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

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made a very practical suggestion that would make me more likely to support this trade agreement, if we had the assurance, as the government says, that environment and trade would go hand in hand. Where is the other hand? We only have one on the table in front of us.

If we had a commitment that this agreement would only go forward if it had attached to it a similar environmental protocol, a letter of understanding, like was originally discussed with NAFTA, I would feel much more comfortable about the agreement altogether.

This goes back to my point that as we move forward into the climate crisis we face, we have to get environment front and centre in everything we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is preoccupied with rushing ahead on this trade deal without giving it careful thought. In the meantime, we need pharmacare, affordable child care, affordable housing, and conservation in our country. None of these things are of any interest to the government.

I wonder if you could talk about where we should be going instead of headlong into a trade deal about which we know very little.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member did not want me, the Speaker, to talk to this issue. I am sure she meant the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I will let him continue.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the greatest surprise to Canadians who voted for real change is to get the Tory agenda back in front of the House again.

We thought, as Canadians, that we were going to get a new agenda. Like the member for London—Fanshawe said, the New Democratic Party put forward that agenda, an agenda that would focus on the real needs of families, the environment, and first nations. Instead we are getting recycled versions of what happened over the last 10 years.

It is very disappointing that we have not seen some of those more positive agenda items come forward. In particular, they are not reflected in this trade agreement. Where is the part of this trade agreement that deals with access to pharmaceuticals? Where is the part of this trade agreement that would protect child care programs? Where is that in this agreement? I do not see it anywhere.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I know it is easy for members to slip into the first person when the person they are talking about or asking a question of is next to them. It has been happening over the morning. I want to remind hon. members that they are speaking through the Chair and not directly to their colleagues, regardless how close they are seated to them.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, hats off for my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I want to second the comments he made, giving thanks to all his supporters and their work.

I am particularly grateful to my family, in particular, my brother. Now that it is 40 below with wind chill in Alberta, he graciously put my car in the garage, so I thank Peter Duncan.

I also want to thank all who support me in my work and, frankly, all in this place who do incredible work for the public every day we are here.

As my NDP colleagues have repeatedly stated, our party favours international trade agreements that are fair and reciprocal. During my tenure in this place, we have supported several that met these conditions. The previous government was quick to sign any agreement just to sign so-called free trade agreements. The current government promised better deals but instead signed off on the Conservative-negotiated deal with Europe, despite the unaddressed concerns expressed by many Canadians.

As has been mentioned, changes to intellectual properly rules will cause drug prices to skyrocket. Considering our aging population, mounting household debt, and the number of Canadians, in particular seniors, already struggling to pay for food, rent, and medicines, this deal will seriously impact affordability.

The government should have at least assessed and addressed this impact in advance of signing, particularly since it appears pharmacare is missing from the government's priority list for additional health transfers.

CETA also poses significant impacts to Alberta's agriculture and agrifood sectors. In particular, concerns have been expressed by our dairy and dairy processing sectors. While most attention has been focused on the impacts to the Quebec dairy sector, Alberta dairy will also be impacted.

We are told that Canadian manufacturing standards, combined with generous subsidies for European producers, make it almost impossible for cheese makers to compete, at least to compete fairly.

The government promised dairy farmers and processors a total $350 million investment fund over four years to help them modernize their operations, increase their productivity and efficiency, as well as diversify their range of products in order to capitalize new European markets. Unfortunately this is far less than the Conservatives promised.

I am deeply proud of the contribution to our economy by our Alberta dairy farmers. I meet regularly with them to try to address their concerns. One incredible multi-generational farm family, the Bococks, operated a dairy operation since its immigration from Ireland in 1921. It not only introduced many beneficial innovations for sustainable farming, on retirement the family donated 777 acres of their operation to the University of Alberta for dairy research. Its contribution has been recognized with the Dairy Industry Achievement Award. It is farm families like the Bococks that are being impacted.

While the program will, for the most part, benefit the largest processors, the amount is far from adequate, as has been shared often in the House on debate of this bill.

These pioneers, other Canadian dairy families and processors who continue to produce fine product should be factored first in considering any potential impacts of trade deals. While Alberta dairy producers and processors are grateful some compensation has been promised, they are only matching funds and limited to modernization investments. This support will be unavailable to those who have already invested in changes, yet, they may still be impacted.

Alberta cheese makers estimate a loss of 17,000 tonnes in cheese sales. They are concerned if the promised funds are to be allocated to producers and processors or if they will they be partly eaten up by administration of the fund. Also, they have expressed concern about how quickly the money will flow as they need to get out ahead of anticipated changes to the market.

CETA could also be problematic for our pork and beef industries. Although they potentially will benefit, there are European regulatory obstacles that must be addressed.

I wish to reiterate concerns expressed by many about the government's insistence on retaining the investor-state provisions.

Shifting authority to an independent court to rule on corporate complaints of what it deems unfair environmental or health provisions is reprehensible, certainly in a country that believes in rule of law. Surely such a measure contradicts the very principles the government claims to espouse, that the financial interests of investors should not be permitted to supersede the public interest, including environmental protections.

Successful industrial state-investor claims under the trade deals have already created a regulatory chill and, as some of my colleagues have shared, we have lost most of those cases brought against our country by investors.

It is the continued erosion of environmental protection prevailing over trade deals that troubles me the most. In the mid-1990s, when the North American Free Trade Agreement was entered into by Canada, the United States, and Mexico, Canada also signed on to several side agreements. One of those was the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Every trade deal since has strayed from those foundational principles and institutions, including provision for independent assessment and reporting on the parties' adherence to the environmental commitments.

Yes, there are vague mentions of environment in CETA, but the measures fall far short of the bar set under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Absent is any independent environment secretariat or council of environment minsters to monitor and act on complaints of failed environmental enforcement or delivery on public rights of engagement in decisions that place economic considerations ahead of the environment. In place of these credible mechanisms, the parties will merely appoint some officer as a contact point, presumably low within their respective bureaucracies.

There is no provision for independent assessment and reporting. Gone is the commitment to prepare and make public a state of the environment report, a matter that has been raised with me a number of times in the last few weeks. Whatever happened to the state of environment reports?

Gone is commitment to ensure public notice and right to comment in advance of any decision impacting the environment, including trade deals and agreements negotiated among the provinces, territories, and the federal government on climate. Gone is the framework for effective environmental enforcement. These are necessary to hold the government accountable.

Finally, what will be the effect on Canadian local job creation through the burgeoning Canadian renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors of article 24.9? It requires removal of any obstacles to investments in goods and services for renewable energy goods and related services. Will there be barriers to local hiring and incentives? Has the government even examined that?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very constructive speech. She does a good job on the environment file.

Every time I listen to her, we learn something from her. She also does a great job of representing her constituents.

A moment ago, she said that there is a lot of talk about the environment, but that there is no concrete action. She gave a few examples in her speech, but I would like to hear more from her about the concrete measures she would have liked to see. What concrete environmental measures could we implement in free trade agreements such as the Canada-Europe agreement?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Jonquière for her continuing to step up and speak on behalf of the dairy industry in Quebec.

As I mentioned, this agreement falls far short of what one would have expected of a government that portrays itself as the great environmental defender. The side agreement on environment under NAFTA was groundbreaking, but the then president of the United States, Bill Clinton, said that he regretted not making it binding within the actual NAFTA trade agreement.

One would have thought if the government were the great defender of balancing environmental impacts to trade and economic development, it would have done exactly what Bill Clinton suggested. Instead, we do not even have the basic provisions that were in the side agreement to NAFTA. They are completely pared down and are simply modelled on the cuts made by the Conservative government on all of the trade deals for which they voted.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to indigenous peoples, and not only from an internal perspective. As members know, we have a duty to consult and accommodate indigenous peoples whenever legislation that would impact their interest is considered by the House. There is a also dimension to all of this to needs to be considered whenever we negotiate international trade agreements in the interests of indigenous peoples in our country.

Does the member agree that in this age of nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation with indigenous peoples promised by the other side, indigenous peoples should have been at the table when this legislation was drafted?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this agreement does not even include the basic provisions that were in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, wherein if any decision is made that may impact the public of those three countries, there is the opportunity to receive notice and to comment. In that agreement, there was no mention of engaging indigenous peoples. There is some bare reference made in some of our legislation, but it is not enough.

The current government espouses that it endorses the UNDRIP, yet time after time it says that it will not abide by those provisions and refuses to support the enactment of the United Nations declaration, as my colleague has espoused.

Yes, indeed, first nations, Métis, and Inuit leaders should have been at the table, government-to-government, during the negotiations of this treaty. They certainly should have their say before this bill is signed off on and this agreement is signed and sealed.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about a family of dairy producers who live in her riding. As we know, every time we allow more imports of dairy products, such as the 17,000 tonnes of European cheese that will be imported under this agreement, it undermines supply management and creates an imbalance in the dairy industry.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about the impact that this will have on the family dairy operation in her riding.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, time after time the dairy and milk producers in my riding have raised concerns about the fact that the management system may be eroded. Absolutely, this should be dealt with before we sign on to any agreement. I would like to thank the member for standing in defence of the dairy farms in her province.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate.

I would like to remind the hon. member for Jonquière that she has six or seven minutes. She can continue her speech after question period.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my whole family. This may be the last time that I rise to speak before the House adjourns for the holidays. I would like to thank my family for their support and recognize my colleagues for all of the work they do on behalf of all their constituents.

I would also like to commend my NDP colleagues for the quality of their work, speeches, and questions in the House. It seems as though the government members have already started their Christmas holidays.

The NDP has long been calling for improved trade with Europe in order to diversify Canada's markets. However, there are many serious concerns that have not been addressed and many unanswered questions regarding the proposed agreement.

Trade with Europe is too important to take lightly. The government needs to resolve the outstanding problems with the agreement rather than making do with an imperfect document.

A total of 87,605 people live in my riding of Jonquière. I represent them. Every day I work to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!