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

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

I am told there are 32 members, Mr. Speaker. These members should stand up and protect their constituents, people who are likely to lose jobs. People in the maritime provinces already have to leave home to work in other provinces, but this will be even worse. If there is no compensation, it will be total chaos.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague from Hochelaga perhaps elaborate on the negative effects that the comprehensive economic and trade agreement could have on pharmaceuticals and the cost of prescription drugs in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to that, it is very clear: there will be an increase in the cost of drugs.

A few years ago I met with one of my constituents living in government-subsidized housing. What the government paid him only covered his rent and just enough for food. He did not even have any money for subway tickets so he could try to find work or take a trip downtown. This gentleman needed prescription drugs. If he could not afford to take the subway, he could not afford prescription drugs either. Many seniors are forced to cut their pills in half because they cannot bear the full monthly cost of drugs.

This agreement hurts people in general. Many seniors are on medication and many seniors live under the poverty line, especially older women. This agreement will hurt women seniors. We need to fix this as well before signing the agreement.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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

In 2015, Canada exported $38 billion of merchandise to the EU and imported $61 billion of merchandise from the European Union. That meant a trade deficit of $23 billion. This imbalance means that if CETA functions as advertised and increases two-way trade, it will also aggravate our trade deficit. For example, a 10% increase in bilateral trade would increase our exports by $4 billion and would increase our imports by $6 billion. That would make our trade deficit with the European Union $2 billion higher, a subtraction from output and employment in Canada.

The economic models that were used to argue for CETA simply assume balanced trade and full employment, but we know that those assumptions are unrealistic in the real world. Furthermore, these models do not take into account, and indeed the government has made no effort to take into the account, the consequences of Brexit. The United Kingdom was the only major European economy with which Canada ran a trade surplus.

In 2015, we exported $16 billion to the U.K. and imported $9 billion from the U.K. Of course, the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union. Therefore, if we look just at the remaining EU countries, we find that Canada exported only $22 billion of merchandise to them, but imported $52 billion. What this means is that taking the United Kingdom out of the equation, we imported more than twice as much as we exported to the rest of the European Union. Indeed, with those countries, we suffered a trade deficit of $30 billion.

In this new scenario without the U.K., a 10% increase in bilateral trade would boost Canada's exports by only $2 billion and would increase our imports by $5 billion. That would make our trade deficit with what remains of the EU $3 billion higher, an even larger subtraction from Canadian output and employment.

In terms of trade flows, it is not at all clear that this agreement could deliver a benefit to Canada. Even if we imagine that CETA does boost Canadian output and employment, we should remember that it will also make it easier for European companies to bring in temporary foreign workers. There is absolutely no reason to expect that any potential increase in employment would actually benefit Canadian workers.

Another major problem with CETA is that, as I suggested at the start of my speech, it is not really about trade. In fact, one of the negative consequences of this deal would be to extend the duration of patents on pharmaceuticals. Now this is the opposite of free trade. Extending patents is actually more restrictive of trade and it would have the consequence of driving up the price of pharmaceuticals for provincial health insurance plans as well as for individual Canadians.

Perhaps the most controversial element of CETA is the investor-state provision. In order to try to get the deal through, the government did water down these provisions somewhat, but the question we need to ask is why there is any need for investor-state provisions in CETA. Do Canadian investors not have confidence in the European court system? Do European investors not have confidence in the Canadian judicial process?

Of course, investor-state provisions have their origin in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canadian and American investors had doubts about the Mexican judicial system. Those doubts may have been well founded, but what is important to note is that since NAFTA came into effect, its investor-state provisions have not been used principally against Mexico. They have been used principally against Canada, against our country.

I think it is worth reviewing some of the NAFTA chapter 11 cases that have been brought against Canada. If we go back to the 1990s, there was the famous Ethyl case, in which an American corporation sued Canada for trying to ban a gasoline additive, MMT, that was already banned in the United States. Ultimately, the Government of Canada gave in on this. It had to pull the regulation and also pay the company $13 million U.S.

There was the more recent case of AbitibiBowater, which had received rights to water in Newfoundland and Labrador to operate pulp and paper mills. When the company closed the last of those mills, the provincial government tried to retake those water rights. AbitibiBowater sued Newfoundland under NAFTA. How could it do that? AbitibiBowater is a Canadian company. It simply registered itself in the United States so that it was then able to avail itself of NAFTA's chapter 11 to sue our Canadian government.

In the end, the federal government paid AbitibiBowater $130 million to resolve the case, essentially to compensate it for the loss of water rights that it was not even using.

The most recent case I will mention is Lone Pine Resources. This is an Alberta oil and gas company that registered itself in Delaware and is suing Canada under NAFTA over the Province of Quebec's ban on fracking. It is claiming $250 million in compensation.

We see that in all of these cases, and there are many other examples, what is happening is that a foreign company is using the investor-state provisions to challenge a democratic law, regulation, or public policy that might arguably impinge on some opportunity to generate future profits.

However, the full extent of the damage cannot really be captured by specific cases, because for every case where there is actually a dispute under NAFTA, there are many other cases where the government has decided not to go ahead with a new regulation or not to strengthen a public safety standard for fear of one of these investor-state challenges, so these investor-state provisions also have a chilling effect on public policy in our country.

We have had all these problems with investor states in NAFTA. We do not have any problems or any real objections to the European judicial system, so why would we try to put investor-state provisions in the Canada-European Union trade agreement? It just does not make sense.

It remains possible that the European Union will not be able to fully ratify the deal for this reason. However, I think the point we should be considering is why Canada would want to impose more of these investor-state provisions on ourselves.

To wrap up, there is absolutely no case for CETA as a trade deal. If we look at it in terms of trade flows, it really would not be advantageous to Canada. Furthermore, the agreement has a number of other negative provisions, such as temporary foreign workers, such as extended pharmaceutical patents, such as investor-state disputes that have nothing to do with trade. That is why the NDP is opposing this bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously investor-state resolution processes are important, although it should be noted that if a country does treat foreign nationals in a way that is arbitrary, it can either use the resolution process or it can go to a court. It is important to recognize that here in Canada, we treat everyone equally and unfairly, and it is only when a government, whether it be provincial, local, or federal, treats a foreign company differently than it would a Canadian company.

Does the member say that we should actually treat foreign nationals less fairly than we do other Canadians? Or, should everyone operating in Canada be given the same rights to work under and to follow good laws? That is my question.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would start by pointing out that in a couple of cases I mentioned, it was Canadian companies that were reconfiguring themselves as foreign corporations in order to use the investor-state provisions. However, this is not really about discriminatory treatment. This is about public policies, laws, and regulations costing a company that happens to be foreign, or that is able to characterize itself as foreign, some kind of future profit opportunity.

The Canadian court system would certainly uphold the rights of foreign investors, and I think the European court system would uphold the rights of Canadian investors. What we do not need is to create a special tribunal process that gives special privileges to foreign investors.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's speech. I think he has a very in-depth knowledge of not just this trade deal, but of many other trade deals. That is the kind of discussion we need here in the House, to hear the pros and cons of both sides that are well informed.

I had two things that struck me while the member was speaking that I would perhaps like him to comment on, if he cares to.

The first would be that, to me, it seems that when this deal was starting to be negotiated, Britain was in the EU. It was pre-Brexit. It was also before the election of Donald Trump as the president. It seems the world has kind of moved on from where we were when we were first negotiating this trade deal.

I wonder if perhaps by signing this deal, the Liberals are committing us to the past. The Conservatives certainly negotiated this deal under a different global setting. The Liberals kind of picked it up and are taking credit for it, but I wonder if they could have done a better deal, looking more at what is coming down the pipe. Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong

I am wondering if my colleague could perhaps comment on the Brexit side of things, how the world has changed, and how Canada might suffer if we sign this agreement.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly correct that past Conservative and Liberal governments have taken the attitude that they should just sign any and all free trade agreements, without much regard for whether they are good deals, and without much regard for the actual provisions of those agreements. That is one of the ways we have been in trouble with things like investor-state provisions.

My colleague is also correct to note that there has been a shift away from this logic of free trade all the time and at all costs. There is a sort of re-evaluation of corporate globalization and what it means for working people. Rather than rushing ahead with this deal, I do think it would make sense for Canada to re-evaluate our position as well, and to re-evaluate our position in this changed world.

Certainly in terms of Brexit, as I pointed out in my speech, it removes from the European Union the one major economy with which we were running a trade surplus. The trade imbalance that Canada will suffer with what is left of the European Union is even worse, and the potential negative consequences of getting this deal wrong are even more dire.

My colleague has added some very good reasons to vote against Bill C-30.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, this side of the House is strongly in favour of CETA because trade means more growth, and more growth means more jobs, which is what this government is all about. We are thrilled to be signing this progressive trade agreement with our European partners. Our Minister of International Trade has worked so long and hard on this and, as a number of speakers have already mentioned, the other side of the House also put in a considerable effort on this trade agreement. It will deliver tangible growth and opportunities for our middle class. CETA will also provide a strong foundation for Canada and the EU to demonstrate leadership on an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade.

I would like to end by moving the following motion. I move:

That this question be now put.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible what we are debating.

In my speech, I just spoke about the problems we had. I was saying that we wanted an agreement, but as the minister on the other side of the House says, not just any agreement. We were told that we would be allowed to speak for as long as we wanted on this very important agreement for us, and then the government decides to stop debate.

I would like to know why it was decided to suddenly stop debate, when we are not even sure that the agreement will be signed five years from now. What is the huge rush?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, CETA has been a long time in coming. There has, in fact, been 10 years of discussion on this signature agreement between the European Union and Canada. It provides great benefits for both the European community and our country. It is going to be a very good thing for jobs and growth in our country.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is very disappointing. The Conservatives very much support trade deals and recognize how important they are. In fact, we were the party that actually negotiated and got this trade deal done.

It is unbelievable that the Liberals are squandering away the goodwill and the trust that had been established. It really begs the question of how much disrespect do they think this Parliament, this House, will be able to endure when they create this kind of poisonous atmosphere?

I am very disappointed in this. I really do not know what they are trying to accomplish, except to try to bully and push everything through that they can.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this does not end debate.

I would really go back to my main point. This is a very good deal for Canada. Our international trade minister has worked so very hard on this over the last year. The previous government did not get it done, but our government is getting it done.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly stunned and even shocked by the government's attitude.

We are not debating a small inconsequential bill, but an economic agreement with Europe, which is extremely important. The NDP considers this economic agreement to be very important. We have questions and concerns we want to raise because we want a good agreement.

I began a tour of my riding to meet with all the stakeholders in agriculture, including the Union des producteurs agricoles in my area and cheese factories like Fromagerie Saint-Guillaume. I will also be meeting with representatives of Fromagerie de Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil and Fromagerie Lemaire in Drummondville. These people are terribly worried, because they will be hit hard.

What is the government's response to their concerns? It is going to shut down debate. That is truly a shame, and I am very shocked—not personally, but because the people I represent are shocked. People are saying that they are terribly concerned about the future of the dairy and cheese industries, and that the government's actions are totally unacceptable, an insult to all the people who are fighting and who get up every morning to work.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just say what I have already said, that this is a very good agreement for our country, a very good agreement for the European Union, a very good signal to the world that we are not going to huddle into a protectionist shell but are free traders in this country.

I would congratulate our international trade minister for working so hard. It looked pretty dark there for a while, but our minister pulled it out of the fire. She was over in Europe doing great work on behalf of Canada. We are proud of her and this government.