals have not yet resolved and which makes the agreement in its current form a disaster for all dairy producers. We need to resolve this problem before we think about signing the agreement.

We also need to address the major impact that the substantial increase in the cost of prescription drugs will have on the pocketbooks of every citizen of this country. We have an ageing population, and as a rule, the statistics show that, unfortunately, that does not necessarily mean that the people living longer are always in good health. Consequently, the portion of our collective budget that we have to allocate to prescription drugs, as to hospital care, is a variable we have to take into account.

To the extent that there is a considerable increase in the price of prescription drugs, since we would be protecting drug patents longer through this agreement and it would take two or three years longer before companies could manufacture equivalent generics, each level of government will have to pay more for prescription drugs.

In Quebec, for example, where the entire population has access to pharmacare, there are still some who do not have the means to buy their medications, even if they only have to pay the prescription fee, and who have to consider slashing their grocery budget. That is another problem we will have to resolve.

There is a third problem that I will barely have time to touch upon, given the signal I am getting from the Speaker. Perhaps I will return to it if there are any questions. I am talking about investor-state disputes. To summarize very simply, corporations currently have such great influence on free trade agreements that they can sue governments that have made decisions which they claim would limit their ability to do business. One can well imagine all the problems that ensue.

I will be pleased to respond to questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke of compensation for dairy producers.

The formula proposed by the former Conservative government was $4.3 billion. That figure is higher than what the Liberals are offering at the moment, but on the downside, it was time limited, so not ideal. That was not the best solution either.

The Liberals are offering far less money, $350 million rather than $4.3 billion. What is more, there is a condition attached: the producer has to invest. My colleague was speaking earlier about farms with millions of dollars worth of production. On the other hand, there are also a lot of small family farms, where people are having difficulty making ends meet. They are being asked to make one more investment, one more expenditure, even though their profits are not very high.

What repercussions might this clause have on our small family farms?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her question and for making up for that extra $0.3 billion I had forgotten to tack on to the $4 billion.

During the election campaign, on diafiltered milk alone, we clearly saw that some of these family farms had to sell or go bankrupt, as they could not manage to be cost-effective.

Farms of that size that are faced with such a predicament are obviously not going to be able to make the investments required by the compensation program. The farms that are better off and able to make such investments have already made them, for the most part. Consequently, they too will not benefit from the system.

The Liberals have introduced a very small measure. Let us be clear: $350 million is a paltry sum considering the size of the problem. Worse still, this measure will be of use to almost no one. It will only serve to give the impression that the Liberal government has something to say in response to questions, knowing perfectly well that its compensation program is totally ineffective.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we asked a question in question period about the health care escalator being cut by the Liberals, so my question concerns health care costs, in particular the cost of pharmaceuticals.

We know that CETA will increase the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in Canada. I wonder if my colleague would elaborate on what that would mean for his constituents if, for example, seniors and people with long-term needs are forced to pay higher health care costs because of pharmaceuticals and do not have private insurance to cover that or do not get it through their employers. What will it mean for people in his riding who have to pay higher pharmaceutical drug costs?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

There are two important points to make. For months and years now, we have been talking about health transfers, and we were already talking about them during the previous Conservative government. We always heard the same answers assuring us that there would not be less money. However, we know that if there is not less money, that means the amount transferred is the same, but year after year, the same amount will end up being worth less and less.

The first thing to point out, and this is not in dispute, is that when the health care system was established in Canada, 50% of the funding came from the federal government and 50% from the provinces. Currently, about 20% of health care funding comes from the federal government and is sent to the provinces. If that is not a clear demonstration of a gradual pull-out by the various federal governments, I wonder what is.

Regarding the system in Quebec, everyone is covered by a drug plan. Of course, for the first prescriptions of the year patients practically pay full price until they reach the guaranteed threshold; after that there is a kind of user fee. It is x dollars per prescription. Even with this low cost, since it is supported by the community through a drug plan, there are still people in my riding and around Quebec who have to make a choice, or at least ask themselves the question. Can they afford to renew their prescription this week, or instead will they have to go without groceries or transportation, which is often public transit?

The impact is direct and affects everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I have many concerns about 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.

Since the beginning of negotiations with the European Union to conclude a trade agreement, I have had the impression, like many of my colleagues, that things are being hidden from us. A few years ago, on the occasion of a trip with the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, the Canadian delegation, of which I was a member, had the opportunity to discuss this agreement, which was then in the negotiation stage, with certain European parliamentarians, who were very clearly much better informed than we were.

It seems that the Conservative government of the time wanted to reveal absolutely nothing to its parliamentarians, even to the members of its own party. However, the Conservative and Liberal members quickly decided to accept this agreement without even knowing its details. For the New Democratic party, the fact that Canada intends to open its trade borders to Europe is too important for us to contemplate it lightly. That is precisely what the government is asking us to do.

Even though the NDP is in favour of strengthening our trade relations with the European Union, major concerns persist and many questions remain unanswered regarding the proposed agreement. For one, the government is asking us as parliamentarians to ratify an agreement even though certain European states have clearly indicated that the investor-state clauses will have to be amended or removed before the agreement is ratified.

We all remember that last October the regional government of Wallonia prevented Belgium, and hence the European Parliament, from signing the agreement, and then agreed to sign on the condition that it retain its right to refuse to consent to its ratification if its conditions are not met. So we are being asked to ratify the draft of an agreement which is not even final yet, and to disregard the concerns raised on the other side of the Atlantic, even though, at the same time, certain concerns are also being raised in Canada.

We are not going to give the government a blank cheque to finalize the last details of the agreement without being able to examine it in greater detail before it is implemented.

To add to the absurdity of all of this, I would like to remind my colleagues that 42% of Canada’s exports to the European Union go to the United Kingdom. In fact, the concessions Canada made when negotiating this agreement were based on the assumption that the United Kingdom would be a full party to the agreement. However, the Liberal government failed to reassess the net benefits of an agreement with Europe without this major trading partner of Canada’s, which could withdraw following Brexit.

Also, and I would like to talk a little in greater detail on this point, we are being asked to approve an agreement that creates a major breach in supply management and puts many farmers, particularly dairy farmers, in insecurity.

Supply management strikes a market balance. It allows dairy producers to collectively negotiate prices and plan total milk production in order to meet consumer demand. Unlike what is happening around the world, Canadian dairy producers can sell the product of their hard labour at stable prices, which are not subject to market fluctuations. This ensures that Canada’s dairy industry is one of the only self-sufficient agricultural industries that do not depend on government subsidies to survive.

Opening another breach in supply management will mean fewer and fewer guarantees for many products in terms of income stability, and this is particularly true in the case of family dairy farms.

The Conservatives had promised a $4.3-billion compensation package to supply-managed farmers who will be affected by the Canada-Europe agreement and the trans-Pacific partnership.

The Liberal government, for its part, decided to create a $350-million fund for dairy farmers. According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, that amount is not nearly enough to compensate the industry considering the losses it will suffer under the agreement with Europe:

CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production; representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the entire yearly production of the province of Nova Scotia, and will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million a year in perpetual lost revenues.

In other words, the funds announced are not nearly enough to make up for the losses that Canadian dairy farmers are going to suffer under this free trade agreement.

It is important at this time to talk about the situation facing the smallest dairy producers and family farms, which are on the verge of extinction.

I met with Viateur Soucy in June during a protest here, in front of Parliament, calling on the government to protect supply management and farming. The protestors were worried about diafiltered milk coming into the country and the impact of the trans-Pacific partnership and the agreement with Europe on dairy farms.

At 73, he drove his tractor to Ottawa with dairy producers from across Quebec and other regions of Canada. In Nouvelle, in the beautiful Chaleur Bay area of the Gaspé, the Soucys have been running a family farm for three generations. When Viateur, the eldest son of Ovide Soucy, took over his father’s farm with one of his brothers in the seventies, he decided to turn it into a dairy operation, because he saw it as an opportunity to provide his family with a stable income.

History has proven Mr. Soucy right up to now. Significant investments were made in modernizing the farm, the herd, machinery, new fields to feed the herd, and especially in production quotas, which, as we all know, are far from being allocated.

As long as the integrity of the supply management system was maintained, he was guaranteed an income. Mr. Soucy had an opportunity that most farmers do not, that of being able to keep his business in the family. Obviously, it is always easier to find someone to take over if they can be convinced that they will have a stable income if they put in the work, and of course on a farm, that means a lot of work. Mr. Soucy was lucky enough that one of his sons, Mikaël, took over the farm in 2004.

Today, Mikaël is the one who is dealing with the stress brought on by the decisions of this government and the previous government. When we spoke to Mikaël, he was not very happy with the government's decisions. We asked him what he thought of the compensation announced by the Liberals. Unfortunately, I cannot quote exactly what he said here because he was really unhappy.

Basically, he said that the revenue that farmers would lose because of this agreement would seriously impede their cash flow and that asking producers to invest and go further into debt was not a logical solution. He also asked us to ask the government a question. I will quote him here. He said, “I would like to know how long the government is going to string me along. Do I need to sell now or should I wait until my farm is no longer worth anything and I go bankrupt?”

That gives us some idea about his state of mind. Having a stable income is one thing, but once he has paid his overhead and his employee, that is, when he can manage to find one, he does not have much left to pay himself. If his income gets cut even further, what will be left for him? No wonder he is stressed and frustrated.

There are fewer and fewer family farms in Canada. It would be great if we could protect them. The problem is that if we allow a breach in supply management and compensate producers for their losses, this decision could be overturned by a change in government.

Given the number of promises broken by this government, you have to wonder whether someone might wake up one morning and say that the government has changed its mind and is going to withdraw this compensation. Who knows, maybe a lobbyist will pay $1,500 for access to a minister and ask for the whole thing to be cancelled.

If we uphold the integrity of supply management, we avoid all these possible outcomes. When it comes to this agreement, there are still too many unanswered questions and potentially negative impacts on the economy and on Canadians for the New Democratic Party to approve it and support its implementation without amendments.

Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, said, “Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op? There needs to be a fuller public consultation process on CETA, just as the government has done with the trans-Pacific partnership.”

What is the big rush?

The Minister of International Trade often says, when talking about softwood lumber, that she wants an agreement, but not just any agreement. Well, that sums up quite well the NDP’s position on the Canada-Europe comprehensive and economic trade agreement. We want a good agreement, but not just any agreement.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one of the things my colleague pointed out. Although it is important to have trade deals, it is of absolutely no use if they are not kept up or if we cannot resolve the disputes associated with them. The government has had over a year on softwood lumber and has accomplished nothing. As well, we have seen nothing on diafiltered milk.

If the government cannot even keep to the agreements we have, I have the same concern that if we were to enter into this European deal and there were disputes, that it would do nothing. Could the member comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, talking about such disputes between governments is one thing, but how the Liberal government will resolve them is another. As my colleague pointed out, we are seeing it with softwood lumber. It is not easy. The government has been in negotiations for quite some time and nothing is happening. It has been in negotiations with Europe for quite a while, and nothing is happening. As I said earlier, Canadian members of Parliament did not know what was going on. That is a huge problem.

The member also mentioned disputes. I would like to answer another question about investor-state disputes. For example, chapter 11 of NAFTA gives rights to multinational corporations without requiring anything of them. On the other side of things, it imposes obligations on states that have no rights. For instance, Canada loses its rights to protect the environment if a multinational wants to take it to court. This has already happened in Quebec with shale gas, for example.

This is a huge problem that needs to be fixed before the agreement is signed.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a further concern is that Newfoundland and Labrador could expect major losses in fish processing. Is the member concerned that the government has yet to explain how it will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador on these losses?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we have talked about compensation for dairy farmers, but we have not said anything about the fishery. There are several members across the way from the maritime provinces, where the fishery is very important, but nothing is being done.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

There are 32 members.