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.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my NDP and Green Party colleagues who participated in today's very important discussion on this bill.

This bill is about approving a free trade agreement with the European Union that could have a major impact on thousands of workers, our communities, the provinces, and hospital patients. It was worth taking the time to discuss this.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government seems to want to cut the debate short after spending very little time consulting people. That is the opposite of what happened with the trans-Pacific partnership, which got people up in arms. I get the feeling the Liberals did not want to go through that again. That is too bad because we could have made time for individuals, organizations, members of civil society, and experts to unpack a massive agreement that may have hard-to-predict consequences.

Besides, the Liberal Party members have been completely absent in this debate. It feels as though they want to completely wash their hands of this, like Pontius Pilate, and be done with it as quickly as possible. I remember a song from a few years ago called “What happened to all the real rebels?” Today we could be asking what happened to all the Liberal members. You could say the Liberals are missing in action. It is too bad, because they keep saying that they are proud of this free trade agreement, and yet we have hardly heard anything about it today from the governing party.

It is important, because the European Union is a natural trading partner for Canada. Our countries are western democracies governed by the rule of law with a minimum of protections for workers, some freedom of association, as well as environmental standards. The European Union is definitely a natural trading partner for us. If we want to export our products, goods, and services to a more diverse range of markets, Europe seems to be just the place for us to do business.

However, just because something seems promising does not mean that it is. When we examine the details, we see that there are major pitfalls. The main one I would like to talk about is the dispute resolution mechanism. We have experience with that in North America as a result of chapter 11 of the North-American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, negotiated with our partners the United States and Mexico.

NAFTA's infamous chapter 11 allows companies to sue different levels of government over decisions that could diminish their current or forecast corporate profits. A similar dispute resolution mechanism is in the free trade agreement that the current Liberal government is trying to sell us.

First, it threatens our democracy and our sovereignty because it gives multinationals the right to sue in certain tribunals over the decisions of our elected representatives. That is not fantasy, it is reality. The NAFTA experience was a rather painful one for Canada because 70% of corporations' lawsuits under NAFTA against federal, provincial, regional, or local governments were lost by Canada.

In 2013, Lone Pine Resources sued Canada for $250 million after the Quebec government stopped oil and gas exploration projects in the St. Lawrence River. We have a duly elected government that wants to take steps to protect the environment and ecosystems, as well as the jewel that is the St. Lawrence, and a company that complains and sues because the government's actions will deprive it of future profits. This case could cost us $250 million and it is just one example of many.

As long as there is this sort of charter of corporate rights that flies in the face of people's democratic rights, the NDP will stand up and oppose it, and we are not the only ones.

Members will recall that the Walloon parliament recently took a stand against the agreement for the exact same reason. Let us remember that the Walloon parliament did not accept the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement as it stands. It agreed to sign on the condition that the dispute resolution mechanism is removed or drastically changed. It is still opposed to that mechanism. We are far from an agreement because the 28 national parliaments of the European Union still have to go through the ratification process. We therefore cannot understand why the government is in such a rush. This process is going to take months if not years to complete.

The price of drugs is another concern for us because it affects people's lives and their health. This free trade agreement will change the intellectual property rules regarding drugs, which will drive up the cost.

Some organizations are saying that the cost of drugs may even go up by $2.8 billion a year, which is an average of $80 per Canadian per year. However, that average includes those who are not sick and who are lucky enough not to have to pay for drugs. Under the Liberals' free trade agreement, drugs could cost an average of $80 more per person and even more for those who are sick.

I think that these reasons are sufficient for us to oppose this harmful free trade agreement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The. hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has three minutes remaining.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I concluded my speech. However, I am prepared to answer my colleague's questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague for providing time for this question. Forty-two per cent of Canadian exports to the European Union are to the U.K. Canadian concessions were based on the premise that the UK would be part of CETA. Those concessions include things that we are very concerned about, such as the loss of income for dairy farmers. There was supposed to be compensation and now is now questionable whether it would be adequate. There is also the cost of pharmaceuticals. Will we be able to afford drugs in our country? The joint interpretive instrument, which is outside the treaty, is supposed to be the government's right to regulate and yet it has very little weight in regard to the CETA document.

Now that the U.K. is re-evaluating its position within the European Union after Brexit, the Liberals have failed to re-evaluate the net benefit of CETA. Could my colleague comment on this change? The world has changed but the Liberals have not accounted for that change.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Indeed, the Liberal government is being inconsistent. When the Liberals were in the opposition, they criticized the free trade agreement negotiated by the Conservatives. The agreement has suddenly become progressive now that it has the Liberal stamp on it. They criticized the lack of impact assessments and cost analyses. My colleague is absolutely right when she says that nothing has changed in that regard.

The government is rushing the process unnecessarily without taking into account the unanticipated change in the European Union with Brexit. While 42% of our exports to the European Union go to the United Kingdom, the Liberal government is not taking into consideration the fact that the United Kingdom will likely no longer be part of the European Union once this process has been concluded. This smacks of amateur hour. They are in a rush to be done with this.

I would also like to thank her for her question about pharmaceuticals. In an early 2011 study commissioned by the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, two eminent Canadian economists, experts in the health field, estimated that, if the provisions go through, they will delay generic drug entry in Canada by three and a half years on average. For those buying the drugs, that delay is likely to cost $2.8 billion per year, according to Jim Keon, president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association. That should worry everyone from ordinary citizens to the provinces, which, because of hospitals, will have to absorb a significant portion of rising drug costs. The Liberal government did not account for that or figure out how much it would cost.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the theme of Brexit. The member for London—Fanshawe asked about the effect it would have on trade flows. I would like to ask whether the decision to leave the European Union by Britain reflected a turn away from this orthodoxy of free trade, corporate globalization, and whether that change in the temperament of the times should influence Canada's evaluation of CETA and other free trade agreements.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This should force the government to reconsider the whole process. I will have other opportunities to talk about this and criticize the Liberal government constructively.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.