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

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate that we should be beginning this debate following our discussion of the private member's motion that celebrates the close and historic connections between Canada and Germany. As we have just heard, Germany has indeed been one of the driving forces in getting this historic agreement signed.

I am delighted to rise in the House today in support of legislation to implement the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA.

This is a historic day for everyone, a moment that I know very many hon. members of the House have worked hard to achieve. CETA is the most progressive trade agreement ever negotiated. It will help redefine what trade can and should be. It will lead to increased prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic, create well-paying middle-class jobs, which I will speak to further in a moment.

Our government believes strongly in an open global economy, and we will continue to champion the open society and open global trade. However, we cannot ignore the reality that, today, we are living in the most protectionist environment I have experienced in my lifetime, probably the most protectionist environment since the Second World War.

There is a reason for that. Many people simply feel that 21st century global capitalism is not working for them. This anxiety is manifesting itself, among other things, in a powerful backlash against globalization. For those of us who support the open society, and I hope and believe that includes all members of the House, it is incredibly important for us not to be in denial about the importance of these sentiments that are sweeping so much of the western industrialized world.

This is real. It is tempting for us to say that if only we could explain to people how positive the open society is, how valuable trade is, how costly protectionism is, if only we could find better words, everything would resolve itself. However, that is not going to be enough. We need to look more deeply than that and understand that this powerful wave of populist anti-globalization sentiment is based in the very real, very concrete experience of so many people in western industrialized countries, including our own. The answer has to be in more than trade deals, because the anxiety is about more than trade deals. It is about the impact of 21st century global capitalism.

The concerns people have, the economic concerns, the concerns they have for themselves, for their retirement, and for their children, are very real, and we need to address them. That is why our government is very proud to have cut taxes for the middle class. We are proud to have raised taxes on those who can afford them, the 1%. We are very proud to have created the Canada child benefit for the families most in need, and have boosted CPP for our seniors.

We are making essential investments every day that strengthen and support our middle class. We know and believe that that is why we can still proudly say in Canada that we have broad public support for the open society and globalization.

It is also why CETA is all the more important. Canada is raising the bar with CETA and establishing more inclusive trade and higher standards for how global economies must function in the 21st century. This agreement that we are debating today cements the paramount right of democratically elected governments to regulate in the interest of our citizens, to regulate the environment, labour standards, and in defence of the public sector.

We are proud to have made these changes to CETA since coming into office. We will continue to champion aggressive trade policies. As the Prime Minister said about CETA:

That leadership that we were able to show between Canada and Europe is not just something that will reassure our own citizens but should be an example to the world of how we can move forward on trade deals that do genuinely benefit everyone.

I must say, having just returned at five o'clock this morning from Lima, Peru, from the APEC trade summit of Asia Pacific countries, CETA was much discussed and seen as an example of how it is possible, even in 2016, to do progressive trade deals.

Most importantly, CETA will benefit Canadians. It will give benefits to consumers through lower prices and more choice; it will help workers with better quality jobs, because we know that jobs in export-oriented sectors pay 50% more; and it will help small and medium-sized businesses by lowering the tariff barriers their products face.

CETA sets new standards for trade in goods and services, non-tariff barriers, investment, and government procurement in addition to its very high labour and environmental standards.

CETA offers Canada, Canadian workers, and Canadian businesses preferential access to a dynamic market of more than half a billion people. This is the world's second largest market for goods. In fact, the EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's entire GDP.

Of the EU's more than 9,000 tariff lines, approximately 98% will be duty-free for Canadian goods the moment CETA comes into force, and almost all of the remaining tariff lines will be eliminated when the agreement is fully implemented. This will translate into better market opportunities and more jobs for Canadian businesses of all sizes, in all sectors, and in every part of the country.

Consider Guelph's Linamar, a Canadian manufacturing success story with operations in Europe, which now stands to be even more competitive in the EU market as tariff barriers on products like its Skyjacks go down to zero; and Northland Power, with its clean and green power projects, which can expand even further into Europe; or one of my favourites, Manitoba Mukluks, a Métis-founded business, whose mukluks and moccasins are currently subject to a 17% tariff in Europe. That tariff will go down to zero when CETA enters into force.

Whether it is technology and software, aerospace, telecoms, clean tech, life sciences, agriculture, or infrastructure, Canadians working across our economy stand to benefit from this deal. This is great news for our middle class and those working hard to join it.

My hon. colleagues know, though, that trade today is about more than just tangible goods. It also includes services. In Canada and the EU, the service sector is responsible for most of our economies—more than 70% in both cases. CETA, a gold standard, modern agreement, recognizes the increasingly important role services play in global trade and creates a wealth of new business opportunities for Canadian service providers.

CETA offers Canadian businesses new opportunities to access EU government procurement contracts, which are estimated to be worth $3.3 trillion. In addition to increased access to markets, CETA also includes many other important benefits.

CETA is the first bilateral trade agreement in which Canada has included an entire chapter on regulatory co-operation. It includes a conformity assessment protocol, which will allow Canadian businesses in certain sectors to sell their products tested and certified in Canada without the European Union having to duplicate those testing and certification requirements.

CETA also includes a detailed framework for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which is a key factor for labour mobility.

CETA is a progressive and modem trade agreement that fully integrates labour rights and environmental standards. It emphasizes the role played by public services and the right of states to pass regulations.

Our common objective is to ensure that globalization is a positive force based on our shared values and high aspirations. That is this agreement's raison d'être and why it is so important.

I will now address some of CETA's more progressive elements. CETA's preamble recognizes that the agreement's provisions reaffirm the parties’ right to regulate within their respective territories to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, the environment, public morals, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

Article 8.9 of the chapter on investment makes it clear that the parties to the agreement preserve the right to regulate in order to achieve legitimate policy objectives.

Changes were made to the investor dispute settlement provisions to include more detailed commitments on the independence and ethical behaviour of members of the tribunal, as well as establish a revised process for selecting members of the tribunal and an appeal mechanism.

Nothing in CETA prevents governments from regulating in the public interest, including by granting preferential treatment to indigenous peoples or adopting measures to protect or promote Canadian culture.

CETA will not necessarily lead to the privatization of public services. Canada has a great deal of experience using the negative list approach and is sure that CETA will give it free rein when it comes to policy making.

Articles 23.2 and 23.4 under the labour and trade chapter address labour rights and recognize the right of Canada and the European Union to set their own labour priorities and protections and stipulate that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the levels of protection afforded in their labour law and standards.

In the chapter of CETA on trade and the environment, Canada and the European Union also reaffirm that environmental standards cannot be lowered in order to promote trade or attract investment. Those are two very important points for both us and the European Union.

CETA also recognizes the European Union's and Canada's right to define their own environmental priorities and levels of environmental protection and to pass or amend their own laws and policies accordingly.

What is more, CETA includes a commitment to co-operate on trade-related environmental issues of common interest, such as environmental assessments, climate change, and the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

Our government has been tireless since the day we assumed office, pushing this deal forward and leaving no stone unturned. I would like now to recognize some of the people who have worked so hard on this historic agreement.

I would like to start, of course, with my Prime Minister, whose relentless advocacy, in public and in private, whose work directly with Europe's leaders, and whose work at home and abroad, were essential in getting to where we are today. I thank him for his leadership on CETA, and more generally for his voice in Canada and the world in speaking for the open society.

Many of my cabinet colleagues, as well as my exceptional parliamentary secretary, have worked extremely hard on this agreement, both in Canada and in Europe. Their engagement has been absolutely essential. In fact, my parliamentary secretary and our CETA envoy have spent a great deal of time over the past weeks and months across Canada, and particularly working with our partners in Europe.

Hon. members in this House, and particularly our Quebec caucus, worked very hard in the final days before the signing of CETA, personally reaching out to our European partners, to legislators in Europe in national and subnational assemblies, explaining to them how important this agreement was, and speaking about the shared values between Canada and Europe, including our shared membership of La Francophonie.

I would like to sincerely thank my colleagues for this absolutely critical work.

Our provincial and territorial partners have been extremely engaged in working on CETA. I am very proud to say that when we were in Europe a few weeks ago to sign CETA, the Europeans pointed to Canada as an example of effective federalism, of federalism that works. The degree of co-operation between the provinces and the federal government on this essential deal has been outstanding, and I would like to strongly thank the trade ministers of Canada's provinces and territories and their chief negotiators, who worked so hard on the agreement.

I would like to single out the role that Quebec has played in working on the agreement. The leadership of Quebec, including strong advocacy for CETA in Europe, was very important, and played a particular role in securing the support of francophone Europe for this deal.

I would like to thank my Quebec colleagues.

I would like to very warmly recognize and thank the exceptional work of our public service. We in Canada are extremely lucky to have outstanding public servants, and, as trade minister, I say our trade negotiators are the best of the best. They have done an outstanding deal on CETA.

I would like to personally recognize Steve Verheul, our chief negotiator for CETA. I would like to thank him for his years of dedicated work to ensuring that we as a country could conclude negotiations on this progressive gold standard agreement. It will serve as an international standard and also offer tremendous specific, concrete benefits to Canadian workers and Canadian businesses.

I would also like to recognize the hard work of the previous government on getting this deal done. Canada's strength is when we can work together across party lines, across this aisle, and pass the ball from one government to another and finally get it over the finish line. I would like to personally recognize the leadership of the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, on this issue.

CETA will set the bar for future trade agreements, and it forms the cornerstone of our government's progressive trade agenda. This is an agenda linked to our government's core focus here at home on reducing income inequality and enhancing inclusive growth that benefits all Canadians. CETA sends a clear signal, at an essential moment, to the whole world, that we in Canada believe in an open society. We believe in a society that welcomes immigrants and welcomes investments, and believes that by doing that we have more jobs and more growth. After all, at our core, we are a trading nation, a nation of immigrants, and we are very proud of that.

CETA sends a message to the world that Canada and the EU reject protectionism and we are committed to a freer and more open global economy. At a time when so much of the world is saying no to trade and no to the global economy, I am very proud that on Canada's behalf, and through CETA, we can resoundingly say yes.

We are sending an unmistakable signal to the rest of the world that even now, at a time of some uncertainty, Canada believes in building bridges, not walls. Now is the time to embrace stronger partnerships with our friends around the world. Now is the time to pursue prosperity and economic growth with a progressive trade agenda, built from the ground up, to help strengthen the middle class here at home.

I welcome this week's debate on CETA, and I hope all members will support this important agreement.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree we are a trading nation, and trade with Europe is too important to get wrong.

I heard the minister talk about the insecurity felt by all Canadians. This is extremely true. She also mentioned her duty to regulate in the interests of Canadians. There is 25% of the legislative changes that are to the Patent Act for extensions and changes to pharmaceutical patents that will cost all Canadians. She mentioned no stone unturned. The stone unturned is talking to Canadians. CETA will lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they agreed with New Democrats that greater analysis was needed, as well as compensation to the provinces. However, the government has provided no analysis of just how much this would cost provinces, nor has it offered any compensation.

Is the minister comfortable signing off on CETA without any further analysis of how these increased drugs costs will impact Canadians and those in her own riding?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and for her very hard work on this file. I am extremely comfortable, indeed proud, to advocate for CETA. I have absolutely no doubt that this agreement will bring tremendous benefits to Canadians. It will bring jobs and growth. A joint Canada-EU study that was done a few years ago found that CETA would bring GDP growth of 0.7% to the Canadian economy. When we look at where the economy is today, how hard we are fighting for even 0.1% of growth, to be able to sign and soon ratify an agreement that will give us almost 1% more in our GDP is something I am extremely proud to do.

As the hon. member knows, our government was very clear when I was trade critic, when we were in opposition, of our strong support for CETA. We have been true to what we said then in supporting it today and in getting it across the finish line. Of course, this trade agreement, like any trade agreement, will have some variable impacts across different sectors. That is something our government is working on and consulting on, and I am working very closely with my relevant cabinet colleagues on that.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a unique situation when the relay race is over and the minister gets to stand in the middle podium, so I welcome the opportunity to speak to this issue today. Having said that, she commented about an open society, and I could not agree more. There is a lot more media scrutiny, more social media scrutiny, on things like this, and there is very little factual information at times.

However, what pays for an open society? I would like the minister to comment on that. Trade is one of the major economic drivers of this great country, one in eight jobs in some sectors, and one in five jobs in other sectors, that rely on trade and the openness of trade to make that happen. The minister has often commented that this is the gold standard of trade agreements, and I could not agree more, having been part of the development of it. It is the chapters on labour standards, environmental standards, and the regulatory co-operation that facilitate that economic drive that will create and pay for an open society.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and I find ourselves very much in agreement. I believe strongly, as does our government, that trade is a driver of economic growth in opening up trade agreements with the world. In this historic agreement with Europe, we are driving more growth to the Canadian economy. We will be creating more jobs for middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class.

I absolutely agree with the member opposite that it is through economic growth that we are able to support and sustain our open society. The member spoke about the labour and environmental standards embedded in CETA. Those are tremendously important for our government, and we are proud of the work we did to further strengthen those. He referred also to regulatory co-operation, which is an important part of CETA, but we will have to talk about that later.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the minister bragged about being an advocate for progressive trade agreements, and the Liberals have been bragging about being progressive from the beginning.

However, the government voted against Motion No. 42 on the tax haven of Barbados, which was moved by my colleague from Joliette. It was that very tax haven that allowed the right dishonourable Paul Martin to save $100 million in taxes. The government is saying that it is signing nice, progressive agreements, which is great and the Liberals get some good photo ops out of it, but the problem is that they still have not resolved the diafiltered milk issue or that of compensation for cheese producers.

Will the government stop taking us for fools?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising many issues with one question.

The hon. member spoke about the canada-european union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA. I want to underscore that this agreement is truly the most progressive international trade agreement in existence. In fact, this agreement has the support of all socialist parties in a government coalition.

I would also like to point out that in terms of investment our government has made very significant and very progressive changes, and I am certain that they will serve as a model for all other international trade agreements.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand today and congratulate our Minister of International Trade, who has done an astonishing job. She mentioned all of the people who contributed, but I think they would agree that she is probably one of the hardest working people in Parliament. She has broadened Canada in making sure that our trade relationships are growing. I cannot be more proud than to stand today on behalf of all of my colleagues to congratulate her. She is an astonishing figure, recognized not only in our country but around the world.

I would like to ask the minister what this agreement will do. As we know, our government is about Canadian families, the middle class, and jobs. What will this agreement do for all of the stakeholders in our country? I know that when the minister negotiates, one thing she remembers is the Canadian middle class and Canadian jobs.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his overly kind words.

As a member of our Quebec caucus, my hon. colleague was very much engaged in this intensive outreach effort, particularly in the final days ahead of the signing of CETA, and being sure that we spoke to European parliamentarians, especially francophone parliamentarians.

I made a point in my remarks of specifying three Canadian companies that would specifically benefit from the lowering of tariff barriers, which will take effect immediately when CETA comes into force. It is something that will happen in a matter of weeks or months. It is not something far in the future.

I would also like to point out that CETA already is having a positive effect when foreign companies look at Canada and how they view Canada as an investment destination.

I was with the Prime Minister in South and Latin America over the past few days. We met with many companies there. They were very interested in how CETA now positions Canada uniquely as a country where investors have access to both the North American and the European markets. That is good for Canadian jobs.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her speech in the House.

However, I must point out that Quebec's agri-food system finds itself on the losing side of the canada-european union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Producers feel abandoned by the Liberal government because it is not defending our supply management system under either CETA or the trans-Pacific partnership. The government has been in power for one year and has not yet resolved the issue of diafiltered milk.

Furthermore, the transition assistance plan is only providing $350 million. That is peanuts. The industry believes that there should be between $750 million and $1 billion in transition assistance.

Given that our producers are worried and feel abandoned by the Liberal government, can the minister give us a little more information?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her work. I would also like to thank my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. As my colleague said, a few days ago, the minister announced our robust plan to support dairy producers as they undertake this important transition and modernize their operations. I know that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has worked very hard and done a lot of consultation with dairy producers.

All Canadian provinces, including Quebec, strongly support this trade agreement. I was very proud to work with my Quebec counterparts.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, the culmination of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU, or CETA as it has become well known.

This landmark and progressive trade agreement, as the minister commented, is the result of years of hard work from 2009 to 2014 when we signed the agreement in principle. I welcome the opportunity to bring this deal that we struck as a government into force here today.

I congratulate the current trade minister for taking the next steps with this agreement, but I do wish she would do the same for the TPP. It is as progressive as, if not more so than, CETA. We would like to see it on the agenda soon as well.

The trade minister commented that she had just gotten back from Lima at five this morning. I just got back from Russia a little before that, so I have had maybe an hour's more sleep than she has. I do wish I could tell her that it is going to get easier, that the time away from family and so on will be made up for in the deals that we strike and the work we do on behalf of Canadians. However, it does not. We are in opposition, but there are still those international functions that we have to attend to continue that work to benefit Canadians and make sure that our future is bright.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention her parliamentary secretary, the long-suffering gentleman that he is. Having said that, he is a tremendous resource for us on the committee. He does a great job there. He is very stable, calm, and collected. Although he does not take part in much in the day-to-day operations, he is there as a resource when we go in camera and so on. I have had the opportunity to sit on a number of media panels with him, as well. He is a gentleman. Having been a trade professor for a number of years on trade, he understands the importance of trade to Canada's economic prosperity.

CETA at the time was cutting edge and one of the most ambitious trade agendas we had ever seen. That is why the Liberals have begun calling it the “gold standard”, which of course is true for other agreements that we did, like the TPP.

In the previous government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, my colleague and friend, the minister, the member for Abbotsford, and I were able to negotiate, together with a number of our cabinet colleagues and a number of people from what is now called Global Affairs Canada, agreements with 46 different countries. That was unprecedented in this country's history. I am proud to have been a big part of those successes and for the role that my staff played in that as well.

None of that could have been possible without all of the people who work with and for us, right from front to back benches, side to side, people of all stripes. At the end of the day, I would be remiss if I did not mention someone like Steve Verheul . I got to know Steve some 10 years ago, when he was our long-suffering representative at the WTO, carrying that sort of schizophrenic trade agenda that we had, protecting these portions and putting them up for trade agreements. Steve did a fantastic job. He is one of those soft-spoken, quiet gentlemen who always had his finger on the pulse of what was going on.

I remember a number of instances in Geneva over the years at the WTO, when the leadership at that time loved to take five major countries, sort of the same ones that have a veto at the UN, into a little, dark room at midnight to try to hammer out a deal that the rest of us would then accept. None of that ever worked.

It was amazing to be with Steve during those clandestine meetings that the director general called at that time. His BlackBerry was always lighting up with messages, “China said this; Russia said that; or America said this, how should I handle it?” Steve always had the answer, always had the way forward. If anyone was the arbitrator or mediator of what kept the WTO alive for a lot of years, it was Steve Verheul with his hand on the lever. We cannot say enough good things about Steve. He's world class. I am not sure what he will do for an encore after CETA. It has cost him some personal time and a tremendous amount of energy. As I said, I am sure he will land on his feet and continue to be be as well-respected as he is.

Even when the work is done, it is not complete. We saw this over this past year, as the minister stirred the pot and everyone told her not to do it. Our chamber of commerce told her not to renegotiate. I know that people from global affairs said do not do this. I will not say who they are because they could get fired. Also, the European business councils that I continue to be in touch with said not to do this.

We covered off all of these little warts and blemishes when we signed the agreement in principle some two years ago, and all of this was not swept under the rug but adjudicated and addressed at that point. With the minister going back in and sort of ripping the scab off, opening Pandora's box, it created the crisis we saw in Wallonia. At the end of the day, we have escaped with a deal that is more or less intact. It is pretty much, I would say 99.9%, exactly what we signed in principle over two years ago.

Since that time, it was not a stalled deal, as the Liberals like to say, but it was moving forward with a legal scrub and translation into a myriad of different languages and texts. Members know how important that is to do.

We see that here. A lot of times when we scrutinize our regs, one word in French will not correlate with a word in English, and we go back and change something that has been written incorrectly for years. A lot of work goes into the legal scrub with that many languages and different legal systems in the EU, the same as we have in Canada with civil law and common law. The European Union has a myriad of different legal options as well.

It is so important that we get this deal right. It was done right. We have 99.9% of it going forward. We do have a vacuum when it comes to the adjudication of future ISDS claims, and there is no doubt in my mind that there will be some. The NDP and some of its cohorts who came before committee, mostly on the TPP, love to say that Canada is the most sued country in the world. While that might be technically true, the reality is that out of several trillion dollars worth of economic activity, we have paid out $170 million in legal costs, and well over two-thirds of that is due to one little misstep by former premier Danny Williams when he took back an American company, saying that he did not like what it was doing and that he would nationalize it, which he did. Under NAFTA, WTO standards and so on, we paid out some $130 million for that. Canada is sued like every other country, but very few claims come to fruition and get paid out. As I said, that is out of more than several trillion dollars worth of economic activity. CETA is a little different from that, in that we have written guidelines.

We will see the elimination of some 94% of the agricultural tariff lines, and that will allow us to export our goods into a $20 trillion economy.

The European Union is a mature market, unlike the TPP, which is an advancing market. We need both. I often call the CETA agreement the “family reunification trade agreement” because a lot of areas in Canada were settled by Europeans almost a century ago.

I see my friend, the chair of the committee, nodding his head. His family came across and took advantage of the Canadian opportunity. CETA will enable us to work with our cousins at home to bring in different products and facilitate that. I am sure we will be able to get a lot more Scottish, Irish, and English products, all of that good stuff that my colleague's family grew up on. We look forward to that.

We have done an economic agenda. The minister made a nod toward that some years ago. That agenda showed that this agreement would return about $1,000 per middle class family and 80,000 new jobs. That is almost enough to make up for what the Liberals lost this past year. The sooner we get this done the sooner we will be back to zero and can move forward with TPP and start to recoup what we lost and gain what is available in that regard.

It is a unique investment. It is a unique opportunity, in that the European Union has a number of trade agreements with countries around the world, but this is the first one that addresses some subsets of labour standards and environmental standards. It provides the EU with a proper way to negotiate new access to some of our GM products. It is a regulatory package that will allow our beef and pork producers to export their produce using different types of wash facilities and so on. There are still some details to be worked out with respect to that, but at least there are guidelines to move forward with the European Union in a timely way so things are not tied up for months and years.

We will see immediate results once CETA is implemented. Our process here is a bit more arcane than some of the Europeans' processes. They will have to work through all of their 28 member states, as we will with the provinces. The minister also pointed out that when we were negotiating this agreement, my friend and colleague from Abbotsford, and of course Steve Verheul, sat down every time it was required with the provinces and territories that were there, along with industry, which had signed non-disclosure agreements. We had some of the biggest fan clubs. The number of those fan clubs for the CETA deal almost measured up to the number of people the Liberals take along with them on environmental deals. These people were there to get the work done and to make sure that the provinces were looked after. I do not see any type of push-back. Some negotiations are still going on with Newfoundland and Labrador on the payments that will be required. That province has stipulated that a certain amount of fish caught in our waters has to be processed in Canada. There will be some changes in that regard.

Kathy Dunderdale, who was the premier at the time, said that all of the $250 million belongs to her province, which was never true. It is for all of Atlantic Canada to drive efficiency and effectiveness in our fish processing system. The Liberals have that one to work out yet before they will get Newfoundland and Labrador onside, but it is certainly in the works.

It is important that we look at trade writ large. We are fully in favour of CETA. In our view, we could not have done any better. A few steps at the end had our heart in our mouths, but in the end it has all worked out, other than for the vacuum we are going to see in the adjudication of any ISDS claims. There is still work to be done in that regard.

The important part of all these trade agreements is that we take more and more eggs out of that American basket. We rely on the Americans for 75% of our overall trade, 98% when we talk about energy products and, depending on what the issue is, we are very much tied to their economic value. As they pull back on the TPP, there is no reason to believe that we cannot join the other six countries that are gung-ho guaranteed to move forward on it, that we cannot join them and rewrite TPP without the Americans. Let us get it done.

Why would we wait for President Obama to decide whether his legacy will be bad or not? He has gone from being in a lame duck session to a dead duck session, so we have to start moving forward, get this done, join Mexico, Japan, Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. All of them have got it working through their parliaments right now. We have to look at trade writ large. We need that diversity to move away from those holdings in the American market.

We see that when the Americans arbitrarily bring forward things like country-of-origin labelling. There are whispers down there right now again that they will reinvent that. They cannot. We won that fight at the WTO. They would have to change it considerably to bring back anything that looked like Buy America or country-of-origin labelling. As much as that raises red flags, they are only at half-mast, because we did win that particular fight, and we would certainly take up that fight again. We would from the opposition side, I can guarantee that.

At the end of the day it was a good win, but it takes time and there is trade hurt when that is done, so having regulatory packages built in to things like CETA and TPP that really nip those types of negative movements in the bud are very important to take advantage of, and we intend to make sure those are there.

Having both CETA and the TPP in our park would give us access to 80% of the world's GDP, almost a billion consumers who are willing to buy. The difference between CETA and the TPP is that CETA is a mature market. It has been around for a long time. It has trillions of dollars in market potential for us. All we have to do is double or triple a couple of things that we have the capacity to do and we are talking a huge win on both sectors.

The thing with the TPP is it is an emerging market. We are talking middle classes that are growing, their palate is changing, and they are asking for more types of westernized cuisine. In some cases, God help them, but in other cases, it is good for our exports. We will ship them all the burgers and beer they can handle and make money doing it.

It is in our best interests to have that diversity in our trade portfolio, having both the mature markets that take certain cuts of the beef and having the opening markets to take other cuts. We have countries in that Pacific Rim that will make use of a lot of products that we do not when it comes to a livestock animal or when it comes to grain products and pork products and so on. It then adds to the value of that product here in Canada. It changes our processing somewhat. We have to learn to sell what they want, not what we have, but that is just an educational thing that the market will take care of.

It is one of consistency. Canada has been a trading nation since beaver pelts were currency. We are going back a long time. Having said that, trade is still currency. It is still what drives our economy. The little discussion that the minister and I had was on moving forward on trade, setting the standard, and the social side of it that we have to talk to people about. There is a lot of angst out there on media websites and so on about what could go wrong, but there is very little on what goes right in these types of agreements, driving our economic agenda.

We have seen in the last few days our Prime Minister roll over and say, “Sure, we will sit down and renegotiate NAFTA, why wouldn't we?” but at the end of the day we do not start with a position of surrender to having any kind of positive drive on that. Certainly, NAFTA is 20-some years old. There are things in there that need to be modernized. There are things happening now that were not even discussed 20-some years ago, the digital age and all of those things that need to be addressed.

Yes, there are certain things that we need to look at, certain things we need to get on top of, and if we can roll in irritants like the softwood lumber agreement into a new, improved, long-term NAFTA agreement, everybody would benefit. We would not have these legal fights that cost billions of dollars and hurt our industry overall.

Before the Prime Minister sidelines our economic activity by saying we will take whatever the Americans give us, we should be negotiating from a power position. We have resources the Americans are envious of and require. Keystone XL is a case in point. We saw the president of the day in the U.S. veto it, not based on science or on his economic standards, because it has passed all of that, but based on the fact that his major fundraisers were against it.

Hopefully with the new president, who really does not require the same fundraising, we will see some movement on that. He has already been very positive in that regard, but if the Americans are to take that sector of our energy and our resources, then they have to take our energy and our resource sector writ large. What is very important in renegotiating things like NAFTA is to set the standards of what it is we will not take less than, rather than just saying, “Hey, let us do this” and leave it open-ended.

We are seeing a lot of the TPP countries questioning what the Americans have up their sleeve when it comes to trade and when they start talking about renegotiating NAFTA. It is one thing to do it during a political cycle when one is campaigning hard. At that time, we saw Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and president wannabe Bill Clinton both decry NAFTA. They said they would never sign it, they would tear it up, that it would never be in their best interests. Within months, both of them signed it and never looked back. However, they all took credit for it stating, “Look at what wonderful things we did.”

NAFTA was a negotiation by the Conservative government of the day, which faced the wrath of Canadians at the election at one point. That was one of many issues that led to its downfall. However, to be progressive and to have an open society we have to do what we are good at. We are good at trade. We are good producing grapple grommets. The one thing we have never come to grips with is doing some value-added to the grapple grommets before we ship them out of the country and get that side agreement on labour standards, and so on.

We have already seen major changes in our automotive sector. As a political neophyte, I remember during the NAFTA discussions thinking that our our wine industry would be decimated before it even got up and running, and yet it has become an international success story. We cannot go anywhere in the world without seeing some Canadian wines on display. We take international awards every year for the great quality products that we ship out. Therefore, there is from trade that underlying driver of efficiencies and innovation, which make us even stronger and better. Certainly, there are transition times required. We have seen that with our dairy industry and the compensation package that has been offered for the 17,000 tonnes of cheese that will be coming in on an annual basis. However, that will not grow. It is a static number. At the same time, we have unlimited access back into the European market once our guys figure out how to do that with a global cost-pricing structure. They have done it for pizza kits here in Canada, so we know they can do it moving forward.

At the last Paris show that I was involved in, there were 30-something Canadian groups there marketing their products. That was a tremendous opportunity. Although maple syrup is well known, many of them were winning awards for their fine cheeses. Therefore, we know we are world class. We know we can step up and provide whatever is required by the world. We know we can grow our trade. However, we need a government that is ready, willing, and able to take those steps. We are seeing some final steps here, such as getting to the podium to accept the medal after the relay race is done. I was happy to be part of that relay race. However, at the end of the day, there is a lot more trade that needs to be looked at and moved on expeditiously, including the trans-Pacific partnership. We hope we will see these types of actions moving forward on the TPP soon.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, who was a minister for a long time and is well aware of these issues. As he knows, NAFTA has been updated numerous times since it was brought in 20 years ago. There have been something like 11 updates. Therefore, I do not think it is unfair for the Prime Minister to say that we are willing to hear what the issues are and discuss them. There is nothing wrong with that.

Another point I have is this. The member referred to the beaver as currency. As an aside, we have traded the pelts, but everybody hid the fact that beaver is really good meat.

With respect to CETA, every country in Europe has agreed on this. It is extraordinarily difficult to get Europe to agree on anything across every country. I wonder if the member can speak to the importance of that and what it really means for this agreement.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the takeaway from that intervention is to eat more beaver. We will have to see it coming up on menus around the world. We have them out in our country, but I have never gone that way. We never run out of beef or pork, so I have not had to try that, but a lot of people do and still enjoy it, and that is good.

Absolutely, the CETA agreement is the gold standard, and it is tough. That is what led us to begin the undertaking of an agreement with those 28 member states of the European Union.

Some years ago, before I got into politics, I was involved with an industry that was trying to export into the European Union. I will talk about it in the context of farm machinery. We would get an agreement with Germany to export x piece of equipment, and then we would get demands from France, Poland, and other countries that wanted to have that piece of equipment as well, and then we would start all over again. The whole idea of a CETA is one set of regulations. Once we pass the hurdles with our product in x country, it is then accepted by the other countries of the European Union. It also has one currency, as well as other things.

The one thing that has thrown a bit of a monkey wrench into this as we move forward of course is Brexit. How is that going to play out? How do we come to terms with it? It is not really up to us to drive that. Rather, it is up to the British and the European Union to decide on when they do or if they do, and also, if the divorce becomes final, what parts of CETA aspire to the British side, do they start renegotiating all over again, or are they still part of the Common Market?

Therefore, the work is not done. We have the initial stages of CETA. It is a good agreement, a world-class agreement, and a progressive agreement. We agree with all of that. However, the work is never done, and that is what is going to keep guys like Steve Verheul in business for a few more years.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the takeaway from that exchange is that the Liberals cannot find anything good to talk about in CETA so they want to talk about other trade.

My colleague and I sit on the trade committee together. We do not always agree. I am sure that is no surprise to this House, but I do respect him greatly and the work that he does on the committee.

Under the previous government there was a compensation program for the losses that would be incurred under fish processing in Newfoundland and Labrador. I cannot imagine how Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador are not standing up and explaining to Canadians and people in their own provinces where this money is to compensate them for the real losses that they would incur in this deal. This deal is not all gold stars to be put all over. There are serious concerns from sectors in Canada.

My question is this. Is the member concerned that the Liberal government has not yet explained whether and how it will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for expected fish-processing losses?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It is a bit of a fly in the ointment too, not knowing that. The member opposite and I were on the trade committee as we travelled throughout Atlantic Canada, and the underlying theme is that they are not against trade but they want to make sure of that compensation package. We were not there on CETA, we were there on TPP. Still, there was discussion on that compensation package. There seemed to be a bit of buyers' remorse that they had sent 32 Liberals alone, with nobody out there, and all the provincial governments have fallen in line too. Because if they step outside, then all of a sudden there is no infrastructure money, there is no flood mitigation money. There is a bit of political hanky-panky, blackmail if they want to go that far, going on out there. Certainly they need to see what that compensation package is and how it would actually underscore the processing that is required and will be needed moving forward. The European Union is a large fish-buying market, so they would actually look at increases in their ability to supply that market, not decreases.

The other one that is still out there for discussion is the cheese distribution, and I am sure the member's colleague will get up on this question. It is one thing to talk about compensation for dairy farmers, but the real money is in the distribution of that cheese coming in. We had stipulated as part of the agreement that of that 17,000 tons, 30% of it had to be allocated to new entrants. That means the small cheeseries throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec could actually take on the distribution of a cheese similar to their own so they could compare when they sold it out through the distribution network.

There is still some fine-tuning to be done; not enough for us to say “whoa” to the deal, but just enough to point out that these little hiccups still have to be addressed.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in the House today.

My colleague briefly mentioned the negative impact of this agreement on the dairy industry and fine cheese processors.

When the Conservative government was in power, it announced a $4.3-billion transition support plan. After a year in office, the Liberal government recently announced a $350-million plan. That is peanuts, really.

The dairy industry and the producers I represent are very worried because they do not see the Liberal government doing enough to protect our supply management system.

I would like my colleague to comment on the importance of having a transition support plan and protecting our borders. The Liberals have been in power for a year, and we are still having problems on diafiltered milk.

Can my colleague comment on these two issues?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It is stability and predictability, both in trade and at the actual farm gate, that allow people to make investments and carry on. Dairy farmers are going to have to know exactly what the package is going to be. It is one thing to offer the $250 million to the dairy farmers and $100 million to processors. That is fine and it is all well and good. But at the end of the day how is the cheese going to be distributed? Is it going to come into the country in a rush that would be problematic for the market? Are certain valuable cheeses going to all come in at Christmastime? At the same time, we see our own dairy farmers not being able to fill the market. We have seen supplementary quotas all year long on butter. The first one was 4,000 tons and butter is a valuable commodity. A quarter of the CETA is coming in because our dairy guys cannot produce to keep up.

There is work to be done on both ends, with our own dairy farmers and processors deciding between them what they need to do to maintain the Canadian market but at the same time making allocations for these cheeses that would be coming in here. At the end of the day, the growth rate in Canadian content or Canadian consumption of cheese will more than offset that amount coming in from Europe as it works its way through the system and gets here over a staged period. We looked at all of that before we decided to allow that amount of tonnage to come in.

Of course, when we were negotiating, the Europeans started out wanting 60,000 tons, if I remember the numbers correctly. It was just an astronomical number. They always talk about milk lakes and butter mountains in Europe because of what their subsidies did. We have never hit that level. They just basically wanted to transfer their largesse and their problems to Canada. We said, “None of that.” We were able to negotiate a deal that gave us the beef and pork access as well as letting in that small amount of cheese that would be distributed across Canada.

As I say, there are some hiccups and other lines that the Liberals need to continue working on to make sure this deal transitions in smoothly and does not affect our industries negatively.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as we debate Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation act.

This agreement, which we refer to as CETA, is indeed comprehensive. It includes 33 chapters, ranging from traditional trade topics, such as trade remedies, tariffs, and trade facilitation, to less traditional areas, such as investor court provisions, intellectual property, financial services, and government procurement.

I will begin my remarks by discussing the deal and how Canada got to this point. Next, I will discuss some of the outstanding concerns with the agreement and how the Liberal government has neglected to listen to these concerns. Finally, I will conclude by talking about how the New Democratic Party thinks that the government should proceed.

CETA faces a long road ahead before its full ratification, with likely opportunities for improvement. Trade with Europe is deeply important to Canada's economic prosperity. By addressing outstanding concerns with this comprehensive agreement, Canada can forge deeper trading relations with our friends in the European Union, while ensuring Canada's interests and sovereignty are protected.

Canada and the European Union first entered into negotiations back in 2009 under Stephen Harper's Conservative government. In 2010, Canada signalled that the negotiations could soon be finished but concerns persisted. In 2013, Canada and the EU announced a deal in principle, and the then prime minister, Stephen Harper, flew to Brussels for a signing ceremony. In 2014, another signing ceremony took place, this time in Ottawa.

However, behind the pomp and circumstance, concerns over CETA's controversial investor-court dispute settlement mechanism, or ISDS, continued to simmer both in Europe and in Canada. Investor-state provisions empower companies to sue governments for regulating in the public interest. Under NAFTA, chapter 11, Canada is the most sued country.

Critics point out that both Canada and the EU have sophisticated legal systems that are fully equipped to handle complaints from companies. Thus, it is not necessary to grant special privileges to foreign companies beyond those that exist for domestic companies. Despite continued opposition to ISDS, Canada insisted on the inclusion of ISDS in CETA.

As CETA's legal scrubbing phase continued into 2016, the newly elected Liberal government announced that the controversial investor-state dispute settlement mechanism would be revamped as an investor court system, or ICS. However, critics of ISDS, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Council of Canadians, and Canadian labour unions clearly stated that replacing the ISDS arbitration system with a new court system failed to address their concerns.

In October, we saw more changes around CETA, but not to the actual text itself. Canada and the EU signed a joint interpretative declaration, now called a joint interpretative instrument, which was intended to allay concerns that investor-court provisions empowered foreign companies to sue government for regulating in the public interest. However, the declaration is outside of the CETA agreement and therefore does not carry full legal weight.

Canada's Trade Justice Network issued a strong rebuttal stating, “in a display of arrogant condescension, the Declaration simply reiterates and clarifies what is already in the agreement, as if the various legitimate concerns that it purports to respond to have neither merit nor substance.”

Later in October, the Belgian regional government of Wallonia blocked Belgium and therefore the EU Parliament from signing onto CETA. Eventually, Wallonia agreed to sign the treaty if it could maintain its right to refuse to give its consent to Belgium to ratify CETA unless controversial investor-state provisions were significantly changed or removed from the agreement, exactly what many Canadians are calling for.

On October 30, the Prime Minister signed CETA at an EU-Canada leader summit. Two days earlier, the Liberal government put implementing legislation, Bill C-30, on the the Notice Paper, and the Liberals introduced the legislation on October 31.

This rushed process violated the government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty, along with an explanatory memorandum, outlining key components of the treaty at least 21 sitting days before legislation is presented. The Liberals also neglected to table a mandatory final environmental assessment of the FTA, as per the 1999 cabinet directive on the environmental assessment policy plan and program proposals.

Where is the commitment to protecting the environment?

I stood in this place on a question of privilege, challenging the government on its own omissions and failures to adhere to its policies. I questioned the necessity of the government granting itself an exemption on the explanatory memorandum, given that CETA was first signed back in 2013. Between the Liberals and the Conservatives, they had three years to draft this memorandum, which is intended to assist parliamentarians in analyzing the treaty.

Furthermore, given CETA's significant potential environmental impacts, the government must follow though on its requirement to complete a final environmental assessment.

CETA is not yet a done deal. Parliament should take its time in carefully considering the legislation before us today. We know that Canada and the EU intend to provisionally apply approximately 98% of the treaty in early 2017. The European Council decided that provisional application would not include investor-state dispute settlement, portfolio investment, and criminal sanctions for intellectual property crimes. These are the areas of member state jurisdiction.

Before CETA can be ratified, each of the 28 EU member states will have to vote on the deal in their respective legislatures. This process could take between two to five years. If just one of the 28 EU countries decides against ratifying CETA, as we saw with Belgium last month, the entire agreement could fall apart.

Bill C-30 would enable the government to fully ratify CETA, including investor-state provisions that Wallonia has already stated it will refuse to accept. Bill C-30 would provide the strokes for an investor-court system, but would leave out key pieces of information, such as details on an appellate mechanism or how panellists would be selected.

Going through the intellectual property provisions, we see that much of the patent law changes would be done through regulations. These changes would have significant impacts upon the availability of generic drugs to Canadians and therefore the overall cost of prescription drugs.

Greater parliamentary oversight is needed. The Liberal government is essentially asking parliamentarians to sign a blank cheque that it will fill in after.

Over the past year, we have seen a series of actions intended to address the concerns of Europeans with CETA. At every turn, I have risen in this place, as the New Democratic critic for international trade, and have called on the government to truly improve this deal. Yet, every time the government dismissed the concerns of Canadians and focused on making CETA palatable to Europeans.

I would like to now discuss in greater detail outstanding concerns of Canadians with CETA.

We discussed the investor-court system. The changes to ISDS provisions were supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new system will still allow foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits.

At the end of the day, foreign companies will have to access a special court system to challenge Canadian laws, without going through domestic courts.

As I have mentioned, Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under ISDS. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments. The Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases, while continuing to be the subject of ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Existing ISDS measures have also contributed to a regulatory chill where governments fail to take actions in the public interest that they fear may trigger an investor claim.

The Liberals have not explained how they would ensure environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges. It is now clear that the deal will not pass in Europe without the removal of or significant changes to investor-state provisions.

In trade deals, there are always winners and losers. With CETA, there is no doubt that some Canadian sectors will be negatively impacted by this agreement, including supply managed sectors and Newfoundland and Labrador's fish processors.

When the Conservatives were still in office, they acknowledged the significant losses dairy farmers would incur in both CETA and TPP. They promised a $4.3-billion compensation package, intended to offset the long-term perpetual losses.

For one year, the Liberal government refused to comment on whether it too would compensate dairy farmers. It required an extraordinary level of patience from Canadian dairy farmers. On diafiltered milk, the government continues to drag its heels. It is promising a solution, but refusing to provide any sense of timeline. The trade committee heard from the Minister of Agriculture on this file. His lackadaisical attitude was incredibly frustrating to listen to.

Dairy farmers are also frustrated with the government's inaction on tightening on the duty deferral program. These are serious trade issues that the government must address.

In this context, let us look at the government's recent announcement to invest in Canadian dairy farms and producers. It never admits the funds are compensation, only an investment package. The Liberals announced a $350 million package for Canada's dairy sector, which indeed is a welcome investment. However, the sector anticipates CETA will cost it $116 million per year in perpetual lost profits. The Liberals' funding announcement is for $350 million over five years. This falls far short of compensating dairy for the losses it will incur under CETA.

The Liberals also have not explained whether and how they will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for giving up its minimum processing requirements. In 2013, the Conservatives included a $400 million fisheries renewal fund, with the federal government contributing $280 million and the provincial government contributing $120 million. However, in 2014, Newfoundland and Labrador believed the Conservative government was signalling its intention to renege on the deal. The leader of the Liberal Party made clear commitments that he would follow through on compensating Newfoundland and Labrador. How can the government consider CETA a done deal without addressing its commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador?

I am also deeply concerned under CETA about changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals, which will increase drug costs by more than $850 million every year. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that CETA could make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program.

I find this deeply disturbing. Canadians already pay some of the highest drug costs in the OECD. CETA's patent provisions are not a concern to the EU. It already grants brand name pharmaceutical companies longer patent protection, but Europeans also pay much less for their prescription drugs than we do in Canada.

People in my riding of Essex already struggle with the high costs of prescription medications. Yet the Liberal government is cutting health care transfers to the provinces and has given no indication that it will take action on a national pharmacare program.

Under CETA, Canadians will pay even higher drug costs, while the federal government shows no concern or even acknowledgement of this reality. When the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded that the Conservatives present a study on the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government, they are telling the provinces that they will cut health care transfers, while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces.

At every opportunity it would seem the Liberal government has refused to provide greater analysis of CETA. In June, the world watched as the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. This raised immediate concerns about the impact of Brexit on CETA. In fact, the U.K. is Canada's biggest trading partner in the EU. Forty-two per cent of Canadian exports to the EU go to the U.K. Canadian concessions in CETA were based on the premise that the U.K. would be part of CETA. Yet the Liberal government has provided, again, no analysis re-evaluating the net benefits of CETA without the U.K.

In consultations with indigenous people, the Liberal government made a clear commitment to nation-to-nation relationships, which includes a commitment to consulting on international trade deals. The Liberals have given no indication that they have fulfilled their duty to consult. We know they have not fulfilled this duty with the TPP.

Also in CETA there are provisions stating that above a certain threshold, minimum local content policies will be outlawed, even in municipal and provincial government procurements. We also see provisions granting companies an expanded ability to use temporary workers without a study of impact on Canadians.

I have also heard significant concerns over the ability of all levels of Canadian governments to protect public services. These are all important issues that warrant greater study than what the government has offered.

Many of the concerns we are discussing today were consistently raised in two studies conducted by the Standing Committee on International Trade. The studies, undertaken in 2012 and 2014, were deemed by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party as interim or pre-studies, as both took place before the final text of CETA was made available to parliamentarians.

In the Liberals' 2012 dissenting report, they called for further consultation with Canadians on CETA. They highlighted that while the committee's work was a good start, further consultation was required. However, now that the Liberals are in government, they have completely changed their tune. They are no longer concerned by the lack of consultation, the inclusion of investor-state provisions, or the impact of increased drug prices for Canadians.

Today, the Liberal-dominated trade committee has made it clear that it only wants to hear from groups that will benefit from CETA. It has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrict its brief study of CETA from receiving input from Canadians, by passing a motion that restricts the committee from accepting written submissions except for those from the handful of witnesses who are selected to appear.

On the other hand, the committee held dozens of meetings on the TPP, travelling to every province in Canada, and holding video conferences with witnesses from the territories. We heard from over 400 witnesses, and received written submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians. With 95% of submissions critical of the TPP, it is no wonder that the government does not want to hear from Canadians on CETA. After spending half a million dollars on this study, not to mention the time and money spent by the minister and her parliamentary secretary on their own consultations, the Liberal government still has no position on the TPP.

As a first-time MP, I find the Liberals' disregard for due process on CETA deeply disturbing. It makes me wonder what they are trying to hide by pushing through this comprehensive agreement without proper memorandums, consultations, compensation, or analysis. I reference the two previous committee studies. In both studies, the NDP made clear its concerns but also its hopes that these concerns would be addressed and CETA would be fixed. The NDP has long argued for better trade with Europe. This will help diversify our markets, particularly as we face the uncertainties raised by the election of Mr. Trump.

However, Canada should not ratify the biggest trade deal since NAFTA as merely a reactionary or symbolic gesture. As I have outlined, significant concerns and unanswered questions remain about the proposed deal for many Canadians. Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The government should work to fix problems with the current deal rather than settling for a flawed agreement.

New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports while remaining firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten sovereignty have no place in a trade deal. In our view, the job of the government is to pursue better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects Canadians jobs. I am deeply suspicious of the Liberal claim of having a progressive trade agenda. This is a party that supported free trade agreements with Honduras and the controversial FIPA with China.

A final trade deal must be judged on its net costs and benefits. New Democrats have always been clear on this, and we have opposed deals in the past that would have net negative impact on Canadians, including Honduras and the China FIPA. Furthermore, better trade must also involve a better process. Far too often, Canadians have been kept in the dark during backroom talks by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. We saw this with the TPP, and Canadians rejected this.

In 2014, the hon. Minister of International Trademade the following statement in this place:

Mr. Speaker, on CETA, we in the Liberal Party are adults and we understand and respect the fact that, if trade agreements are going to be done, they need to be done behind closed doors.

The Liberals promised greater transparency, but given the minister's own attitudes, it is clear they have no intention on delivering on this promise. New Democrats cannot accept this position. We will continue pushing for greater transparency in trade negotiations, and meaningful, honest discussions with Canadians on all the potential impacts of any trade deal.

Europe is an ideal trade partner, and deepening trade relations with the EU has always been an aim that New Democrats support. Today, we have an agreement before us, and there are specific measures that raise significant concerns. As the progressive opposition, it is the job of New Democrats to uphold Canada's interest in this process.

The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix CETA, but the deal is still not done. It faces a lengthy complex ratification process in the European Union. Wallonia has said it will not accept a CETA that includes investor-court provisions. I call on the Liberal government to remove investor-court provisions from CETA and this legislation, address the increased drug costs, and give Bill C-30 due process at the committee.

Without these key elements, I cannot in good conscience advise my caucus colleagues to support this agreement. New Democrats will vote no to Bill C-30, and we will continue pushing the government for an agreement that provides a stronger net benefit for all Canadians.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly, a lot of homework went into that presentation on a lot of well thought-out issues.

However, I want to explore the investor protection provisions. If I go to some place and invest my money to build a plant and hire people, and then all of a sudden that jurisdiction changes the rules after I have made the commitment, I would ask the hon. member whether she does not agree that there should be some provision to protect me and the investment I have made, which could have gone someplace else in the world, against someone changing the rules in the middle of the game. If she agrees with that, what kind of mechanism would she prefer to see rather than the one that is in place?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. In NAFTA, for the very first time, we have an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism between two developed countries. We are talking in CETA about the EU. It has developed, progressive court systems that exist, the same as ours here in Canada.

I would challenge the member to say that our court system in Canada is not completely capable of fulfilling any need that any investor would have if they felt they had been infringed upon. Why are we not hearing these cases in our domestic court system? This is exactly why Wallonia stood up. This is exactly why European countries are standing up and saying they have their own progressive court systems and a mechanism, in a state-to-state resolution, to have these disputes heard. We do not need a separate court system.

I want to be clear that in CETA, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We are being asked to sign on to a court system that is not defined and not laid out. We will not see legislation before the House outlining what the investor court system would look like. We are being asked, in CETA, to sign off on essentially a few lines that exist. That is not acceptable to Canadians. We have a progressive court system here in Canada. If investors feel they need to use it, it is there for them to do so.

I believe firmly that we do not and should not engage in any investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, in any trade deal we engage in. India has refused to sign trade agreements with these provisions. Around the world, there are many conversations about these provisions and the fact that they are hurting countries.

In NAFTA, chapter 11, these are the exact same provisions that we are talking about. We are the most sued country in the world under these provisions. This has not worked well for us as a country. We have paid out $190 million. It is not just the money that we have paid out, but it is the impact it has had on our ability to regulate and legislate for public good, public safety, and public health in our own country, and to protect our environment. That is a key pillar of what the government is promising to do for Canadians.

We could come under threat of being sued in this court system that has absolutely no definition around it. We do not even know what the appellant mechanism is going to look like, who is going to be appointed.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that struck me from my colleague's speech was that the approval process in European legislatures is going to take between two to five years. Here we are in Canada's Parliament, where the Prime Minister signed the agreement on October 30, and the legislation was brought in on October 31. That violated the memorandum that outlined that 21 sitting days needed to pass before legislation was tabled in the House. Furthermore, we learned that the trade committee is restricting witnesses to only those who provide submissions to the committee.

From all perceptions of these actions, the ramming through of this legislation without the proper notification period, the fact that the committee is restricting the witnesses and the submissions, gives the perception that the government is trying to ram this through without proper oversight.

I ask my colleague where the rush is when it is going to take European legislatures two to five years. Why is Canada giving a blank cheque to the government and not doing due oversight?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is something that I have asked myself. We certainly have enough time. We are going to be provisionally applied in CETA, which will mirror what happens in the EU.

My concern is that we are not taking the time here at home. The minister has spent a great deal of time this year in Europe trying to make this deal palatable to the European member states that have had push-back issues around the courts system and around their agricultural sectors. We have not seen that at home. We have not seen a consultation. We have seen over 400 witnesses around the trans-Pacific partnership at committee, and now we are likely to see fewer than 20 witnesses round CETA. This is the largest deal that we will be signing on to since NAFTA. It is very important that we get this deal right.

Trade with Europe is so important to our country. Europe is our second-largest trading partner. As I said, there is absolutely no conversation around the U.K. leaving, in Brexit, and what the implication will be. I am not sure what the rush is for the current government to push it through, other than to have some form of success on the books.

However, that success will come at an expense for Canadians. It will come at the expense of every single Canadian who will pay higher drug costs from the day that the deal is ratified in this House going forward. I challenge every member in this House to tell me that they have spoken about this issue to people in their own riding, that people in their own communities are not already calling their constituency offices on a daily basis because they cannot afford medication. Yet here we are, with a provision in this deal to increase drug costs in Canada. We need this deal to be done right. We need provisions in here to protect Canadians, and increasing pharmaceutical costs in Canada will hurt many people in communities, including seniors, who have largely been left out by the government in previous legislation.

I am urging all members of this House to take their time. It is unfortunate that there is not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, time and again, whenever we are talking about trade, surprise, there is one party that always stands up against us, or maybe two, that stand up against trade, against jobs, against providing our Canadian producers and businesses with more opportunity, more markets, to sell their product but promote jobs.

Canada is a trading nation One in five jobs is tied to trade, especially for the hon. colleague in her riding, which has probably had massive benefit from the trade agreements that our previous government have signed, and indeed what CETA would bring to our country. Why is she so against trade?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought my colleague was going to say that we in the New Democratic Party were fighting for Canadians, that we want trade to be right for Canadians, that we want trade that is going to benefit Canadians in their everyday lives.

This trade agreement, with these particular provisions, can be fixed. It can end up as a trade deal that works for Europeans and works for Canadians, but unfortunately we are not going to be taking the time to ensure that is the case here in this House.

Trade is critical to my riding, and everyone in my riding supports trade. New Democrats support trade. However, we have to support trade in a way that benefits all Canadians. Increasing the cost of drugs should never be part of a trade deal. It is 25% of the legislative changes inside of this implementing legislation. That is wrong. Canadians do not support that. Again, I challenge these members, and I challenge the member for Cariboo—Prince George, to speak to members in their own ridings and ask if they would support increased drug costs in Canada going forward.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville.

I will first address free trade in general by way of introduction and then address the comprehensive economic trade agreement in particular.

In properly managed economies, free trade regimes result in increased prosperity for all partners. This is uncontroversial economic theory and practice. This increased shared prosperity results from efficient economic specialization; each partner does what it does best, and this results in more efficient production within partner economies. More efficient production means increased net wealth for free-trading partnerships. Properly devised free trade results in a net increase in jobs and decreased prices for consumers. More employment and lower prices combine to increase the wealth available for free-trading societies.

This legislation would implement such a properly devised, progressive free trade agreement.

However, we have seen skepticism about free trade around the world lately. Why is there legitimate worldwide concern about free trade? There is such concern because governments have not always properly addressed the broader implications of free trade. With this fair and responsible agreement, our government will do so.

What are the often ignored implications of free trade? They are basically twofold. Governments have not always properly recognized that free trade hurts some citizens, despite the general increase in prosperity. Governments have not always helped sufficiently those negatively impacted. Such assistance can include measures for retraining; assistance to shift to new sectors, markets, or products; and measures to deal with unemployment and economic disruption. Our government will take the necessary measures to assist those negatively impacted by this agreement.

A further legitimate concern is that governments have not always had the wisdom and willingness to ensure that the general prosperity resulting from free trade is equitably shared throughout society. Many governments have been content to see the economic benefits flow disproportionately to the very few. Our government will take measures to ensure that any general increase in prosperity, including that flowing from increased free trade, will be shared in an inclusive manner, including especially the middle class and those working hard to join it.

After consulting and listening to Canadians, and guided by our principles, we are addressing these two areas. We are pursuing free trade in a fair and responsible way. Our free trade will reduce inequality and enhance inclusive growth.

There are other less valid reasons to oppose free trade. Some opposition to free trade flows from xenophobia, a fear of and unwillingness to deal with foreigners. When people struggle economically, they can become fearful and susceptible to calls for protectionist measures. The world saw this phenomenon in the years preceding World War II. Such inward turning contributed to the start of that horrific conflict.

We reject xenophobia. We will keep Canada open to and engaged in the world.

This is the right thing to do. It is also Canada's surest route to continuing inclusive prosperity.

History has useful lessons to consider. What was the world reaction to the Great Depression of the 1930s? There was a general protectionist response by the world's economies. Countries erected trade barriers. Countries pulled back from free trade. Did these fear-based responses help these countries and the world? The answer is no, they did not. In fact, these measures exacerbated the problem. They prolonged the Great Depression and caused more economic disruption.

These economic lessons were so clear that after World War II, the international community signed GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in 1947, which is now the World Trade Organization. This reaction was specifically designed to combat self-destructive trade protectionism. The free trade effects of that regime were largely responsible for the unprecedented, prolonged post-war prosperity.

How should we respond to our great recession of 2008, under which shadow we still live? Should we make the same mistakes our ancestors made in the 1930s? Should we retreat from free trade? Should we become more protectionist? Will becoming less open to international trade help us? The clear answer is no.

Now I wish to deal specifically with the free trade agreement before us, the comprehensive economic trade agreement. CETA is an ideal complement to our current trading arrangements with the world's largest market, the United States, with whom, with Mexico, we are now linked in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

We came to this agreement only after extensive consultation with stakeholders, and only after listening to interested Canadians. CETA will now link us to the world's second-largest market, the European Union. Acknowledging the long-standing, mutually beneficial effects of NAFTA does not prevent us from duplicating the benefits of that arrangement with other countries. We can now forge a new and exciting free trade relationship with Europe.

Canadians can only benefit from diversifying our trading markets and supply sources to the broadest possible number of countries in the world. Free trade links us with a broad range of countries, grows our economy, and protects us from the inevitable ups and downs in different countries' and different regions' economic and political cycles.

In addition to the benefits of the size of Europe's markets, Europe has the further advantage of sharing with Canada much history and culture. There is a natural affinity between Europe and Canada.

While free trade does not require a similarity of outlook, such similarities make all relationships, including economic relationships, that much easier.

We have much in common with Europe. We share approaches to the rule of law, democratic government, workers' rights, investment, research, and even government regulations. All these linkages will ease our interactions with Europe on multiple levels. Examples of these similar views in CETA are its provisions recognizing labour protection and priorities. In addition, each partner has the right to set distinct environmental priorities.

Many Canadians can trace their roots back to Europe. Many Canadians still have links with Europe. Canada and Europe can use those linkages for our mutual benefit.

Canadians of Dutch heritage will help us sell to the Netherlands. Canadians of Portuguese ancestry can help us invest in Portugal, and Polish Canadians can help forge economic links with Poland.

Let us consider snapshots of some likely effects of CETA. Bombardier will be able to strengthen and grow its European market, keeping good jobs here in Ontario and Quebec. Clearwater Seafoods in Atlantic Canada is well positioned to take advantage of this trade agreement to provide Canada with more exports and Atlantic Canada with more jobs.

The Canadian Agri-food Trade Alliance applauds the government for signing CETA. Its members, including cow producers and soy and canola farmers, many in Canada's prairie provinces, are eager for this agreement, because they will sell more products to Europe, bringing back profits and keeping jobs in Canada.

Canada's forest products companies will be able to sell more to Europe. We are currently only 11th as a supplier of such products to Europe. Tariffs on forestry products will drop from 10% to 2% to 0%. This means more jobs and prosperity in British Columbia and elsewhere across Canada.

For these reasons, this agreement has extensive support from our business community. They see opportunity. CETA will provide direct benefits to Canadians, who will find temporary access to Europe enhanced under its provisions for the increasingly important service sectors. Not only will they take Canadian ideas and approaches to Europe, they will bring European ideas and approaches back to Canada. This will vastly increase the ability of the Canadian organizations to which they belong to compete, innovate, and thrive around the world.

The comprehensive economic trade agreement is one of those rare golden opportunities for Canada to live up to its progressive principles and for Canada, along with its European partners, to reap economic benefits and an increase in generally inclusive prosperity. We are standing by our ideas of openness and engagement. We are also pursuing inclusive and enduring prosperity for all Canadians.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Liberal government embracing trade and actually doing so in a fashion that will benefit all Canadians.

I am just curious. We have had different testimony on ISDS and the provisions on ISDS. Could the member tell the House exactly what is in the agreement and how it will come into effect?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his work on the international trade committee and for the work he has done for many years on this agreement. I know that he is in full support. He sees the benefits that will come from this agreement.

I know the member has heard from the parliamentary secretary and the minister about the work that is ongoing as they look at investor protections and at making sure they are there for investors. On the other hand, there is also an understanding of the sovereignty of all the countries involved in this agreement and of making sure that the environmental protections and labour protections are addressed. It is a well balanced, progressive agreement, and these are the types of standards we want going forward.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is praising CETA, but I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the government is rushing this bill through despite the many shortcomings the NDP has found in terms of both the process and the bill's contents.

A number of industries will suffer, including the dairy industry in Quebec and in my riding. The Conservatives had previously agreed to compensation totalling $4.3 billion over 10 years, but the Liberals are offering only $250 million over five years. That represents a huge loss, $116 million a year for the dairy farmers in my riding, even though this sector creates one out of every eight jobs in Canada.

I would like to quote our dairy farmers, who feel cheated:

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.

What does my colleague have to say in response to the concerns of Canadian dairy farmers?

Can he also reassure us? Apparently, people are not allowed to submit reports to the committee, unless they appear in person as witnesses. This shows a serious lack of transparency—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

Unfortunately, there are only five minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is confusing two agreements, the TPP and CETA. For CETA, there has been a great deal of consultation, especially with the agriculture sector. Our agriculture minister is working hard on the transition phase and is doing his job correctly. It has been over seven years putting this together and seeing it come to fruition, with buy-in from the provinces, Quebec included, which is actually a champion of this agreement, the municipalities, and stakeholders. This will be an agreement that I will be voting in favour of, because I know it is good for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the importance of being bold in the current climate of protectionism. Maybe he could comment further on the opportunity this presents to Canada to be seen as a leader in trade in the world, something started under the previous government. The talks stalled, unfortunately. We picked them up and carried the ball across the line. Now we have a comprehensive agreement that should show us as a great trading partner in the world. Maybe he could comment on that.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member, who often talks about our trade agreements around the world, and the Prime Minister, for the leadership we have seen at APEC from the get-go. Canada is a trading nation. We are open to the world and are all better if we are trading with each other.

In my comments I spoke about the Great Depression and the great recession and how at those times there was a feeling of protectionism. That protectionism, we can see now, has brought poor results. We have to have open, progressive trade agreements like CETA to move everyone forward.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of Bill C-30 and the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

Canada is a trading nation. A trade agreement with the European Union is good business for Canada. The European Union market opens incredible opportunities for Canadian businesses. The EU is the world's second largest economy and is Canada's second largest trading partner after the United States. It is also the world's second largest importing market for goods.

CETA is a comprehensive trade agreement that would cover virtually all sectors and aspects of Canada-EU trade. Once implemented, approximately 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods would be duty-free.

Canadian service providers would benefit from greater access to the EU, the world's largest importer of services.

CETA would also provide investors with greater stability, transparency, and protection for investments in the EU while significantly expanding Canadian access to EU government procurement contracts.

To make a specific case for CETA, I would like to reflect on the advantages of CETA to my community of Oakville. Oakville is home to many advanced manufacturing companies, which form a dynamic cluster of businesses supporting innovation and growth. Our manufacturing standouts include Ford Motor Company of Canada, UTC Aerospace Systems, GE Water & Process Technologies, and Dana Incorporated, an auto parts manufacturer.

With respect to the aerospace industry, CETA would offer tariff elimination, opening of government contracts, and regulatory co-operation.

With respect to automotive parts, given the integrated nature of Canada's automotive supply chain, it is important that there are rules of origin that accommodate significant levels of foreign value-added. CETA would allow Canadian passenger vehicles that meet a minimum percentage of domestic content to qualify for duty-free exchange.

For other manufacturers, the EU represents an unprecedented opportunity for Canadian businesses. Pre-Brexit, with its $22-trillion economy and more than 500 million consumers, the EU is the world's largest integrated market. The potential value of access to the EU is quantified in a 2008 study, which estimated that CETA could lead to a $12-billion increase to Canadian GDP and an increase in bilateral trade of over 20%.

A growing cluster of financial and professional service companies are taking advantage of Oakville's workforce capabilities to drive innovation and build sector leadership. In Oakville, there are 13,000 highly skilled and experienced knowledge workers. Also, Oakville is home to Sheridan College, one of the world's leading animation centres.

Oakville has the people, the partners, and the business knowledge to bring new technology to the world. For ICT workers, professionals, and businesses, CETA allows for tariff elimination, regulatory co-operation, temporary entry permits, and access to government procurement contracts.

CETA also has provisions for recognition of professional certifications, including legal, accounting, and architectural designations.

Ford Canada, located in my riding of Oakville, is very supportive of CETA. The EU market represents a significant global market for vehicles. In 2015, total vehicle sales in the EU countries were 15.5 million vehicles, ranking the EU as the third largest vehicle market in the world behind number one China, with over 24 million units sold and number two, the U.S., with over 17 million sales.

Access to this large new vehicle market for Canadian produced vehicles would help diversity and grow Canadian exports of vehicles and our auto parts. Dianne Craig the president and CEO of Ford Motor Company of Canada, states that, “Ford is a global company built on free trade. ...Ford has supported trade deals with trading partners that result in the opportunity to increase the two-way flow of trade.” That is what CETA does.

In 2016, Ford of Canada began exporting the Ford Edge, built in Oakville, to the EU. This includes building vehicles in Canada with right-hand drive and diesel engines designed for that market. Canada's decision to sign CETA contributed to Ford's decision to expand production of the Ford Edge in Oakville for export to the EU market.

Caroline Hughes, director of government relations at Ford states, “...we support a manufacturing-driven trade strategy that starts with the belief that Canadian manufacturing truly matters and that Canadian manufacturing can compete on a level playing field against the best competition from around the world.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has spoken out quite clearly in favour of this agreement.

Locally, the Oakville Chamber of Commerce has supported the ratification of CETA. John Sawyer, president of the Oakville Chamber of Commerce recently stated that:

CETA is an important agreement that would benefit Oakville businesses by reducing trade barriers with the world's large economy. It will offer more opportunities for exporters and lower prices for consumers.

I do need to say that several people and groups in Oakville have raised concerns with me. They say that some of our recent free trade agreements have surrendered the state's ability to regulate and to act in public interest in favour of multinational corporations' interests. This has been the result of complex investor-state conflict resolution processes.

I want to reassure residents of Oakville that CETA represents a significant break with the past, at two different levels.

First, it would include an explicit reference to the right of governments to regulate in the public interest. CETA makes clear from the outset that the EU and Canada preserve their right to regulate and to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as public health, safety, environment, public morals, social or consumer protection, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

There is a clear instruction to the tribunal for the interpretation of investment provisions.

Second, CETA would create an independent investment court system, consisting of a permanent tribunal. Dispute settlement proceedings would be conducted in a transparent and impartial manner.

Contrary to the traditional investment dispute settlement agreements, the tribunal would be composed of 15 members nominated by the European Union and Canada, and not by the arbitrators nominated by the investor and the defending state.

It is also explicitly foreseen that governments could change their laws, including in a way that would affect investors' expectations of profit and that the application of law would not not constitute a breach of investment protection standards.

It is worth repeating that CETA would explicitly safeguard health, safety, and environmental protections and that nothing in CETA would prevent governments from providing preferences to aboriginal peoples or from adopting measures to protect or promote Canadian culture.

As vice-president of the Canada-European Parliamentary Association, I have recently had the opportunity to speak about the advantages of CETA to our European parliamentary counterparts at meetings in Canada and in Europe.

There was general agreement that there were advantages for European countries to participate in this trade agreement, just as there are advantages for Canada.

I was part of panel that met with business owners in Bratislava, Slovakia, who were very excited about the opportunities opened up by the trade agreement with Canada.

I also have had the opportunity to tour auto parts manufacturing plants in Europe and to see a Volkswagen assembly plant creating VW Touaregs, Porsche Cayennes, and other luxury SUVs, many of which are destined for my community of Oakville. Just as Oakville currently exports the Ford Edge to Europe, we are importing European automobiles to Canada. This trade already exists. CETA would simplify the rules and make the products more affordable to consumers in both jurisdictions.

Like many communities across Canada, Oakville depends upon free trade and open global trade to maintain our high standard of living. This is a modern agreement, and an extremely positive one for the Canadian economy, which relies upon open markets and trade.

I have relatives in Germany, Poland, and Sweden. Many Canadians, like me, have family and friends who live in the European Union. This is a good trade relationship for people; this is a good trade agreement for Oakville and my town's businesses; and this is a good trade deal for Canada.

I hope every member of Parliament gets behind CETA and supports Bill C-30.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague across talking about his care for family and friends. I share that, of course, in my own riding of Essex.

I am deeply concerned for my riding of Essex and his riding of Oakville as a result of the impacts of increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians. I cannot understand how the member opposite will explain this to the many people of Oakville.I have many friends who live in Oakville and who work in Oakville, and they do not support increased drugs costs in a trade deal like we see in CETA.

Increasing drug costs for Canadians, changing our patent legislation—25% of CETA implementing legislation are changes to the Patent Act—have absolutely no place in a trade agreement in 2016. This would hurt Canadians. I cannot comprehend how, in a working community like Oakville, where the member across is from, he can explain to everyone there that he will now sign a trade agreement and stand proudly and happily to saddle them with increased drug costs from the moment that we sign on and from the moment that the member votes going forward.

I would like an explanation on how he will explain the increased drug costs to the people of his riding of Oakville.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very careful in my remarks, outlining in great detail the benefits of CETA to multiple business sectors, people, and professionals working in Oakville.

CETA is a good deal. The member can take one small aspect of it, and focus on it. I do not know why the NDP does not get behind and support trade deals. One in five Canadian jobs depend on trade.

We need to work on drug prices in Canada. We also need to make sure that our pharma companies can make reasonable profits and have reasonable protection for the work that they put into research and development.

This is a good trade deal for Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the member does indeed understand the importance of trade and the importance of this deal.

I do want to ask him a question, though, on the issue of international trade. I think he acknowledges that we are going into a time internationally where there may be protectionist sentiments out there. It is very important in that environment for Canada to be taking the lead, speaking up strongly about the importance of international trade, and especially about the benefits of our historic trade agreements.

Why, then, did the Prime Minister, right away, after the U.S. election completely throw NAFTA under the bus by saying that we would be prepared to renegotiate it? Why is the government not actually prepared to stand up for our historic trade deals, which are working, and which have served us and all of North America well, in the midst of pursuing this new trade deal as well?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has been incredibly vocal, and is out there personally meeting with multinational corporations and leaders of other countries to promote trade.

In a period of time when protectionism seems to be growing in certain parts of the world, it is great to see Canada at the leading edge, fighting for free trade, and promoting trade. We all prosper when trade happens.

The government has been open and transparent, unlike the TPP deal that was negotiated by the previous government that was hidden and done behind doors. All of this has been open and transparent. This government continues to promote open and transparent trade dialogue.

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.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to what is truly an historic trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. I want to begin by extending congratulations, because these kinds of negotiations of free trade agreements, at the best of times, are difficult. When there is an agreement like CETA, which is so complex, it is very difficult to get it to the finish line.

I want to extend congratulations to the Prime Minister and also to his international trade minister for doggedly pushing this file forward. It is this close to the finish line. It is not quite there yet, but it is oh so close.

I also want to thank former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who had the foresight and courage to move ahead with negotiations at a time when many naysayers said that this could not be done. In fact, I recall during these negotiations, which I led for four and a half years, many times when people would come up and say that there was no way we were going to be able to address an issue, and there was no way we would be able to open up agricultural access to the European Union.

Each step along the way, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had our backs. He had the back of our team in making sure we got this done. Our country owes Stephen Harper a tremendous debt of gratitude for his remarkable achievement.

I also want to thank my former cabinet colleagues for enthusiastically supporting this agreement every single step of the way and for providing helpful advice in their areas of expertise. I especially want to congratulate and thank my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who was the minister of agriculture as our previous Conservative government was negotiating this agreement. He worked on one of the most difficult provisions in this agreement, which is agricultural access to the European Union, and also addressed some of the sensitivities on the Canadian side. He was able to get it done in a way that our stakeholders ended up strongly supporting this agreement.

I am pleased to see that he is now the official opposition's trade critic, holding the Liberal government's feet to the fire as they try to defend and promote Canada's trade interests around the world.

I also wanted to thank chief negotiator Steve Verheul and his large team of sectoral negotiators for a job very well done. These are some of our best Canadian negotiators. They represent the very best Canada has to offer. Their advice is not only sought by us as governments here in Canada but is sought around the world, because Canada is a kinder, gentler, more flexible negotiating partner. However, we are firm. We have resolve when we negotiate. The standard we have set is that we will not negotiate a trade agreement unless it is in Canada's national interest.

I also want to thank my friend, the former premier of Quebec Jean Charest, for first imagining what was possible and then inspiring us to take the first step in broadening our economic partnership with the European Union. That is exactly what this trade agreement achieves. It represents a broadening of our economic partnership with the European Union in a way that many of us could not have imagined a decade ago.

I want to just walk through this agreement. First of all, I want to talk about the agreement itself, the deal, and then the beneficiaries of this agreement. I want to talk about the opportunity this represents for Canadians and also the challenges we still face in getting this agreement over the line.

This agreement is the most comprehensive the world has ever seen. I say that without reservation. It delves into areas that were never considered before as being possible within a trade agreement.

This agreement has been compared to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and I would admit that NAFTA is still the definitive trade agreement between Canada and its two North American partners. Because of the scope and size of that relationship, it also dwarfs all the other trade relationships we have around the world.

CETA is much more comprehensive. It is a complex agreement. It means that it took longer to negotiate because of the complexities and because we needed to have this agreement be in Canada's national interest.

I recall on a number of occasions when we, the Canadian team of negotiators, had to leave the table. We had to say that the deal on the table was not in Canada's interest. Then a month or two later, we would go back and the other side would come back, and we would come up with new approaches to some of the obstacles that faced us, and we would find ways through those obstacles.

This agreement is complex because of the novel and bold approaches the two sides agreed to take. For example, in negotiating expanded services access, services like engineering, digital technology, and information technology, we want to make sure that Canadians have an expanded marketplace in the world to sell high-quality services into. For the first time ever, Canada and the EU agreed to use a negative list approach to negotiating services. What that means is that if a service is not included on the list of approved services for additional market access, or if it is not specifically excluded, any future services that might be developed in a rapidly evolving global marketplace would be captured by this agreement and would be provided full access into the EU and Canada. That is unique in this agreement.

What else is unique is that for the first time ever, Canada had its provinces and territories at the negotiating table when it came to areas of their sole or shared jurisdiction. What this allowed us to do was to secure outcomes that none of our trade agreements before had ever secured. There was, for example, an outcome on government procurement. When a government goes out and solicits contracts for services, for properties, or goods and services, whenever that happens, typically governments protect their home market. What we have done is expanded government procurement access for Canadian companies to start bidding on projects within the European Union, the world's largest service market. Again, we were able to come up with a highly ambitious outcome on government procurement.

We know that trade, when done right, benefits all partners and has the potential to raise living standards and prosperity all around the world. That is also why we took great care in negotiating outcomes in things such as goods trade; services trade; technical barriers to trade; labour mobility; the environment, which Canadians care very much about; intellectual property and protecting our innovators; geographical indications; and as I mentioned, government procurement.

For example, in the area of trade in goods, which includes things such as agricultural products, automobiles, and fish and seafood, we have some of the best quality fish and seafood products in the world. When it comes to forestry products, and equipment and machinery, we have opened up the marketplace in the EU for those products. We would be eliminating 98% of all tariffs that presently face Canadian exporters within the European marketplace, including the 10% tariff on Canadian cars when they are sold in that market. That is good news for our auto industry.

This agreement is also very special because it provides Canada with unique global market access to both the European Union and the United States. We already have a free trade agreement, NAFTA, with the United States and Mexico, but we are the first major economy in the world to also have a free trade agreement with the European Union, a marketplace of over 500 million consumers. This is a huge advantage for Canada.

We also negotiated services. The question we had to ask was where does Canada's comparative advantage lie? Where does Canada, as a highly developed, highly educated, highly innovative country have an advantage? It is not in manually sitting on a production line, putting together widgets. That is not the future for Canada. The future for Canada is in the knowledge economy. That is where our future prosperity lies. It is in areas such as engineering, digital animation, gaming, health services, education, cybersecurity, information technology, and so many other areas that have high-paying jobs and are the economy of the future.

Let me give the example of engineering. Did members know that Canada is the third-largest exporter of engineering services in the world? We are a country with a small population of 35 million in a global marketplace of seven billion people up against giants like Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the United States, and we rank third. These are high-paying jobs. Canadians are carving out a reputation for their innovation and excellence and the quality of the services they provide. This trade agreement would dramatically improve the export potential of these services.

Let me talk a bit about the beneficiaries of this agreement.

Of course, there are the manufacturers and the exporters who want to access the European marketplace but who have, for so many years, been unable to do so because of high tariffs and very high non-tariff barriers, meaning all the rules and regulations and standards behind the borders that frustrate our exporters and provide protection for European companies. In large part, we are addressing those challenges both on the tariff and non-tariff sides. It is good news for manufacturers and for exporters.

It also means greater mobility for the workforce that our manufacturers have. The ability to move professionals back and forth between our two trading partners and to move senior management personnel back and forth seamlessly has been improved in this agreement.

Investors will be very happy because if the investor-state dispute settlement measures are in fact brought into force, our investors would have greater protection against discrimination and expropriation without compensation within the European Union.

I have already mentioned our service providers and what a huge market they would now have available to them. They are going to be very happy.

Then there are those who sometimes slip through the cracks, and those are Canada's consumers. When we remove tariff barriers on the European side, what happens? We get access to their marketplace. We would also remove tariff barriers on the Canadian side, which means Canadian consumers would have access to better-quality products at better prices, improving their value proposition. This is excellent news for Canada's consumers, who are trying to make the buck stretch a little farther. That is what we would accommodate here.

Some people have said that there are going to be winners and losers. Certainly there are going to be a lot of winners under this agreement. When we witness the hundreds of industry stakeholders and the owners of thousands of companies across Canada who have voiced support for this trade agreement with the European Union, clearly there would be many winners in this agreement. But we live in a rapidly changing world where creative disruption is becoming the norm, and Canadians must be ready and willing to adapt. I know there are going to be many winners under this agreement. There will also be some who will be adaptors, who will have to adapt.

Let me give an example of why I believe Canadians are up to this challenge. When the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated some 25 years ago, the wine industry in Canada said that the government could not open up the border to U.S. wines, that it would cause the industry to go bankrupt, that the industry would be lost, that it would be over. The government of the day, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government, at least had the vision and the understanding of what Canadians were capable of. The agreement came into force and the industry stakeholders decided to reinvest in who they are as a wine industry. They invested in technology, in knowledge, and decided simply to get better at what they do here in Canada when it comes to the wine industry. Today, 25 years later, we have a world-ranking wine industry, not because we are protecting the industry with artificial barriers but because the people in the industry are simply good at what they do. They are among the very best in the world, winning awards all over the world. To those Canadians who may find themselves adapting to this agreement, take courage. We are innovative as Canadians. We can address changes in the evolving global marketplace, and this agreement would certainly achieve that.

Let me talk about the opportunity.

As with all other trade negotiations, CETA was a very difficult one. In fact, it was among our most difficult negotiations, because of the high level of ambition of both the European Union and Canada in the negotiations. It was a highly complex negotiation, one that involved new and novel approaches.

We now have this agreement almost in place, and it puts Canada in the enviable position, as I mentioned earlier, of having a free trade agreement with both the European Union and the United States. Let us think of the advantage that Canadian companies now have over the United States. The United States is one of our fiercest competitors. It does not have a free trade agreement with the European Union. It started negotiating one that has badly stalled. Now with the election of President-elect Donald Trump, we expect that there will be very little, if any, further movement on negotiating a trade agreement between the United States and the EU, which they called TTIP. That means that Canadian companies now have a once in a lifetime advantage over their American competitors to access the European market. That is why we are encouraging them to get out there and be proactive, and start exploring the European marketplace.

It is also a huge opportunity for us to attract investment from parts of the world that traditionally have not looked at Canada, because we now have a truly competitive investment advantage over other countries around the world, having access to a consumer market, including the U.S. and EU, of 800 million consumers.

Are there still challenges? Of course there are. CETA has not yet passed the European Parliament. We expect that will happen this December. I am hoping that it will in fact pass. It is also now generally acknowledged that the CETA that the government negotiated is actually a lesser agreement than what our Conservative government had originally negotiated. For whatever reason, the Liberal government agreed to reopen discussions. I fear that the investor-state dispute settlement part is going to end up falling by the wayside because it is are no longer part of provisional coming into force of the agreement. The regional governments throughout Europe will now have a say in whether they approve of that. My concern is that it will never see the light of day. I believe this may be a lesser agreement than we had bargained.

I also note that the European Union agreed to provide its regional governments with agricultural safeguards to protect against import surges, something we did not expect to happen. It is not clear what impact that provision is going to have on our agricultural producers, like the beef and pork exporters in Canada. There is also further work required to address some of the behind-the-border issues, the sanitary and phytosanitary standards that concern our producers.

I also note that the compensation package that our government had announced for the dairy producers is now being abandoned by the Liberal government. It is a lesser package that they are offering to the dairy industry. We are very disappointed in that.

Finally, we also have to inspire our small and medium-sized businesses to take advantage of this agreement. Canadians are notoriously cautious when it comes to expanding their export and trade horizons. I would just encourage Canadian companies, that if they are going to go to one source, go to the point source for information on trade in Canada. That is our Trade Commissioner Service. I got to know these folks well. They are some of the very best professionals, the most knowledgeable trade experts in the world. There is about 1,000 of them across Canada and around the world in 150 offices with one goal, to promote Canadian businesses and Canadian business interests all around the world. Businesses should go to the Trade Commissioner Service if they are looking for opportunities.

This free trade agreement is about a bold, new future for Canada. Let me be clear that trade is not for the weak-kneed or the faint of heart. It is not for the timid or for those who cower in the face of adversity. It is not for the skeptics and scoffers. I note there are some in the corner of the House today. There is a tinfoil hat brigade in the corner of the House that does not understand trade and the opportunities to use trade to grow our national prosperity.

Trade is for champions. It is for people who measure and take calculated risks, who venture beyond the status quo and beyond the same old, same old. It is for visionaries who seize opportunity when it comes knocking, and achieve extraordinary results for the people they serve, their companies, their employees, and their country.

I am honoured to be surrounded today by many of my colleagues who share that vision of trade, who are champions in their own right, and who are prepared to do the heavy lifting to ensure that CETA lifts Canada up to unprecedented prosperity.

Let us get to work. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Canadians we represent. Let us not squander that advantage.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on this file. It is truly a pleasure on our part to have taken up this torch and brought it home.

I want to tap in on my colleague's wealth of experience. He mentioned NAFTA and when it was negotiated. I cannot admit to being that old to remember it as well as he does, but perhaps he could give us suggestions in terms of the implementation of CETA and how we could make it benefit our small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work in finally moving this agreement close to the finish line.

I mentioned the Trade Commissioner Service. Industry organizations across the country that represent different industrial sectors have been highly engaged in the negotiations of this free trade agreement. Many of our companies across Canada are members of those associations, whether it is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the CFIB, or the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. These are all organizations that have engaged in raising awareness of the opportunities that this trade agreement presents among our small and medium-sized businesses.

Since the member mentioned NAFTA, I will note that back when the North American Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated, the Liberal Party of Canada was against it. The Liberal Party of Canada fought against that agreement every step along the way. That party said we were going to lose our health care system and our pension system. It said we were going to hollow out our economy and that our culture would be gone. Of course, none of that happened.

There is one party in the House that understands trade and the opportunities that trade represents for Canadians, and that is this Conservative Party.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the party in this corner of the House, I will unapologetically stand up for those Canadians who do have concerns about these trade deals. While we may disagree on this issue, out of respect for all the views that Canadians have, we should at least try to bring some respect to this place about those different viewpoints.

However, in an effort to turn this conversation in a more collegial route, I want to ask the member a question. He has a lot of experience on this file. I want to bring his attention to the specifics of one country, and that is the United Kingdom. As he may very well be aware, 42% of Canada's exports to the EU go to the U.K., and a large part of the CETA negotiations were based on the premise that the U.K. would still be a part of CETA. The Liberal government has not properly evaluated CETA without the U.K. If the U.K. triggers its exit from the EU and leaves CETA, is my colleague comfortable with the concessions that Canada has made in CETA, given that the U.K. represents nearly half of Canada's exports to the EU?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all commend that member for his good understanding of what CETA entails and what the possible consequences of Brexit could be on this agreement.

I have been involved in some public fora where I have expressed my concern over what Brexit will mean for the Canada-EU free trade agreement. If the U.K. exits, what happens to the market access that we had expected to get? The U.K. is our largest export market in the European Union. Canada's trade relationship with the United Kingdom is one of its most significant trade relationships, so Brexit puts us into uncharted waters. This agreement had essentially been negotiated before Brexit. There were not a lot of people who expected Brexit to happen, but it did.

The member is asking me what the impacts would be if the U.K. exits the agreement and whether I believe that the Liberal government has undertaken the due diligence to understand what this means. I do not know. I am skeptical as to whether the government has done that work. When we were dealing with carbon pricing and a carbon tax, the Prime Minister made it clear that the government did no economic impact analysis on that. I suspect that the announcement the government made about abandoning coal-fired electricity had no economic impact analysis. I suspect that the Brexit impact on this trade negotiation with the EU has also not been well understood by the Liberal government, so I share my colleague's concerns.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great speech, with some great information, and thank him as well on behalf of the residents of southern Alberta for how hard he worked on effecting this deal.

My riding of Foothills is the heart of cattle country, the home of Alberta beef, some of the best malting barley in the world, and metallurgical coal. The stakeholders in my riding are very excited about the opportunity to see the new markets this will bring.

I realize how hard they worked to bring this, but I also understand how close this came to collapsing because of the meddling, let us say, of the Liberal government. Residents of my riding were very concerned about almost losing CETA, despite our doing all the work in getting it almost to the finish line. There are now very legitimate concerns that the Liberals will do much the same with the trans-Pacific partnership. Ranchers, farmers, miners, and energy workers are very excited to also see that come to fruition.

I ask my colleague if he shares those same concerns, that meddling with the CETA agreement, which has also been agreed upon in principle, may happen to TPP.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Canada-European free trade agreement, the Liberals have not actually come out and said that they support the trans-Pacific partnership. Boy, that would be sad if we were not part of that agreement, if and when it gets ratified.

We are talking about 12 countries representing forward-looking trading partnerships, like Australia and New Zealand. Why would we not want to have a trade agreement with those countries? Japan is the third-largest economy in the world. Why would we not want to have a trade agreement with Japan, to open up new markets for Canadian exporters, especially agricultural producers. Unfortunately, there has been deafening silence on the Liberal side.

When it comes to agriculture, of course, there are some challenges that our agricultural producers face under CETA. We have not yet fully negotiated some of the behind the border standards, and rules and regulations, the sanitary and phytosanitary issues, that bedevil our agricultural exporters.

Unfortunately, as part of this negotiation, the Liberal government opened up the door to the EU actually applying safeguards for import surges, as I mentioned in my speech. We do not know what impact that will have on our producers, such as the beef and pork exporters in Canada.

We are still looking to see what that looks like. It was unfortunate that agreement was opened up as much as it has been. However, it is important for us to focus today on the fact that legislation is before us. If it is passed and this agreement is ratified, it will still be of remarkable benefit to Canadians and our long-term prosperity.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution to the debate today. It is great to hear him speak to it. I have the pleasure of serving on the trade committee with some of his colleagues as well,. They can attest that I actually credited the member for his great work in getting the agreement to where we are today, as well as his colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster. I also gave him some credit for his work.

I do thank the member for his mostly magnanimous speech today, and I want to give him the opportunity to comment on some of the opponents of CETA, and perhaps opponents of free trade in general, and how perhaps some of their fears are not founded, how we can work together to make sure we can alleviate some of these fears, and let them know that this agreement will work for all Canadians.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did refer to some of the naysayers in this House as being skeptics and scoffers, and they are exactly that. I do not apologize for that comment at all. These are people who do not understand the role that trade plays in Canada's national prosperity. They have continued to opine that Canada will lose its cultural identity, that we will lose our health care system, that we will lose our pension system, that our economy will be hollowed out, millions of jobs would be lost.

It has been over 25 years that we have had the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. None of that has happened. History has shown that when trade is done right, it has the capacity to enhance the standard of living for millions and millions of people, not only in Canada, but around the world.

I am encouraging the NDP in this House, for once, to sit down and come up with a coherent trade policy. It supported trade agreements with Jordan and South Korea. However, with one of the most like-minded trading partners, the European Union, New Democrats are now saying no. No one can make sense of their trade policy, so I am asking them to go back to the design board to see if they can get this right.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today in support of the legislation before us. Hon. members will know that CETA is the most progressive trade agreement that Canada has ever negotiated. It will help to further our economy, create well-paying jobs in Canada as well as in Europe, and support our efforts to strengthen the middle class, all the while ensuring that trade benefits everyone.

Canada's great friendship with the European Union goes back many years. In fact, Canada's formal relationship is the EU's oldest with any industrialized country, dating back to 1959, when we signed the agreement for co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Of course, there are many cultural and people-to-people ties that date back for centuries and serve to underline our common history and many partnerships.

We have always been close partners, and not only because millions of Canadians, like me, trace their family roots back to Europe, but also because there is a palpable buzz among these communities. I was in Toronto on Friday evening at an Italian Canadian chamber of commerce event, in a room full of importers and exporters, people who have business ties with Europe. They were clearly very positive about the opportunities that this agreement would present.

Canada and Europe are united because our societies, economies, and systems of governance are founded on the same set of values, such as equality, freedom, and respect for all individuals in society, not to mention democracy. Canada and the EU co-operate on many crucial international issues, including climate change, democratic governance, and human rights, as well as international peace and security. In a world of shifting global power, the Canada–EU relationship and our common efforts are more important than ever. This is something I heard a great deal about while travelling in Europe to promote CETA.

The EU is also a very important economic partner, representing the world's second-largest economy, and Canada's second-largest trading partner after the United States. It is also the world's second-largest importing market for goods, with its annual imports alone worth more than all of Canada's GDP.

As well, the EU is a key market for global supply chains. It has more Fortune 500 companies than any other country in the world, including the United States. This significant access to global supply chains is an important avenue of opportunity for the global ambitions of many of Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises.

CETA would help Canadian businesses better access the EU market. It will deepen our long-standing relations. It will help to generate much-needed growth and jobs while fully upholding Canada and Europe's high standards in areas like food safety, environmental protection, and workers' rights. CETA will deliver benefits for consumers through lower prices and more choice, for workers, through more and better jobs related to exports, and for businesses, through reduced costs and tariffs.

Experts project that once CETA comes into force bilateral trade of goods and services will increase by more than 22%, which will stimulate job growth on both sides of the Atlantic. Canadian businesses will enjoy a first-mover advantage over their competitors from markets such as the United States, which has yet to conclude a trade agreement with the European Union. In fact, CETA and NAFTA combined give Canada preferential access to nearly half the global marketplace.

Once CETA comes into force it will cover almost every sector and aspect related to trade between Canada and the European Union. Roughly 98% of European Union tariff lines on Canadian merchandise will be duty-free as soon as the agreement comes into force, and an additional 1% will be cut over a seven-year phase-out period.

Eliminating duties under CETA will create better opportunities for countless Canadian exports to the EU, where duties remain high. Currently, Canadian exporters of fish and seafood pay duties as high as 25%. EU duties on wood are 8%, while duties on wood products, information technology, and communications technology can be as high as 14%.

Machinery and equipment are subject to tariffs of up to 8% when imported to the European Union. CETA will eliminate those tariffs. What is more, Canadian service providers will benefit from the greatest access the EU, the world’s largest importer of services, has ever provided in a trade agreement, as well as the most ambitious commitments on temporary entry the EU has ever provided.

Canada is one of the largest service exporters in the world. We exported nearly $16 billion-worth of services to the EU in 2015. CETA will ensure that Canadian service providers are able to compete on a level playing field with EU service providers and gain a competitive advantage over competitors from nations outside the European Union.

In addition to increased access to markets, CETA also contains many other important measures. It is the first bilateral agreement in which Canada has included a stand-alone chapter on regulatory co-operation. The provisions set out in that chapter are forward-looking and promote proactive co-operation.

Under a protocol on conformity assessment, Canadian manufacturers in some sectors will be able to test and certify their products in Canada for sale in the European Union. This is an important innovation that will save companies time and money and will be particularly profitable for small and medium-sized businesses.

CETA includes a detailed framework for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, a key aspect of labour mobility. The provinces made a valuable contribution to the negotiations on a matter under their jurisdiction, as did my former professor, Pierre Marc Johnson, chief negotiator for Quebec.

CETA provisions on labour mobility will enable entrepreneurs from Canada and the European Union to travel abroad more easily. Business people on short-term visits, individuals transferred within a company, investors, contract service providers, and independent professionals will be able to do business in the EU more easily.

CETA also opens up government procurement opportunities in the European Union, a sector worth about $3.3 trillion. When CETA comes into force, Canadian companies will be able to provide goods and certain services to all levels of government in the EU, including the 28 European Union member states and thousands of government, regional, and local organizations.

CETA sets out a framework that will enable Canada and the European Union to make the most of their already strong investment ties, which are an important part of their economic relationship. In 2015, the known stock of Canadian direct investment in the EU was valued at $210 billion, which represented over 21% of known Canadian direct investment abroad.

That same year, the known stock of European direct investment in Canada reached $282 billion, or over 31% of its known direct investment abroad, in Canada.

CETA’s chapter on investment provides investors with greater certainty, stability, and protection for their investments, as well as greater access to their respective markets.

CETA includes provisions that facilitate the establishment of investments in order to protect investors from practices like discriminatory treatment, expropriation without compensation, and arbitrary and abusive conduct, and it ensures the free transfer of capital.

CETA obligations are backed by an investor dispute resolution mechanism that includes an appeal tribunal. When an investor files a complaint, the permanent and independent tribunal, as well as the appeal tribunal, if need be, will determine whether a government measure violates CETA's investment obligations and whether the investor suffered a loss as a result.

CETA holds great potential for businesses in both our respective territories. That is why our government has been working extremely hard to bring CETA into force as soon as possible.

While negotiations concluded in August 2014, our government has made enhancements to the agreement in order to strengthen and introduce progressive elements related to environmental protection, workers' rights, consumers' health and safety, and a government's right to regulate.

Prior to our making these changes, support for CETA in the centre left in Europe, which is essential to have CETA ratification in the European Parliament as well as the support of member states, such as Germany and France, was uncertain. Indeed, it was in jeopardy. Now that we have made those changes, the progressive leadership of those countries, as well as the progressive leadership in our country, is squarely behind it.

One of the most important things our government did right after taking office was to listen to the critics of CETA, both in Canada and in Europe, and to understand some of the legitimate concerns people had. We have worked with Canadians, including industry and civil society alike, and with our European Union partners to prove, with CETA, that a progressive trade policy is possible.

CETA will set the bar for trade agreements in the future, and it forms the cornerstone of our government's progressive trade agenda. This is an agenda that has linked the government's domestic policy focus on reducing inequality and enhancing inclusive growth. The idea is to ensure that trade policy makes a more meaningful contribution to this overall agenda and to ensure that trade is done in a way that Canadians can see, feel, and believe works for them.

This agreement clearly provides the advantages that our industries are seeking in expanding their footprints internationally, and does so in a fair and responsible manner that will benefit Canadian society as a whole. This is why it is important for Canada to implement CETA as soon as possible.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government needs to sign agreements that benefit all Canadians. This is a treaty with the European Union and we cannot afford to sign a botched agreement.

The government is asking for carte blanche when it comes to investor-state dispute settlement. We still do not know how the tribunals will be formed. We still do not know what the appeal system will look like. However, the government would have us believe that everything is okay, that the interests of Canadians will be taken into consideration, and that no harm will come to our public services.

Can the hon. member explain how we are supposed to reassure Canadians about local job protection? We know that under these types of agreements, foreign workers come before local jobs. This is quite worrisome to those who still do not have a job and who use social assistance or employment insurance.

This lacks transparency. Canadians are not being consulted on this, even though consultations on CETA have been going on since at least 2012. Those were held by the Conservatives, but the Liberals stopped holding them entirely.

We need more answers and more details. We are not getting the same story from the Liberals.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

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

With regard to the provisions on employment, the draft text of the agreement was made available in 2014, while the final agreement was drafted and published in February 2016. The text was examined by the committee during the previous Parliament, and many clarifications were made in that regard.

With regard to the investors program, we have reached an agreement with the European Union regarding the framework for a transparent and independent process. We will work in good faith on the details in the near future

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very specific question. The parliamentary secretary will know that I oppose CETA and many aspects of it, including pharmaceutical prices going up, intellectual properties locations, and that our auto sector is not fairly treated. However, my main concern is the investor-state provisions. Those were the ones that raised the sticking point with the region of Wallonia.

Could he clarify what has happened? It appears that individual nations, or provinces or states within nations in the EU can opt out of investor states, but Canada is saying that it opts in. This means foreign corporations will have the ability to challenge Canada for damages for decisions we make domestically, but we will not necessarily have reciprocal Canadian corporation ability to sue those states if they opt out. It strikes me that a very bad deal just got worse.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify. First, in regard to the investor-state mechanism, we have known since the beginning of the summer that this fell under the competence of European member states. In the case of Belgium therefore it devolves down to its provinces. We knew from the outset we would be working to elaborate the details of that investor-state dispute mechanism with the 28 member states.

We also agreed with our European partners that nothing would be imposed non-reciprocally. Whatever does or does not get negotiated will be equally treated on all sides.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's speech today. I find it curious that, once again, we are hearing there is in fact a way for this agreement to change, that this is not the final version. What the parliamentary secretary just said was that essentially we could not sign onto investor-state provisions. That is exactly what the NDP and other parties in the House are asking for. I find it curious to hear that from the parliamentary secretary, and look forward to following up with him on that.

My question is around the cost of pharmaceuticals. Recently at the health committee our critic spoke to the assistant deputy minister for Health about the cost implications inside of CETA. She admitted at the committee that there would be a rise in cost of drugs. Where is our analysis on what this will cost Canadians, when the Liberals advocated for that in the previous Parliament, and where is the information and honesty with Canadians about the fact that drug costs will increase if we sign CETA?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is one that concerns me, having taught intellectual property for 20 years in Canada's best law faculty.

There are a number of different factors that go into the pricing of pharmaceuticals. There is the potential for an increase in the length of the protection period of up to two years under the agreement. It is not automatic. It compensates for a regulatory regime in Canada, a good regulatory regime that sometimes delays the entry into the market for certain pharmaceuticals. In that sense, yes, the protection period will be longer and therefore the price of patented medicines, which is higher than the price of generic medicines, could be extended for two years.

However, Canada has a pricing mechanism for patented medicines. We have provincial pricing. Therefore, a lot of different factors go into the actual pricing of pharmaceuticals that are not necessarily tied to the length of patent protection. Europe has had these kinds of patent protections for a long time and yet its prices are lower. It even has pharmacare regimes. There is not a necessary direct link between the price of patents and these other factors.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding in Niagara, an area with which the hon. parliamentary secretary is quite familiar. There is a lot of apprehension about free trade from past free trade agreements. It is the same in many blue collar areas of Ontario and beyond. Could the parliamentary secretary advise the House and my constituents how CETA will benefit the good people of Niagara?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. Catharines. As one of the other members of the House who can spell St. Catharines the way he has to spell it, I am pleased to get that question.

There will be a great deal of benefit to manufacturing industries in Ontario. I know that the auto industry is in Niagara, and this is an agreement that should benefit the auto industry with the reduction of tariffs. I know that at least one automaker is already planning to produce automobiles for the European market. With respect to other manufacturers, it should help agriculture in Niagara, as well as Ontario wine manufacturers expand their markets even further. There is plenty of good in here for Niagara.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, this. Once Canada approves CETA, as it goes through the process here and is approved, and the European Union approves CETA, what is the process from there? I understand it has provisional approval. How does it unfold from there as each country in Europe goes through the process of applying CETA to their country? Also, with respect to the present process, what is tariff-free right now and what is waiting until each country approves it?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his work on the committee. I will talk about the European process, because I believe that is what he is referring to.

With passage in the European Parliament, which we expect by the end of this calendar year, and once ratification in Canada has taken place, 98% of the agreement, everything falling under the negotiating competence of the European Parliament, will be provisionally in force. That is virtually the whole agreement with the exception of the investor-state dispute mechanism, and a few other provisions that we feel are only a very small percentage of the agreement. Those fall under the competence of the European member states, and in each case the member states will have to ratify those parts of the agreement on their own. Once all 28 do, we will have to sit down again to ratify the agreement in a permanent fashion.

For the remaining 2%, this government is committed to working with European member states over the next number of years in order to make sure that the agreement gets ratified.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to reach this state in the House with CETA, to see see it come to fruition in the House now, hopefully go on to committee, get passed in committee, and then move forward.

The Conservatives will be supporting this legislation. It is good for Canadians all across Canada from coast to coast to coast. Whether we look at the agriculture sector, the small and medium enterprises, union jobs, or service industry jobs, this is a great agreement for Canadians.

I want to compliment and express my gratitude to people like Steve Verheul and his team for all the work they have done for this agreement in the background, and for the hours and hours of the painstaking combination of flights and meetings they had to go through to get to the detail that we have here today to get this agreement, which is a good agreement, for all Canadians.

It is also encouraging to see the Liberal government embrace what was done in the previous government and carrying it past the finish line. This is important for all Canadians, especially when we look at our sectors here in Canada. We are an exporting country. We are a country that builds and produces more than we could ever consume. Therefore, it is very important that we export.

Also, I will inform members that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. He has some great comments that he wants to make on this agreement as well.

The EU represents 500 million people. It boasts an economic activity of $20 trillion annually. It is the world's largest economy.

When I worked for Flexi-CoiI and Case New Holland, I was the marketing manager for seeding equipment in Europe. We were looking at different components going into Europe, because, of course, the stuff we built in Saskatchewan was way too big for the European Union's usage. However, I can remember going through the homologation process, the tariff process, to try and understand how it all worked, and also being very frustrated when we had components and products that we wanted to sell into Europe.

The frustration was not only the tariff that would be applied, but the rules that would be applied, and the non-tariff trade barriers that would be applied. All those things were sitting there as hurdles that we had to face. In a lot of cases, European-made products did not face the same hurdles. I found it very unfair and frustrating that a plant in Saskatoon was developing and building stuff, and building it cheaper than anywhere else in the world, and if we built that same product in Europe, we would actually have had an easier process to reach the marketplace. However, when we built in Saskatoon the exact same product, it had a tough time getting to the European market.

Therefore, to see this agreement come to fruition is so important, because it has a mechanism in it to get rid of those non-tariff trade barriers. It removes those barriers and gives the ability to take a product that is made here in Canada and sell it into Europe hassle free. I think that is very important. As we start the exercise of selling the products that we make here in Canada into Europe, we are going to find our small and medium enterprises grow and be stronger. We will also be diversifying ourselves in other markets. It is always a healthy thing to have two or three customers instead of just one big customer.

Bilateral trade would increase by 20%, or $12 billion annually, which is equivalent to adding $1,000 for the average Canadian family, or adding 80,000 new jobs. However, I would put a condition on that. When we bring in a carbon tax, new taxes for families, and taxes for small and medium enterprises, we lose the benefit. This is the concern I have when we start seeing things like carbon taxes come to Canadian businesses here. After all the work we have done to create markets for them, we would lose the benefit, because we have made their cost of production so high they cannot compete by producing in this country.

It has not sunk in on the other side that when the government raises a tax, it costs somebody money. It brings our costs up higher. We compete on a global stage, and so we have to make sure that we have the lowest production cost so that we can compete fairly on that stage.

Therefore, I would put a word of warning out to our colleagues across the aisle to understand that, as they start bringing in all of these taxes, all this spending, and all these deficits, the people who are going to pay are families. They will not have jobs, because companies that they want to work for cannot build the product that they are making cheaply enough to compete on the global stage due to carbon taxes and other things that the Liberals have put on there. We have to be very careful with that.

In Saskatchewan, CETA will be very important, whether we ship agricultural goods, chemicals, or plastics. The service sector accounts for 57% of the Saskatchewan GDP and employs close to 390,000 people. This is very important to all of those people. I look at the pulse production, and the farmers in the field having that market access to Europe. It is a very wealthy market with people who want the products we grow and the products we produce. It is so important to have access to that market, which can actually pay for stuff.

Again, going back to Flexi-Coil, there were markets that we could actually sell stuff into but could never get paid. There was always a problem with eastern Europe and places like that. We had the product, they wanted the stuff we built, but because they could not pay us, they could not buy it.

In Europe that is not a problem. Europeans can pay. They have the cash. They have the ability to finance. They have the ability to take the products that we make and buy them, but when we put tariffs and restrictions on them, they cannot get access to them. This would remove the restrictions and the tariffs, and I think we will see a lot of componentry from Canada going to Europe. That is good for the environment.

I look at no-tillage. I will use this example. We had a zero-till opener called “Barton opener” with very low disturbance. In Europe right now, if members understand ploughing habits, they go in with a plough, they turn the soil over, and release all the carbon that they sequestered that year by working that ground until it is black and then losing all the advantage from the organic matter and everything else that has built up throughout the year. We took the Barton over, which is a disc opener, a no-till opener, and we would not do that. They would save that one operation of ploughing. They would actually just direct-seed right into the stubble like we do here in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. We would save that carbon in the ground, plant that seed precisely where it needed to be planted, and it would grow in the stubble. That seedling is actually protected by the stubble that is there from the environment. They have kept the organic matter in the soil, and that is also good for the environment. The Europeans were embracing that technology.

One of the issues they had was that we put it on machines that were 40 , 50, and 60 feet wide, where they wanted three, four, and six metres. When we started looking at the sizes we had to take that componentry and built it for that size. We could do that. It was something that we could work on and do. Actually, we could get into three-metre road widths that they wanted us to be into, and actually get into 12 metres and widths beyond that. As their farms are getting bigger in France and former East Germany, they want those types of componentry but they need to get through the roads and the small towns. We could do that. We had the technology. We would do all that work, and then they would bring in homologations and then bring in non-tariff trade barriers.

They would bring up reasons why we could not sell that in Europe. The reality is if we had built that same product in Europe we would not have faced any of those issues. Now, with CETA coming into play, we could build those products here in Canada and our small and medium enterprises could actually sell them into Europe and capitalize on the componentry that they have spent so many dollars researching and developing. That componentry, in this case, will reduce our carbon footprint globally. Again we are helping the environment by improving the CETA deal.

One thing that I think we have to be very careful about is talking about diversifying markets. It is good to see that we are going to go into the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement. That is very important. I am very disappointed to see that the Prime Minister offered up the NAFTA basically on a silver platter. That really is a major blunder. We heard presidential candidate Santorum saying it was a major blunder by our Prime Minister to do that. Then to have him double down on that is even worse. The reality is the U.S. market is very important. It has always been and will continue to be an important market. Until we see exactly what happens in the U.S., I do not think anybody should overreact. We should all just take a step back and wait and see what happens.

One thing we do that is prudent, no matter who is in power in the U.S., is diversify into markets other than the U.S. That is something that the previous Conservative government did by signing close to 35 trade deals across the globe so that our Canadian companies had options other than the U.S. to sell their products and goods into. That is why TPP is very important. That the other countries are willing to go it alone without the U.S. and TPP and Canada is sitting on the sidelines is a mistake. Japan is involved in the TPP and that group of six. Japan is a major client for Canadian businesses. That is the third-largest economy in the world. Now we have CETA on the east, and if we had the TPP on the west, just think what that would mean for Canada's position in the global economy; just think of the markets we would have access to in order to sell products built here in Canada and shipped out of Canada. Nobody else in the world would have that advantage. That was such a good thought process. I give credit to the former trade minister, our former agriculture minister, and former prime minister Harper for thinking through that.

Two-thirds of Canada's GDP or one in five Canadian jobs is tied to trade. CETA is an excellent step in the right direction, but the Prime Minister must pursue these steps even more aggressively. We do not ever want to be at a disadvantage. We do not ever want to be in a scenario where we are tied to one country or one region. That is why I try to make the point that CETA is good for moving forward, TPP is good for moving forward. We have the trade agreements with other countries, which is also good.

Our companies are going to be positioned very well to move into the future as far as market access and non-tariff trade barriers go. Let us not hang them with carbon taxes and other taxes that make it impossible for them to produce the products that they design and make here in Canada. We want products built here so that we have Canadian jobs. Let us make sure that we have the environment for companies to do that.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member highlight some of the potential benefits of CETA for people in his riding?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just look at the agriculture sector in my riding, with peas, lentils and pulses. Those are going to Europe, as we speak, tariff-free. When we look at the wheat sector and grain growers, their products are going to Europe tariff-free. The forestry sector is a sector that is really hurting right now. It is feeling the pain of uncertainty because it does not know what is happening with its major market in the U.S. It could pivot into other markets, like Asia, under TPP, or CETA. It gives another option to take the products it makes, 2 x 4s, 2 x 6s, 2 x 8s, and go to other regions of the world. It is not tied to one specific region.

Therefore, when we look at CETA and TPP, and other trade agreements that we do in the future, even between Canada and Ukraine, that is what we are doing. We are giving our small and medium enterprises as many options to sell the good they make to as many people as possible, who really want Canadian-built products.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said we do not want to be hindered by the treaty, yet this is a treaty that was negotiated by both the previous Conservative government and this Liberal government. It was predicated on the belief that the United Kingdom would be part of this treaty as part of the European Union. Now, with Brexit, we see that that may well not happen. I wonder if he has any concerns that the government does not seem to have done the analysis of what this would mean for the treaty.

This was a treaty we thought we were getting into, because almost half of our trade with Europe was through Britain, and now that may not be covered. I wonder if he could comment on that and the fact that the government does not seem to have done that analysis.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the analysis, we still have to move forward. We do not know, and I do not think it is fair to ask the government to know, exactly what Britain leaving the EU would mean for this deal. No one knows. Even the British people do not understand what that means for them, and neither do the Europeans. That has not been negotiated. In fact, I do not think there has even been a proposal put in place between the British and the European Union on what this separation is going to look like and how deeply it will encompass that relationship. Will it keep trade deals in place? It may or may not.

Having said that, if one were to speculate, which is always dangerous in politics, a scenario in which Britain leaves the EU and all of a sudden does not have a trade agreement with Canada, I would encourage the government to hurry up and get one done with Britain. That is very important. It is a big customer of ours. It is a Commonwealth partner, for sure. I would not hesitate. We should be talking to the British as we speak, today, looking at what options there would be if it were to be no longer part of CETA.

However, anything we say here today in regard to that is nothing but pure speculation. That does not mean we hold up the jobs that are sitting there waiting for us with the signing of this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, at this first opportunity I have to address this piece of legislation, I would like to comment that the minister has done a fantastic job in getting an important agreement signed off to the degree we are now debating it with the idea of ratifying it.

I am quite pleased that the official opposition is supporting this. Even when we were the third party, there seemed to a consensus that CETA was in Canada's best interest. However, not all parties in the House are of that same opinion.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it is important that we pass this legislation in a relatively timely fashion. We now have the agreement. It is all signed off. Perhaps he could share his thoughts on how quickly he would like to see the bill passed.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind members of the amount of consultations that went on in the previous government. In fact, the committee did a study across Canada. At that point in time, the NDP member of the committee was in favour of CETA. In fact, when we talked to the unions, they were definitely looking at CETA and saying it was a good agreement, that we should be behind it. That is why I am surprised to see the NDP position here today.

Every province, whether Liberal, Conservative, or NDP, has managed to sign off on the agreement, saying that we should get it done. They are excited about it. They see the jobs and the growth that could happen with it. Look at the opportunities that would be lost if the NDP had its way, and we would basically stall and do nothing, The reality is, the European Union is going to move forward with the agreement. There will be a provisional agreement in place here by the new year. We should be in place also. The jobs will start to happen and be created. That is very important in our environment in Canada today. With the insecurity in North American right now from the change in the presidency, the reality is that if we could have that European market ready to roll, that is good. However, we have to put in place the things that small and medium enterprises need to take advantage of that market. Therefore, I will be challenging the Liberal government to make sure it puts those things in place so we can take full benefit of this trade agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Hochelaga, Indigenous Affairs.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recognize the excellent work of my colleagues from Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster. In their speeches today, they gave a good overview of why we are all gathered here today to talk about C-30, which was introduced in the House by the Minister of International Trade. My colleagues talked about all the work that led up to this economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. They spoke about the difficulties encountered and the work done under the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper. He was able to obtain the unanimous support of his troops and convince them that an agreement with our European Union neighbours was critical. This government had a vision that it shared with its team, and today we are seeing the fruits of that labour with the introduction of Bill C-30. We firmly believe that this is a good agreement that will be good for Canadians.

I will talk abut two very interesting topics: the work that was done and the current situation, and what we can gain from this agreement or how it will benefit our regions and our ridings. Then I will talk about the small mistakes that sometimes happen when conducting negotiations and when we want to have our cake and eat it too, as it seems to be the case with the government, especially when it comes to dairy producers.

By introducing this bill, the government is taking a lot of credit for finalizing this agreement with the European Union. As we know, however, negotiations were well under way and the agreement was practically finalized in 2014. If not for the government's desire to reopen this agreement, we could have finalized it quite some time ago and this bill would have been introduced much earlier in the House of Commons. It almost did not materialize, but, fortunately, the Europeans discerned the imminent danger and were able to rally around a position that, although not quite as positive as in the previous agreement, is now acceptable and will open many markets for Canada.

The main goal of the canada-european union comprehensive economic and trade agreement is to promote trade by reducing tariffs between the European Union and Canada and harmonizing standards and regulations, which governments and businesses call non-tariff barriers.

The previous Conservative government worked on this agreement, which will provide privileged access to a market of 500 million consumers. This trade agreement will give Canadian service providers, which employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of Canada's GDP, the best market access that the European Union has ever given its free trade partners. This agreement will establish greater transparency in the European Union services market by ensuring more secure and predictable access.

It is worth mentioning that Canada and the European Union conducted a joint study that supported launching negotiations and concluded that a trade agreement between the European Union and Canada could stimulate and boost bilateral trade by 20% and inject $12 billion per year into the Canadian economy. That is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or creating 80,000 new jobs in our economy.

Conservatives are very proud of the fact that signing this agreement may help improve the Liberal government's economic performance. If the Liberal government's economic performance improves, Canadians' economic situation will improve too. It seems to me that they need a helping hand with that, and we are extremely pleased to have made such an invaluable contribution.

This is all about hard work and trade, so I would like to talk about a company in my riding that celebrated the grand opening of a $35-million investment project on March 21. The company is called Fruit d'Or, and its president is Martin Le Moine. We marked the grand opening of a new cranberry processing plant in Plessisville. I will read part of what La Tribune had to say about it:

We are producing 20% faster than before and we are producing better products. This investment will help us better position ourselves in the free trade agreement with Europe and help us maintain our position as a leader in organic cranberry production.

Now that is what a free trade agreement is about, and that is an example of a business with a vision, one that believed in the previous government and believed that the government would continue on that path. What will this mean? This will create jobs in my riding and in Canada, and jobs in an industry that is super important.

Having visited that business myself for the official opening, I can say that the president is incredibly and exceptionally dynamic. He is truly dedicated to and passionate about his business. I am convinced that all Canadians will benefit from this new passion. However, there is still work to be done. Like Fruit d'Or, everyone needs to invest, and the investments made today will benefit everyone in the future.

The mayor of Plessisville, Mario Fortin, mentioned that it was the largest investment anyone had made in Plessisville in recent years. This is the direct result of an agreement that had not yet been signed, one that we were certain would be signed. This will produce results. Why? Because people have a vision.

Some people in my riding are happy, but some are not, including dairy farmers. They think the Liberals want to have their cake and eat it too, in that the compensation program announced at the conclusion of the agreement with the European Union is not nearly good enough. It is rather ironic that our dairy producers, without whom we could not make cake, are being shortchanged by the changes made to the compensation program that we put in place to ensure that they could weather the difficult transition period as this large market, the European Union, opens.

I want to share some comments by a dairy farmer in my riding, Michel Couture, who says he is rather worried. He laments the small $250-million contribution for dairy farmers. By telling his story, I hope to paint a clearer picture of the reality of a dairy farmer.

In 2014, he made some improvements to his farm that helped him streamline his processes. How much did he invest? He had to make upgrades of $1.4 million to remain competitive. He made them because he believes in the future of his industry. Today he is being told that he will receive $4,500 a year over five years in compensation as an incentive to upgrade his equipment. I will read what he said because his words carry more weight than mine: “...what can you do with that amount of money?”

We are talking about $4,500 in the hope that farmers and dairy producers will invest $1.4 million to modernize and meet the new challenges arising from the free trade agreement. Farmers and dairy producers do not have it easy. They have a lot of work. It is a little bit like playing the lottery for them. They invest a lot of their own money, several thousands of dollars, to purchase equipment and remain competitive, without really knowing the outcome or financial return, and without being listened to by this government, which has not even been able to resolve the diafiltered milk issue after one year.

What can be done to restore our dairy farmers' confidence and really encourage them to invest and profit from this free trade agreement? What the government needs to do is send them a clear message that they will be properly compensated. I urge the government to draw inspiration from the compensation programs that we put in place for dairy producers, the same way it drew inspiration from the negotiations we held to enter into this free trade agreement with the European Union.

In closing, I must say that I am very pleased with the work that the previous government did to make this agreement a reality. I am very pleased to know that, today, Canadian companies and SMEs will have access to a market of 500 million consumers on one side and 300 million on the other, putting Canada in an enviable position compared to other countries in the world.

However, we will continue to be very vigilant and hold the government to account in order to ensure that Canadians reap the benefits of free trade, not only as a result of the agreement with the European Union, but also as a result of other free trade agreements that are currently being negotiated, such as the much talked-about trans-Pacific partnership, which is just as important.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the member from Mégantic—L'Érable for CETA.

This morning, members spoke about how important it was to make sure that every country in Europe was on board, whether they are left- or right-leaning, and about how we did that.

The question that I want to ask my colleague pertains more specifically to the diafiltered milk issue, which he mentioned in his speech. We agree that this is an important issue. The Conservatives say that they support supply management, but I would like to remind them that they are the ones who dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to talk about the benefits of the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

The hon. member across the way says that the Liberals support our position on diafiltered milk. However, not a single thing has been done about it in the past year. They try to distract us by raising all sorts of other topics that have nothing to do with what we are talking about today. They are unable to resolve the diafiltered milk issue and they are unable to give dairy farmers reasonable compensation, much less in an open and transparent way. In fact, they have done the opposite. They have failed to do every single thing they told dairy farmers they would do from the very beginning. They are doing the opposite.

I do not think that the hon. member is in any position to lecture me on dairy farmers.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We do not often see eye to eye on international agreements, but the NDP also laments the Liberals' inadequate compensation for dairy farmers.

In my riding, Salaberry—Suroît, Lord knows that many dairy farmers are counting on being compensated for being used as bargaining chips in this treaty process.

There is another key aspect of the treaty that we do not understand. In committee, the Liberals recently moved a motion in camera prohibiting interest groups or experts from tabling any briefs. They decided to receive briefs from witnesses physically appearing before the committee only. There is therefore no transparency. As such, a host of experts will not be able to submit certain information. That is quite worrisome because informed decisions cannot be made without all the necessary information.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not a member of that committee, but I have spoken with some of my colleagues about how things are going, and it seems to be doing fantastic work.

What is clear is that the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Although it has been vaunting its transparency since the start of its mandate, now it is imposing restrictions regarding the witnesses who appear before committee to share their fears and concerns. This is exactly the same doublespeak it has engaged in for the past year regarding dairy farmers, as the member was saying.

The problem with this government is that it is completely out of touch with the regions. It does not understand the significance of dairy farmers and all farmers in our regions. It is important to point that out. Where I come from, a dairy farmer is more than just someone who produces milk. It is a small business that supports other businesses, like the gas station and the tractor dealer, for example. That is what SMEs are all about. That is what today's Canada is all about. It is not only Canada's big cities that matter. The regions matter. That is my Canada, and I will continue to support it.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this chamber today to support the comprehensive economic trade agreement. Before I begin, I want to extend my thanks to the Minister of International Trade for her diligent and tireless work in getting this agreement across the finish line. Congratulations to the minister, her parliamentary secretary, her team, and the countless others who worked on this critical file both here at home and across the Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would like to let you know that I am splitting my time with the member for Calgary Skyview.

I would also like to thank the previous minister of international trade, the member for Abbotsford, for his hard work on this deal as well.

This chamber is rightly the place of robust debate, one where competing ideas are exchanged, defended, and challenged. However, one thing all members on all sides of the House can agree on is the importance of trade as an economic driver.

Canada is a trading nation. Fostering strong and productive trading relationships is how we open new markets, grow and strengthen Canadian businesses, and create good-paying middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast.

In negotiating CETA, the minister was very clear. This was not about getting just any deal. It was about getting the right deal for Canada, one that would achieve our objective of growing our economy and expanding opportunities for Canadian businesses while offering Canadian consumers more choice, and often lower prices. I am thrilled to see the final product achieve these goals.

CETA sets the standard for modern, progressive trade deals. It fully reflects the values and priorities Canadians expect our international agreements to adhere to and embrace. CETA was negotiated to uphold environmental protection and to respect the signatories' right to regulate standards that protect the public, including in the areas of health, safety, and labour. It is a deal that promotes good government, consumer protection, environmental protection, and employee rights, all core values and guiding principles for Canada and for Canadians.

Canadians can feel good about this deal. What is more, Canadians can be proud that this deal serves as a model for other progressive countries to emulate. It represents Canada and has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership on an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade.

I also want to talk about the real-world impact this agreement will have on Canada's trade with Europe, the opportunity it presents for Canadian businesses, and how it sets the stage for the growth of Canada as a destination for increased foreign investment.

CETA gives Canadian companies preferred access to the European Union's more than 500 million customers. Their combined economy generates more than $20 trillion in annual economic activity. A closer trading relationship with the EU gives Canadian firms access to more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else in the world, including the United States. In short, CETA provides Canadian businesses with an unrivalled competitive advantage.

Presently, about 25% of EU tariff lines on which Canadian goods are exported enter the EU duty free. On day one of CETA's entry into force, 98% of EU tariff lines will be duty free for goods that originate in Canada. Over the following seven years, a further 1% of these tariffs will be eliminated. As such, CETA will provide Canadian exporters with a massive advantage in a competitive European market.

I would also like to speak more broadly about our government's approach to trade. Maximizing the benefits from international trade and ensuring that Canadian businesses are successful in world markets is part of a whole of government approach for us. We know that supporting and expanding trade does not start and end with negotiations of trade deals. For Canadian businesses to be successful competitors and maximize growth under this agreement, they need a government that will work with them to ensure success in the new market. Such partnerships are how we use deals like CETA to create wealth and jobs for Canadians.

Trade is much more than imports and exports. It is also about attracting the skills and foreign investment needed to ensure that Canadian companies can excel. That is why I am thrilled by the announcements made by the hon. Minister of Finance in his fall economic statement.

Companies from around the world are looking for stable places to invest and grow their businesses, and we want to make sure that Canada is at the top of their list. The invest in Canada hub announced by the minister in the House earlier this month is designed to do just that. A brand new federal body, the invest in Canada hub is a high-impact sales force dedicated to promoting direct foreign investment in Canada. It will work in partnership with other federal and provincial trade and international affairs bodies to ensure Canada's success in attracting ongoing, impactful, and sustainable foreign investment.

Similarly, the recently announced global skills strategy will help ensure that Canadian companies have the talent they need to thrive. The initiative will look at reducing red tape, which can cause undue challenges for companies looking to attract the high-skilled employees they need. It also aims to make Canada more attractive to global companies that are making large investments, looking to relocate to Canada, expanding production, and creating new Canadian jobs.

The strongest trading relationships in the world will not translate into economic growth in Canada if we do not have the infrastructure to support the movement of goods to market. That is why, over the next 11 years, the government will invest $10.1 billion in trade and transportation projects. These projects will be focused on providing efficient routes to international markets and on reducing congestion and bottlenecks along vital corridors.

We all know how vital it is that Canadian businesses be able to get their goods to market efficiently, but we also have to do so in a safe, sustainable, and secure way. That is why, from our new national oceans protection plan to the Minister of Transport's focus on improving rail safety, we are seeing a commitment to improving our trade infrastructure in a way that protects Canadians, their communities, and the environment.

The announcements in the fall economic statement reflect the whole of government approach we are taking with regard to trade. Investments in infrastructure, our innovation agenda, and our commitment to job skills training, for example, complement trade and reinforce our commitment to sustainable economic growth. Working together, these will help to ensure that the Canadian economy is strong and growing.

We are prioritizing inclusive, long-term growth for all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country. CETA is one of many exciting initiatives to help us get there. I encourage all members to support its passage in the House.

Last year, our government committed to delivering on CETA at the earliest possible opportunity. I am proud to stand here today as we take another step toward implementation. I once again extend my congratulations to the Minister of International Trade and her team for their excellent work in moving this agreement forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and government members would know that the Green Party has opposed this trade agreement for specific reasons, particularly the investor-state provisions. It is time for us to sit back and look at the history, starting with chapter 11 of NAFTA, and have what this country has never had, which is a full opportunity for debate and discussion on whether foreign corporations should have superior rights over domestic corporations to bring arbitration cases against other countries. In this case, Canada has had more arbitration cases than many other industrialized countries, and lost them, under chapter 11 of NAFTA. India is looking at this again and is saying that it is not going to go into any new ones. Australia is saying the same thing.

Would my hon. colleague agree that it is time to open a discussion on whether we should have been involved in investor-state agreements at all and whether we should not have another look at the one within CETA?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, CETA is a gold standard agreement, one in which many progressive countries will look to replicate in the years to come.

Canada is taking a leadership role in receiving the CETA agreement from the previous government, looking at that agreement and making some changes to make it a little more reflective and progressive to ensure Canadians, Canadian businesses, Canadian companies are protected, but at the same time are allowed access to markets that will allow them to be a little more competitive, allow members and companies in my riding to compete on a global scale by reducing some of the tariffs that currently exist with our European markets.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a little about consultations. Back in 2012, when the Liberals were in opposition, they wrote a dissenting opinion in the 2012 report that further consultation with Canadians was needed on CETA.

When we compare the consultations that have been held with the TPP, we have had 400 witnesses before the trade committee and submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians, on this agreement, the implementation legislation is enacted a day after it is signed and is brought before Parliament to be rushed through. Furthermore, the Liberal-dominated trade committee has refused to hear any submissions except from witnesses who are appearing.

I cannot believe the Liberal members on that trade committee did that without the cabinet leaning heavily on them. Therefore, why is the Liberal dominated trade committee forcing this through without allow proper submissions from Canadians across the country, not just those who have the means to appear before the trade committee?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not sit on that committee, so I cannot speak directly to that. However, I want to reinforce and underscore the fact that this government has been very open, transparent and engaged with Canadians.

We have taken an opportunity to lead by example and have had very robust dialogue with Canadians on all sides, across all ministries. We find that very important.

Let me reinforce the fact that this is the gold standard of progressive trade deals, and the minister has consulted widely. We have been open and transparent. We are pursuing trade in a fair and responsible way. We want to reduce inequality and have a very inclusive growth in our economy. I continue to invite our colleagues to stay involved in this discussion.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell my colleague how strongly this CETA agreement is supported in my riding, especially by the rural part of my riding. I have an urban-rural riding. However, the impact this will have on our agricultural industry is profound. I thank the government for proceeding with CETA.

The one question I have is whether her government will honour the commitment our government made to the dairy sector and also to the fishing sector in terms of the fishers investment fund.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague pointed out, CETA will open new agriculture and agrifood markets to Europe. We are very committed to ensuring the Canadian businesses thrive and succeed under this agreement.

As he is well aware, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has pointed out that the federal government has provided $350 million to our dairy farmers: $250 million for our dairy farmers to innovate, and $100 million to ensure that our processors are in a better position.

We are listening and taking stock of what our dairy farmers are saying, and ensuring that our agriculture sector is strong and thriving in Canada.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the government implementation bill, Bill C-30, for the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, and about the government's ongoing progressive trade agenda.

Canada is a trading nation and our government recognizes the importance of supporting free and open international trade for our collective prosperity. However, in many countries in the western industrialized world, there is a growing populist backlash against immigration, international trade, and globalization in general.

Beyond what we have seen in recent months from political campaigns in the U.S., the most recent report from the World Trade Organization and other international institutions on trade barriers, published in June, noted that G20 economies introduced 145 new trade restrictive measures between mid-October 2015 and mid-May 2016. That is 21 a month, the highest monthly average since 2009.

This is an issue of global concern, but it is particularly worrisome for a trade dependent country such as Canada. As a medium-sized economy competing in the global marketplace, Canada has long recognized that free and open trade is critical for our economic prosperity. That is why CETA and the government's broader progressive trade agenda are so important for Canada's continued economic prosperity.

People around the world are feeling powerless and anxious in the face of unceasing change. Globalization and technological change have created wealth and opportunities for many. However, parts of the middle class and those working hard to join it feel they are falling behind. Their concerns are not entirely wrong.

Credit Suisse found that the top 1% of the world's population owns 50% of its wealth. The bottom 50% combined owns less than 1%. People with a net worth of less than $10,000 account for 71% of the world's adult population.

Trade, immigration and international openness are increasingly blamed for economic hardships and inequality. However, our government believes we cannot turn our backs on trade or turn back the clock on globalization. Done properly, increased trade can raise living standards, create more jobs, increase prosperity, and help to strengthen the middle class. Closing our borders will only lead us to a less prosperous and more closed-off, insular, and fearful world. This is one of the reasons that our government is pursuing a progressive trade agenda in concert with our like-minded partners around the world.

The progressive trade agenda advances higher standards of living and fosters sustainable and inclusive economic growth. It includes an emphasis on transparent and inclusive approaches. The government is committed to a consultative process on international trade that allows all segments of our society to contribute and be heard. It will ensure that governments can continue to pursue broad societal objectives.

The government firmly believes governments should defend the best interests of their people, particularly the most vulnerable. It ensures the government's continued right to regulate. It supports strong rules on food safety, consumer protection and the environment in addition to world-class publicly funded health care, and other public services.

Our trade agenda will continue to actively promote labour rights and strong environmental protections. It will also include a more progressive approach to an investment dispute resolution that is recognized as fair, open and impartial, including exploring the establishment of a multilateral approach.

We are still in the early stages of developing this new approach to trade for Canada, but we can already see some concrete results. The landmark example of the progressive trade agenda so far is CETA. CETA will create economic opportunities for Canadians across the country, and will do so in a progressive way that is in keeping with the inclusive values of Canada and the EU.

CETA's progressive provisions include stand-alone chapters dedicated to labour, the environment and sustainable development, a very clear recognition of the right of governments to regulate in the public interest, making the process of the resolution of investment disputes more independent and fair, and further increasing its transparency.

On that last point, Canada and the EU have truly innovated with the most progressive investment dispute resolution mechanism to date. In CETA, we have moved away from ad hoc arbitration and established permanent tribunals. CETA establishes a new process for the selection of permanent tribunal members, sets detailed commitments on ethics for all tribunal members, and introduces an appellate system, which, in sum, demonstrates Canada's leadership in promoting progressive 21st century investment protection provisions.

Beyond these progressive provisions, CETA will translate into real benefits for Canadians and contribute to Canada's long term prosperity. CETA addresses the full range of conditions that shape modern international trade, including goods, services, investment, intellectual property, government procurement, non-tariff measures, regulatory co-operation, and more.

It also covers issues never before included in any of Canada's previous trade agreements, including NAFTA. For example, CETA is the first to include a stand-alone chapter on co-operation in regulatory matters. Another unique feature of CETA is its protocol on conformity assessment, which will allow Canadian producers in a number of sectors to have their products tested and certified for the EU market right in Canada.

In many areas, Canada and the EU have negotiated market access and improved conditions for trade that go beyond the NAFTA. For example, in the area of public procurement, CETA is the first to cover all levels of government in Canada and the EU. Once implemented, CETA will set the stage for progressive trade agreements fit for the 21st century. Our government is proud of signing that agreement.

This government has been proactive from day one in placing emphasis on the importance of supporting the middle class, transparency, and broadening consultations on trade agreements. In other words, Canada saw the need for change in this area early on and put things into motion before most others, and remains ahead of the pack.

Going forward, the government will continue to advance progressive approaches in other trade initiatives, including bilateral and regional trade agreements and at the World Trade Organization, and will be looking to co-operate on these issues with like-minded partners around the world.

We welcome the views of all citizens and parliamentarians on how Canada can advance this more progressive approach to trade for our collective prosperity.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question earlier of the member's colleague, and I do not think we got a clear answer.

Again, I am of the agreement, especially the benefits it will bring to our agricultural sector, including beef and pork, and grain and oil seeds. However, I would like to know whether the Liberal government is committed to following through on the commitment that our government made to support the dairy sector, as well as to provide funding for the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries investment fund.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, $350 million has been put aside for agriculture.

This agreement literally covers everything we are trying to do. CETA will open a big market for our farmers and fishermen. Instead of 38 million consumers, there will be some 350 million. Our products are going to go to 28 nations. We are creating a big market. I do not see any reason why our farmers and our fishermen cannot compete.

Trade is going to bring in more jobs, as we know from NAFTA. When I moved to Calgary, the population was 390,000. It is 1.4 million now. If it was not for trade, we would not be growing our economies in Alberta and in Canada.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech in the House.

I just want to add a few more comments about the answer we just got.

The dairy sector and fine cheese production in Canada will suffer enormous losses because of the Canada-Europe trade agreement. We are talking annual losses of $150 million. The plan announced by the Liberal government is not good enough. It is important to listen to producers, but just listening to them is not enough. The government has to act. We need to have a transition support plan that truly mitigates the negative and damaging effects of the Canada-Europe trade agreement.

Quebec dairy producers are asking for an additional $750 million in assistance. Can the member across the aisle confirm that Quebec dairy producers and fine cheese makers will get that transition assistance?

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has been talking to the farmers. He has been consulting the farmers. Canadians have always helped each other, and if need be, maybe the government will look at it at that point in time. However, right now, I think the $150 million that farmers are getting should be enough for now.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has always been a very strong advocate for his constituents and the residents of Calgary, and I appreciate the many things he raises. Could he comment on how important it is for his constituents, indeed for the country, that we recognize that trade helps create those crucial middle-class jobs? A healthier middle class means a healthier economy.

Could the member talk about the importance to his community those new middle-class jobs?

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been a trading nation from day one. I have been living in Calgary since 1970, and then came the oil sands development. If it were not for trade, we would not have that big development today. Back then, even in Alberta, it was like a country. We were not a global village back then, but now the world has become a global village.

With trade, there is more competition, which will create jobs. It also helps the consumer, because if we had a wall around our country, there would be no competition, and every consumable would be expensive. Trade also benefits the other countries, and we can look at NAFTA as an example.

When I was an MLA, I always said that we should go to India, and our senior Prime Minister Trudeau used to say that we should go to Pacific countries for trade. Therefore, we should not keep all of our eggs in one basket.

By negotiating this free trade deal, I think we are bringing more prosperity to the country, to Alberta, and to my riding of Calgary Skyview.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand to talk about CETA, which we have been discussing all day. It is quite a topic of discussion.

First, I want to congratulate both the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and the member for Abbotsford, who both spoke. If anyone missed those speeches, they really need to hear them.

I also want to mention that my time will be split with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

How did we swing this? Someone has to be asking that question. How does a nation the size of Canada do this? We all know, as Canadians, that this is the greatest country on earth, but it is very possible that the rest of the world does not realize that fact. We are not the most populous by any stretch of the imagination. We do not have the largest GDP. How did we manage to swing this kind of deal?

We heard from the two members I mentioned previously. We have a great negotiating team, as well. However, I would suggest that one of the key reasons is the position that Canada is in. That is the first point I want to talk about, how Canada positioned itself as it moved forward with this deal.

I want to take members back to 2008, when there was a horrendous crash globally. The banking system was in disarray and countries all over the world were scrambling. I remember having a conversation with the then finance minister, Jim Flaherty. He said we were so close to total collapse that it was so important for nations to come together and to do the right things. Canada was part of that, as well.

One of the commitments that nations had to make was to invest, to pour money into the economy. As the banks were on the verge of collapse, and countries and businesses too, it was important that all nations participated. Canada did as well, but we took a different approach. We took an approach that did not continue in that direction, but one with a clear target to come out of deficit within a period of time. That was precisely the position that Canada was in at the end of 2014, when we had moved from a deficit into a positive position and our economy was the envy of the G-7.

I would suggest, as well, that for a small country, negotiating a trade agreement with an organization like the European Union, with 500 million people and the largest economy, is somewhat of a fantastic thing to do. I think we ought to be proud as Canadians. We have heard that quite a bit today in many of the speeches, that we should be proud we were able to do that.

However, I would also caution that it is the very position we are in that needs to be maintained, that we need to continue on that path. We saw the Prime Minister in Argentina this weekend, talking about trade deals. I would like to say to the Prime Minister that that country has a rather seedy reputation, having been known to welch on some of its deals. We would never do that in this country, and other countries know that as well. Subsequently, countries that have that kind of reputation do not get to come to the foreground and make deals like the one we did here in Canada.

My message to the Liberal government would be to maintain the trajectory that the previous Conservative set out in 2008 and handed over to it in 2014.

The second thing I would like to consider is that we are the gateway to the United States. There there are many in the European Union who see this as an excellent opportunity to move products through Canada and into the United States. My riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington lies next to Detroit. We were able, as a government, to begin the process, and that process is well under way with the Gordie Howe international bridge at the most important and busiest crossing in North America.

It is more than important, but imperative that we make sure that project moves to fruition. I would encourage and implore the current Liberal government to keep its foot on the gas pedal, and not to stop that.

It is hard work. We heard from both of our members who were responsible for initiating and working this deal. Our former minister of agriculture and our former minister of trade talked about how much work was done. It is probably for that reason that many other countries do not set out on this kind of endeavour. It is because it is hard work. It was hard work to begin those negotiations with the Americans to have that corridor to Windsor expanded and to make the necessary deals with the Americans to have that bridge put into place too. We are not there at this point. There has been some suggestion that those workings are going to be slowed down. It is imperative that the government continue on to make sure that that corridor is finished, just as it has done with this particular deal with Europe, which we give the government credit for.

There are 28 countries with a myriad of languages in the European Union. We have in Canada a number of cultures, and here I am specifically talking about Chatham-Kent—Leamington. Today we began the session with the motion that October become German heritage month, and a good suggestion it is. We have had many fine German immigrants throughout the years who have helped make Canada the great country that it is, but so many of us are from Europe. In my riding, the Italians have done a marvellous job with the greenhouse industry. The Dutch have done an incredible job in the greenhouse industry and in farming as well. We have the Scots. We have the Portuguese, who are involved in fishing. All of those industries will be important to our European friends. As well, with what those industries have to offer it will be important that they move it through this corridor. They will be looking to us and looking for the diaspora in our regions to help them with that.

This agreement is good for all of Canada. I see in the chamber today some of the members who are on the trade committee, which has travelled across Canada. We have had the good opportunity to talk about another trade deal, but we know that the same principles are true with this trade deal, whether we go to B.C. with its lumber and minerals; Alberta; Saskatchewan with its oil, minerals, and mining; or Manitoba. Our former agriculture minister pointed out how important it was that we expand some of our trade positions and that we make sure we have another opportunity, and not to put all of our eggs in one basket, but that farmers and the pork producers have another opportunity. They were excited about that too. In Ontario, we have lost a manufacturing base, but we still have a very strong manufacturing base in a lot of segments. Bombardier was spoken about a bit earlier, as well as the service industries that are so big. In Quebec, again there is mining and the service industries. In the Maritimes and Newfoundland there is the seafood industry.

The opportunities are immense, and for Canadians this deal is excellent. It would provide prosperity, but there are obligations on the government to ensure that the deal not only comes to fruition but also becomes a better deal and continues to help make Canadians thrive in the future.

As my time is coming to an end, I would say that much work has been done but there is still much work to be done. Let us continue to be vigilant and be sure that we in the House provide the proper services so this deal will make this country that much greater.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the riding I represent, North Island—Powell River, we have small business owners who work hard every day who are trading with different countries. I also have a broad number of seniors who are coming to live in my riding, and those who have been in the riding, in some cases for their whole lives. One of the concerns I have with the agreement is the fact that medicine will increase substantially.

We need to fight for those benefits for small business. They are the backbone of our economy. They make jobs in our smaller communities especially. We need to support them. I am looking forward to seeing some of these opportunities benefit them. However, at the same time, we have to make sure that the benefits do not punish substantial groups who really need that support.

What are the members thoughts on pharmaceutical medication and making sure that people have affordable medicine in our country?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, that particular question was asked across the nation as well. We heard that from west to east. We spent quite an amount of time in committee discussing that too.

We have to understand that we are a small country. As such, we have a smaller group who are being sold to. Presently, we are one of jurisdictions with the highest pharmaceutical costs. I would suggest, and this was heard at committee as well, that rather than causing medicine to become more expensive, a trade agreement could in fact make the prices drop. It is something we must continue to monitor and make sure we are watching. I know the government will do that. I know the provincial governments will work on their behalf as well. Again, I think there are good things in store for pharmaceuticals as well.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with great interest, and heard him specifically say that the stable banking system was something that his government deserves credit for, knowing full well that it was Jim Flaherty and Conservatives and the big banks that wanted us to massively deregulate the banking system prior to 2008. A Liberal government refused to do that.

I also heard that reneging on deals was not something that the government should do, keeping in mind the previous government reneged on a deal with Newfoundland for about $289 million in compensation that was part of the negotiation. Again, this is advice given to us from the other side about what not to do, which is basically follow their advice. I also note that the other thing they said was that prior to 2008, when they already had gone into deficit prior to the meltdown, when they cashed out the surplus left to them by a Liberal government, the government said it was very important in troubled economic times to invest heavily into infrastructure. Realizing that you had to prorogue Parliament, collapse your previous budget, and do what the opposition said to achieve that, is there any advice you would not follow yourself, but you would be free to give to us?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must remind the parliamentary secretary to address the questions to the Chair.

The hon. member for Chatham—Kent—Leamington.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, those were a lot of questions, and I am trying to think of which one I should address.

The advice I would give is to get your facts straight.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that I do have my facts straight, and I would ask you, the member, to address the Chair and not individuals. I know that both members have been in the House long enough to remember that.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

If I could have 20 minutes, I would certainly be glad to address all those questions, but I have only one minute left, so I will not have time. However, it would be a great topic of debate, and I would love to get into that with him at some point.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have a good and enthusiastic debate going on here today. I have to compliment my colleague who just spoke. He talked about encouraging the Liberals to keep their foot on the gas with respect to this. However, often watching the Liberals and the way they are doing things is like watching teenagers go joyriding. We see their hair blowing in the wind, but there does not seem to be any purpose in what they are doing. Sometimes we wonder if anybody is steering over there. They are racing all over the place, but we do not think anybody is steering.

It is certainly not about getting attention. Providing leadership in Canada is important. It is about giving direction. We would encourage the members opposite to begin to to do that for Canadians. Thankfully, the Liberals have us to depend on. We delivered a trade deal for them. We gave them a trade deal that was pretty much negotiated and signed. It was all ready to be wrapped up and presented, and the Liberals did everything they could to mess it up by tinkering with it. Thankfully, they were not able to wreck it, and now we are here today with them actually supporting it.

We are excited to see the Liberals actually supporting one good thing this year. CETA has certainly been that. It is a trade deal that gives increased access to the world's largest economic unit. It gives us the opportunity to begin to mature our trade relationship with the European Union. Any country that gets access to a market of 500 million people, almost 30 countries, needs to take that opportunity.

This is the world's largest import market. I did not know this until today, but their imports are of a higher value than the entire GDP of our country. It is a huge market that we are able to access. We look forward to being able to do that. They have economic activity, every year, of $20 trillion. I certainly think Canada can find a place, somewhere in there, to be able to benefit from this agreement.

Obviously our side of the House has a history of pursuing trade agreements. The Conservatives have been champions of that over the years, and less so on the other side of the House. We will maybe go into that a little. NAFTA, from the 1980s, has turned out to be probably the most successful trade agreement ever made. We do about $2 billion of trade a day now with the United States. It is an incredibly effective and efficient trading relationship.

There are tens of thousands of jobs that are tied to the trade that goes back and forth. It probably has the strongest economic ties in the world, even given the European Union and its structure. It is probably the most positive trade relationship in the world, and we look forward to continuing that. We hope that is something that the government cannot mess up.

I guess we were surprised, when the president-elect in the United States was even suggesting that he wanted to talk to Canada about NAFTA, that the government would get down on one knee and ask him if he would possibly renegotiate that with them. It seemed like a very strange position to take, and yet our government moved ahead with that. I think it was naive. It was far too premature to be able to make those suggestions, but the government has done that already. We hope that will not impact NAFTA in any negative way.

Our government was also responsible for 46 trade agreements. I was here early in the 2000s when Doha was the big thing. That was the one trade initiative that everyone seemed to be focused on. I remember going to Geneva in 2003, representing our party, and seeing the negotiations that were going on there. It gradually faded out. The government was not able to get an agreement.

One of the things that concerned me and others in our caucus at the time was to understand that the Liberal government had no trade capacity in terms of putting these deals together. It was not that interested in looking anywhere else for trade agreements. It did not get it done. It did not pursue them. I think there were maybe two agreements over the entire time that the Liberals were in power. Trade was not an important issue to the Liberal government.

We came in, and it took a couple of years to build that trade capacity. It took a while to get it up and running, so that we could actually do the negotiating. In the seven or eight years after that, it was remarkable that we were able to get almost four dozen trade agreements done. I do not know if there has been any record of success like that around the world.

Now we are sitting here with CETA, and thankfully the government is supporting that. Hopefully it will not do anything further that would hinder that, and will move ahead as quickly as possible.

We also want to encourage the government on TPP. TPP has been a good initiative. It is something that we hope the government will be supporting enthusiastically. I know the trade minister said almost a year ago that it was not her job to promote those kinds of things, specifically the TPP, but we certainly hope that attitude has changed.

We saw an initiative on the weekend, from six countries trying to put together an agreement, to take the TPP and put it together, and move ahead with it, even if the United States is not going to go forward. We do not know if it has made a decision on that or not yet.

We saw an initiative on the weekend by six countries to try to put together an agreement like the TPP and move ahead with it, even if the United States is not going to go. We do not know if it has made a decision on that yet. We have heard some rhetoric. That trade agreement between countries would be phenomenal, whether the United States was in it or not. We need access to that part of the world, and the arrangements that have been made so far with respect to the TPP and the negotiations that have been done would be only good for Canada. We look forward to seeing the TPP move ahead as well. I would ask the government to keep its foot on the gas. On this one, we ask that it steers in the right direction and gets it done as well.

Trade is critical to my area. I have talked about this previously, but I probably need to highlight again for my constituents that we have a number of things going on in our riding that are very important and critical not only for our riding but for supporting the economy of this country.

Agriculture is a big thing there. We have dryland grains and oilseeds. We have pulses and lentils. Pulses and lentils grown in my riding go around the world. The majority of those pulses and lentils grown in western Canada now are exported. We need an export market to continue to develop those agricultural industries.

In these trade agreements, agriculture is always the biggest trade impediment. The biggest trade barriers are set up around agriculture. We encourage the government to take that seriously and to try to remove those barriers so that our folks can trade around the world.

Beef and pork, as well, come from our area. Beef always has a lot of trade barriers around it. We encourage the government to take a strong stand. The former minister of agriculture, who is my seatmate now, was instrumental in pushing back the COOL legislation in the United States. We worked on that for almost 10 years, and we were able to win those battles at the WTO and finally begin moving our beef more easily into the United States. We hope this issue will not raise its ugly head, or any other part, in the near future.

Energy is obviously important to all of us, particularly those of us who have oil and gas in our ridings. We would like to see pipelines moving these products. We know that they need to go to export markets like the United States. We need some markets in Asia and Europe. We encourage the government to continue to develop those types of export markets.

Potash is important in our province. We mine potash, and it goes around the world. It grows food to feed people around the globe. Again, it is an export-dependent product.

We have a lot of manufacturing, particularly agricultural manufacturing, that we need to move around the world. There are lots of markets in the European Union that we would like to develop and continue to access and grow. We look forward to CETA assisting with that as well.

CETA has an interesting history. It started back in 2007 with discussions. It is interesting that it was only a year after the Conservatives came in. Our cabinet saw the possibilities and the real benefits of an agreement like that, so it started having discussions. It took a couple of years to get the negotiations going. They started in 2009, and by 2014, five years later, we were able to negotiate the agreement and basically signed it in principle in 2014. There were two years to settle the legal issues and get the translation done, and we are at that point now.

It is interesting to hear the government opposite trying to take credit for that. When we look at the timeline, we understand who actually did the work and who got the work done.

As I mentioned earlier, the Liberals insisted on tinkering with the agreement, and they almost lost it. Thankfully, we are at the point where we can see the beginning of ratification in Europe. We hope that the implementation will soon come. We need to see the agreement come into effect fairly quickly.

I want to talk a bit about the consequences of this agreement for our economy. This agreement will bring a potential 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12-billion annual increase in the Canadian economy. We encourage the government to remember that in its discussions and negotiations. We need to see this finished as quickly as possible. The economic equivalent of this agreement is like adding the equivalent of $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income and up to 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

Everyone in the House needs to get behind this agreement, see it as something really good for the future of our country, and move ahead with CETA.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the common things from the Conservatives when they stand up and speak is that they like to assume they have some credit owed to them when it comes to the issue of trade.

The Liberal Party traditionally has been a very strong advocate for trade. It has been a long time since we have seen a prime minister as aggressive on this particular file.

To the Conservatives' credit, yes, they did do some of the preparatory work, but let us not kid anyone. If it were not for the current Prime Minister and the minister responsible for this file, we would not be debating this bill today, and that is the truth of the matter.

On the overall issue of trade, we all recognize it. It is only the New Democrats who do not recognize the value of trade. However, I can tell members that we all recognize the importance of this.

Our record will demonstrate that we have had years and years of trade surpluses, whereas the Conservatives and the Harper government had nothing but years and years of trade deficits. The Korea deal they crow about is something in which they were the laggards of all the countries, and one of the last countries to sign on was Canada as the Conservatives resisted it.

Would the member agree at least that there is consensus among the Conservatives and Liberals that trade is important to our country? It is what generates our economy in good part.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am excited to see the member join our bandwagon here. Obviously, the Liberals have a new-found enthusiasm for trade deals and that is great, because they can join with us at any time. There were two agreements, and that long focus on Doha, which is kind of their history, and that is okay, because at least they were taking a look at it at the time and they were trying a little bit here and there.

The fact is that we signed 46 agreements in less than 10 years. We were the ones in 2007, 2009, and 2014 who that put CETA together and brought it all the way to the point of where it was signed. It was just a matter of finishing it off and signing the ratification part of it. Then the establishment of the TPP and the distance that we came on that relationship I think is a tribute to the commitment of the Conservatives on their focus on trade.

We welcome the Liberals, particularly the parliamentary secretary across the way, to join with us and to celebrate trade and the history of trade in this country.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and for breaking down the history of his party working on this deal.

Before I move forward with my question, I would ask the member to join me in shouting out to the lighthouse keeper who saved a life off Denman Island this weekend. The importance of our lightkeepers on the west coast is proven every time we have a life saved by a lightkeeper, and so we know the value of them.

Knocking on doors during the campaign, I met a women who had to make a tough choice of whether to buy medicine or food. I have met people who have had to come out of retirement to pay for medicine, because of the cost of medicine and the limited pension money they have. We know that the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs is really affecting seniors and other people in our communities.

We understand the importance of trade as New Democrats. We want fair trade, we want good jobs, but we also want to make sure that medicine is going to be affordable.

Is the member concerned that CETA will lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians, given that Canadians already pay more for prescription drugs than nearly every other OECD country?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not know about the incident on Denman Island last weekend, but I think we all need to recognize the sacrifices that emergency response personnel make. I was fortunate enough, before I was here, to be able to serve seven years on a volunteer ambulance at home, and so I understand the commitment that people make.

On the weekend, I had the chance to go to the opening of an emergency response centre in my riding, which is a small community. The centre decided it needed to have a much better building to put the ambulances, fire trucks, or whatever in, and worked very hard to put that project together. We were able to celebrate the opening of that. These people do not do this for money. It does not matter what the money is, they do it because they want to make a commitment to their community and to serve their community well.

Quickly on the other issue, CETA does not change the length of the pharmaceutical patents in Canada. I understand there is a patent restoration mechanism in there if the regulatory delay has taken place on approval of drugs. My understanding is that it will not necessitate a hike in pharmaceutical prices in Canada.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

It is with pride that I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive, economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA.

I will frame my remarks by reminding the members of the House that our government has chosen an ambitious agenda to strengthen the middle class and those trying to join it. Job creation for Canadians depends on our domestic as well as our foreign trade policies.

Our government promised to review the trade agreements that were in process when we took office one year ago. We reviewed the provisions for CETA and through the extremely hard work of our Prime Minister and our very capable Minister of International Trade, we were able to get it done.

Based on recent statistics, almost 1.7 million highly-skilled Canadians are employed full time in Canada's manufacturing sector. By eliminating all tariffs on manufactured goods and creating a mechanism to address non-tariff barriers to trade, this agreement will unlock opportunities for Canadian businesses and advance our government's commitment to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class.

Bill C-30 would cover a wide breadth of economic sectors and issues. Under CETA, certain skilled professionals will find it easier to work temporarily in the EU. This aspect of CETA is welcome in my riding of Don Valley East, which is home to skilled professionals from all around the globe. Working in the EU for these skilled professionals will not only boost their skill sets, but will provide cultural opportunities that they may have never considered possible.

We live in a world which is increasingly interconnected and where the free movement of people, goods, services and ideas happens at rapid speed. Progress and availability of opportunities for Canadians cannot increase unless we look beyond our borders. In 2014, Canada was the 12th largest trading partner of the EU-28. The EU is Canada's second largest partner after the United States.

From 2013-2015, Canada exported an annual average of almost $33 billion worth of manufactured goods to the EU. On average, these exports currently face tariffs of between 4% to 22%.

Under CETA, 99% of Canadian manufactured goods will enter the EU market tariff free. Within seven years, 100% of Canada's manufactured goods, including autos, will benefit from the duty free access.

Canada stands to gain even more by way of investment, opening new markets for our goods and services, and creating more stable jobs for our workforce. Workers in Canada's multi-billion dollar chemical and plastic industry will also benefit directly from CETA.

Canadians are world leaders in research, innovation and production in advanced manufacturing sub-sector, for example, scientific instruments, construction equipment and aerospace products to name a few. These goods, including robotics, are in high demand. In this area, Canadian exports to the EU totalled $9.2 billion. Current tariffs are as high as 22%. Under CETA these tariffs will be eliminated

In the agriculture field, we will be well positioned to reap benefits to the new market. This is a win-win for our agri industry across Canada.

CETA will not only open new markets for Canadian businesses and employees, but CETA is also the first trade agreement which has a stand-alone chapter on regulatory co-operation.

This very important provision will promote good regulatory practices and level the playing field. Our government is committed to creating opportunities for our businesses and our citizens. We want to expand the horizon, think outside the box, and ensure that Canadians are not disadvantaged by non-action.

It is with this in mind that CETA also contains provisions under which dispute settlement will be more open, transparent, and institutionalized. Our government will always protect the interests of Canadians and Canadian businesses. My riding contains some of the most innovative and forward looking technological small and medium-sized companies. Under CETA, companies such as Neuronic Works, Thales, Pearson Printing, Jansen, etc., will have access to European markets on a fair and even basis. Europeans and Canadians will benefit from a shared knowledge base and mutual higher standards of living.

In the area of safety and environmental protections, CETA builds on previous trade agreements that have explicitly safeguarded provided health, safety, and environmental protections. These protections are critical for our government and we will not abandon our principles. Under CETA, any EU producer interested in exporting goods to Canada will have to abide fully with the Canadian regulations on environmental protection.

Canadian culture will continue to thrive, as it will have new markets under CETA. I have spoken to many arts and cultural organizations who see this trade deal an an opportunity to expand into the global markets.

CETA is a progressive way forward for Canada and the EU. This trade agreement will set a precedent for the way international agreements are negotiated and agreed upon. We are a country rich in technology and innovation. We know how to operate businesses, whether in pharmaceuticals or manufacturing or family farms. Canadians have always been forward looking. In this increasingly connected world, we cannot afford to be insular. This trade agreement will provide opportunities for all Canadians and ensure real protection of our environment, our indigenous peoples, and the diversity of our cultures.

I hope all members of the House will support our collective effort in making Canada a highly competitive global player that wishes to see Canadians benefit from growth and opportunities.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about how the government likes transparency. We all know that the government loves consultation, but I wondered if she could comment on the fact that the Liberal dominated trade committee has ruled out any possibility for concerned and knowledgeable Canadians to make written submissions to it unless they are among the few who are already appearing at the committee, unlike with the TPP, on which the trade committee received thousands of submissions. Is that because most of those submissions had negative things to say about the TPP. Is that what the Liberals are afraid of happening in this case?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have just finished consulting Canadians on Canada Post. I do not think anyone is afraid of negativity or input. There are certain rules that committees follow, and it is my understanding that the trade committee did not rule out input from any other witnesses. I am not sure whether the member is misinformed, but transparency is important and that is why we have been extremely transparent in getting input from everyone.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel it is important to rethink the transition plan for the dairy industry and fine cheese producers.

The Canada-European Union trade agreement will result in huge losses for supply-managed industries. Last week, the Government of Quebec and a number of key industry players said that $350 million is not enough. They need more help to handle the transition and mitigate the negative impact of the Canada-European Union trade agreement. In Quebec, the industry is asking for more than $750 million.

Can the member confirm that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is not only listening, but that he will actually do something to help Quebec's dairy industry and fine cheese producers?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the same question was posed to the Minister of International Trade, who has worked with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to ensure that the trade agreement really is beneficial to our farmers. When we open up our trading partnerships and our markets, there is supply and demand. Also, when we reduce tariffs, it makes goods cheaper and makes different varieties of goods accessible to different populations. I am sure that the minister has taken great care to ensure that there is enough protection.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about CETA, but we have seen the government take a fairly aggressive approach to trade-related issues, such as the issue of canola from the prairies going to China and the Ukraine trade agreement that has been signed off on. The Minister of International Trade is working quite diligently and hard to make sure that the trade file is properly looked after, because at the end of the day, it will create jobs for Canada's middle class.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are an interconnected world. If we want to increase the middle class, trade is an important opportunity. I thank the Prime Minister for going to South America to build better relations and better trade treaties so that we have wider exposure to markets, rather than sticking with one country.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to first thank my colleagues for participating in this important debate.

I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak about the protections and guarantees of the canada-european union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, and how this agreement will protect hard-won social progress and guarantee the prosperity of all Canadians.

When our government came to power, there were many obstacles in the way of finalizing CETA. Support for CETA from centre-left parties in Europe, which was necessary for CETA's ratification by the European Parliament, and also by countries such as Germany and France, was in doubt. Therefore, from the outset, one of the most important things our government did was to listen to the criticism, both in Canada and in Europe, to ensure that the agreement addressed legitimate concerns.

We worked with industry and civil society to ensure that economic gains would not hinder essential social progress and to address the issues that really matter to Canadians and Europeans: environmental protection, workers' rights, consumer health and safety, and the right of governments to regulate.

In co-operation with our European counterparts, our government made improvements to the agreement in order to strengthen it and make it the most progressive trade agreement negotiated by Canada and the European Union. Now that those changes have been made, countries like Germany and France strongly support it.

Making sure that trade and labour support each other is a priority for our government. The provisions of CETA on workers strengthen this principle since they include commitments to facilitate the sound governance of the workforce.

Under CETA, Canada and the European Union committed to adding their respective obligations with respect to international labour standards to their labour laws. More specifically, both parties committed to ensuring that their national laws and policies protect the fundamental principles and rights at work, including the right to freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced labour, and the elimination of discrimination.

Canada and the European Union also committed to seeking high levels of labour protection, enforcing labour laws, and not waiving or derogating from these laws in order to promote trade or attract investment. CETA provides for the establishment of civil society advisory groups responsible for providing their opinions and advice on any issues related to the agreement's labour provisions, as well as for the creation of a mechanism that will allow the public to share its concerns about the labour issues associated with these provisions. What is more, CETA encourages co-operation on labour files, especially through the exchange of information on best practices and co-operation in international forums.

The environment is another priority area for Canadians and Europeans.

In the CETA chapter on trade and the environment, Canada and the European Union reaffirmed their mutual commitment to ensure that strict environmental standards are met as part of the trade liberalization process.

Under CETA, Canada and the EU maintain the right to set their own priorities on the environment and to adopt or amend their own related legislation and policies accordingly. Canada and the EU are committed to ensuring high levels of environmental protection, effectively enforcing domestic environmental laws rather than weakening or deviating from these laws in favour of trade or attracting investment.

CETA includes a commitment to work together on shared environmental concerns. This might include issues such as climate change, conservation, and the sustainable use of natural resources.

Under CETA, environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand. For example, the chapter on trade and the environment includes a commitment to facilitate and promote the trade of products and services associated with environmental protection. Among other things, this means paying special attention to products and services that may contribute to mitigating climate change and stimulating renewable energy production. Clean technologies represent a key aspect of the government's approach to promoting sustainable economic growth and play a key role in allowing us to keep our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to achieve our objectives under the Paris agreement.

CETA's preamble recognizes that the agreement's provisions reaffirm the parties’ right to regulate within their respective territories to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, the environment, public morals, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

The chapter on investment includes further clarifications on the right to regulate and reaffirms this right to achieve legitimate policy objectives.

Nothing in this agreement prevents governments from making regulations for the public good in areas like the environment, culture, safety, health, and conservation, from providing preferences to indigenous peoples, or from adopting measures to protect or promote Canadian culture.

Canadian and foreign investors alike must comply with all Canadian laws and regulations regarding the environment, labour standards, health care, and all building and safety codes. Nothing in CETA permits anyone who is selling a good, providing a service, or investing in Canada to be exempted from Canadian laws and regulations.

In all trade agreements, including CETA, Canada explicitly protects the environment, security, and social services, such as health care and education.

Under CETA, obligations regarding services and investments are fulfilled using a negative list approach. The use of this approach in CETA does not jeopardize the governments' ability to provide public services. In fact, the negative list approach provides Canada and the member states a more transparent way of targeting sectors or measures, such as those related to public health, education, and social services, where the parties want to maintain full control over policies.

Canada has been using the negative list approach for a very long time and is satisfied that CETA will continue to allow us the political flexibility to protect public services. What is more, no provision of CETA requires governments to privatize, subcontract, or deregulate their public services. Decisions regarding the delivery of public services are guided exclusively by domestic policy decisions.

As a result, CETA will compromise neither Canada's water quality standards, nor its regulations pertaining to water systems. Nothing in the free trade agreements that Canada has signed prevents the government from establishing standards to ensure that Canadians have access to safe drinking water.

No provision of any free trade agreement, including CETA, to which Canada is a party requires a government to privatize, resort to sub-contracting, or deregulate its water services. All businesses conducting these activities in Canada, whether Canadian or foreign, must comply with the laws and regulations in effect in Canada.

There is a major myth concerning CETA that we must dispel. I would like to set the record straight. None of the free trade agreements, including CETA, to which Canada is a party covers water in its natural state, that is, water in natural basins of water such as rivers, lakes, and streams, as a good or product for export.

The federal government has passed legislation and regulations to prohibit bulk water removal from water basins in boundary waters, no matter the reason, including export. Free trade agreements to which Canada is a party, including CETA, in no way compromise measures implemented by Canadian provinces to protect bodies of water within their jurisdiction.

Our government listened to people in the industry and civil society and worked with them to ensure that economic gains will not hinder essential social progress. Thanks to close collaboration with our European Union counterparts and a shared commitment to making CETA a progressive agreement, we addressed issues that really matter to Canadians and Europeans: the environment, workers' rights, consumer health and safety, and the right of governments to regulate.

To sum up, the CETA commitments that I just described are perfectly aligned with our existing progressive trade program and will ensure that economic gains do not come at the expense of the environment, workers, or matters of public interest, such as health and culture.

I support this bill and all of the benefits that it will bring to Canadians and the people of the European Union and its 28 member states.

I ask all hon. members to support this bill so that Canada can do its part to implement the agreement and continue to advance its progressive trade agenda.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech in the House.

It is important to talk about losses once again, because the dairy industry, including processors and the producers of Quebec's fine cheeses, are going to suffer immensely. The plan proposed by the previous Conservative government was an ambitious plan worth $4.3 billion, while the plan recently announced by the Liberals is much more modest. It includes $250 million for producers and $100 million for processors.

Last week the chairman of the Producteurs de lait du Québec told dairy farmers who had gathered for a general assembly that this plan to help our producers and processors is not enough. There are also a number of concerns regarding the production of fine cheeses. Will the $100 million be given to big companies? Will companies like Agropur and Saputo be eligible? I think average size producers will get about $5,000 in compensation. When the losses are in the $150-million-a-year range, does my colleague think that is enough?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that I have 37 dairy producers in the riding of Laurentides—Labelle. This is therefore a very important issue for us because we must look after our dairy producers.

In my view, the plan is a good first step. We need something to keep us competitive in the future and to ensure that we can operate in foreign markets where we currently do not have a solid presence. We have a lot of work to do. With a perfect agreement, all trade would flow both ways, but there would be no protections for our industry, supply management, and our culture. I believe that our plan strikes a good balance, but there is always much more to be done.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his excellent speech.

I believe that he spoke about some issues that are very important to his riding, where I know there are many dairy producers. Our colleague on the other side of the House asked these questions about producers, but I find it difficult to understand why the NDP is now asking the question while saying that it supports the $750 million.

Since the NDP promised to balance the budget if it were elected, it would never have been able to provide this kind of compensation. I believe that it is playing politics. When the NDP says that it supports producers' demands, it should also tell them that in order to balance the budget it would have to cut the amount of compensation for softwood lumber, for example. Therefore, I would ask my colleague what he thinks about comments to the effect that the NDP is playing politics with dairy producers.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think there is another issue here. If the NDP had been elected to office, it would not have signed CETA. The question would not have been asked. Since they promised to balance the budget, they would not have signed this agreement, so that issue is not relevant to the debate.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent presentation and feedback on this incredible trade deal.

When I look at investors, they are looking for stability and predictability when they decide to invest in other countries; and countries are looking to control the public agenda around the environment, labour, and different issues like that. In the past, countries tended to resolve disputes in a very difficult forum with arbitrators making the decisions.

This is a very progressive trade deal. There is a brand new tribunal formed. I wonder if my colleague would reflect on the ISDS provisions, and why this is a better trade deal for settlement of investor-state disputes.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the concerns that have been brought up about the investor-state dispute resolution systems that are being proposed.

As the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said earlier, it is really important that we have some kind of mechanism in place. We cannot have a situation where people come to invest, the rules change mid-game, and there is no option to continue. It is important that there is something, and I think this is one of the more progressive things I have seen in this type of thing.

If we read the text of CETA, it talks a great deal about finding compromise and mediation, and looking for solutions before getting to a court process. That is a good model to follow.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

First, I would like to thank the member for Essex, our international trade critic. In my opinion, she and her team do an extraordinary job. She exhibited great strength during today's debate. I would like to congratulate her on the work she did in committee and commend her for her dedication.

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking to 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. I am also pleased to rise to represent the people of Berthier—Maskinongé.

It is important for me to mention in the House that the NDP is in favour of international trade agreements as long as they are fair. The word “fair” is important. It is not simply a matter of engaging in free trade. We need to ensure that we are engaging in fair trade. The problem with the current government and the previous government is that they are quick to sign any agreement just so that they can brag about signing free trade agreements.

We had a fine example of this in fall 2013. During question period, the leader of the second opposition party, the current Prime Minister, congratulated the Conservative government for concluding an agreement in principle with the European Union without ever having read the agreement, which was not yet available. That is the Liberal Party in a nutshell.

Now that it is in government, not much has changed. The Liberals had several good opportunities to improve the agreement, but they chose instead to sign something that is not fair to Canadians. They were in such a hurry to see CETA come into force that they botched their own process. They are asking us, the members of the House, to give them carte blanche by voting in favour of a flawed document that will be end up being changed, especially with respect to the investor-state provisions. I think it makes no sense that hon. members are not voting on the final document.

This agreement and trade with the European Union are too important for us to take this lightly or rush through it.

A number of problems need fixing before we move forward. First, for the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, changes to intellectual property rules will cause drug prices to skyrocket. Considering our aging population and household incomes below the Canadian average, rising drug prices make me fear the worst for my fellow citizens. The government should address this before moving forward.

Second, there are a number of problems related to the agriculture and agri-food sector. I should point out that the government allowed an additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese from Europe over and above the 13,500 tonnes it already exports. In total, Europe will be allowed to export 31,200 tonnes of cheese to Canada, most of it fine cheese.

This problem provision will increase the percentage of dairy product imports from 4% to 9%, and dairy producers will lose between $116 million and $150 million. We must not forget fine cheese producers; this will cost them too. Of the additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese, 16,000 tonnes will be fine cheese. The impact of this will be felt most keenly in Quebec, which produces 60% of the country's fine cheese. Many cheese makers have said that allowing fine cheeses in will cause businesses to close.

Our manufacturing standards combined with generous subsidies for European producers make it almost impossible for our cheese makers to compete.

For a few years now, dairy and cheese producers have been investing and working hard to grow the fine cheese market. Because of this problem provision, however, their efforts will only benefit the Europeans.

Here is an example of how this agreement will affect a fine cheese producer in my riding, the Fromagerie Domaine Féodal. Last Friday I had the honour of attending a wine and cheese tasting to mark that business' 15th anniversary. The owners, Guy and Lise, just invested over $1 million to modernize their facilities, and they did so without any Canadian subsidies. I would also like to point out that they won a silver medal just last week for a cheese called Cendré des prés. I want to thank everyone who works with Guy and Lise and their family: Charles, Pierrette, Chantale, Annie, Mélanie, Justine, and Marie.

The arrival of fine cheeses from Europe will just eat into the profits they would have made on their investments. This cheese factory from the Lanaudière region will be able to absorb the blow from CETA, but that is not the case for all cheese makers in Quebec. They believe that many of the artisanal cheese factories from Quebec will close up. It is very hard for our cheese makers to compete with European cheese makers who are highly subsidized and have lower food safety standards than we do. Once again it will be our rural communities that will end up paying for this flawed trade agreement.

The government is absolving itself of the problems the agreement is causing the dairy industry with its transition plan. The government promised dairy farmers a $100-million investment fund over four years to help them modernize their operations and increase their productivity and efficiency, as well as diversify their range of products in order to capitalize on new European markets.

Clearly this program will be reserved for the largest processors and our artisanal cheese makers will be left out. The amount budgeted for the processors is far from adequate, as it does not even cover the $150-million losses the producers of fine cheeses will suffer.

The investment fund for dairy producers is even more appalling. The amount of $250 million over five years in light of annual recurring losses that could reach $150 million is not just inadequate but is an insult to dairy producers, who work very hard to make very high-quality milk.

Like artisanal cheese makers, several producers will never see this money because they have already modernized their facilities. However, above all, it simply makes no sense that our producers have to pay to access this money. How utterly deplorable of the Liberals to want to go forward with this agreement before examining its impact on the dairy industry. There is too much uncertainty for producers.

CETA will be problematic not just for the dairy sector, but also for the pork and beef industries. The previous government and the current one repeatedly boasted about the share of the European beef and pork market they gained. However, there is much to do before producers can really benefit from this market share. In fact, due to current European regulatory obstacles, none of our beef and pork producers will benefit.

I do not understand why the government is willing to move forward without resolving these issues. Stakeholders in other areas of the agriculture and agri-food sector welcome the export opportunities offered by this agreement. However, there is always a big “but” or a “maybe”. Compared to Europe and other industrialized countries, Canada provides its agriculture and agri-food sector with very few subsidies. The same goes for technical support and funding for research and innovation.

I repeat: I understand that the government wants to move forward with this agreement. However, we need to ensure that all of the programs are in place. What is more, in order to prevent unfair competition, the government needs to stand up for producers and ensure that this agreement is in the best interests of all Canadians.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier today in debate several members of the NDP referred to something that happened at the international trade committee.

I want to quote the member for Essex, who stated, “Today, the Liberal-dominated trade committee has made it clear that it only wants to hear from groups that will benefit from CETA. It has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrict its brief study of CETA from receiving input from Canadians, by passing a motion that restricts the committee from accepting written submissions except for those from the handful of witnesses who are selected to appear.”

There are a number of problems with this statement.

The first is that the committee did not meet today.

The second is that the relevant motion was put forward by the member for Essex, not by a Liberal.

Further, the member for Salaberry—Suroît commented:

In committee, the Liberals recently moved a motion in camera...

If we are discussing that, it would be a privilege issue because we would be discussing something that was discussed in camera.

Therefore, I am wondering if the member knows what on earth her colleagues are talking about on this file.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not sit on the trade committee. I am lucky to work on the agriculture committee. I would like to thank my colleague from Essex because she is working very hard on this deal, on CETA, and she has worked very hard on the TPP. We have no idea what will happen with that.

However, what is super important for us is that Canadians are consulted. I know the government says that it likes to consult, but I think it likes to consult to try to find the answer that it wants.

Right now with CETA, we have the feeling, and a lot of Canadians have the feeling, that they are not being consulted enough on this, and that if their voice or opinion is contrary to the government's position on CETA, the government does not want to hear it.

I cannot speak to what exactly happened at the trade committee because I was not there. However, I think it is important that Canadians feel included in this debate. I believe that Canadians should have a right to participate and testify at committee, and if they cannot make it to the committee, they should have the right to submit recommendations to the committee.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I really understand the issues with respect to dairy farmers. In my riding of North Island—Powell River, we also have dairy farmers. Their concerns have been very clear. They are wondering what this next phase will look like. One of the areas that I want to talk about specifically is that in these smaller communities where the dairy farms often are, they provide jobs to the communities. They are meaningful jobs, especially in the small communities across Canada where we desperately need that employment.

Could the member share with us what the long-term impacts will be on these jobs and on the communities?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Stability is important. Dairy farmers and fine cheese producers in Quebec and across Canada are entrepreneurs. However, recent trade agreements, including the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, and the trans-Pacific partnership, have shown that there are flaws in our supply management system that will result in major losses for our industry.

The Conservative government said that it had a plan, and now the Liberal government is telling us that it has a plan, that it has a solution, and that producers should not worry because the government is listening to them and is going to propose a solution. The Liberal government's transition support plan to mitigate the negative effects of CETA is woefully inadequate. In fact, I think it is disrespectful of the Liberal government to move forward with a $350-million plan. It is not enough.

Last week, the president of Producteurs de lait du Québec suggested increasing the transition support plan to $750 million and establishing a 15-year program, rather than a five-year program.

The Liberals have been in power for a year, and I feel they could have done better. I hope they will change tack and improve the program so that it will really help the industry because this is important for the regions. This is about protecting one of our traditional economic sectors and our jobs. We are proud of our exceptional Quebec cheese producers. We eat Quebec cheeses; we love them. We must therefore support our producers.

It is just so disappointing to see that, after a year in power, the Liberals have not even been able to deal with the problem of diafiltered milk in Canada.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I realize I have one of those lucky spots, where I get about a four-minute speech, seeing as we are getting close to 6:30 p.m.

I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member of Parliament for Essex, for the incredible work she has been doing in raising these issues.

I have been quite sorry to hear some of the condescending tones emanating from the Liberals. I would like to be there when their constituents start raising issues, asking the Liberals where they were when we talked about dairy compensation, or about the high cost of pharmaceuticals, or about the application of sovereignty, the ability of local and provincial governments to make laws for their own citizens and not have some super-national body overrule them. I would very much like to be there when their constituents ask them where they were when we were bringing up these very real concerns with this agreement.

I will unapologetically stand here and bring these concerns, as is the job of a progressive opposition, to signal that we are in favour of trade, but the agreement is so much more than just simple trade. It goes far above and beyond simple trade, and we have to bring forward these important points.

Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. We support the deepening of Canada-EU relationships. These are member countries to which we have significant historical and cultural ties. We have received many waves of immigration from European countries, which represent some of the most progressive democracies in the world. However, this is such an important agreement that we must ensure the scope of it remains in Canada's interests.

The Liberals are essentially asking Parliament to sign-off on CETA, despite the fact that European states have made it clear that the investor-state provisions would have to be removed before they ratify it.

I want to reference how quickly the Liberal government is trying to ram this through.

On October 30, the Prime Minister signed CETA at the EU-Canada leaders' summit. Two days later Bill C-30 was put forward as the implementing legislation. This process violated the government's own policy on tabling treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty, along with an explanatory memorandum outlining key components of the treaty, at least 21 sitting days before the legislation is presented. The Liberals also neglected to table a mandatory environmental assessment of the free trade agreement, as per a 1999 cabinet directive on environmental policy plans and program proposals.

Seeing that my time is short, tomorrow I will continue my speech and go over some of the costs to our drug provisions, as the seniors critic, and some of the investor-state provisions. I look forward to continuing that conversation tomorrow.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have seven minutes left for his speech when this matter is before the House again.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford brought up an interesting point in mentioning the splitting of his time. The clocks have wound up more and more out of sync in the chamber. I wonder if the Chair could undertake to have the clocks brought back to the real world time. It is now more than two minutes out.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the clerks will look into the issue.

The House resumed from November 21 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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had three minutes in my speech yesterday so I will be continuing along today. The point I want to underline is that we in the NDP will be here to provide reasoned and progressive elements to debate in this implementation act for CETA.

As I was saying in my saying in my speech on the bill yesterday, it remains a mystery as to why the government is trying to ram the bill through without letting parliamentarians conduct their proper research and oversight. I want to refer all members of this House to the open and accountable government publication from the Prime Minister that ministers were to treat Parliament with respect and provide the necessary information for parliamentarians to do their job. I quote from that document:

Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account.

The Prime Minister expects ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process. However, if we look at the facts surrounding the introduction of the bill, on October 30 the Prime Minister signed CETA at the EU-Canada Leaders' Summit, and it was only two days later that the implementing legislation, Bill C-30, was introduced in Parliament.

This rushed process violated the government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty, along with an explanatory memorandum that outlines the key components of the treaty, at least 21 sitting days before we debate. That was violated, and I would argue that the spirit of open and accountable government was clearly violated by ignoring that process.

Furthermore, we know that the international trade committee has already passed a motion that will restrict written submissions to only those witnesses who are selected to appear. Let me make that clear. No Canadians who do not appear before the committee will be allowed to provide written submissions, and only those who have the means to travel to Ottawa and the time to do so will be allowed to do so. We are in effect closing down exactly from whom we will hear on this.

If we compare that with the government's process on the trans-Pacific partnership, where the committee heard from over 400 witnesses and received written submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians, there really is no comparison.

The underlying point here is that Parliament is essentially being asked to write a blank cheque with this implementation bill, despite the fact that each of the 28 EU member states will have to ratify CETA for all of the provisions to apply, and it is a process that is expected to take between two to five years.

I ask again, what is the rush? What is the government trying to ram through here? Why is it not letting parliamentarians do due oversight when there is obviously enough time for us to examine the bill?

The next part I want to look at is on the investor-state dispute mechanism. New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports, but we will always remain firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten our sovereignty have no place in trade deals.

The new investor court system still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits. Furthermore, the Liberals still have not explained how they will ensure that environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges. Even the joint interpretive statement about the investor court system falls outside the text of the treaty, and therefore does not have full legal weight.

If we look at the quote from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, it states that CETA “will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism....” It goes on to say that it will really “impact the federal and provincial governments' authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.”

The other part I want to examine is particularly important to me, both as the NDP seniors critic and the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It is the impact this deal would have on the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. I take the issue of pharmaceutical costs very seriously, because I have helped enough seniors over the last eight years to know that the high cost of these drugs can have a real impact on the quality of life of our seniors.

The chapter on intellectual property rights goes well beyond Canada's existing obligations. The increased patent protections granted to brand-name pharmaceuticals will have the effect of delaying the arrival of cheaper generics and will increase the cost of prescription drugs to Canadians by between $850 million and $2.8 billion per year.

This is a cost that I do not think seniors are prepared to take on. Furthermore, I would argue it would hamper any efforts of bringing in a national pharmaceutical strategy both at the federal level and in what individual provinces are trying to do with their already ballooning health care costs.

I also want to quote Jim Keon, the president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, who said:

A study prepared for the CGPA by two leading Canadian health economists in early 2011 estimated that, if adopted, the proposals would delay the introduction of new generic medicines in Canada by an average of three and a half years. The cost to pharmaceutical payers of this delay was estimated at $2.8 billion...

Therefore, we do have validators of this opinion, we do have the research to back it up, and it is certainly a very real concern that we should be bringing up.

In conclusion, we are in favour of a trade deal with Europe. As I have stated previously, we have deep historical and cultural ties, and they are some of the most progressive democracies. However, we are concerned with specific measures in CETA as it is negotiated, and it is our job on this side of the House to uphold the interests of Canadians in process.

The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix this agreement, but the deal is still not done. We will continue to urge them to fix it. Furthermore, if Liberal members of Parliament are not prepared to stand up for the progressive interests of their constituents, we in the NDP are always ready to take on that rein, and we will do so proudly.

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

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that Liberal members of Parliament are quite willing to stand up on the progressive nature of all trade agreements.

I am a bit surprised. From my perspective, it looks as if the NDP is trying to justify voting against yet another trade agreement. It seems to be part of the NDP DNA that trade agreements are bad. NDP members often cite that they supported one, and I think the one they say they supported was with Korea. However, I do not think they ever stood up and voted for a trade agreement.

At the end of the day, CETA is an agreement that the Liberal Party had supported virtually from the beginning. Throughout the election, Canadians understood that the Liberal Party was behind it.

Can the member please indicate to the House why NDP members feel that they can support Korea but not CETA?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech, if the Liberals and Conservatives are not going to stand up and raise concerns about the high cost of pharmaceuticals, about the impact of investor-state dispute resolutions, about the abilities of local governments to legislate and make laws in the public interest, then we will bring those issues forward for Canadians.

As I have stated, we support the overall intention of trade with Europe, but as long as these problematic provisions are in the trade agreement, we will give voice to those concerns. Furthermore, we have legitimate questions as to why the government side is rushing this through without due process.

The government member knows very well that he has broken his own government's policies in this regard. They are trying to ram this through and limit the number of witnesses because they want to limit the amount of bad news they receive on the bill. Therefore, I say to the member that he should let Parliament do its job, not rush this process through, and allow the legitimate concerns of Canadians to have voice in the House, because it is not just a one-sided argument. There are many Canadians who have legitimate concerns. I will continue to proudly stand here and give voice to those concerns.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to talk some more about transparency and how the debate process works because I really want to explain this for the people listening at home. Preventing witnesses and even experts from providing written submissions to the committee is an unprecedented decision. This is deeply troubling.

When a bill goes to committee, we often do not have enough time to hear witnesses because of our schedules and the different bills before us. Typically, the chair tells the committee members that we will ask for written submissions from experts who cannot attend the meetings, who are not available, or whom we do not have time to hear. That way, the committee can get a sense of all views on a particular subject.

We are not talking about radicals who send us wild and crazy submissions. We are talking about experts, such as university professors, lawyers, and pharmacists, who can tell us about the impact of this agreement on the price of pharmaceuticals.

Can my colleague describe to us how the Liberals are stifling debate with this kind of measure and tell us about how they are doing it even more than the Conservatives used to?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for bringing that question up, because I have before me a copy of the minutes of proceedings from the Standing Committee on International Trade, meeting No. 42, when it met on November 1st. Paragraph (b) of the motion that was passed at that in camera meeting states that the committee “consider testimony, written submissions and briefs only from the witnesses appearing before it”. That says to me that it wants to limit testimony to organizations that have the means to come forward. The committee is really trying to narrow down the depth of the conversation, so that when it provides its report to Parliament at report stage of the bill, it will seem as if it has the unanimous backing of Canadians, and that is going to be the furthest thing from the truth.

This is yet another example of the Liberals limiting debate on an important issue on which all Canadians deserve to have a say.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.

I am pleased to speak on this topic for Canadian agriculture and agrifood. CETA would greatly benefit our agricultural industry. We are talking about an industry that contributes over $100 billion to the Canadian GDP. It drives over $60 billion of our trade and creates one in eight jobs. To bring our discussions on CETA into agricultural context, Canadian farmers depend on trade for their livelihoods. On average, about half of the value of Canada's agricultural production is export: three-quarters of our wheat crop, two-thirds of our pork, 80% of our canola and canola products, and 90% of our pulse products.

The EU is Canada's fourth most important export destination. Trade helps secure jobs, growth, and opportunity for Canadian farmers and farm families, and more great food choices for consumers around the world. This is why our government is working hard to open up new markets for our exporting producers around the world.

CETA could drive additional exports up to $1.5 billion, including $600 million in beef, $400 million in pork, and $100 million in grains and oilseeds, as well as $300 million in processed foods, fruit and vegetables.

The signing was praised by many agricultural groups, including the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and the Canola Council of Canada.

The European Union is among the world's largest markets for food. CETA would create new market opportunities in the EU for our agricultural producers, processors, and exporters all across Canada.

Increased market access for our world-renowned beef and pork is only one of the many benefits for Canadian agriculture under this agreement. EU tariffs would also be eliminated on grains such as wheat, barley, rye, and oats; oils, such as canola and soybean; fresh and frozen vegetables; maple syrup; processed products, such as sweetened dried cranberries, french fries, and pet food. As well, in the area of confectionary, it includes baked goods, snack foods, and beverages.

CETA would also give duty-free access for over 80,000 tonnes of pork a year, 50,000 tonnes of beef and veal, and 3,000 tonnes of bison. This is a significant improvement.

With the agreement in force, Canada would be one of the only developed countries in the world to have preferential access to the world's two largest economies, the EU and the United States, providing food for one billion people. This is why timely implementation of CETA remains a top priority for our government.

At the same time, we know that some agriculture sectors would be impacted by CETA; namely, our dairy producers under supply management, who would see increased imports of European cheese.

Our government fully supports supply management, and that is something we are very proud of. We recognize the important role Canada's supply management sector plays in ensuring a strong rural economy, accounting for over $34 billion in overall economic benefit.

We have said all along that our government needs to help dairy producers and processors make the transition when CETA comes into force, and that is exactly what we are doing. I recently announced $350 million for two new programs that support the competitiveness of the dairy sector, in anticipation of the entry into force of CETA. One of the two new programs is $250 million over five years for the dairy farm investment program that will help provide targeted contributions to help Canadian dairy farmers update farm technology and systems and improve productivity through upgrading their equipment.

The other new program is over $100 million over four years for a dairy processing investment fund that will help dairy processors modernize their operation and in turn improve efficiency and productivity as well as diversify their products to pursue new market opportunities.

Dairy farmers have called this an important recognition of the contribution farmers and processors make to the Canadian economy. The long-term investment in dairy modernization provides a sustainable, strong, and reliable industry and economic growth. I look forward to continuing to speak with the dairy farmers and processors to obtain their views on how the programs are to be designed.

We are also going to have discussions with the supply management sector to address the concerns of import predictability and enforced border controls for supply-managed commodities, while ensuring that Canadian processors who use dairy and poultry inputs can remain competitive in the export markets.

CETA is only one of the government's efforts to open new markets for our farmers and food processors.

Following his recent mission to China, the Prime Minister announced an agreement with China to expand beef access to frozen bone-in beef from animals less than 30 months of age; ensure stable and predictable Canadian exports of canola to China on an uninterrupted basis through early 2020; and support trade in Canada's pork, bovine genetics, and some processed foods. We have set a goal of doubling trade between our two countries by 2025.

I recently completed an agricultural trade mission to China where we showcased Canadian agriculture, agrifood, and fish and seafood products. I was pleased to promote our world-class, high-quality products and contribute to $37 million in onsite sales, and $230 million in anticipated sales over the next year. All of this is tremendous news for Canadian agriculture and tremendous news for Canada.

We are also reaching out to other key markets in Asia. Asia is an important market for Canada's agriculture and food products, especially in animal protein. Building on our success in China, we have regained access for Canadian beef in South Korea and Taiwan.

Outside of Asia, we recently announced that Mexico has restored full access for our Canadian beef. The Canadian industry expects that this will eventually boost our beef sales to Mexico to over $200 million a year. We obtained new access for pork to India and restored access for live swine to Russia and the Ukraine. We achieved the repeal of the U.S. country of origin labelling, levelling the playing field for Canadian beef and pork coming into the United States.

To grow new markets, the first thing we need is a world-class product, and we have that covered, but we also need investment and resources. That is where we can play a role in opening the doors for our agrifood exporters.

Innovation is key to keeping our sector on the cutting edge and to ensuring that we can continue to take advantage of global market opportunities.

CETA would deepen Canada's already close partnership with the EU. Its entry into force would help agriculture and agrifood exports in Canada take advantage of the market access opportunities CETA will offer. At the same time, we will be investing in our dairy industry to help it remain strong and competitive.

I am optimistic about the future of our food-based businesses. Canada's reputation for high-quality, innovative, sustainable agriculture and agrifood products will give the sector a competitive edge on the global markets.

We have the best farmers and ranchers in the world. They can produce the food, and we must make sure we export their products. We are committed to creating growth and opportunity for Canadian farmers and farm families, growing our middle class, and ensuring Canadian agriculture is a global leader in the 21st century.

What we have to do is open the doors and make sure that our great farmers and ranchers are able to export their products.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his unwavering support of the great work done by our Conservative government under the leadership of Stephen Harper and, of course, by our amazing agriculture and trade ministers. It just shows that if we work hard and work together, amazing things can happen.

I also had the opportunity to attend a trade mission in London with a bunch of Canadian exporters. We had discussions with distributors that were working in Europe and trying to find different ways we could help our exporters.

Would he maybe go through some of the plans the present government has to help our exporters as we move forward in the future?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work that has been done and will be done. In my view, what we have to do is to open the markets.

In my tenure of a little over a year being the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, visiting a number of countries in Asia, what we have found, first, is that we need to establish a rapport, government to government. I think we did that in other areas, for example, with China and Mexico.

We also have to make sure that the governments and the entrepreneurs in these countries understand the quality of the products we have.

It is also a job to make sure, if we can, that the countries have a science-based regulatory system. It is very difficult to export to anyone who does not use a science-based regulatory system. In our country, our government, and the member's government previously, always pushed to make sure that we used science-based regulations. We cannot argue against science-based regulations.

I think it is important, number one, to have the regulations and, number two, to make sure that we establish a rapport and that people understand exactly the quality of the products we have in this country.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about dairy farmers. The minister was talking about dairy in his speech. In my riding of Essex, I have dairy farmers. These are small family farms that have been around a very long time.

The minister also spoke about market access and entrepreneurship. Under CETA, family farms will hurt. We will lose family farms in Canada. We will lose dairy farms in Canada.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada have said there will be unpredictability and instability in the Canadian dairy sector, the opposite of what supply management was created to do. They estimate there will be a potential farm income loss of nearly $150 million per year. The amount of compensation the government has come forward with—it is calling it “investment” not “compensation”—clearly falls far short. It is a drop in the bucket. We will lose family farms in my riding and across this country.

The government talks about the unfettered access that our dairy farmers will have, including our cheese producers. This does not exist for Canadian farmers. The Canadian dairy association has been very clear that this access will not, in any way, help them with the losses that will occur under CETA.

How does the minister stand in the House, talking about supply management and protecting it, while signing trade deals that will hurt family farms in Canada?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern.

Being a dairy farmer all of my life until I came to this chamber, I have an understanding of the dairy business.

I also would like to inform the House that we discussed the issue. We met with dairy farmers. We met with processors right across this country. That is where this program we put in place came from. It came from the dairy farmers and processors across the country.

I would remind my hon. colleague across the way that I met with young farmers in her province. What they are concerned about is the next generation of farmers. They wanted to make sure that we had a strong and stable supply management system in this country.

This party put the supply management system in place, and I can assure members that this party will make sure the supply management system remains strong for generations to come.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Davenport, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in support of Bill C-30, Canada's ratification of the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, more commonly known as CETA.

I know that in my riding of Davenport, a wonderfully diverse riding with the majority of resident families coming from European countries like Portugal, Italy, Spain, and even Greece and France, they are excited at the prospect of this agreement and bill coming into force.

I should note that not all trade agreements are seen equally in my riding. There are many concerns about the TPP, but for CETA there is large support and people are very excited about it. They are excited at the prospect of stronger economic ties with their home countries and the chance to help their home businesses succeed, in addition to all the benefits this agreement will have for Canadians.

The residents of Davenport know that the EU is the second-largest market in the world for Canadians. CETA means more growth, more jobs, a more robust economy, and a stronger economic future for all Canadians. Through CETA, the government is demonstrating its commitment to growing our economy and strengthening the middle class by increasing and expanding Canada's trade.

As a medium-sized economy competing in the global marketplace, Canada has long recognized free and open trade as critical for our economic prosperity. CETA will offer new export opportunities and new consumers for our products. People around the world are hungry for the goods, skills, and services that Canada has to offer. Partners around the world want to do business with Canadians. We are seen as being reliable and committed to providing quality services and products.

The European Union and its 28 member states is an important market for Canada, and CETA will continue to expand the opportunities for Canadian companies in this market. In 2015, our bilateral trade in merchandise with the EU was worth $99 billion, and trade in services was $38 billion, making the EU our second-largest trading partner.

Trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy. Canadian jobs and prosperity depend heavily on trade flows with other countries. In fact, one out of every six Canadian jobs is related to exports, and Canadian exports amount to more than 30% of Canada's GDP. It is because trade is so vital to our economy that our government has undertaken to advance a progressive trade agenda.

The concept of progressive trade is what helped us to conclude CETA with our EU partners. I will pause for one minute to say how very pleased I am that at the EU-Canada summit where CETA was signed by the president of the European Council, the president of the European Commission, and our Prime Minister, a joint statement was also issued that outlined our mutual shared values and interests beyond trade.

They signed a statement that included agreement on shared values and goals, like peace and democracy, prosperity, protection of human rights, the rule of law, the environment, and inclusion and cultural diversity. The commitment to and promotion of these values and goals is not only important to me, but I know is also really important to the residents of Davenport.

Canada engages in CETA because we believe that it will lift up all Canadians. We believe that CETA will open up new markets, and it has the potential to significantly increase Canadian wealth. Small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, are looking to our government to open up new markets for potential exports, and our government is committed to this goal.

We have heard directly from Canadian businesses, many of them within ethnic communities, like the Portuguese, Italian, and Spanish communities, which are found in ridings across Canada, like Davenport. They have asked us to do more to help them grow. They want us to increase sales, increase profits, reduce risk, lower costs, and reach beyond saturated domestic markets.

For trade in goods, CETA will help foster such opportunities by eliminating virtually all tariffs, and establishing mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers to create more predictable trading conditions. These are some of the things businesses want, and we will help achieve these goals by standing against the protectionist ideology that is unfortunately emerging across the globe.

Stakeholders from across the country in a wide range of economic sectors continue to tell us how trade has positively impacted their business. With our government's continued commitment to trade, we will keep this positive trend alive.

CETA would also provide Canadian companies with a first-mover advantage in the EU market over competitors from markets like the U.S. that do not have a trade agreement in place with the EU. It would allow Canada to establish customer relationships and networks and to join projects first. CETA would offer Canada the opportunity to be part of a broader global supply chain anchored in the EU. Opening up new markets for our manufactured and processed products means that our country would be at an advantage in exporting more automobiles, medical devices, agriculture and agrifood products, machinery, fish, and everything in-between. Opening up new markets in our agriculture and agrifood products would mean more opportunities for abundant and delicious blueberries from Nova Scotia; potatoes from P.E.I.; processed products and pet food from Ontario; prairie grains; ciders, cranberries, and maple syrup from Quebec; and the best pork and beef in the world, just to name a few.

Preferential access to the EU under CETA means that almost all Canadian products would be free from EU tariffs. In some cases, tariffs account for more than 50% of the product price, such as the current EU tariff on Canadian oats.

I have mentioned a few of our vibrant sectors, and there are many more sectors whose exporters would benefit from CETA. But now I would like to highlight another important opportunity that CETA would open up for Canadian exporters of goods and services. CETA would expand access to EU's $3.3 trillion government procurement market, in many cases for the first time to any trading partner. Thanks to CETA, Canadian firms would now have access to all levels of government procurement. This would especially benefit Canada's producers of world-leading technologies, who would have guaranteed access to European public utilities in the areas of water treatment, electricity, gas, and heat; and to the EU's mass-transit authorities.

Members will note that when discussing procurement, not only have I mentioned exporters of goods but also of services. The EU services market is worth an astounding $12 trillion. It is in fact the world's single largest importer of services, accounting for 20% of the world's total imports. CETA would give Canadian service suppliers the best market access the EU has ever granted to a free trade agreement partner. Through mechanisms such as national treatment, most-favoured nation provisions, along with the automatic ratchet mechanism, Canada's access to the EU services market would improve over time. This means that not only would CETA open up new markets for Canadian service exporters upon implementation, but it would also guarantee that Canada's access would improve in the future.

In conclusion, I believe it is now evident that CETA is a big deal for Canadian companies. It is a big deal for Canadians, including the businesses and residents of my riding of Davenport. We are making good on our promise to create opportunities for small and medium-sized companies and to generate jobs and economic growth that will benefit all Canadians. This agreement would tear down barriers and create a bridge across the Atlantic for Canadian exporters of goods and services. Through CETA, Canada would receive unprecedented access to the EU and its 28 member states. With CETA, Canada would send a clear signal to the world that not only does it support progressive trade for its own economic well-being, but that it is also a leader in countering the rising protectionist sentiments in Europe and south of the border. The ratification of CETA would be seen as evidence that our nation never gives up on supporting our economic well-being and continues to lead by example in pursuit of prosperity for its citizens.

I support this bill and all the benefits that it would bring to Canadians and to EU citizens. I urge all hon. members to support this bill. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are two issues that I would like to ask the member to comment on.

One is the fact that at the committee stage, Canadians will not be able to submit written submissions to the committee for consideration. Does the member agree with that? Why would we close opportunities for Canadians to express their points of view on this important trade deal?

Second is the issue of CETA's implications for pharmacare costs. The trade deal will have a huge implications for our pharmacare costs with respect to patents. That will have a huge impact on us. Already, in terms of health care costs, we will be dealing with a $36 billion cut as the hangover from the Harper administration, which the current government is carrying over. How would we handle the impacts on health care costs across the country vis-à-vis patents on pharmacare?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, CETA has been a long time in the making. There has been a lot of negotiation over many years. There have been many consultations. A lot of thoughtfulness has gone into the agreement.

CETA will give Canada access to the EU's more than 500 million consumers. Canadian workers stand to benefit significantly from increased access to this 28-nation market, which generates $20 trillion in annual economic activity.

On the issue of pharmacare, the rising cost of drugs is a huge concern for people in my riding. It is of great concern to our Minister of Health. It is part of the current discussions and negotiations the minister is having with her counterparts across this country. I have every confidence that we will find good solutions to it moving forward.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague with regard to the submissions to committee. It is almost unheard of that this government-paid committee, or more importantly, this taxpayer-paid committee, would be shut off from receiving information. I have never heard of that before. It requires a special procedure. It would mean that we do not want to hear from constituents.

I was on that committee at one point.

Britain is Canada's third-largest trading partner and is one of the secure anchors for Canada in this deal, and it is leaving the European Union. There is going to be quite a difference between what was in the past agreement and how it was arranged versus what we will have now.

Why would we not want to hear from Canadians and businesses on how to deal with that new reality?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is large support for CETA right across this country. There is large support in my riding.

The implementing legislation for CETA will be subject to all the stages of the legislative process. I have every confidence that any outstanding questions will be responded to through that legislative process. I look forward to its successful conclusion. People are looking forward to us finalizing CETA and having it in action.

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

Madam Speaker, could my colleague comment on how trade will help Canada's middle class? A healthy middle class means a healthier economy, and we all benefit.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, CETA will not only help the middle class across Canada but will help lift up all Canadians. Canada is a trading nation. We are a small nation. Increasing business and trade around the world will help create more jobs and more prosperity for the middle class and for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour today to speak in support of the comprehensive economic trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Richmond Centre. I think she will join me in giving accolades to the previous government and particularly to two members of Parliament, the MP for Abbotsford and the MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster. They worked very hard with the previous government to see this vision move forward. On that note, I would also like to commend the Liberal government for following through on the tireless work of the former Conservative government on the agreement.

It can be refreshing when two different governments share a common vision of how we can build a stronger Canada. We know that rarely happens in this place.

I would like to state some of the reasons I am supporting the CETA deal.

In Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, we have a rather unique perspective on free trade deals. Many in the Okanagan region will recall the days in the 1980s when the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement was looming on the horizon. As is often the case when a trade deal is imminent, the forces of fear were out in full force.

In fact, many grape growers were threatening to rip out their vineyards, so convinced were they that they would not be able to compete and survive against the vast vineyards and inexpensive wines of California. Then a funny thing happened. A few prominent vineyards said no to defeatist thinking and instead saw opportunity.

Do not get me wrong. It has taken some immense hard work, and at the time, the federal government of the day provided some transitional assistance. We know that today Okanagan vintners, as well as British Columbian vintners, make some of the best wines in the world. Okanagan vintners, I would suggest, have not only survived but have thrived and prospered.

Here is something else to think about. In spite of the fact that seven of every 10 bottles of wine sold in Canada are made outside of Canada, a B.C. vintner still cannot directly sell to a customer in Ontario because of the protectionist policies of the Wynne Liberal government.

We also know that the federal Liberal government has once again failed Canada's vintners, brewers, and distillers alike in the latest round of negotiations on internal trade. In fact, it is the same Liberal government that is so terrified of internal trade it refused to elevate the Comeau decision to the Supreme Court for constitutional clarification.

I struggle with that. We have a Liberal government that will impose a national carbon tax on the provinces but will not impose a true internal trade regime that well may be a constitutional right. One can only assume that the 142% increase in consultant lobbying under the current Liberal government, as big corporations want to protect provincial monopolies, is part of the problem.

Where does that leave vintners in my riding? Many are now selling wine directly to customers outside of Canada, because they cannot do the same thing legally in Ontario. Nowhere but in the Liberal Party of Canada does this make any sense.

It is easy to understand why I will be supporting trade deals like CETA, because for many vintners in the Okanagan and British Columbia, this is where opportunities are to be found. I predict that when CETA member nations have their opportunity to directly sample some of these B.C. wines, they will be very impressed by the talent of Canadian vintners.

Of course, there are other good things in my riding besides wine. We also have many fruit farmers, some of whom have ventured beyond the co-operative model to become independent and discovered that foreign markets offer new opportunities that can be very lucrative.

Through the good work of the Summerland federal research station, which is in my riding, new technologies are extending the shelf life of fruit and other perishable products, like flowers. I think that is great, because with longer shipping times, farmers can use more affordable and more environmentally friendly methods. For example, they ship products by sea, rather than by air, or by rail, rather than in trucks.

These are all positive aspects of CETA that could mean significant new opportunities for fruit farmers.

In addition to farmers and producers, of course, we also have manufacturing and resource firms in my riding. These days, certain private employers that pay some of the best salaries depend on new markets to sell and export their products.

We have to remember that in light of the recent election in the United States, we do not yet know how the new American administration will affect Canadian exports to the U.S. That is why diversifying our markets with new partners is so important.

I think it is also worth noting that Canadians can compete with the best in the world in virtually every domain, and they are already doing so.

I do have some concerns, however, that I would like to share with the House. My biggest concern is that CETA member countries do not, I repeat, do not have the same internal trade barriers that Canada does. It is therefore possible that farmers in CETA member countries will have easier access to certain Canadian provinces than our own farmers.

CETA is not to blame for that. It is our own collective failure, especially here in the House. We should have referred Comeau to the Supreme Court when we had the chance. Even though the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Green Party all supported the motion, the Liberals forced the vote and said no to domestic free trade. We need to recognize that CETA may give preferential access to certain sectors at the expense of Canadian producers who face domestic trade barriers.

My other concern is more administrative in nature. I hope that this Liberal government will provide technical resources so that small farmers and small business owners can benefit from CETA. Many small businesses do not have the resources or the internal capacity to acquire the necessary technical expertise to navigate international markets.

My last concern is more of a reminder. One of the downsides of trade agreements is that the nations with lower costs sometimes end up with a trade surplus relative to those where costs are higher.

We know that these concerns were a major issue during the recent U.S. election, especially in the Midwest. It is therefore important that we, and by we I mean all levels of government, know that a nation can only be competitive if the cost of doing business is low.

Ontario's green policy is is giving rise to energy poverty and chasing away manufacturing industries. We must also realize that the United States does not have a carbon tax. The State of Washington recently voted against a carbon tax.

Let us not fool ourselves. We have had a significant excise tax and GST on certain products like gas for quite some time. We have to be careful not to further increase the cost of doing business exclusively for Canadian companies, and forgetting that they are competing with businesses from other countries.

With the exception of the concerns about balance, I am delighted with the opportunities that CETA will create in my riding. I will support this bill and continue to promote the ways in which we can fully benefit from it.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to interprovincial trade. We recognize that the government needs to give attention to interprovincial trade and try to work with provinces to see where we could improve the conditions that would ultimately allow for more interprovincial trade and increase access to foreign markets, especially when we take into consideration the move toward globalization and trade.

Could the member explain to the House why the former Stephen Harper government failed to deal with interprovincial trade issues, or possibly even cite a few examples where he felt that the former Conservative government was actually successful on interprovincial trade?

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

Madame Speaker, I welcome the question.

Simply put, my bill, Bill C-311, opened up free trade of wine between Canadian provinces at the federal level. The federal government of the day later, in budget 2014, supported the same kind of treatment for Canadian beer and Canadian spirits. The previous government made huge leaps in that area, which not only helped that particular value-added sector, it also helped our farmers who feed into the inputs of that.

Again, the former minister of industry, Mr. James Moore, spearheaded an initiative for which the Liberals like to claim total credit, to have a new agreement on internal trade. We know that deals like CETA, which were supported by every single province and territory after extensive consultation by the previous government to get there, allowed for a good process of which we are bearing the fruits today.

Unfortunately, it is the same government that has not led collaboration with the provinces to the point where it would allow for beers, spirits, and alcohol to flow freely. We had a chance with the Comeau case in New Brunswick, where we could have elevated it to the Supreme Court to get that constitutional clarity. That member voted against it.

On this side of the House, we are always proposing ideas on which we can get pan-Canadian agreement and consensus. It is that member and his party who voted that down, and it is that member and his party who now support a carbon tax, which again is at odds. The Liberals say they want to work with provinces, but yet they impose mandatory carbon taxes that make our Canadian businesses less competitive internationally.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate on trade and what we are putting into it. It is amazing how much time we have spent in this House of Commons on trade, but so very little on economic strategies related to, for example, manufacturing.

This is not a full list, but it is a list of trade agreements, investment promotion agreements, and protection agreements that we have signed over the last number of years. It is Peru, Panama, Romania, Senegal, Nigeria, Slovak Republic, Korea, Kuwait, Tanzania, Liechtenstein, Mali, Jordan, Latvia, Benin, Burkina, Colombia, Ghana, Hong Kong, and Ukraine.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I hear a lot of cheering, Madam Speaker. I would ask the hon. member, given his party has identified that the Liberals have really created zero jobs given their last year, why then, with all these accolades to these signed agreements, has there not been an increase in jobs related to all these trade agreements? It is a simple measurement system that we need to look at, and I would like to know specifically. We could use Latvia as an example. Where are the Canadian jobs that have come from the trade agreement with Latvia?

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's concerns, because again, as we said, any time that there is a new trade agreement or investment agreement proposed, some people draw attention to areas with which they do not feel comfortable. I think we need to address them with logic.

We sign FIPAs that basically allow for investor protection and promotions between both countries. Here in Canada we treat everyone the same. In fact, I like to joke that in Canada, we will treat everyone equally unfairly, which is our way of treating everyone the same. When someone invests in Canada, they receive no extra consideration more than anyone else. They are treated completely fairly and have full access to the courts. When we have Canadians investing abroad, they do not always have that, so having these trade agreements that protect Canadian business and Canadian investors is very important.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, CETA.

I would like to first acknowledge my Conservative colleagues, the Right Hon. Steven Harper, the hon. member for Abbotsford, and the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. Thanks to their dedication and hard work over the past few years, this agreement has now been made possible.

CETA will give Canadian firms new and secure opportunities to supply both goods and services to all 28 member states of the European Union. While this trade agreement has many different components, all of which provide immense opportunities for the Canadian economy, I will be focusing my speech on the implications this agreement has on the business and private sectors in Canada.

An early study of this agreement, when it was in the negotiating stage in the last government, indicated that a trade agreement with the European Union would likely result in almost 80,000 new jobs for Canadians. This is exactly what the Canadian economy needs now: jobs. One of the reoccurring aspects of CETA is the agreement to eliminate almost all trade tariffs for Canadian goods and services. It is expected that 99% of tariff lines to the EU will be duty-free once the agreement is fully implemented. By eliminating this type of trade barrier, Canadian producers will have increased access to the EU market and a competitive edge over other global producers who do not have the same kind of trade agreement.

As the critic for small business, I hear this conversation frequently. Business owners want to have better access to global markets. This agreement will help answer that call. What smaller companies will now need to know from the government is how SMEs can become important partners in the supply chain.

To ensure that Canadian businesses are able to effectively operate in the EU market, CETA also includes a regulatory co-operation component. The regulatory co-operation forum will provide Canadian and EU regulators with information to ensure that regulatory measures in both markets are compatible and of mutual interest. This will dramatically diminish the barriers often experienced by businesses entering a new market.

In addition to Canadian-made goods, services such as management, financial, and engineering will have better access to the EU markets. Once CETA has been fully implemented, Canadian service exporters will have the same level of access and be bound by the same regulations as those service providers in the EU.

One of the most important aspects of CETA is the investment provisions. Investment is a critical way to engage with the global economy and stimulate economic growth and job creation. CETA will allow both Canadian and EU investors to capitalize on new opportunities while also ensuring stability and transparency in the market as a means of protecting their investments. There are many reasons why the EU market should wish to invest in Canada, and CETA will encourage such investment.

Although there are many positive and exciting aspects to this agreement, there are also some missing pieces. There have been several unilateral declarations made between member states that have not been agreed to by either Canada or the EU.

Additionally, while there are many positive aspects of the investment chapter of this agreement, there is still some uncertainty. As it becomes clear which provisions in the protection and investment dispute resolution aspect of the agreement will be implemented and which will be removed, I ask that the government be forthcoming on these decisions. It is important that any implications these declarations may have on our industries are explained to Canadian exporters and it is important that the Canadian best interests are maintained.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I would like to also comment briefly on the many opportunities CETA will provide to my home province. Services that are critical to B.C., such as environmental services, communication technology services, and energy services, will have new and unprecedented access to the EU markets and economy.

Just last week I met with a business representative from the aerospace industry and he explained the types of growth CETA will be able to provide to his line of work. B.C. companies understand how important this agreement is and I look forward to hearing of the success they will find in the EU market. As the entire service sector is of critical component of B.C.'s GDP and employs a majority of British Columbians, this sort of competitive edge will greatly benefit the province and my riding of Richmond Centre.

B.C. also represents diverse agricultural and agrifood products from seafood to produce and is known for its high food safety standards. Opening up the market to these producers will encourage further growth and world-class excellence.

I am very pleased that, after all of the hard work done by many over the past few years, an agreement has been made. Although I have noted a few of my concerns on the agreement, I look forward to the many benefits CETA will provide to our Canadian businesses and our country on a national level. Canada will be one of a few countries that has been able to secure such access to the world's two largest economies, the United States and the European Union, and that is something to be extremely proud of.

My next question for the current government is how we are going to deal with the trans-Pacific partnership, which the president-elect of the U.S. has openly declared that he is going to withdraw from. I have had the opportunity of joining our former prime minister, the trade minister, and the minister of agriculture to explore business opportunities in Asia in a good number of years. I certainly hope that even without the U.S., our government is able to go forward with the TPP and open up an even larger market for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, CETA has been achieved over a number of years. Over the last year it has been a high priority of this government. The minister responsible has visited Europe on numerous occasions, along with the parliamentary secretary and other components of government, to ensure that we get the best deal for Canadians. We believe that the deal we have through this legislation is indeed the best deal for Canadians. It would ultimately assist Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become part of the middle class, and as one of my colleagues indicated, all Canadians would benefit by this particular agreement.

It is generally perceived that this agreement is a good thing for Canada. It has had years of being at the table with open discussions, transparency, and accountability. It is an issue of accountability during the election period. Provinces are virtually onside with this agreement. Does the member not recognize that in regard to the TPP, something the Conservatives are really pushing, there is a process? There was an election commitment given by this Prime Minister to look at that agreement because we have a great deal of concern, something Canadians also share.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I have been looking for: a commitment from our current government to open even more trade markets. However, during negotiations, we should be aware of some of the barriers that might happen. That is why I mentioned a few shortcomings that the current government has not been able to handle. There is still work to do.

I must give credit to the current government for its hard work and to the whole team that has been working over a good number of years to make this a success. What we are looking for right now are the interests of Canada and all Canadians. This is exactly why, no matter what party we come from, our ultimate goal is to make sure that jobs are created and our interests are protected.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, my riding of Saskatoon West shares some of the same economic indicators as the member's. That is, there is a large service sector, where many of the jobs are. One thing I am trying to do in the debate today is get more than slogans on trade, such as “new jobs, new prosperity”. We do not get a lot of indicators of what kind of impact it is going to have, particularly on jobs.

My colleague talked about 80,000 jobs being created. I wonder if she could let me know in what area those jobs are going to be created, how soon that will happen, and whether it will happen in the service sector. She needs to explain how that will happen. For small and medium-sized businesses to take advantage of trade deals, they need support to scale up to participate. If she would like to comment, I would appreciate it.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly why I mentioned in my speech that the government should encourage SMEs to be prepared to go into this large market. At the same time, we would also like to make sure that all the barriers are gone, because there will be certain labour agreements that allow our service providers to provide their services not only in Canada but in the EU market. Usually those services are not easily accessed if we do not have a good agreement.

This is exactly why I applaud the current government for doing a good job. Now it should follow up. For SMEs, this is a very important step. In my own riding, engineers, accountants, and other financial consultants will have good opportunities to expand their businesses to Europe.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about cultural issues in the context of the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement.

Before getting into the specifics of the agreement, I would like to take a moment to remind members that, as a nation, Canada has developed a vibrant cultural sector. We know that over the years we have established many vibrant cultural institutions, a diversified publishing sector, a talented music industry, a stimulating digital media sector, and renowned film and television industries.

Cultural and creative industries are the engines of development and diversity, create jobs, which we spoke about earlier, and improve the quality of life for all Canadians. The cultural sector is a growing part of the Canadian economy and represents 3% of our GDP, or $54.6 billion in economic activities. More than 630,000 jobs, or 3.5% of all jobs in Canada, depend on this sector. Come to think of it, the creative industry is bigger than the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries combined.

Over the years, the government has used financial incentives, Canadian content requirements, tax measures, and various tools and policies regarding foreign investment and intellectual property in order to maintain a vibrant Canadian culture. The Government of Canada's cultural policy basically seeks to promote an environment in which Canadian cultural products are created, produced, marketed, preserved, and shared with the public both at home and abroad, thereby contributing to Canada's economic, social, and cultural growth.

Canada's cultural ecosystem has been very effective and successful throughout the world. Here are a few examples. Not only is Canada the third-largest exporter of musical talent in the world, but after a record year for Canadian artists on the 2015 Billboard charts, the success continues with the singles of eight Canadian artists ranked in the top 100 in the United States in 2016. Another example is the 21 Canadian Oscar nominees, including Denis Villeneuve, Rachel McAdams, and the Canadian-Irish co-production Room. In 2014-15, Canada's television and film production was valued at over $7 billion.

In order to create the right conditions for success and meet the objective of its cultural policy, Canada must retain the flexibility it needs to develop policies and programs. As a result, Canada's approach to international trade agreements, such as CETA, has always been to exclude measures affecting our cultural industries.

Although international trade agreements vary in how they deal with cultural polices and programs, Canada's objective in the negotiation of such agreements remains the same: to maintain the policy space required to meet our cultural objectives in order to promote the creation, exchange, and experience of Canadian cultural content; promote cultural diversity in Canada and abroad; and offer new export markets and new opportunities to artists and professionals working in the cultural sector.

CETA is no different, but we have found new ways to preserve our policy space to address cultural priorities. Since the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was signed in 1987, Canada has included a broad major exception for cultural industries in its free trade agreements. For CETA, Canada adopted a more targeted approach by including exceptions to measures affecting the cultural sector in certain chapters that could have an impact on cultural programs and policies. Both parties agreed that this innovative approach will provide Canada and its trading partners with greater clarity and transparency with respect to future cultural policies.

The new chapter-by-chapter approach provides a much higher degree of protection than the general exception in previous free trade agreements. It will enable Canada to preserve its existing cultural policies and develop new ones without breaking trade rules.

Exceptions to measures affecting cultural industries are included in CETA chapters on cross-border trade in services, domestic regulation, investment, government procurement, and subsidies. These chapters include explicit exceptions for the cultural sector.

In CETA, as in all of Canada's free trade agreements, the definition of cultural industries includes books, magazines, periodicals, music, videos, films, and broadcasting. CETA sets a new standard for trade agreements with respect to culture.

CETA not only protects all Canadian cultural policies, it also enables us to innovate in promoting our cultural industries to attract new audiences in a rapidly growing international market. Europe is the biggest market in the world with over 500 million people in 28 countries whose combined GDP is $20 trillion.

CETA's preamble recognizes the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. As long-time partners that recognize the special role played by culture both economically and socially, Canada and the European Union fully support the principle set out in that convention. Those principles include maintaining the space needed to develop cultural policies, remaining open to foreign content, and ensuring international co-operation to promote the diversity of cultural expressions.

The UNESCO convention also reminds the parties that they need to think about how the commitments made in international trade agreements will affect their ability to achieve their cultural objectives.

Throughout the CETA negotiations, the Government of Canada consulted extensively with the provinces, territories, and stakeholders from a wide range of cultural sectors including books, film, television, music, performing arts, and visual arts. They all welcomed the new approach.

Before I conclude, I just want to reiterate that our government is committed to promoting Canada's cultural interests in the negotiation of all economic agreements as well as protecting and preserving the policy space necessary to pursue cultural priorities.

It is very important that our government enable Canadian creators and artists to take advantage of the opportunities that international markets and foreign audiences have to offer. As others have said, CETA is a top-notch agreement that offers access to the largest market in the world: 500 million people in 28 countries that represent a combined GDP of $20 billion.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is currently consulting key cultural partners and stakeholders in order to determine the best way to take advantage of the opening of new markets such as Europe and to support Canadian cultural exporters. That is why budget 2016 included a $35-million investment over two years to support the promotion of Canadian artists and Canadian cultural industries abroad.

This is just the beginning, an important step in the process to re-establish and enhance Canada's cultural presence on the world stage, in order to ensure the global and lasting success of our cultural industries.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a specific question for the hon. member about the impacts on the dairy industry.

I have taken the time to stay in touch with the dairy industry, which is deeply concerned about the impact of this agreement. The industry is very concerned that the government is offering substantially less money than it promised during the election. They are grateful that they will be receiving some funding, but it will be matching funding. They have two questions, and I will put them to the member.

One, for this $350 million, will the money to administer this cost-share program come out of that fund or is it going to be added on to it? They are concerned that there will not be enough money for the dairy producers and processors.

Second, how quickly is this money going to flow so they can adjust to the new market conditions?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Given everything that was negotiated, the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement is multi-faceted and covers sectors such as aerospace, agriculture, and food.

However, today my speech focuses mainly on culture, a sector for which we committed $35 million over two years to support the promotion of Canadian artists and Canadian cultural industries abroad. That is what we promised and that is what we are going to do.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up with a question that I asked a Liberal member yesterday but do not think I got an answer to.

Certainly, we support this trade deal. We think it is important. However, I am concerned about the global forces of protectionism that are obviously out there. I think it is important for Canada to respond to these and to make strong arguments on the benefits of open trade.

It was disappointing to see the Prime Minister, right out the gate after the election of the new president, basically throw NAFTA under the bus by saying that he would be prepared to completely renegotiate it. This is a deal that has worked very well for Canada. If the government, in the context of this trade deal, understands and appreciates the value of open trade, then why is the Prime Minister and the government not prepared to take a clear stand in support of NAFTA, a trade deal that we have had here for a very long time and that has worked very well for both our countries?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, even though it is a bit off topic with respect to my speech. My speech was about the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, and today we are focusing on culture.

I understand that members may have questions about our trade agreements with the United States. However, today, we are promoting the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement and discussing how it affects Canadian artists. Artists in the member's riding could benefit from this agreement. This is a good agreement that affects various sectors. It will create jobs and capitalize on the European Union's GDP so that every Canadian working in the cultural community will be able to benefit from it in the future.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I share the member's concern about supporting culture. I recognize the benefits that come from international trade, not only the economic benefits from our sharing together economically through mutually beneficial exchange, but also the cultural sharing that takes place in the midst of that economic exchange. However, I think it is fair to pose a question in the context of the discussion on international trade about where the current government is going when it comes to trade policy.

We have the continuation of previous trade agreements. We have this inertia, kind of, from the previous government. However, as soon as we had a new president in the United States who has been critical of NAFTA, the Prime Minister of Canada, right out of the gate, said he would be prepared to renegotiate it. I guess I want to know from the member what it says about the principal positions of the government, which on the one hand is supporting this trade deal with the EU, which we certainly agree with, but on the other hand is prepared to tear up a trade deal that has worked very well for Canada for quite a long time.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his second question.

Obviously, today's goal is to focus on the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. I understand that the member has questions about the United States.

However, today, I would like to answer only questions regarding the principles that we established with the European Union that seek to maintain our policy space, make Canadian content available abroad, and most of all, maintain support for international co-operation. That also includes co-operation with the United States.

We do trade with the United States. However, today, we are focusing on the European Union.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that the investment protection portion of the investment chapter in investment-dispute resolution would not be provisionally applied by the EU Commission and member states when CETA comes into force. So the only thing the Liberal government changed in CETA to make it progressive would be rejected right out of the gate.

Will the Liberal member not admit that what has been agreed to between Canada and the EU is essentially the same agreement that was concluded in 2014 by the previous Conservative government?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, CETA affects a number of sectors. The member opposite is talking about different bilateral agreements that cover different areas. Today, I would like to talk about all the measures that are good for Canada. Our artists will be able to benefit from our trade with the United States. We can take advantage of a very high GDP and investments in this area, and this agreement will give Canadians access to 500 million people. We have the opportunity to establish a partnership with Europe, and that is what we are doing with this agreement.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to CETA, the new investor court system would still allow foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits, and foreign companies would have access to special courts to challenge Canadian laws without going through their own domestic courts.

Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under investor-state dispute settlement provisions. Canadian companies have won only three out of 39 cases against foreign governments and the Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases while continuing to be subject to ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages. The existing investor-state dispute settlement measures have contributed to a regulatory chill, in which government has failed to take action in the public interest that it fears may trigger an investor claim.

Given that this is the case, what the government is now asking us to do is to sign a blank cheque saying, “Trust us, it's all going to be good”. Would the minister sign a blank cheque with his own account in any other circumstance? I think not. If not, why would he ask us to support this?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

This agreement will help create jobs in various areas of publishing, music, digital media, and other areas related to culture and talent. I do not really see why we would be sued because it is a good agreement for industries that create direct and indirect jobs.

In fact, when you move a team to put on a show in Europe, for example, there are direct jobs for the artists, and indirect jobs for the support crew. There are also the manufacturers, the technology, and all the businesses involved directly or indirectly in the arts and culture. This will ensure that CETA will be good for Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The first five hours of debate on this issue has expired, and so the speeches from now on will be 10-minute speeches with five-minute questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and debate this legislation. I am sure all of my colleagues are disappointed that it will only be a 10-minute speech, especially the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to talk first about the deal itself and then make a few general comments about the broader context of international trade. I will also make a few points of refutation.

When it comes to the deal itself, we in the Conservative Party are pleased to support this deal put forward in the House by the Liberals, but which reflects work begun long before they took office. This deal was initially signed under the previous Conservative government. We have had some near misses in recent months, but we are glad to see the deal where it is.

I will cite a few numbers that I am sure have been referenced in the House before. Studies have suggested that this deal could lead to a 20% increase in bilateral trade and a $12 billion annual increase in the Canadian economy. This would be the equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income, or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. This is some of the evidence of the economic benefits of trade that we have heard.

I have spoken about this before, but I would like to be clear about why trade benefits our country. When we sign free trade agreements, we are creating opportunities for mutually beneficial exchanges between individuals and businesses in different countries. This increases efficiency and allows people not only to specialize in things they can be more efficient in for international markets, but also perhaps creates increased efficiency for companies to specialize in areas that reflect their interests and expertise. This in turn creates increased opportunities for general and economic well-being. That is why our Conservative government was bullish when it came to signing international trade agreements and moving forward with different negotiations.

My colleague from Windsor West listed the trade agreements that our previous government signed, and I think he was suggesting it was a bad thing. The many trade agreements he listed that we had moved forward with are agreements that we on this side of the House are proud of.

The government has talked about the consultations that went on with respect to this agreement. It is important to say that the form of consultations that went on with this deal are similar to those used in other trade deals. It is a bit strange to hear the Liberals talk about the great consultations that happened on CETA but then criticize the alleged lack of consultations in the negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership. The process the government has followed for consultation and engaging stakeholders is very similar and, at some point, the government may have to reconcile that difference in its opinion. Nonetheless, even though there is some inconsistency from members on the government side, we are pleased to support this important trade deal and hope that the work here will continue.

That said, it is very germane to our discussion today to comment on the broader global environment and how Canada situates itself in the midst of the global trade conversation.

The signing of this deal reflects a certain inertia, in that the government has continued the work done by the previous Conservative government. What we need right now from the government is not inertia, not the continuation of work undertaken by the previous government, but acceleration. We need a government that will respond to the challenges that are happening with respect to the global discussion on trade. We need a government that will respond in a clear and aggressive way with the hope of accelerating and increasing our response, and with the hope of undertaking new trade initiatives that respond to the unique and particular challenges we are facing right now.

That means laying the groundwork for the arguments that we will make. It means working with legislators, with elected governments, with people around the world to make constructive and positive arguments about the benefits of trade. That is what a government should do when going from just inertia when it comes to trade to accelerating our approach to trade for the benefit of Canada economically and socially.

How do we do this in the midst of a global environment where protectionist forces are bubbling? I would argue that things are not as bad as they have been presented by some voices.

This question of bubbling protectionism really started with the Brexit vote in the U.K. There are arguments on both sides of that question, and obviously that is a question for the U.K., not for us here.

However, it is important to acknowledge that many of those who advocated for Brexit were themselves free traders. They were concerned about different aspects of the kind of trading structure that existed in the EU, and more so about the way in which legislative authority has been transferred to sort of a central European organization.

Many of those advocating for an exit, who were ultimately successful, were talking about the importance of the U.K. still having many international trading relations, and in fact they were arguing that they would be more able to sign international trade deals without the stipulations that exist as part of the EU treaty. Again, it is not for me to say whether those arguments are right or wrong, but I think it is incorrect to infer from the Brexit vote that this was a rejection of the idea of international trade. It was not. It was the reflection of a different set of arguments about international trade.

The rolling forward of the Brexit process will create some issues and questions around Canada's relations with the U.K., given that we are now entering into a CETA agreement that includes the U.K. I suspect there will be a very strong interest in the U.K. to sign a comprehensive free trade deal, maybe an even deeper form of co-operation with Canada, and certainly to have ongoing close trading relationships with the EU.

I hope that what we will see is the following through of what was said during the Brexit campaign, which is both sides committed to the idea of international trade.

Of course the challenge that comes from the United States in the current environment is a little different. Although a lot of the evidence, in terms of polling, suggests that there still is a strong commitment in the United States to free trade at the individual level and among many legislators, the president-elect was able to be critical of trade in a specific way in specific markets. I think it is hard to dispute that the message had an important impact on his electoral success.

We need to see, quite realistically, the challenge that is presented by those arguments that are critical of trade—at least critical of certain trade agreements. How do we respond to that, then, as Canada? We need to be clear and forceful in making arguments about the benefits of the open economy.

I will say that we have a Prime Minister who has been quite willing to make arguments internationally about the importance and benefits of an open society, a society that accepts people from different kinds of backgrounds. When he does that, that reflects universal Canadian values, not just the perspective of one individual party. All of us are committed to the idea of an open and tolerant society.

From my perspective, a commitment to the open economy is very much associated with a commitment to the open society. If we believe that people within a given nation state can co-operate together, can work together, can share common values in the midst of diversity, then it follows as well that people should be able to engage in economic exchange across cultural lines, indeed across national lines. A belief in trade, a belief in the open economy is a corollary of the very same set of principles.

I would ask if the Prime Minister, in the midst of talking about the benefits of open society, of co-operation in the midst of diversity, would also be willing to speak about the benefits of the open economy, benefits that we have seen here in Canada, but also benefits that I think we realize exist around the world.

We can be clear in making those arguments to individuals in the United States at a popular level, but also by working with legislators. It is unfortunate that we have a government that thus far has not been prepared to do that, that again has been carrying forward this inertia; yes, moving forward in some cases, not every case, with trade agreements that were negotiated and signed under the previous government, but not really being willing to talk publicly in a clear, aggressive, positive way about the benefits of international trade.

We really need that right now. Given these forces that are out there, given the debates that are happening internationally, Canada, a country that has benefited so much from international trade, can play a leadership role in speaking about that.

I hope we will see a change in tone, an acceleration in tone from the government. At the same time, we are very pleased about this particular trade deal, and I look forward to supporting it.

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

Madam Speaker, to that end, I am sure the member across the way would acknowledge that what we have seen in the last 12 months is a very progressive, aggressive government dealing with the whole issue of trade.

We can talk about the Prairies and the canola, the beef, and the pork, whether it is China or other countries. We can talk about the formalization of the Ukraine trade agreement. We can talk about the bill we have today, which has been in the works for many years and has been, for the last year, the preoccupation of this particular minister to get the job done. We believe we got the job done well and all Canadians will in fact benefit by it.

I would ask for an affirmation from the member across the way that, when we talk about trade, we are talking about the creation of jobs into the future—good-quality jobs, if we get it right. Would the member not agree that the trade agreements that we are talking about today and yesterday, such as with Ukraine and some of the other discussions to which reference was made a minute ago, are in fact a good thing for all Canadians, in all regions of this country? Would he not agree?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly, I would say that this trade agreement, as well as a Canada-Ukraine agreement, are examples of positive inertia. These are cases where the government has continued forward work that was begun under the previous government. We are very glad to see the continuation, in those cases.

I will just say what we have with canola and China is a temporary reprieve. Let us be clear. The problem is by no means fully solved.

Where I think there is a problem, in terms of a lack of leadership on the open economy, has been the statement with respect to NAFTA, as well as the approach taken with TPP.

I think we need to move forward with trade in Asia. Obviously, it is going to take a different form, given the new attitude of the American administration. However, it is important that we pursue free trade in some form with like-minded countries in Asia and with Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, for example.

We could be clearer about the benefits to North America of NAFTA. I have been critical of the Prime Minister's tone on NAFTA so far. We need to be clear in our communications about the benefits that NAFTA has brought to all of the countries here in North America.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alberta for his speech.

One of the things that has disappointed me in the last decade of bringing forward trade agreements is the backtracking on certain commitments and opportunities afforded under the side agreement on environment under NAFTA. The member spoke of NAFTA.

Does he think that the agreement could be strengthened if there were provisions similar to NAFTA, which under article 2 prohibited the parties to the agreement from undermining environmental laws for an economic benefit?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an important question, obviously: how we protect the environment within the trade agreements we have.

Always within trade agreements there are discussions, specifically of environmental protections, and collaborations in terms of how collectively the best balance would be struck between preserving the environment and protecting the economy.

Personally, I am satisfied with the balance as it is struck within this agreement. I think there can be ongoing debate about how exactly that is done.

I know that members in the NDP, I think certainly with sincere motivation, have been critical of some of the dispute resolution mechanisms around that. However, I will say this. We have to have—and it happens within nation states but also within any trade agreement—dispute resolution mechanisms where there can be some adjudication between competing claims of states, of commercial actors, that tries to resolve those differences according to the text of the agreement.

Our approach has always been to recognize the importance of the environment, to recognize the importance of striking a balance. As I said, I will be voting in favour of this agreement. I am satisfied with where it is, in that respect.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak about this historic agreement. My comments today on CETA will deal with the investor protection section of the agreement. However, before I begin I must comment on the significance, in my opinion, of this agreement to the current global context.

First, as the chair of the Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group, and as a dual European-Canadian citizen, I must congratulate those who worked on the agreement and acknowledge the judicious and diligent work to complete the deal. Auguri. Félicitations. Congratulations to our Minister of International Trade and the minister's entire team. Canada has a small, open economy, and we are trade dependent. Trade generates growth and good middle-class jobs, and this deal would do that.

At a time in world history when it seems that walls are building around us rather than coming down, and populist rhetoric is providing false hope, the importance of CETA is not lost upon me. This view is from both sides of the Atlantic.

The CETA agreement is a progressive trade agreement that would deliver positive results and opportunities for citizens in the European Union and Canada. In my home province of Ontario, CETA would help drive economic growth and create stable and high-paying jobs for generations. The European Union is already Ontario's second largest export destination and second largest trading partner. Once in force, CETA would eliminate tariffs on almost all of Ontario's exports and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU.

Here are a few simple facts. The EU is Canada's second biggest trading partner after the U.S. and accounts for nearly 10% of its external trade. Trade in goods between the European Union and Canada is worth almost 60 billion euros, roughly about $80 billion to $90 billion Canadian a year. In 2013, European investments in Canada were estimated at 225 billion euros, while Canadian direct investment stocks in the European Union amounted to more than 117 billion euros.

Prior to CETA's entry into force, only 25% of the European Union tariff lines on Canadian goods are duty-free. Upon CETA's entry into force, the EU would remove approximately 98% of its tariff lines. Once CETA is fully implemented, this would increase to 99% of all of its tariff lines.

We should be proud of CETA. It is the most progressive trade agreement ever negotiated. It would help redefine what trade can and should be. It would lead to increased prosperity here in Canada, create well-paying jobs, and help strengthen the middle class. It is also a ground-breaking agreement in opening doors to increased access to the EU market for Canadian companies. CETA sets new standards for trade in goods and services, non-tariff barriers, investment, government procurement, as well as other areas, like labour and environment protection.

Just as important, the agreement would also help facilitate investment, a significant factor in achieving prosperity and job creation. Foreign direct investment, commonly known as FDI, is an important driver of economic growth, with new investment by foreign firms having the ability to provide a boost to national income and to create good, middle-class jobs for Canadians. Foreign investment here in Canada and Canadian companies investing in the EU can also promote trade by facilitating value-chain linkages and improving access to new technologies. Not only would CETA help facilitate foreign investment, but it would set a new bar for investment protection.

One of the most important things our government did right after taking office was to listen to the constructive criticism from the critics of CETA, both in Canada and in Europe, and to understand some of the legitimate anxieties people, organizations, and governments had. We heard many concerns regarding the investment protection provisions in CETA, and we have worked with Canadians, including industry and civil society alike, and with our EU partners, to address these issues and to prove that progressive trade policy is possible with CETA. Our government fully seized the opportunity and developed a new and improved approach to investment protection provisions.

A significant innovation in CETA is the transformation of the mechanism for the resolution of disputes between investors and states. CETA marks the first international trade agreement that establishes a permanent tribunal to hear claims by investors alleging that states have breached investment-related obligations. I repeat, a permanent tribunal. The CETA tribunal would consist of 15 members appointed solely by Canada and the European Union. Ethical requirements would be central to the process leading to their appointments, including not allowing members of the tribunal to act as counsel or expert witnesses in an investment dispute under any international investment agreement. Members would be appointed for a five-year term that may be renewed only once.

Individual cases will be heard before a three-member division of the tribunal, and those members will be selected on a rotation basis, ensuring that the composition of the division is random.

Such innovations address concerns about a perceived lack of arbitrator independence and will give greater legitimacy to the dispute resolution process. Moreover, as the members of a division hearing a specific case will be in a position to consult with the other members of the tribunal, we expect that the coherence of decisions will be much improved as a result.

In addition to the first-instance tribunal, CETA will establish a permanent appellate tribunal, thereby creating another precedent in international investment law. The appellate tribunal will function in a way similar to the first-instance tribunal. Its task will be to review decisions that are contested by either the foreign investor or the respondent state. In time, the first-instance tribunal and the appellate tribunal will develop a body of decisions that will constitute effective jurisprudence. This, in turn, will create greater legal certainty for both foreign investors and governments. It is very important that we have this.

The innovations made to the mechanism for the resolution of disputes are certainly significant ones, and our government is proud of them, but there are other innovations in the CETA investment chapter.

We have closed the door to provision shopping by clarifying that investors cannot seek to import provisions from other Canadian or European trade agreements through CETA's most-favoured-nation treatment article. CETA encourages the use of domestic courts by suspending the timelines for the submission of claims while domestic remedies are being pursued.

We added an article on mediation to encourage early settlement of disputes without recourse to the CETA tribunal. We have provided CETA with a mechanism for the early dismissal of frivolous claims. We have taken small and medium-sized enterprises into consideration and have added provisions that make it easier for them to access the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. We have made it mandatory for an investor who submits a claim while benefiting from third-party funding to be transparent and to disclose the identity of its funder. Importantly, we have established a committee that will provide a forum for the CETA party to consult on difficulties that may arise regarding the implementation of a chapter and on possible improvements to the chapter, especially in light of experiences and developments in other international fora.

It has also been Canada's long-standing practice to prevent so-called mailbox companies from benefiting from Canada's trade agreements. CETA is no different. To be considered an investor under CETA, a European Union enterprise owned by interests of a third party is required to have substantial business activities in the territory of the European Union. It cannot simply establish a mailbox company in the EU with the sole purpose of gaining access to the dispute resolution mechanism of CETA.

Finally, CETA demonstrates Canada's continued leadership with regard to promoting transparency in the dispute resolution process. Under CETA, all hearings will be open to the public, and all documents submitted to or issued by the permanent tribunal will be made available to the public.

The changes we made to CETA in addressing important issues voiced by Canadians and EU citizens alike represent a starting point in the development of a progressive trade agenda between a progressive Canada and a progressive European Union. This is an agenda that is linked to the government's domestic policy focus on reducing inequality and enhancing inclusive growth through such things as investments in infrastructure and increased child benefits. The idea is to ensure that trade policy makes a more meaningful contribution to this overall agenda and to ensure that trade is done in a way that really works for Canadians and our trading partners.

Canada will continue to seek ways to enrich the economic relationships we have with valued partners with the aim of achieving prosperity for all Canadians. However, it is very important to our government that we ensure that this is done in an inclusive and responsible manner. We are seeing this approach realized in CETA.

I am very proud to stand here and speak to this agreement. I believe it is transformational, and in the context of where we are in modern day history, is very much needed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my hon. colleague has focused on the investor-state provisions. When I have an opportunity to speak at length in the House, I will focus on the investor-state provisions.

While it is clear that there is some improved transparency in the investor-state provisions within CETA, I put it to my hon. friend that we have, in this agreement, not provided for the fairness or independence of the adjudicators. In fact, it is quite bizarre, but it is the case, that under CETA, the adjudicators, the so-called judges, will be able to work on the side as advocates. In the words of Professor Gus Van Harten, from Osgoode Hall Law School, the leading expert on this in Canada:

This last aspect of the revised text...suggests a way has been cleared for the same clubby crowd of investor-friendly arbitrators to dominate ISDS under CETA.

We still have, essentially, a more transparent but nonetheless kangaroo court.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the European Union website, it talks in detail about the investment protection system. One of the areas is about the rules that will govern the members who sit on the tribunal. To prevent what is called double-hatting, where a member of the tribunal also works in parallel as a consultant and expert in other investment disputes, this is actually forbidden in the agreement for the entire duration of the member's employment. It is forbidden in CETA.

There are safeguards with regard to the independent investment dispute resolution system. There are rules governing the members of the tribunal. There will be full transparency with regard to the proceedings, and there will be a ban on frivolous claims. I think that is a very strong component of the trade deal, and we need to applaud that and make sure that we state that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been in discussions with the Atlantic provinces regarding the CETA fisheries investment fund. Is the government going to fulfill its commitment to help the Atlantic provinces, with the changes that are made through this agreement to the processing requirements?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we need to look at are industries that may be impacted by trade deals. We know that overall, we are better off with trade. We have seen it with NAFTA and other agreements we have in place internationally. We know that trade deals create good-paying jobs, whether it is in services, manufacturing, and so forth. With regard to looking at various industries, we have seen the government step up to the plate and run consultations with the dairy industry. I would conjecture that the same thing would happen with other industries that may be impacted, in this case the fisheries industry on the Atlantic coast.

I grew up in northwest British Columbia. There was a vibrant fishing industry, which has now dissipated somewhat, unfortunately. We need to ensure that when there are losers in trade, they are looked at. We need to get away from just looking at the winners and look at industries and groups that may be impacted and make sure that programs are in place to help those associated industries and geographies.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to stand in my place today to talk about a very significant piece of legislation that goes a long way in fulfilling the Liberal government agenda in terms of international trade.

Canada is a trading nation. We are dependent on international trade. If we compare our population to other countries, I suspect that we would find that Canada is more dependent on trade than most countries, especially in the developed world.

As we move forward in the years ahead, it is of the utmost importance that the government of the day give special attention to trade. Trade is what generates hundreds of thousands of jobs, good, solid middle-class jobs. We would like to, as much as possible, create the jobs of the future that will assist in Canada's growth and prosperity in the years ahead.

Since we have been in government, the Prime Minister and the cabinet and my caucus colleagues have done a phenomenal job on the trade file. I compliment the current minister and the parliamentary secretary, who have put in so much time to ensure that we have the bill before us today. It has not been an easy feat.

Canada and the EU began negotiating CETA back in 2009. On August 5, 2014, the parties announced an agreement in principle on the negotiated text. In February 2016, the parties announced the completion of the legal review of the English text of CETA. Progressive changes were required and made to the investment chapter of the agreement during the legal review of the text.

Canadians know full well that this was not a done deal. When we took the reins of power just over a year ago, there was a great deal of work done to keep this thing afloat. We owe a great deal of credit to our negotiators and the minister responsible for ensuring that we were able to get all the t's crossed and i's dotted so that we could debate the bill.

It is not to take away from the efforts of the former Conservative government. We acknowledge the efforts of that administration. I think it bodes well that the government has changed and we have been able to pick up the ball and carry it over the goal line. I think that is a positive thing for all Canadians.

Canada and the EU officially signed the Canada-EU agreement at a summit on October 30, bringing this landmark agreement one step closer to entry into force.

Both Canada and the EU now need to take steps to implement the agreement according to their respective domestic procedures. This is just one of those procedures.

The EU market represents an unprecedented opportunity for Canadian businesses. The EU is the world's second-largest economy and Canada's second-largest trading partner, after the United States. It is also the world's second-largest import market for goods, with annual imports worth more than Canada's GDP.

CETA is a comprehensive trade agreement that will cover virtually all sectors in our nation. Once implemented, and this is what I find quite amazing, approximately 98% of the EU tariff lines, or more than 9,000 tariff lines in total, on Canadian goods will be duty free immediately upon entry into force. That is up from 25%. An additional 1% will be eliminated over a seven-year phase-out period. This is good news for Canadians, no matter what region of the country they live in.

Trade means growth, and more growth ultimately means more jobs. If we want Canada's economy to grow and do well into the future, we need to look at ways in which trade can enhance that.

Canada, as a country, is thrilled that this agreement has been signed. It is a progressive trade agreement with our European partners. It will deliver tangible growth and opportunities for our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. As one of my colleagues said earlier day, it is for all Canadians in all regions of our country. This agreement will also provide a strong foundation for Canada and the EU to demonstrate leadership on an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade.

Since being in government, we have taken a very aggressive and progressive approach on the trade file. We can talk about Bill C-13, which dealt with the World Trade Organization, and included 162 countries around the world. This agreement allowed for trade facilitation. It was probably the most significant legislation since the creation of the World Trade Organization. We were able to bring it through and get it out of second reading.

We can talk about another piece of legislation that is not too far down the pike, and that is the issue of trade with Ukraine. Again, we have a very unique situation with a very special partner in the world. It is a country many of us have been following very closely, because of the recent transitions that have taken place in Ukraine over the last four or five years.

I recall vividly the President of Ukraine addressing this chamber. He asked us to come up with a trade agreement, and challenged us to do so. Through the efforts of the previous Conservative government and the current administration under this government, we were able to sign off on that trade agreement. We anticipate seeing that legislation.

We can talk about legislation with these three pieces and, in particular, the one that we are debating today. We can talk about other work that has been done, such as the issues with canola just a few months ago in China, affecting hundreds of millions of dollars. We had a minister working in co-operation with agriculture and international trade, along with the PSs and other departments. We were able to address the issue of canola using science and providing the necessary assurances in Russia, which saved the day for this important commodity, particularly for prairie provinces and my home province of Manitoba.

We can also talk about the increased opportunities through clarification on trade dealing with pork and cattle. Again, the government has addressed all of this within one year.

At the beginning of my comments, I talked about the Liberal government being one of acknowledging the importance of international trade. We are a trading national, and it is imperative we do what we can to ensure Canada is on the right side of trade. Back when Jean Chrétien was the prime minster, as well as Paul Martin, we had healthy trade surpluses, which led to tens of thousands of jobs. However, we inherited a significant trade deficit.

This might take time, but we are prepared to do what we can. Whether it is a manufactured product, an arts product, or a service industry, we have some of the very best in the world and we need to break down barriers where we can. This bill would do that.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleagues talk about the investor-state dispute mechanism, which is problematic for a lot of people.

It would be very appropriate for my hon. colleague to explain his understanding of that dispute mechanism because it would tie the hands of local governments for the minimum local investment and local procurement. This means that in some of the initiatives that the governing party campaigned on, such as economic stimulus by investment and creating jobs, its hands would actually be tied under a dispute mechanism such as this and with the confines of CETA.

I am a little alarmed that the positive aspects of trade are being looked at, which we do not deny, but we are not looking at the shortcomings of this agreement. I would like to hear the member explain that so we are assured—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed, but not necessarily surprised, that the NDP appears to be wanting to vote against the CETA. It seems to be in the NDP's DNA to oppose trade agreements. I do not believe that is the best way to approach the debate.

We have seen many European countries deal with this issue, and they feel comfortable with this. We have provinces of all political stripes, even New Democrats at the provincial level, that have recognized this as a positive agreement. We need to continuously monitor and go forward with the investor-state dispute mechanism. If there are ways we can modify it, let us hear what the members might have to say in committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the investor-state agreement is not actually a dispute resolution in the conventional sense that Canadians would understand. It is not about having a trade dispute and going to a dispute resolution. This is investing in foreign corporations superior rights to what Canadian corporations would have under the circumstances. That is why it is so controversial in Europe and why it may not come to pass. There are many more hurdles in Europe to be crossed.

Has the parliamentary secretary's government actually ever given any thought to taking investor-state out of this altogether? We would still have all the trade provisions. We would eliminate the opposition that remains in Europe. There is no reason whatsoever to include investor-state provisions in this trade agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unless the leader of the Green Party knows something I do not know, to the very best of my knowledge, we have 28 countries abroad that are a part of this agreement, some of which were no doubt fairly persistent on having this as part of the final agreement.

When we have trade agreements, it means we have to take into consideration both sides. In this case, there are a lot of stakeholders involved, the provinces in Canada and the many countries that are part of the European Union. This is what we were able to come up with, and we need to give it a try. We have far too much to lose to not see the bill pass.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we called it comprehensive in the beginning was the involvement of the provinces as stakeholders in this. So much will be within their jurisdiction that they have been brought on board. I give credit also to the opposition for this. When the Conservatives were in government, they were a big part of bringing in the provinces, which we have continued.

There have been successful examples in the past, such as the Rio conference on environment, not so much with Kyoto, and also some good conversations with NAFTA.

By doing this now, we have created a new way of trade partnership that involves provinces. Going forward that would be essential.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up a good point. There is so much support for this document that goes beyond the national levels of government. Provinces have been a part of this agreement, and it might even be somewhat unprecedented. I do not know that for a fact.

I do know there has been a lot of reaching out by the different stakeholders, and we have come up with a fantastic agreement that will see more jobs being created, better trade, and a better relationship between Canada and the European Union.

I would encourage all members to support it, and for the Greens and the New Democrats to reconsider their position. This trade pact is worth supporting.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of CETA and Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation bill.

Canada is an exporting nation. From the voyagers to the Hudson's Bay Company to the cod fisheries of our east coast, Canada has been a place of abundant natural resources that have been harvested for exports.

As a grand nation that spans the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, that was united by bands of steel through our national railway, our identity as Canadians has been shaped by our export economy.

Whether it is beaver pelts, cod, grain, beef, minerals, oil and gas, or cars and trucks, all these products helped build our great nation into the prosperous land we call home today.

For those who might be hesitant to support CETA, here are some contextual facts about the importance of exports to Canada, the country we love and serve.

International trade represents more than 60% of Canada's gross domestic product. One in five Canadian jobs is linked to exports. This means there would be three million fewer jobs without international trade, and that is a big deal. This then would drive up Canada's unemployment rate to more than 25% if we were to all of a sudden stop exporting tomorrow.

Clearly our shared prosperity as a nation is very dependent on opportunities to get our goods to international markets, which is why it is so important for us to enter into free trade agreements.

This is why the Canada-EU free trade agreement will give Canada unprecedented access to 500 million EU customers. The size of the European Union's combined economy is $18 trillion, an economy that Canada's businesses will now have barrier-free access to. The European Union is the world's largest importing market for goods, with annual imports that are worth more than Canada's total GDP. The European Union is already the fourth-largest export market for Alberta agriculture after the United States, China and Japan.

A joint Canada-EU study that supported the launch of negotiations concluded that a trade agreement with the EU could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade, and a $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy. This represents the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to every family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

CETA is in fact good news for our country.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance estimates that when fully implemented, this trade agreement could result in $1.5 billion in new Canadian agrifood exports to the EU. When this trade agreement comes into force, 98% of EU tariffs on Canadian goods will be entirely eliminated.

Every region of Canada stands to benefit from the opportunities contained in this agreement. Of course I am very interested in my riding of Lethbridge.

Lethbridge is a hub for agricultural exports, from grains and oilseeds, to poultry and beef, the fertile soil of southern Alberta provides an abundance of food that is available to be sold around the world. In conversations with many of my local agricultural processors, I have heard overwhelming optimism and support for the CETA agreement. Traditionally, EU tariffs on agriculture and processed food products have been quite high, particularly on products such as beef, pork and wheat.

Canada has also faced many non-tariff barriers in the European market. This is why the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers creates fantastic opportunities for Canadian agricultural producers, again, particularly affects my riding.

This agreement establishes a joint committee that will ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary measures to protect human, animal, and plant life do not unnecessarily harm trade. This is very important. This body will determine which certifications and standards should be deemed as equivalent. These non-tariff barriers have been the primary obstacles that in the past have stopped Canadian agricultural exports.

Our Conservative caucus will be paying close attention to the non-tariff barriers and will be holding the present government to account with regard to advocating on behalf of our Canadian producers.

For the grains and oilseeds producers in Lethbridge, this agreement would completely open up a market that was previously blocked by very high tariffs. Here are some examples of the EU tariffs that would be eliminated for grains and oilseeds producers once the agreement is fully implemented: the $114-per-tonne tariff on grains, including oats; the $122-per-tonne tariff on low to medium-quality common wheat, a product that currently sells for only $225 in the EU; the $120-per-tonne tariff on barley and rye; the tariff of up $190 per tonne on durum; and the tariff of 9.6% on oils, including canola oil, a crop that currently sells for $540 a tonne in the EU. All of these tariffs would be eliminated by the CETA agreement. Alberta Barley estimates that an additional $100 million in grains and oilseeds exports would result from signing CETA.

Lethbridge also has a sugar beet industry and the Rogers Sugar refinery plant is very nearby. The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance estimates that this agreement would boost exports of sugar-containing products, such as sugar beets, by $100 million per year. Again, that is excellent news for the producers in my riding.

Canada is also a major meat exporting country, a significant amount of which is produced and processed in southern Alberta. The Canadian Meat Council reports that Canada currently exports $1.3 billion worth of beef, $3.2 billion worth of pork, and $5.7 million worth of bison. Sixty-five thousand Canadians depend on this industry for their job each and every.

For the agricultural producers in my riding, 94% of goods would be tariff-free once CETA is signed, sealed, and delivered.

Lethbridge is also a hub for the Maple Leaf Foods processing plant, which, of course, is processing pork, to a great extent. The Canadian Pork Council has projected that for specific cuts of pork, this deal could create sales of $400 million per year. This is excellent for the pork producers in Lethbridge.

Lethbridge is also home to a large number of beef producers in Canada. In fact, we are known by the nickname “Feedlot Alley”.

Canada has some of the greatest beef genetics in the world and our breeds are known for their excellent quality of meat. Canada has world-leading safety systems, including complete traceability of each and every animal.

Once CETA is fully implemented in three to seven years from now, 65,000 tonnes of beef would be allowed to flow into the European markets duty-free, which would represent more than $600 million in new exports.

That said, reaching an agreement on the equivalency of phytosanitary measures is absolutely critical for this agreement to benefit the producers in my riding and the producers across this country. Phytosanitary measures is simply a fancy way of saying “measures to protect human and animal health in the farming process”. Because of our different climates and the different scale of industry, Canada uses different methods from the EU to ensure the safety of meat. These methods are backed by the latest science and technology. The challenge for the government in negotiating this agreement would be to ensure that science-based equivalencies are negotiated before this agreement comes into full effect.

In summary, this trade deal is excellent news for Canadian exporters. It would create jobs, it would help to grow our economy, and it would increase Canada's standing on the world stage.

I am thankful for former Prime Minister Harper and the members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster for all the work they did in the previous government to negotiate and seal this deal through to it signature.

The farmers, agricultural businesses, and exporters in my riding of would enjoy a more prosperous future because of CETA.Lethbridge

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here awhile and have been going through CETA for quite some time, from the time I was in opposition in the third party.

I always knew that it had great benefits for the agriculture industry, so I want to thank the member for her speech because I did not realize how much was involved here, the metrics around some of this, in terms of canola, rye, barley, grains, and oilseeds. I think two examples alone caught my attention: sugar beets, at $100 million per year; and pork, at $400 million per year alone. It is a substantial amount of growth that could be achieved through this agreement.

I am from a seafood area and the numbers are similar, though probably not to the same level as pork, but nevertheless the metrics are much the same.

For most of the producers in western Canada right now, what do they need in order to transition toward a much larger market, or is there much transition involved?

I am just trying to get a grasp of some of the difficulties there could be for them to transition to getting that amount of product over to Europe, including transportation from Alberta?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to ask what our producers need to get their goods to market. Producers in my riding are incredibly resilient individuals. They are incredibly innovative individuals. They started their businesses from scratch and grown them to be quite large and quite successful. More than anything else they really need the government to sign, seal, and deliver this deal and then get out of the way.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to one of the member's colleagues yesterday, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and then earlier today to my colleague from Richmond Cove, and they both reflected not just on some of the positive aspects of this trade deal but also the exploitive nature of this deal. Canada has high standards and as far as trade markets opening up for us is concerned, it goes the other way. I am wondering if the member understands that.

Yesterday her colleague said that we need to even out labour standards and regulations across the board. I would like the member's insight. Does she think we should lower our standards, or should other countries raise theirs to meet our existing standards in these markets that we are now saying are threatened and, hence, the need for compensation?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, producers in my riding have expressed their concern with regard to standards in the agreement. They want to make sure that the standards are equivalent in both the country of origin and the country their products are being exported to.

The government has a responsibility to make sure that it negotiates well, to make sure that the provisions with regard to standards are included in this agreement. The government has a responsibility to make sure that our producers here in Canada are not put at a disadvantage because of this agreement. The former government did work hard. It was in the process of securing that for Canada. It is my hope that the government now in power would also be able to secure that for our producers here at home.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-30, the act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the European Union and Canada.

It is my intention to focus on the investor-state provisions within CETA. I want the record to show that the Green Party shares the concerns of many that this will drive up pharmaceutical drug prices for Canadians. We really do need pharmacare and we do not need to give pharmaceutical companies more advantages than they now have in terms of patent protection. We do need to protect the rights of municipal governments to put out local bids for tender, and not take away their ability to have local procurement. There are impacts on various economic sectors in Canada, including the dairy industry, that need to be better examined.

I want to focus on why this agreement remains so controversial that it is not yet a done deal in Europe. I think Canadians have been somewhat bamboozled on this point.

Certainly, the Conservatives have made the case that all the Liberals had to do was open up a gift package and it was all ready to go. That is clearly not the case. Why is the comprehensive economic and trade agreement in the EU so very controversial to this day? It is because this is the first time, the first proposed agreement, in which the European Union will be accepting an investor-state clause. That is why it remains controversial. That is why it is still to be ruled on by the European Court of Justice. The provision within CETA that many European parliamentarians think is not legal is the investor-state provision. That is why the European Court of Justice will be ruling on it. If it rules that it is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Union to take away the rights of states and give foreign corporations superior rights, that will blow a hole through CETA.

The same thing will be true when this trade agreement goes to the whole European Parliament for a vote sometime between December and February. If it clears the European Parliament, it then goes to the various parliaments. There are 38 national and regional governments that will still have to vote on this, which is a process that could take two to five years.

Therefore, my first point is this. Why the rush to put through Bill C-30? Why are we not having proper consultations across Canada, and proper and lengthy efforts to hear witnesses, as the government of the day has done under the TPP? This is being rushed despite the deal not yet even existing on the European side. Certainly, the European commissioners have accepted it, but it is not a done deal, and that is because the next trade agreement Europe is looking at having is with the United States. If members can imagine the European governments at the local and national level having a problem with the idea that Canadian corporations can come and sue them in these phony courts, they can be sure they would be even more worried about that happening with U.S. corporations.

Therefore, the first reason, and the number one reason, this agreement is controversial in Europe is the investor-state provisions. I want to back up and explain what these are.

In debate today we heard them conflated with dispute resolutions systems. Everyone understands that when we have a trade deal, the two or three countries involved, in this case a large trading block like the EU, may end up having disputes on trade issues. We have had enough softwood lumber disputes between Canada and the U.S. to explain dispute resolution on the commercial aspects of trade quite well. This is not that. This is not a process to resolve disputes over trade.

What are investor-state provisions doing in a trade deal? That is a good question. They should not be there at all. They are provisions that initially came into the trade world, I would say, by stealth. In all of the national debate, in all of the concerns that Canadians expressed, no one talked about chapter 11 of NAFTA. It was basically hidden away. I have to say that I have spoken to the negotiators of NAFTA. Even they did not know how this provision would be used. Chapter 11 of NAFTA, they thought, merely said that if a foreign government expropriated the assets of a corporation, like a scenario in Cuba where Fidel Castro has the Government of Cuba nationalize all U.S. assets, it would then owe that corporation money for the expropriation of assets. Everyone understood that. It is common law internationally. What chapter 11 did was put in some language that appeared benign but turned out to be a disaster for domestic democratic governance. It put in the words “tantamount to...expropriation”.

Therefore, chapter 11 of NAFTA waltzed through without any controversy, and then very clever lawyers got hold of it. This has created a cadre, a term I will use later as well, of global ambulance chasers, lawyers who went out to find corporations.

The lawyers said that when our government passed the rule that we cannot use that toxic gasoline additive, they thought the corporation had a case against the government under this investor-state dispute. Therefore, Canada, under chapter 11 of NAFTA, was sued for getting rid of a gasoline additive. Under chapter 11, there was the Ethyl Corporation case, where we were sued for banning the export of PCB-contaminated waste. AbitibiBowater sued. However, Bilcon is the worst and most recent case. This is a U.S. corporation that opted not to go to Canadian courts to seek a domestic remedy, but went to the secret Chapter 11 tribunal to get a judgment against Canada to overturn a very strong, solid, defensible, reasonable assessment.

There are no trade aspects to any of these cases by the way. These are not trade disputes. These cases are saying that, as a foreign corporation, a domestic decision by democratic governance has cost it money and its expectation of profits, and so it is bringing a case.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA gave rise to a proliferation of bilateral investment treaties. Generally speaking, the larger economic power is doing business in a small developing country, like a Canadian mining company operating overseas, and the international collective of investment treaties has created real hardships on smaller developing countries. The pattern is clear, and it was put forward and documented by a European think tank. It put together a review called Profiting from Injustice. There is a pattern: the bigger economic power is going to win.

The arbitration process, in other words, is neither fair nor neutral. The global ambulance chasers are a small cadre of international lawyers who get paid $1,000 an hour to be an adjudicator or to be a lawyer for a foreign corporation that is suing a domestic government. The larger economic power is going to win. Therefore, if Canada is being sued by the U.S., we lose.

The worst of all of these agreements has to be the Canada-China investment treaty, which Harper brought in and pushed through with a cabinet vote. It was never debated in the House and never voted on in the House, but it will bind Canadian governments until the year 2045, and it is all completely in secret.

We can now look at chapter 11 secret tribunals and the Canada-China secret tribunals. If our yardstick is those regressive anti-democratic trade deals, and we compare them to the European Union's efforts here with Canada to create an investment court, they are doing everything they can to try to take an inherently anti-democratic system of corporate rule over governments and dress it up to look more democratic, but they have not done the job. It is still an anti-democratic notion at its essence that foreign corporations have the right to sue governments for decisions that have been made with no trade motivation whatsoever but to protect health, safety, and environment within a country.

Why should we agree to these at all?

Earlier in the debate today, I said that CETA creates an investment court. It has adjudicators who are semi-permanent. In other words, they are not being paid for one case and the next day they can go out and be an advocate within the CETA process. The hon. member with whom I was discussing this made that point. I was not able to come back and explain that they can be both a judge in the investment court in the EU and a global ambulance-chasing lawyer on a NAFTA case, or on a Canada-China investment treaty case. They can actually be in the pocket of someone who has hired them, because there are corrupt lawyers who work for companies like Bilcon. These lawyers can be in the pocket of a company like that and then sit as an adjudicator at the investment court between the EU and Canada without having to disclose that they have already been working and are already a lawyer for the very corporation that they would rule over in the case at the investment court in the EU.

These provisions are toxic. As Steven Schreibman, a leading Canadian trade lawyer, said, investor-state agreements are “fundamentally corrosive of democracy”. They have nothing to do with trade.

If Canada wants to get this deal approved in Europe, and if the Liberals want the support of the Green Party in this place, they have to take the investor-state provisions out.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for decades from the Green Party left we have been hearing this anti-trade rhetoric and they are always nitpicking about things that really do not matter, quite frankly. What matters is creating wealth for the world. I am going to read you a quote:

According to a World Bank Study, in the three decades between 1981 and 2010, the rate of extreme poverty in the developing world...has gone down from more than one out of every two citizens to roughly one out of every five, all while the population of the developing world increased by 59 percent.

The next sentence is very important:

This reduction in extreme poverty represents the single greatest decrease in material human deprivation in history.

This is what free trade does for the world's poor. My colleagues in the Green Party left profess to care about the poor. They do not. The people who promote free and open trade and economic development are the ones who truly care about the poor and deliver real results for the poor.

Why does my colleague want to see the third world and most of the world kept in material poverty in perpetuity?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has just asked such an absurd question. I do not think the third world plays any role in the EU-Canada trade agreement, but perhaps he can correct me.

I did not say in my speech at any point that I opposed the trade provisions. I focused on the investor-state provisions which have nothing to do with trade. I really would wish that at one time in this place we could have a full debate on why Canada entered into chapter 11 in NAFTA and how it has hurt Canada, how we had regulatory chill where ministers have been afraid to bring forward regulations for fear that U.S. corporations will sue us. The effect on developing countries and the poor has been even worse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was clear in the member's comments, which were very helpful in this debate, is the unintended consequences with regard to trade deals. It is an extremely relevant point, one that is not just localized in my community, but across this country. When we joined NAFTA, one of the consequences became a challenge from Japan on our auto pact with the United States. An auto pact created tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. We were number two in the world with regard to auto assembly and production. Since that time we have dropped to 10th in the world. One of the reasons was because Japan, after we signed NAFTA, challenged this trade agreement that we had with the United States. We went to the WTO and we lost that trade dispute, so the auto pact was ripped up in Canada and that has caused consequences to this day.

The investor-state provisions are very important and I would ask my colleague to expand about that with regard to say, for example, our water. Water quality is a big issue for me with the Great Lakes and being a critic for that for our party. What can she talk about with regard to water quality and sovereignty?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of the investor-state cases under chapter 11, so far we have not had one directly related to water quality. If we as a Parliament could pass a law that removed particular contaminants, microbeads companies could decide they want to bring a charge against Canada under chapter 11, from acting to regulate microbeads. Or we could take steps to deal with other toxic contaminants that are affecting the Great Lakes.

One of the biggest water quality issues Canada is facing right now is a rise in eutrophication from runoff from mega hog farm waste such as what is now affecting Lake Winnipeg. If the regulations take effect and if one of those hog farms is owned by a Canadian company, it cannot sue. However, if one of those hog farms is owned by a foreign corporation that has a right to sue under investor-state agreement, it can. It can do so behind closed doors without Canadians having access to even go into the room to argue for water quality.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House to speak about this important step that may be taken by this Parliament and this government, regarding the whole issue of a trade agreement with our European partners.

I will begin with an exercise in semantics. Since the Liberal government was elected, we have seen many instances of a complete reversal of the Liberal Party’s positions on decisions made by the previous government, the Conservative government.

This exercise in semantics is quite simple. It is enough to take an agreement that was negotiated, drafted, and approved by the Conservatives and turn it into a progressive agreement. And how is that done? It is marvellous and magical. One need only say that it is the most progressive free trade agreement in the world, when it is in fact a cut-and-paste version of exactly what had been negotiated and approved by the Conservatives. The trick was to add the word “progressive” to the word “agreement”, and suddenly there is no longer a problem, and they are promoting what they were criticizing just the other day, namely the process, the content and the secrecy surrounding everything that went on during the negotiations.

Today, there is no longer a problem. The Minister of International Trade can pat herself on the back and call this the most progressive trade agreement around, although it is the same Conservative agreement that the Liberals were denouncing when they were in opposition. Apparently this is not the only thing that has changed since the Liberals moved from the opposition to government.

Let me be clear: we in the NDP agree that Canada is an exporting country. Our domestic market overall is not large enough to support demand for certain products, services, or innovations, and it is important for us to go and sell, all over the world, high-quality products that Canadian artisans, businesses, or producers are capable of creating. Furthermore, this must be done properly.

We also agree that Canadian exports have to be diversified. Canada is highly dependent on our neighbour to the south, the United States, which means that, to use a common expression, when the United States sneezes, Canada catches a cold. Canadian companies and exporters must be allowed easy access to different markets.

When we look at Europe, we see a natural partner with which Canada shares not only democratic values, but also values that are close to us in terms of labour legislation, environmental protection, and certain social and environmental regulations. These values lead us to want to do business with the 28 countries of the European Union. There is less chance of those countries engaging in social dumping or threatening our environmental regulations. The Europeans generally have good salaries, benefits, and pension plans that may be similar to what we have here, in Quebec and in Canada.

We say yes to a trade agreement with Europe. Europe is an ideal partner. But watch out, for there are problems. We do not want to sign a blank cheque. First of all, the Liberal government is asking us at this time to sign a cheque and trust it, more or less blindly, to do the right thing with it over the coming years. What is more, we and many of our European partners think that the dispute settlement mechanism included in the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union is a major obstacle.

Dispute settlement mechanisms allow a company to sue a state or level of government for adopting a rule or law that could eventually harm its future profits. This is not a theoretical scenario, but one that has already played out. Chapter 11 of NAFTA deals with such a mechanism. There have been dozens of legal actions under NAFTA against decisions made democratically here in Canada.

To Europe, we say yes. We will not give it a blank cheque, however. We do not want to give companies the power to sue our governments, because our governments make decisions and take actions designed to protect us. We are also worried about the price of prescription drugs, which is going to increase under this agreement, and we are worried that our cheese producers may be hard hit by this new competition. Once again, the Liberal government is breaking its promise to help out our dairy producers.

The agreement contains several extremely problematic elements, not to mention that the negotiation process began in 2009 and continued in recent years.

The Liberal government is trying to shove a trade agreement with Europe down our throats as quickly as possible. Why is it in such a rush? It has even disregarded its own rules, since the document was not tabled in the House 21 days previously, but rather the following day. In fact, the Liberals tabled the bill in the House before going off to stage a big show in Europe, where the Prime Minister signed the agreement. That is an unacceptable infringement of our parliamentary privileges.

What is more, they are trying to speed up the process as much as possible. There will be only five committee meetings to study an extremely complex, 1,600-page economic agreement. The government has decided to hear only eight witnesses, whereas for the trans-Pacific partnership, dozens of meetings were held to study the bill, and dozens of witnesses were heard. This time there will only be eight witnesses, and they are the only ones who will be able to present a written submission to the committee. This is unheard of.

Then they claim they will be conducting an intelligent, reasonable and reasoned exercise to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the free trade agreement with Europe. It simply does not add up.

Why are we in such a rush when, on the other side of the Atlantic, it will take two to five years for the agreement to be ratified by the parliaments of all 28 member states of the European Union? I do not understand why the Liberal government is in such a hurry. In my opinion, it is trying to pull a fast one on us as it keeps breaking its promises.

Let us return to the question of the cost of prescription drugs, which is extremely worrying for hospital patients and for all of the provinces, which manage our health care systems. It is currently estimated that the cost of prescription drugs will rise from $850 million to $2.8 billion per year. The European free trade agreement will delay the entry of generics into the market; generics work to control or lower the cost of drugs, which makes up a large share of the country’s health care expenditures, both for governments and for individuals.

A $2.8-billion increase in the yearly cost of prescription drugs is like every Canadian getting billed $80. Because of this free trade agreement, there is a real risk that each and every one of us will have to pay $80 more per year to get our medications. I would add that that is only an average. Remember that this will not be more expensive for those who do not take prescription medications. Those who are ill, however, have cause to worry about the strong likelihood of a major increase in the cost of drugs.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they talked about a plan to compensate the provinces for the rise in the cost of prescription drugs brought on by the European free trade agreement. Where is that promise of restitution or compensation for this extra weight on our health care systems? It is nowhere to be seen.

Disputes are happening. Lone Pine Resources is currently suing Canada because Quebec refused to let it continue its oil and gas exploration activities in the St. Lawrence River. Although we as a society have taken steps to protect our ecosystems and limit pollution, an American company is suing Canada for $250 million.

With the European free trade agreement, the Liberals are saying that it is all right to give companies the power to prosecute our governments. This is a totally undemocratic vision of trade, for we have legislative assemblies where elected officials make decisions to protect the population.

For the NDP, giving such shameless privileges to private companies which could sue our governments constitutes a major barrier to acceptance of any trade agreement. That is why we are standing up and objecting to the ratification of this free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, provinces in Canada have been part of this process, provinces of different political stripes, including New Democratic parties and premiers. Is CETA a perfect agreement? I would suggest this is the best we can get at this point in time and that millions of Canadians directly, and all Canadians indirectly, will benefit from the agreement.

I am bit surprised by the NDP attitude towards the EU and the trade agreement. Given that we have 28 countries, the provinces in Canada, and many different stakeholders saying this is something we should be moving on, why does the NDP want to resist it? All the other stakeholders are saying this is good for Canada. Even some New Democratic governments are saying that. Are they all wrong?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Many people are strongly opposed to this agreement. Cheese producers, for instance, will be getting a pittance in financial compensation when 17,700 tonnes of European cheese lands on our doorstep. This includes 16,000 tonnes of fine cheeses, year after year. This could be a serious blow to small cheese producers in Quebec. The Liberals' smattering of compensation is not going help. Local businesses back home might end up closing shop. We are worried. We will speak on behalf of these people and share their concerns here in the House of Commons.

In any trade agreement there will be winners and losers, but our cheese producers are not the only ones losing out in this case. Hospital patients and the sick are losing out as well. This agreement compromises our ability to regulate, protect our public markets, and establish clear and strong environmental regulations. We in the NDP have very good reasons to stand our ground.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to go back to the last point he mentioned in response to the question from our colleague concerning Canadian cheese producers, who are very worried about this agreement. This raises an interesting point. It is fine to support free trade. However, there has to be give and take in the negotiations, as my colleague said so well. Inevitably there will be winners and there will be losers. However, when the divide is too great, that is a problem. There still has to be respect for what we do in Canada when we negotiate on behalf of Canadians.

For example, cheese makers in France are the most highly subsidized in the world. We are going to let them bring in their products and give our producers peanuts in compensation, as my colleague said so well.

According to my colleague, why does the government believe that this is a fair and good agreement for our producers, when we are making so many sacrifices and receiving very little in return?

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly's very valid question.

There are not many cheese makers in my riding. However, there are many in Quebec and their numbers are growing. We are very proud of them and we want to help them. Our cheese makers will not receive adequate compensation in the face of a huge influx of fine cheeses from Europe, but the icing on the cake is that the Europeans have cleverly managed to protect certain types of cheese with restricted trade names. The names of 145 products are protected by restricted trade names. That is in the agreement negotiated by the Conservatives and accepted by the Liberals.

Do members know how many cheeses made in Canada are protected by a restricted trade name in the free trade agreement? None, not even one. Thus, it is 145 to 0 for the Europeans when it comes to fine cheeses.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement will lead to increased prosperity in Canada, create good-paying jobs, and strengthen the middle class. Most importantly, it will do so in a fair and responsible way.

I believe we can all agree that the opening of new markets has the potential to increase Canadian wealth. Our country's small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the majority of Canada's exporters, are looking for our government to open up new markets, and our government is committed to this goal.

SMEs employ some 10 million Canadians, or nearly 90% of Canada's total private sector workforce. These businesses can benefit most from better access in international markets, secured through free trade agreements. Stakeholders from across the country and a wide range of economic sectors continue to tell us to help them to grow. New export sales improve economies of scale, thereby reducing risk, lowering costs, and increasing profits.

In my riding of Fundy Royal in New Brunswick, SMEs will benefit significantly from CETA. The EU is already New Brunswick's second largest export destination and fourth largest trading partner. This agreement would eliminate tariffs on almost all of New Brunswick's key exports, in addition to opening up new market opportunities.

New Brunswick's fish and seafood sector is a vibrant and diversified industry. Eliminating tariffs on value-added goods like cooked and peeled shrimp, frozen cod fillets, and processed crab and lobster will make these goods more competitive in the EU, allowing New Brunswick processors to sell more of their goods and create new jobs. By the opening of new markets and increased access within the EU, Canada's world-class fish and seafood industry would have a competitive advantage from CETA that would benefit workers in the fish and seafood sector from coast to coast, including workers in New Brunswick's exceptional fish industry.

Of the EU's more than 9,000 tariff lines, approximately 98% will be duty free for Canadian goods when CETA comes into force. Almost all of the remaining tariff lines will be eliminated when the agreement is fully implemented. This will translate into increased profits and market opportunities for Canadian businesses of all sizes, in all sectors, and in every part of the country.

CETA will provide Canadian companies with a first-mover advantage in the EU market over competitors from markets like the U.S., which do not have a trade agreement in place with the EU. It will allow Canadian businesses to establish customer relationships, networks, and joint projects first. CETA also offers Canadian SMEs the opportunity to be part of a broader global supply chain anchored in the EU.

One of the most important complements to creating these advantageous conditions for SMEs is to encourage companies to pursue these new opportunities aggressively. Our government is committed to developing trade agreement implementation plans to help Canadian businesses take advantage of the opportunities that flow from these agreements. It is because our government realizes that some Canadian businesses are not aware of the potential opportunities provided by CETA that plans have been developed to promote recently concluded agreements, with SMEs specifically in mind. As a small business owner, I know personally that SMEs often lack the time and resources to inform themselves of game-changing international business developments, such as free trade agreements. As a result, they may not pursue the advantages created by the agreements.

The promotion of new FTAs follows a common, three-part approach. First, we are ensuring that information is available through the web and information seminars for business audiences organized with provincial, territorial, and private sector partners. We have recently launched a new CETA web page, geared toward Canadian businesses, which links to information on export opportunities by sector and member state; explains the public procurement processes in the EU; provides a detailed guide to doing business in the EU; and provides information about events and testimonials from businesses that have already had success in the EU, as well as a guide to finding the tariff rate for Canadian goods. Eventually, an FTA tariff finder will provide tariff information for all of Canada's FTA partners.

We are also undertaking proactive initiatives to reach out to Canadian businesses across the country, and from our missions within the EU, in co-operation with our provincial partners, as well as Export Development Canada, and the Business Development Bank of Canada.

We are launching a series of business outreach events featuring technical experts in CETA who can advise business participants in detail about CETA's provisions and the market access improvements it brings.

Second, we are ensuring through training that our team supporting international business development—be they our trade commissioners in Canada or abroad, other federal government departments or agencies, or our provincial and territorial partners—are fully familiar with the free trade agreements, so that they can advise clients of the opportunities they bring.

The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service has 26 points of service based in our diplomatic missions in the EU to support Canadian businesses wanting to access the market. They offer invaluable assistance to those wanting to do so, through market advice and intelligence. Earlier in 2016 we began building the capacity of our trade commissioners to advise their business clients on CETA, through training sessions on the agreement.

Third, following a detailed assessment, we will work with specialized industry associations and identify priority sectors to increase the interest and knowledge among exporters. This more focused, hands-on approach should lead to higher exports in these high-opportunity areas.

We have consulted with a number of sectoral business associations to explore the development of sectoral strategies, which would identify actions needing to be taken by the private sector to advance export growth. This is in addition to sources of assistance from all levels of support for trade missions and trade fairs, market intelligence from the trade commissioners network, and programs from other government agencies to support product development or expansion capacity.

This more intensive engagement with firms to help them pursue opportunities generated by free trade agreements is what we term "FTA aftercare". Consultations with the private sector are continuing, and a limited number of sectors will be identified to develop a pilot approach.

The promotion of CETA's benefits to the Canadian business community is very much the government's priority, given the range of opportunities that the EU and its market of more than 500 million consumers offer. We recognize that the EU market, despite its size and the significant market access improvements CETA delivers, requires a considerable degree of preparation for exporters, particularly for new-to-market SMEs.

CETA is indeed the most progressive trade agreement ever negotiated. It would lead to increased prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic, create well-paying jobs, and help strengthen the middle class. This agreement clearly provides the advantages that our industries are seeking in expanding their footprint internationally and does so in a fair and responsible manner that would benefit Canadian society as a whole. This is why it is so important for Canada to implement the CETA agreement as soon as possible.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments about the importance of trade, particularly as it relates to the agricultural sector. We on this side have been standing up for the agriculture sector, whether that is beef and pork or grain and oilseeds.

One of my concerns is that, while we are providing opportunity for trade, the previous Conservative government made it clear that we would support the dairy sector and the fishery sector through some specific investments to protect them.

I am just wondering if my colleague could comment on whether or not the Liberals are totally committed to continuing the support that we promised to the dairy sector and also to the fisheries investment fund that would help the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his question and for his commitment to the dairy industry.

I think this government has been very clear that we are very invested in the dairy industry and its success. I recently had the opportunity to meet with dairy farmers in my riding of Fundy Royal to talk about what the future looked like. I was very proud that they are very focused on the future of the industry, looking at measures that will strengthen the industry.

In fact, they are very pleased with the investment that this government has committed to, $250 million for producers and another $100 million for processors. These are the very things that will improve the dairy industry in Atlantic Canada, and I am pleased with the moves we are making.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member just mentioned dairy farmers. I, too, have spoken with dairy farmers, in Alberta, and they welcome that there will be some compensation. Unfortunately, it is far less than was promised during the election.

They have two questions, though. First, will this sum of money, $300 million, include the administration of the fund for the cost sharing? If so, they oppose that. It is already a meagre amount of money, and they think it should all go to the advancement of the sector.

Second, when exactly will this money flow, so that the dairy farmers are ready before this agreement comes into effect?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her interest in the dairy industry. As members may know, Fundy Royal is considered the dairy centre of the Maritimes and is something in which I am certainly very invested as well.

As I said, the farmers absolutely were pleased that there is a level of commitment toward the dairy industry and progress in the industry in the future. The details of such have not been forthcoming yet, but there certainly has been a show of good will. Over the last several months, the minister has met with many stakeholders in the dairy industry, and they certainly are pleased that their concerns are being heard and addressed.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Fundy Royal for her wonderful presentation.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the Minister of International Trade and her staff for all their hard work over the past few months and their continued hard work today.

I was wondering if my colleague from Fundy Royal could elaborate on the benefits this would bring to her riding and especially the Atlantic area.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke specifically in my speech about the impact CETA would have on the fisheries industry. It would also open up opportunities in forestry and wood products, agriculture and agrifood products, as well as professional services. That is important to look at, as well, when we look at the EU procurement process: we do have very strong professionals in Atlantic Canada who have services to offer, and I am very excited for them and the opportunities this would provide.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when our colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga asked specifically about dairy and fisheries and how that impact was going to be there, and if the government was going to fulfill its promise in terms of helping those industries transition through to see the opportunities with CETA, the hon. colleague from across the way completely ignored the fisheries portion of the question, so I am going to ask it again.

The Liberal government has been in discussions with the Atlantic provinces regarding a CETA investment fund for the fisheries communities in Atlantic Canada. Will the government fulfill its commitment to the Atlantic provinces for the changes it has made to the processing requirements?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not intend to ignore the fisheries industry. In fact, most of my speech was focused on the fisheries industry. What I wanted to focus on was the opportunities that this would provide for them, especially in value-added areas. I talked about frozen and processed shrimp and cod, as well as lobster. These are all very important market opportunities that cannot be overlooked.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this agreement. Canada is a trading nation and always has been, and I would be remiss if I did not talk about why that is the case.

If we look at the record of various governments over time in terms of the execution of trade agreements, we would find that our Conservative government signed more than 50 free trade agreements, whereas the previous Liberal regime signed fewer than five. It is the Conservatives in Canada who have seen the vision of Canada in terms of our ability to be a trading nation, and we actually executed those agreements. I want to give thanks to some of my colleagues here in the House, our former trade minister, our former agriculture minister, and former prime minister Stephen Harper for his vision on this agreement. This agreement was negotiated essentially through the blood, sweat, and tears of trade negotiators with whom our party worked within our government. I give a big shout-out to Canada's public service for working with our political leadership on this file. This deal was hand-wrapped, tied with a bow, and put under the Christmas tree for the Liberals to execute. I will give credit where credit is due on that particular note.

I would like to make a few points on why free trade is important and why it is important right now. I am very worried about the trend toward protectionism and nationalism that we are seeing internationally right now. The reality is that it benefits no one. The global economy is such that we are integrated. The global economy has an integrated supply chain in a lot of different areas, so to think that closing the doors to free trade would somehow bolster an industry within a country, or not have an impact on a nation's consumers, is a fallacy. I say that as a note of caution to colleagues around the world who might be looking at implementing protectionist policy without really thinking about the ramifications in the global economy of 2016. That is not a particularly productive thing.

I strongly encourage our government, when entering into negotiations or into discussions or diplomatic relationships with countries, to vigorously support the notion of trade. There are some in the House who would not support the notion of trade, but there are a lot of people here who would support that notion. Why is it important? I touched on a couple of those things briefly already.

One thing that has not really been talked about is the impact of this agreement on consumers in Canada. The removal of duties and tariffs on the range of products that we would have—specifically duties, in this case—would increase Canadian consumers' purchasing power by a large order of magnitude. When we look at economic downturns in a country and the ability of Canadian families to make ends meet, it is important to have free trade agreements, because the removal of these types of fees and penalties in the right environments can be translated into savings for families. It is also a more diverse set of goods. Consumer purchasing power can sometimes be increased simply by substituting goods for a monopoly product and introducing those substitute goods into at market through free trade agreements. That will also impact the ability of consumers to spend, and that is a fantastic thing.

The big win with this agreement is the job creating opportunities it presents.

If I have time, I will go into some of the specific benefits for Alberta, given that Alberta is in such a problematic situation with the job crisis there right now. I want to speak first about what I think needs to happen next, in order to realize the full benefits of this agreement.

I will transition by saying that opening up new markets for our products is a form of economic diversification. I will use the example of Alberta energy products. Obviously there are energy infrastructure issues associated with that. People often talk about value-added or how we get greater value-added for the extractive industry in Alberta around similar oil and gas products.

Whenever that discussion comes up, they refer simply to refining or additional refining capacity in Canada. I have read some interesting economic literature that looked at how simply opening up Canada's market access for those products would create a larger delta in ability to capitalize on greater profits from that. That is a very positive thing. If we translate that concept into the market access that is provided by this agreement, which I think is a market of over 500 million, that is a fantastic thing for basically every sector of the Canadian economy.

What do we need to do to capitalize on that? Economic diversification. When I was the minister of state for western economic diversification, one of the key priorities I articulated to my department was to ensure western Canadian companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, etc., were supported in both becoming aware of opportunities through agreements like CETA and also positioning them for success in a global supply chain. What does that mean? In the example of government procurement contracts, specifically military procurement, certainly CETA will open up our markets for us to participate in those kinds of contracts around the world.

How do small Canadian firms become certified such that OEMs in these types of companies would look at a Canadian firm to be part of a larger procurement project? Now that the government has taken a lot of the credit for signing this, the rubber will hit the road on how it programs that type of support service.

I have not heard a lot from the trade minister or from the industry minister as to concrete actions on how the government will look at supply chain development. Certainly, I have not heard a lot about the role of the economic development agencies in that perspective. I think there is already infrastructure within the government that could be utilized and leveraged in order to put that in place, of course with a large asterisk, making sure we are not picking winners or losers in government and that we are not being unwise stewards of taxpayer dollars on trade and promotion initiatives.

I want to give a shout-out to the Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership, or STEP, a perfect organization that we used to work with to connect small business producers in western Canada to larger trade and investment opportunities around the world. If we can have a larger market for our products, we will have a more profitable and vigorous economy in Canada. That is the whole point of having a trade agreement.

I also want to touch briefly on the concept of productivity in Canada. In order for Canadian firms to be productive in a post-CETA era, we need to focus on programming and policies that make them productive.

We also need to ensure we are not competitively disadvantaging Canada in a post-CETA era by adding complexity to our regulatory system. I am very worried about the government sending messages like it has been to the energy sector, where it has placed a huge degree of uncertainty on people who would be looking at investing in this sector, by saying it will change the environmental review process six times to Sunday but not saying how or when. It is musing about the coal ban and changing the rules.

When we change the rules without consultation and without understanding the broader economic implications, we hamper the ability of our economy to benefit from trade agreements like CETA. While the government is touting CETA, even though it did not really do anything to finalize it, there is a broader macro policy framework that will impede Canada's ability to be successful in this framework. Therefore, I very strongly encourage the government to stop marginalizing parts of our economy through very punitive and ill-thought-out policies, such as the ones the environment minister has been putting forward today.

While this is an excellent agreement, and I am fully supportive of it, there is much more work to be done. I hope all people in this place, regardless of political stripe, will stand up for Canada in pushing back against nationalist and protectionist rhetoric that hear in other parts of the world. That is very important. We need to push back on the fallacy that somehow closing our borders to trade will instantly bring back manufacturing jobs. We know that is not the case.

We know we need to look at things like the retention and training of skilled labour, ensuring we have an innovative economy where we retain intellectual property that is developed in Canada, ensuring we have a vibrant and robust intellectual property management framework, and that we attract venture capital to our country through regulatory certainty and other positive policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to some of the member's opening comments. She talked about Christmas and the fact that this agreement was a gift given to the Liberal government.

I stated earlier that there was no doubt these negotiations began a number of years back. I believe it was in 2009 when it first came up. The Conservative government was able to get a great deal of the job done.

However, to imply to Canadians that it was a signed and sealed agreement is just wrong. In the last year, we have seen a government take the trade file forward in a very significant way. This is but one of the areas on which the government has concentrated a great deal of time.

We recognize the fact that the Conservatives also played a role in this. I wonder if the member might want to reflect on the fact that all the t's and the i's, and there were a lot of them, had to be finalized before we could see this agreement before us today, and before the Prime Minister could actually sign the document.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague raised the issue, it is a grand miracle that this agreement was not bungled by the incompetence of the government, given its previous record on trade, five agreements in however long the Liberals were in government as opposed to our record of 50-plus agreements. The proof is in the pudding there.

Canadian businesses and companies are looking to the government to ensure they have policy that will allow Canada to take full advantage of the benefits put in place under CETA.

Just to re-emphasize, I am very concerned about the government's commitment to putting uncertainty into our regulatory process in a variety of different areas. I am concerned about the government increasing our debt load to the point where it is unmanageable. I am concerned about all of these sorts of things that will send a chill and a message to the rest of the world that despite signing a trade agreement, the government would like to see Canada closed for business.

The government should be focusing on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit taken aback by the member's statement about 50 trade agreements. Fifty plus trade agreements is just not true. Twenty-eight of those agreements are included in the debate we are having today. The 28 countries the member just made reference to are a part of the bill we are debating today. Technically, it was the current Prime Minister who signed off on those 28 of the 50-plus countries for which the member just tried to take credit.

I would ask the member to recognize that the Conservatives did not get the job done, and that has been made evident in the last year. Our Minister of International Trade and other government departmental officials have been overseas, trying to clear up the areas where the Conservatives failed. That is what they need to realize.

The Conservatives should stop saying there were 50-plus agreements under the Harper government because that it just not true.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, even if we used the number 28, 28 minus five is a lot more than the Liberals did.

I believe if we are to talk about not getting it done, those are the exact words the government's trade minister used when she tearfully emerged from a meeting several weeks ago. I would be very careful using those words in the House if I were the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since I have been here, there have been several trade agreements signed, or trade investment promotions and protection agreements. They are kind of the precursor to that.

I will name some of the countries involved: Peru, Panama, Romania, Senegal, Slovak, Nigeria, Korea, Kuwait, Tanzania, Liechtenstein, Mali, Jordan, Latvia, Benin, Burkina, Columbia, Guiana, Hong Kong, and Ukraine. The claim by the Conservatives is that the current government has not created a single job. If that is so, why do we have all these trade agreements? Where are the specific jobs? For example, what jobs have been created from the trade agreement with Liechtenstein?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we never know when we are going to need Liechtenstein. I am so glad we have a trade agreement with it. These types of agreements send a message to the world. They send a message to global capital that Canada is open for business, to invest here, create jobs here and do business with us.

When we think about it, especially in the context of this agreement, Canada is in such a unique position in our capacity for attracting business, given the rhetoric we hear in the U.S. right now, where it sounds like it wants to close its border to trade.

Again, I want to re-emphasize and close by saying this. Our former government delivered this on a silver platters, with some chocolates and caviar, to the Liberal government to sign and take credit for. That is fantastic. I am glad we kicked it over the goalpost.

Now this is about how the government positions Canada to take advantage of this agreement. High debt, high taxes, uncertainty in the regulatory system, no commitment to retrain skilled labours are all very negative things that will put a chill on the effects of this agreement. That is what we should be focused on.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak about the wonderful Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, popularly known as CETA.

This landmark initiative will increase prosperity across society in a manner that conforms with important societal values. It is the most progressive agreement Canada and the European Union have ever negotiated. It is also a ground-breaking agreement in opening the doors to increased access to the EU market for Canadian companies. CETA sets new standards in trade in goods and services, non-tariff barriers, investments, government procurement, as well as other areas like labour and environment.

The economic benefits to both Canada and the EU will be significant. Experts predict that once implemented, CETA will increase bilateral trade in goods and services by more than 22%, fostering growth and employment on both sides of the Atlantic.

Just as important, the agreement will also help facilitate investment in each other's territories, a significant factor in achieving prosperity and job creation. Foreign direct investment is an important driver of economic growth, with new investments by foreign firms able to provide a boost to national income and create jobs for Canadians. FDI can also promote trade by facilitating value chain linkages and improving access to new technologies.

A shining example of the benefits that European investment has brought to Canada is Europe's largest engineering company and manufacturer of medical diagnostics equipment, Siemens AG. The German engineering and electronics conglomerate has been operating in Canada for over 100 years. Headquartered in Oakville, Ontario, Siemens Canada has more than 60 facilities across the country and more than 4,800 employees delivering solutions in knowledge-based industries, such as sustainable energy, intelligent infrastructure, health care, and the future of manufacturing.

This includes investments such as the Smart Grid Centre of Competence that was opened in January 2013 in Fredericton to support New Brunswick Power and the modernization of its electricity system in a multi-year partnership.

In February 2014, Siemens became a founding partner of the Advanced Energy Centre, within the MaRS Discovery District in Toronto. This centre's mission is to foster the adoption of innovative energy technologies in Ontario and Canada, and to leverage those successes and experiences into the international markets.

These investments are examples of how investment from the EU, which will be further facilitated by CETA now, will maximize the potential of Canada's highly educated workforce and foster its continued development while working toward the betterment of Canadian and global societies through technology.

Let me give an example. Last year, Canada's direct investment in the EU totalled $210 billion while European investment in Canada totalled $242 billion. CETA includes provisions aimed to facilitate increased investments, providing investors with greater openness, stability, transparency, and protection of their investments.

While the agreement helps to promote EU investment in Canada, it also provides advantages and protections to Canadian companies seeking to expand their footprint in the world's second largest economy. CETA includes provisions to facilitate investment, to protect investors against such practices as discriminatory treatment, uncompensated expropriation, arbitrary or abusive conduct, and to ensure that capital may be freely transferred.

CETA's obligations are backed by a mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes, including both a first-instance tribunal and an appellate tribunal. When an investor submits a claim, the permanent and independent tribunals will determine whether a governmental measure is inconsistent with CETA's investment obligations and whether the investor has suffered a loss as a result.

One of the most important things our government did after taking office was to listen to the critics of CETA, both in Canada and in Europe, and to understand some of the legitimate anxieties people had.

We heard many concerns regarding investment in CETA. We have worked with Canadians, including industry and civil society alike, and with our EU partners to address these concerns to prove that a progressive trade policy, like CETA, is needed and possible in Canada.

Our government made changes to the mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes. We established a permanent tribunal and appellate tribunal, whose members are selected by Canada and the EU for fixed terms. We also introduced more detailed ethical requirements for members of those tribunals.

The CETA negotiations provided a great opportunity to innovate, and our government fully seized that opportunity and developed a new and improved approach to investment chapters in Canada's free trade agreements.

The changes we made to CETA in addressing the important issues voiced by Canadians and EU citizens alike represent a starting point in the development of the government's progressive trade agenda. It is an agenda that is linked to the government's domestic policy, focused on reducing inequality and enhancing our inclusive growth through such things as investment in infrastructure and increasing the child benefit. The idea is to ensure that trade policy makes more meaningful contributions to this overall agenda and that trade is done in a way that Canadians believe works for them.

Canada will continue to seek and implement innovative ways to enrich the economic relationship we have with valued partners, with the aim of achieving prosperity for all. However, it is important to our government that we ensure this is done in an inclusive and responsible manner. We are seeing this realized in CETA before our very eyes. This is a great first step.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned innovation and all the good stuff, or maybe the long-term stuff that may or may not be done, but there was nothing on productivity. Could she be specific on the impact this agreement would have on productivity and in putting Canada in a proper competitive position with the other nations we would be trading with?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks a great question. Productivity is at the heart of this agreement. With this agreement, Canada has a lot to benefit from, and so do its businesses. The EU is one of the largest exporters and our second largest trading partner at the moment.

For example, with just the automotive sector in my city of Brampton, we have a Chrysler plant whose production and productivity would benefit greatly from this agreement. Currently, it exports about 14,000 cars to the EU, but this agreement gives us that edge to amp up productivity in these manufacturing sectors, because now, according to CETA, Canada can export up to 100,000 vehicles a year without any tariffs, which our American counterparts cannot. It has a 10% tariff. This will increase productivity among all our small, medium, and large businesses, and will be a great investment for Canada in our businesses.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, whom I serve as co-chair of the all party entrepreneur caucus with.

We have heard Conservatives talk about the 50-plus trade deals they have done over the last decade. What we have seen in the last decade in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni and in coastal British Columbia is raw logs not just double or triple, but actually go up 10-fold in 10 years. We have lost thousands of jobs in the forestry sector. We have seen canneries close on the north coast, losing 400 jobs so we can send our fish to China to get filleted and then sent back to be on our grocery store shelves. Most of those lost jobs, 80%, are of indigenous people.

We have seen the Liberals do trade at all costs, removing a 25% barrier to build ferries here in British Columbia and instead shipping those jobs to Poland and Turkey.

Therefore, I want to ask the member, what is this trade deal going to do differently than giving away jobs to other countries? Will it create fair trade and protect Canadian jobs? I ask because we are not seeing that. A lot of people in coastal B.C. have a lot of questions about what this trade deal is going to do for them.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually, this agreement does the exact opposite.

I think this is one of the greatest trade agreements that Canada has entered into. As I said earlier, the EU is one of the largest importing countries. The 28 countries that comprise the EU are huge importers, including of Canadian goods. Therefore, we stand to benefit largely from this trade deal. It will increase bilateral trade by 20% annually. It will boost Canada's income by $12 billion annually.

The economic benefits of this agreement are equivalent to creating 80,000 new jobs and increasing the average Canadian household income by $1,000. This is going to be a great news story for Canada in the years to come.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to address my hon. colleague from the NDP about the raw log exports from British Columbia. If coastal communities did not have that opportunity, those jobs would not be there. Those raw log exports actually support jobs in coastal communities, which have been hardest hit from the downturn in our forestry industry. So those jobs and those raw log exports serve a purpose.

However, we are here talking about CETA, and the Liberal government has been talking to the Atlantic provinces about the CETA investment fund for Atlantic provinces, who will have to adjust some of their processing techniques.

Can the member guarantee that her government is going to fulfill its obligation to the Atlantic provinces and the fishers who will be impacted by this agreement?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, CETA basically includes provisions to facilitate the establishment of investment and to protect investors against discriminatory practices. The provinces that may have had some hesitations initially were all engaged by our minister and have gone through these discussions. This is why these provisions were included in the new improved agreement. This is why we have created these tribunals to address these issues.

Once again, I cannot stop mentioning the fact that the EU is a market of 500 million consumers that Canadians can export to. This is a great victory for Canadian businesses, and it should be seen as such.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to 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.

Having had the unique opportunity of sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade for almost a year now, I can attest that we have dealt with a number of priority issues, including the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA.

Personally, I believe that implementing CETA and passing Bill C-30 is a real Canadian success. Many economies were hit hard by the 2008 world economic crisis, and even as we speak, some nations are still dealing with systemic social and economic challenges.

Fortunately, Canada has recovered, and so has the province where I was born, Quebec. During the economic crisis, our policies were applauded, and now we appreciate how lucky we all are to be Canadian.

When I was a member for the riding of Groulx in the National Assembly from 2007 to 2008, I can recall a number of conversations behind the scenes about the possibility of implementing an ambitious and exclusive trade deal between Canada and the European Union.

Back then, the idea was that, once CETA was implemented, Canada would have access to the two largest economic markets in the world: our natural ally, the United States; and Europe's major economies. At the time, the purpose of implementing such a massive trade agreement was to diversify our economy.

Now that it is really happening, I feel very privileged to participate in the debate on Bill C-30 as the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. However, we must be clear-headed about this because we all saw what happened in 2008. The reeling U.S. economy had a major impact on Canada and its provinces and territories too.

The main purpose of the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement is to diversify our economy because it is never a good idea to put all our eggs in one basket. Greater access to European markets is the natural next step because we have similar values and we want to strengthen our ties to our allies.

I am especially proud to be part of a government that will go down in history for building stronger ties with Europe. Our inclusive values, our belief in innovation, our progressive philosophy, and our professionalism have not only charmed Europe but have also secured the implementation of a quality trade agreement that will benefit Canada in many ways. Trade leads to growth, and growth leads to more jobs here in Canada and in our communities.

It was a pleasure for me to see the government officially sign CETA at the Canada-European Union Summit on October 30. This historic signature represents one more step toward implementing CETA. It goes without saying that, behind this treaty, there are men and women who have been standing up for Canada's most profound interests at the negotiating table since 2009. It is vital that we recognize their important work and their passion for implementing an agreement that will demonstrate Canada's and Europe's leadership on an inclusive and progressive approach to international trade.

I know that this agreement will result in growth and real opportunities to strengthen the middle class. As the world's second-largest economy, the European Union market represents an unprecedented opportunity for Canadian businesses.

The implementation of CETA will have an unprecedented impact on a number of businesses in my riding. The aerospace industry, the parts manufacturing industry, and the innovative technology industry in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, for instance, will be able to increase their production now that the European markets have opened to them.

As a result of this agreement, more Canadians will be working, the innovation chain will grow, and small and medium-businesses across the country in every sector will thrive.

The agreement has a number of chapters that are worth noting in the House.

First of all, CETA will provide privileged access not only to commodities and processed products, but also to the EU services sector, which is one of the most developed in the world. Conversely, it is our services sector that will benefit the most from the agreement, since the EU is the world's largest importer of services.

CETA also includes an important chapter on the environment and sustainable development, which are values that this government and European governments hold dear. With this trade arrangement, Canada continues to show environmental leadership on the international scene. The European Union understands, just as we do, that in order to leave a healthy planet for our children and future generations, we need to act now.

Furthermore, Canada can take advantage of an important opportunity presented by CETA, which includes a detailed framework for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. This important provision will help guarantee labour mobility, as well as the mobility of brain power between Canada and Europe. This measure allows not only labour forces to move freely, but also ideas and best practices. Absolutely everyone wins.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I would like to reiterate my support for Bill C-30 and for all of the provisions that bring into force one of the most progressive trade deals that has ever been on the table. Canada will benefit in many concrete ways from CETA, which will enable Canadian companies and small businesses to seize new business opportunities and diversify Europe.

Canada is a highly educated nation. We have an extremely skilled workforce, and the knowledge economy is the economy of the future. We can all be proud of signing this agreement and opening new markets with Europe thanks to the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement .

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles will have five more minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We have five more minutes for questions and comments on the speech by the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech on Bill C-30 that she gave before question period. She had good things to say about free trade agreements but offered no concrete examples of economic and trade agreements having a direct impact on job creation in her riding, in Quebec, or in Canada.

Can the member give an example? Can she do more than just speculate and actually provide some concrete evidence of how this economic and trade agreement with Europe will create jobs? Has the ratification of trade and free trade agreements every really resulted directly in job creation?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke. It is a pleasure for me to respond to his question.

It is a fact that jobs will be created thanks to this agreement, once it has been implemented by all the parties. In my constituency, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, there are some very fine companies in the fields of aerospace and robotics, among others. It is a fact that this will open up markets in Europe. I am certain that more jobs will be created. I regret not having any specific figures, but according to the studies that have been provided, it will be one job in five in Canada.

Certainly this is a progressive agreement from which everyone here in Canada will benefit. There will be export opportunities, and hence the increase in jobs here in Canada.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to ask my colleague another question.

I understand that she sees the European trade agreement as an opportunity to increase exports by accessing a market of 500 million people. However, does she understand that trade agreements work both ways, and that the companies in Europe also have access to our market, which is a market of 38 million consumers? Does the hon. member understand that there is a danger of imbalance here, and that European companies can have the same rights as Canadian companies in Europe, and thus invest here and create jobs in Europe, with the aim of filling the Canadian consumer market? Does she understand that trade agreements work both ways?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I said that, in 2008, we pretty much only had NAFTA, with the United States. All our eggs were in the same basket. Now we want to open up markets and diversify the places where we can export our products by removing tariffs.

This trade agreement is an opportunity from which Canada will be able to benefit. It will offer new opportunities for our small and medium-sized businesses, including those in my riding. Bill C-30 will implement this agreement, and will bring growth for our middle class. I am very happy that our government signed this agreement on October 30.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question I want to ask the hon. member. I think she knows that our party supports this trade deal.

The government has put this deal forward. On the other hand, it has been critical of what it alleges is a lack of consultation in the trans-Pacific partnership. As far as I can understand, the consultation process was the same for this trade deal as for the trans-Pacific partnership.

I want to understand the government's position. Could the member tell us what was different about the consultation process followed in this trade deal compared to the process followed in the development of the trans-Pacific partnership?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the consultations were already over by the time I arrived in government. They were completed, and we are now in the process of consulting before the clause-by-clause study, which will begin very shortly.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed about time we were debating this agreement in the House of Commons. It has been a long time coming. In fact, when I became minister of international trade, way back in 2010, negotiations on this agreement had already begun, thanks to the leadership of prime minister Harper and my predecessor in that role as trade minister, Stockwell Day.

It has been a long time coming, but it should be acknowledged that at that time, when I became minister, China was kind of all the rage. We hear that it might be all the rage nowadays. However, one of the things that struck me at the time was it seemed to me there were a fair number of inequalities in the trading relationship with China. We were running a severe trade deficit. Our investors in China were having a great deal of difficulty having their legal rights respected. I thought perhaps we should make our number one trading priority the negotiation of the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, as I chose to call it.

It did become the focus of our department's work, and certainly my work as minister. I felt it was an opportunity where we would be bringing together communities with similar values and similar economic approaches. In many cases, there were similar languages and similar legal systems. The opportunities were tremendous, and as we saw, the negotiations proceeded with tremendous success.

Why was it so important? We had a study undertaken to determine whether or not it was worthwhile embarking on negotiations. That study found that there would be a $12-billion annual boost to the Canadian economy from such an agreement, and that was way before 2010. When we hear that number, and I have seen it bandied about in this debate, it is reasonable to assess that the number that is now almost a decade old would be much higher today as the economies and opportunities have advanced. Therefore, I think we are looking at far more than a $12-billion boost to the Canadian economy. We will certainly need that. That will be a boost that will be coming as a result of a trade agreement like this.

There were some very special things about how this was negotiated that were different than any negotiation before. One of them was the inclusion of the provinces. Canada is a challenging jurisdiction for the negotiation of trade agreements because much of what is on the table, much of what we will have to implement by way of legislation or regulatory changes, is in provincial jurisdiction, thanks to our Constitution. As a result, we structured a negotiating process that had the provinces at the table for the very first time. I know the narrative, the history, that mainstream academics like to talk about in the media was that we did not have great co-operation. We had better co-operation on trade with the provinces than any other government ever in history. It was groundbreaking, and very important. It was one of the reasons we were able to succeed in this complex negotiation, never mind the complexities of the many jurisdictions on the other side of the equation in the European Union.

We also had unprecedented consultations with the various stakeholders. Some of it was structural. Some of it was regular briefings. For example, I remember meeting with the municipalities across Canada, and so on, so that they were apprised, because there were issues that were going to affect them. All of these played into it.

One of the things I saw as a tremendous opportunity for Canada was the fact that if we look at all the countries of the European Union, we have here in Canada significant populations from each and every one of those jurisdictions. I thought about the tremendous potential for us to harness the fact that we have people with ties of language, culture, ethnicity, family, and previous business. We have many recent immigrants with those ties back home, and given the opportunity to expand that trade, think of the potential that could be undertaken there.

Canada has had a unique challenge in our trade that is also our greatest strength. We have beside us the United States of America, a country with similar values, similar languages, and similar legal system, and great roots that we have in common. Therefore, for Canadians and Canadian businesses, that has given us a huge potential to trade. We have such a strong trading relationship. As a relatively small country, we depend on the ability to export elsewhere, especially to that huge market in the United States.

However, the problem for Canada became, and I believe still is, that it is almost too easy. It is so much easier to go and form trading relationships with people where we do not have to learn a new language, or a new legal system or jurisdictions. We can talk about the football game we watched on TV, or the sitcom that was on the networks last week, and still have all those ties together.

To make the decision to go somewhere else in the world for our exports, to learn those new markets, to learn the news systems and the local rules, is much more challenging. However, we have this ace in the hole of those populations here.

As trade minister, one of the things I worked very hard to do was work through those various communities in Canada. Almost every single one of them had a Canadian and whatever the country, members can take their pick, German, Belgian, whatever, chamber of commerce that brought together people of those backgrounds and those interests in Canada who were ready and willing to pursue those opportunities. I can say without exception that every single one of them was excited, engaged, and looking forward to the opportunities that would be presented by this remarkable trade agreement, such as the opportunities to prosper, export, create jobs, and the like.

When we think about it, there were other opportunities on the other side. I remember entertaining many potential foreign investors looking at Canada at the time. What they told me again and again was that there were so many things that were attractive about Canada. Under our Conservative government, we had delivered the lowest level of taxation on new job creators of any comparable jurisdictions. We had the most skilled workforce, the highest proportion of people with post-secondary education, and I could go on. They looked at our debt-to-GDP ratio, and the fact that we were focused on balanced budgets, and said, “As long as there is a Conservative government in place and we see these levels of low debt and deficit, we can have confidence that the numbers we put in our pro forma for taxation will remain for the foreseeable future, and that creates certainty for our investment.” They looked at all of those things and then said, “If you get that free trade agreement with Europe, picture it, you will be the only country in the world, the only major developed economy, with trade agreements with the two biggest economies in the world, the United States through NAFTA, and the European Union. If you're looking for a place to invest a platform, a place to create jobs and produce the products that you're going to export into those marketplaces, nowhere would be better than Canada.”

We will see if that will remain the case. Hopefully, the government will be able to do a reasonable job, although it has already started unilateral disarmament with the Americans vis-à-vis NAFTA. However, if it can hold its own in those negotiations we will continue to hold that position and this agreement will hold that promise for Canada, and that will continue to be the case. It now looks unlikely that the United States, with its current political direction, will proceed very far with its efforts to negotiate a free trade agreement with Europe. That is a huge potential opportunity for us as a destination for investment in that regard. That is something that, when we look at this agreement, when we look at the potential that Canada has, is one of the things that to me was very promising from a job creation and investment perspective.

However, there are worrying signs. I talked about that unilateral disarmament approach of the Liberal government, where it has already volunteered to look at renegotiating NAFTA. The problem is this. Notwithstanding the perceptions that people have, the Americans are not ideological trade negotiators. They are very much self-interested negotiators and they look to maximize their self-interests. If it were not for the charm of one Brian Mulroney and his ability to connect a relationship with Ronald Reagan, we would never have had a NAFTA that was as fair and beneficial for both countries as it is. Therefore, I am very concerned about the potential to do that.

The Liberals are not natural trade negotiators. In all of their 13 years in power in the previous Liberal government, they only negotiated three trade agreements. Some people said two earlier. It was three. They were with economic behemoth powerhouses: Costa Rica, Chile, and Israel. Those agreements were so unambitious that when I was trade minister we reopened all three so that we could make them into stronger agreements that delivered more benefits to Canada. I am pleased to say that we delivered on those. Therefore, are they natural negotiators? I do not know. Fortunately, they inherited this Canada-Europe trade agreement, and although they did find a way to delay it for a year and put a lot of stuff at risk, I hope that 90% of it is intact when compared to what we had arrived at in terms of agreements with the Europeans when we left government and that there will be potential there.

I am excited that this agreement is finally here in the House of Commons and that some of that potential can be harnessed. These things take much longer than they should because of the complexity of so many jurisdictions not only here in Canada but, more importantly, in the European Union.

At the end of the day, free trade means less government; free trade means lower taxes; and free trade means more opportunity, more jobs, more economic growth, and more economic development. That is why this Conservative Party has been so associated with all the great advances of free trade throughout the history of the past century or so in Canada. I am very proud to have played a very small role in that, together with my colleagues.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the member refers to the reopening of NAFTA, NAFTA has already been modified something like 11 times. There is nothing wrong with this, bringing it up to date is part of the process.

There is also a chapter of NAFTA called 22, which allows the outright withdrawal of a country. If a country wants to have a discussion, it is probably a good idea to actually sit down and hear what they have to say. There is nothing wrong with that.

The really interesting thing about CETA to me is that we brought 28 countries together, we brought Liberals and Conservatives together, and we brought 10 provinces together. These are countries and provinces that are the far left, the far right, or the middle. They are from all walks of life, all spectrums.

I wonder if the member could address how difficult it is to bring that many people together on one single issue like this?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, someone else who I did not get a chance to pay tribute to here who is perhaps really the godfather of the Canada-Europe Union free trade agreement, and I have not heard his name too much, is Jean Charest. When he was premier of Quebec, this former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada took the initiative and got the thing kick-started. He deserves real credit for that. I think it is one of the reasons why the provinces, including Quebec, which is sometimes a bit of a challenge on these sorts of agreements, were among the greatest champions of it.

The problems were not really there. The problems are usually with the partners. We were lucky. We had great partners. I know in my travels throughout Europe, especially the eastern Europeans, people who had experienced socialism, who had experienced how terrible it is when the government tries to run every expect of people's lives, taxing them to death, desperately wanted an agreement that anchored them to the free market model of low taxes that they saw here in Canada. They were very keen to see it. Even there, we had a good opportunity.

However, my concern is on the other aspect of the hon. member's question, and that is, the government can throw up its hands and negotiate with the Americans anytime it wants in NAFTA. I can tell that the hon. member has never sat down with American trade negotiators. As I said, this is not a question of philosophical, ideological commitment to free trade and small government. That is now how the Americans approach things. They decide, what the interests are they want, how they can help their business, and how they can use the fact that they are biggest market around, with all that power and all the leverage, to get where they want.

The original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement would not have happened if it was not for Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan getting beyond that interest approach to negotiating, to doing what was right and fair for both. I really do not like the idea of unilateral disarmament, when people come to the table and say “Hey, guys, what do you want to take from us today?” That is what the Liberal government is doing.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from York—Simcoe on his speech. There is no doubt that he knows his stuff where these sorts of international trade deals are concerned.

In my constituency, we have the Union des producteurs agricoles. Obviously, dairy producers are among those who are most worried about this agreement.

My hon. colleague having probably drafted some of the agreement's clauses, does he not find it deplorable that the government is not even trying to compensate the dairy industry for at least half of its annual losses, which stand at around $116 million?

This is causing much gnashing of teeth in Quebec.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer, of course, is when our government put together the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, we also put together a package that not only ensured the continuation of supply management for the benefit of those agricultural producers but also gave other opportunities to other agricultural producers.

I am not so sure that the supply-managed sector is content that they are as protected under the current government as they were under us, but we will have to wait and see, and hope for the best.

I just want to make a general observation about agriculture and supply management. I never actually found, in all my discussions with trade ministers from over 50 countries, with the exception of one, a guy who was former trade negotiator, that they were concerned about agriculture. Agriculture is a sensitivity in every single country except for Singapore. They all have their own agricultural sector that is not unlike ours, with their own sensitivities and their own concerns. Of course if there is a highly visible sector, making known that they are concerned, then trade negotiators jump on that issue.

Supply management is something that troubles trade negotiators. It does not trouble politicians. That is why we felt confident and comfortable all the way through in saying that we would protect the future of supply management. We assured that that was indeed the case in the agreement, whether the compensatory aspects for the very small increase in exports of supply-managed products in Canada are adequate. I know that our government had the full support from the sector with what we arrived at. Whether they can count on that with the new government, I am not so sure.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to join in the debate on 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.

I must admit that, at first, I was worried for certain sectors of the economy in my riding, dairy production in particular. I want to congratulate the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for their work in responding to the concerns stemming from this agreement. It is only a start, but I will get back to that a little later in my speech.

For the past year, I have met with multiple stakeholders from the agricultural sector and heard various points of view. One consistent point is that food production must increase by at least 50% by 2050. Canada has a unique opportunity to position itself as the go-to supplier for world demand for food. But in order to do that, we will need to provide our farmers, our processors, and the agrifood supply chain a competitive advantage. That is where CETA comes in. While not perfect, it would provide a greater opportunity for our farmers and the agrifood sector to position themselves as key players in the European market. The EU is among the world's largest markets for food. Removing barriers for our agricultural sector would be part of this agreement.

We need to consider these important facts: almost half of the value of Canada's agricultural production is exported; and two-thirds of our pork, 80% of our canola and canola products, and 90% of our pulse crops are exported.

Let us consider this, then: tariff barriers currently stand at approximately 14%, on average. That means that Canadian agricultural businesses are at a competitive disadvantage compared with those in the European Union. CETA will allow them to be as competitive as European farm operations. When the agreement comes into force, nearly 94% of tariff barriers will be eliminated. This is good news.

However, I would encourage my colleagues not to take my word for it, but rather that of the experts at Cereals Canada, which includes the Producteurs de grains du Québec and the Grain Farmers of Ontario, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council, to name a few. They all support this agreement. This is good news for agriculture.

What is more, we intend to stay the course. We will continue to fight so that Canadian agriculture can thrive and the supply management system is maintained. It is true that the agreement is not perfect, but the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, my colleagues and I have worked relentlessly to ensure that our dairy sector can continue to prosper.

Several meetings were held with Canadian dairy farmers, processors, provincial associations, and many young farmers. Discussions focused on the best way to strengthen the sector so that it can face the national and international challenges that lie ahead, and on the transition assistance in light of new market access under CETA.

Our government has been clear from the beginning regarding the need to help dairy farmers and processors make the transition with respect to CETA. That is why we announced a $350-million investment in two new programs aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of our dairy industry in anticipation of CETA's implementation. The government is committed to preserving the vitality of the dairy industry by contributing to farmers' and processors' continued ability to innovate and increase productivity.

The first program is the dairy farm investment program. This five-year, $250-million program will provide targeted contributions to help Canadian dairy farmers update farm technologies and systems and improve productivity by upgrading their equipment.

The second program is the dairy processing investment fund. This four-year, $100-million program aims to help dairy processors modernize their operations and thereby increase their productivity and efficiency, and also diversify their product lines so as to profit from new market opportunities.

These programs will complement the dairy sector's ongoing investment efforts, helping both current and future generations of dairy farmers and processors to remain competitive for the long term within a strong supply management system.

We have already seen the positive impact of this announcement. Already, Gay Lea Foods in Ontario has announced an investment of $140 million to create an ingredient plant.

However, that is not all. We have heard loud and clear about the ongoing problems that negatively impact our supply managed sectors, particularly our dairy and chicken farmers. We need to address the duties relief program and spent fowl. Consultations will be launched with industry stakeholders regarding potential changes to the duty relief program and the import for re-export program.

We are exploring measures regarding inventory reporting in an effort to improve the predictability of these imports. Our government will also look at specific options regarding certification requirements for imports of spent fowl while ensuring that any such requirements would be fully consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. These are key concerns for our supply managed industry, and our government is taking action to support these sectors.

With regard to the allocation of CETA cheese quotas, the government is currently reviewing the results of the public engagement process that concluded at the end of August. The Minister of International Trade's decision will take stakeholders' views and interests into consideration in determining how to allocate the new CETA cheese quotas. The allocation policy for cheese tariff rate quotas will be finalized following the passage of the CETA implementation legislation and before the agreement's entry into force.

These are the actions of a government that is committed to the people it represents. Some will say we are taking too much time, but as my mother used to say, “better late than never”. One is better off making the right decision than the wrong one.

Although there are challenges, the Canadian dairy sector continues to be progressive and innovative. Canadian dairy producers are doing an excellent job meeting the needs of consumers, whether in terms of food quality, animal welfare, the environment, or good products with high nutritional value.

Consumers like Canadian dairy products. Production continues to grow every year. Butter consumption increased by 10% over the last decade. Yogurt consumption increased by over 60% during the same period, and should continue to rise.

Canada’s dairy producers are among the industry’s world leaders with respect to the environment.

Canada’s dairy industry has a smaller ecological footprint for carbon, water and earth than most of the other big dairy producers worldwide. This is good news.

Today’s dairy producers are able to produce 14% more milk than 20 years ago, thanks to better genetics, better nutrition and better farming practices. They are able to do this with 24% fewer cows, while generating 20% less greenhouse gas. This is reason to be proud of our dairy producers.

The announcement of November 10 contributes to the industry’s success by further modernizing our dairy sector. Much progress has been made, but we must always continue to innovate.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have heard our dairy producers loud and clear, and they will continue to listen to them, while the government will continue to consult other industry players to get their advice and thereby orient the program’s design and help to ensure that these programs meet the needs of producers and processors in tangible ways.

I undertake to do the same, continuing to work closely with producers and processors in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the riding I represent.

Supply management is a system that works, and it is through collaboration that we will ensure its sustainability. When I was little, it was “Never without my milk”. I will never forget those who produce that milk.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing my colleague did not talk about in his speech was prescription drugs, despite 25% of this agreement covering prescription drugs. I am sure that one thing we have in common and that touches us both is that when people, seniors especially, cannot afford to buy their drugs, we recognize the tough choice they have to make whether to buy drugs or food. People have to come out of retirement to pay for their drugs. This is happening in my riding and, I am sure, in his community too. CETA will lead to approximately $1.6 billion in increased drug costs for Canadians.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they agreed with the NDP that greater analysis was needed, as well as compensation for the provinces. Yet the government has provided no analysis about how much this will cost the provinces, nor has it offered any compensation.

Is the member opposite comfortable signing off on CETA without any further analysis of how these increased drug costs will impact the people in our ridings? These people, whom we care so much about, are suffering.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions, but people back home where I live are concerned about agriculture. CETA provides a $600 million in potential beef exports, $400 million in pork exports, $100 million in grains and oilseeds exports, and a potential of $300 million in processed foods, fruits, and vegetables exports.

My dairy farmers are extremely happy with the announcements of November 10. I can share my colleague's concerns, but I know that CETA is an extremely important agreement for my riding.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to the member. Of course, he spoke a lot about agriculture, which is so critical. It is something the previous Conservative government had worked on so much. We want to remain competitive and move forward with all of these trade agreements and make sure there are no hindrances.

I wonder how the imposition of a punitive carbon tax in any way is going to help farmers be more competitive, especially when our major trading partner has no interest in engaging in this ill-conceived, job-killing initiative.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that the European Union and we are concerned about is climate change.

I know my hon. colleagues across the aisle love to quote Kathleen Wynne. If they love to quote the provincial government, I would remind them that Patrick Brown, the leader of the opposition in Queen's Park, is supportive of a price on carbon.

If we are going to talk about carbon pricing and its significance for agriculture, I will give a solid example of beef farmers and Ducks Unlimited working together on wetlands, with the beef farmers able to graze the land. Wetlands are known for carbon sequestration. I do not believe that carbon and farmers are on a head-on collision course. I believe they can work together and play an important role for the environment.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear the member across not acknowledge the cost of pharmaceuticals. Is the member telling me that he does not care about health care for the people he represents, about hospitals, about people being able to afford a pathway to health? I find that shocking.

To get back to his point about farming, he spoke about dairy farmers and access to the market. I would like to quote the Dairy Farmers of Canada about the supply management the member speaks of, that unpredictability from the deal “will result in instability in the Canadian dairy sector, which is the opposite of what supply management was created to do”. That is a quote from the Dairy Farmers of Canada about CETA.

The potential farming loss is nearly $150 million a year. How can the member stand in the House talking about supply management and protecting it while signing trade deals that will hurt dairy farmers?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for a few days now we have heard NDP members talk about how they are suddenly in support of the $750 million that we have recently seen in the newspaper. However, what they are not telling those dairy farmers and some of these associations is that they would have balanced the budget. I wonder if it was part of their platform. Guess what? We cannot see their platform, because they have removed it from their website. On this side of the House, we have been open and transparent. Our platform is still on our website so that they can contest whether or not we are telling the truth.

At the end of the day, I believe that young farmers in my riding will have an opportunity from the $250 million program to modernize their farm operations.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as the member of Parliament for Surrey—Newton and also a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, in support of Bill C-30. The comprehensive economic and trade agreement signed between Canada and the European Union's member states represents a new model for the world on what is possible through a well-thought-out comprehensive trading relationship.

It is amazing to think of the scope of opportunity available to Canada as a result of this agreement. The numbers cannot lie: 28 European Union member states with more than 500 million people and GDP of more than $19 trillion. This is the world's largest single marketplace and, according to a joint report released by Canada and the European Union, this kind of partnership is estimated to increase the value of bilateral trade by 22.9% and increase annual growth of our GDP by approximately $13 billion. In fact, the CETA would establish Canada as the only G8 country and one of the only countries in the world to have preferential access to the world's two largest markets, the U.S. and the European Union.

Numbers are often thrown around without context, so while they are very impressive, they are often unable to translate their impact into communities like my riding of Surrey—Newton. I want to spend a few minutes speaking about exactly that aspect of this historic bill, because ultimately it is just another piece of this government's focus to strengthen Canada's middle class and to provide more opportunities for those wishing to join it. The elimination of trade barriers means lower prices on everything from food to cars that are imported from Europe. However, it is bigger than that because, for Surrey—Newton and other communities across British Columbia, our new preferential market access would represent great opportunity.

The European Union is already B.C.'s fifth largest export destination and our fourth largest trading partner. The elimination of the tariffs I just referred to would apply to almost all of the province's current exports and would provide B.C. a competitive advantage when compared to some of our major competitors who do not have the benefit of such an agreement. For our forest products, our metal and mineral resources, our aquaculture exports, and our information and communication technologies, the possibilities for growth are endless. For B.C.'s service suppliers, who represent 76% of the province's total GDP and comprise a sector that employs 1.7 million British Columbians, the CETA would represent greater security and predictability to the new opportunities that would now be available.

For small and medium-sized businesses, European Union procurement opportunities would now also be available with a new capability to supply goods and services to EU-level institutions like the European Commission and the European Parliament, but also to EU member state governments and thousands of regional and local government entities. This is a procurement market that is estimated to be worth about $3.3 trillion annually, which is a staggering figure.

I do not want to get caught up in just trumpeting the benefits of CETA without considering the work we have in front of us to make the agreement a reality.

This is what Bill C-30 is all about. In addition to formally approving the deal and outlining the ongoing administrative and operational costs that Canada is responsible for, it would also amend several pieces of legislation in order to ensure that our country is able to live up to the obligations to which we signed on. The numerous changes needed to the acts that govern import and export, patents, and investment, both from and to Canada, represent adjustments to our laws to ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses are able to enjoy the maximum amount of benefit from this agreement.

These changes also present an opportunity for opponents of CETA, and indeed opponents of all multilateral trade agreements, to spread misinformation and create fear and confusion.

The reality is that it has taken more than seven years to ensure that we had a deal that protected public services for Canadians; that the government continued to have oversight on regulating environmental, labour, health care, and safety standards; that our public health care system and the quality of care that Canadians have come to expect are not threatened; that our water resources and the standards to which they must adhere are protected and maintained; that Canadian laws and regulations cannot be compelled to be changed by foreign investors or corporate interests; and most importantly, that Canadians continue to have access to information and complete transparency on the terms of this agreement.

These are the considerations that Canadian negotiators fought for, to ensure that Canadian sovereignty was not just given away.

Over the past year, I have listened to the testimony of many organizations that have presented their comments and concerns. I stand here today to state that the Minister of International Trade and all of our members of the Standing Committee on International Trade carefully considered each and every piece of testimony.

CETA is not a threat to the public interest. In fact, it is always with the best interests of Canadians that the government has engaged in negotiations over the past year. This means that compromises were always balanced with benefits and that, once again, the powers of the Canadian government and of our provincial and municipal counterparts are not at risk.

I want to conclude by stating that our sovereignty is more valuable than any trade figure, and CETA is not a threat to it, as many of the fearmongers would have Canadians believe. Canada remains as strong as ever and, as a result of this agreement, we are poised to enter a new era of prosperity and opportunity that would bring benefits to all British Columbians and to all Canadians.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. However there is one important point that was not mentioned and that I have not heard in today’s debate, but which might cause him to take off his rose-coloured glasses which he seems to have worn all through his speech.

The fact is that 42% of Canadian exports to the European Union go to the United Kingdom. Considering that the United Kingdom is presently in the process of withdrawing from the European Union, Canada has still not re-evaluated its net economic benefits under this free trade agreement with Europe.

Would my colleague be prepared to give us the new figures estimating the economic benefits to Canada in light of the fact that the United Kingdom will no longer be part of the economic agreement once it completes the withdrawal process it has already begun?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for bringing forward how this would help Canadians moving forward.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, this is a landmark opportunity for Canadians to access 28 European nations with more than 500 million people and a GDP of more than $19 trillion.

As I mentioned earlier, this would mean an annual growth of our GDP by approximately $13 billion. I am certain this would help British Columbians, Quebecers, and all Canadians.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague, not only on his speech but also on his work on the international trade committee.

My question is this. With the U.S. not being a signatory to CETA, what would the advantages and benefits be to Canada as the gateway between the European Union and the United States?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest for her input and her work on the international trade committee and her past experience, being a professor and an educator in international trade.

As the hon. member mentioned, the U.S. is not a signatory to CETA. In fact, Canada, if we look at this, is the only G8 nation now that has the advantage of having a trade relationship with the U.S. and also would have a trade relationship with the European Union. We would be the only country that would have access to the biggest open market possible.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague across the way was not here at the time, but I can assure him that many MPs and many of those who watch the debates remember where the Liberals stood on this. They were quite concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations and the content of the agreement.

How can they let the free trade agreement go through today, especially considering the speech by Mr. Magnette in Wallonia? I encourage my colleague to watch that speech. Those people took a stand to make sure that the interests of their fellow citizens were well served.

I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about the position the Liberals took when they were in the opposition.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear. Liberals always believed in free trade because free trade creates opportunities, it creates employment, and it makes the lives of Canadians better and easier.

When it comes to transparency, all I can say is that the government and the Prime Minister have always been open and transparent in the past year. On the international trade committee, we are consulting many organizations to make sure we are still open and transparent to those people who are concerned.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at risk of repeating what has been said so many times in the House today, New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports, but we remain firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten sovereignty have no place in trade deals.

In our view, the job of government is to pursue better trade, that is, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects, above all, Canadian jobs. A final trade deal must be based on its net costs and benefits. We have always been clear on this and have opposed trade deals in the past that would have a net negative impact on Canadian jobs and the environment.

To repeat what my colleagues have said, particularly the member for Essex, who has been so strong on this file, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The NDP supports deepening our Canada-EU trading relationship to diversify our markets. However, there remain significant concerns and unanswered questions about the proposed CETA deal.

First, changes in CETA will increase drug costs for consumers. Second, there are concerns about local procurement, particularly for local governments. Third, investor-state provisions will have to be removed before this deal is ratified, and fourth, the Liberals have not properly compensated dairy farmers for their loss of market share under CETA.

With respect to the first, increasing drug costs are a significant and known downside of CETA, yet the Liberals have not delivered on their promised compensation to the provinces and territories for the increased cost of prescription drugs to provincial taxpayers and consumers. Changes to intellectual property rights for pharmaceuticals under CETA are expected to increase drug costs by more than $850 million annually.

Quoting Jim Keon, the president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, he said:

A study prepared for the [Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association] by two leading Canadian health economists in early 2011 estimated that, if adopted, the proposals would delay the introduction of new generic medicines in Canada by an average of three and a half years. The cost to pharmaceutical payers of this delay was estimated at $2.8 billion annually, based on generic prices in 2010

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that it could be more difficult to bring down drug prices through a national pharmacare program if CETA comes in.

In opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study of the financial impact on provinces and territorial governments, both on their health care systems and on prescription drug costs. Now that they are in government, they are telling the provinces that they will cut health care transfers, while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces.

According to the Canadian Health Coalition, the delayed arrival of cheaper generics will increase the cost of prescription drugs for Canadians by between $850 million and $2.8 billion a year.

CETA is the first Canadian bilateral free trade agreement since NAFTA that includes a chapter on intellectual property rights. It goes well beyond Canada's existing obligations. The increased patent protections granted to brand name pharmaceuticals were an EU priority, but they are not a Canadian priority. We heard this all the time during the election campaign. When door-knocking in all kinds of neighbourhoods, we heard from Canadians who were splitting their pills, skipping prescriptions, not taking their full prescribed drugs each day, and having to make the terrible choice between buying food and taking the medication their doctor had prescribed. That is a terrible situation, and to think that the current government would risk exacerbating that problem for consumers is unimaginable to me and is certainly not consistent with its campaign promises.

My second area of concern is local procurement. When I was elected to local government, TILMA, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, was proposed. It was very controversial in British Columbia.

These days, local governments are encouraged, when they raise taxes on property owners, to then spend those taxes in the local community as much as they can. The local government will contract someone to put up a website, for example, or if it needs catering for a government operation or public function, it might bias that procurement toward local providers and maybe even pay a premium. This has been done more and more. However, the local procurement restrictions increasingly threaten and intimidate local governments from doing those fantastic things that are good for local business and good for the local economy.

We hear that above a certain threshold, minimum local content policies will be outlawed, even for municipal and provincial government procurement. Companies will also have an expanded ability to use temporary foreign workers, without a study of the impact on Canadians.

My third area of concern is the investor-state provisions. These are mechanisms that allow foreign corporations to sue our government if they feel that our regulations have impeded their ability to profit. We know this too well in Canada. Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under investor-state dispute mechanisms. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments, and our government continues to get new complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages.

One example currently before the courts is Lone Pine Resources, an oil and gas developer that had obtained an exploration permit to look for shale gas under the St. Lawrence River. The Quebec government took the very bold step of revoking the permit in response to constituents' concerns about fracking, but Lone Pine sued the Canadian government, under its U.S. affiliate, under NAFTA chapter 11 and sought $250 million in compensation.

What other province is going to be as brave as the Quebec government and take a stand against something like fracking if there is this kind of chill? This is a real problem. Existing investor-state dispute provisions have also been considered a regulatory chill where governments have failed to take action in the public interest when they have feared that it may trigger an investor claim.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association said:

[CETA] will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, the liberalization of trade in services, and the deregulation of government procurement rules will impact the federal and provincial governments' authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.

That worries me, every piece of it.

In February 2016, during CETA's legal scrubbing phase, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat the conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new court system still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government for any policy decision they feel would impact their profits.

The Liberals still have not explained how they would ensure that environmental health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges.

Fourth, the Liberals have not properly compensated dairy farmers for loss of market share under CETA. Quoting the Dairy Farmers of Canada:

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.

We cannot afford to be making and processing less of our own food. We cannot afford this for dairy farmers, who are at the foundation of the way our country and our rural economies have grown. We cannot let this go.

The Liberals also have not explained whether and how they will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for fish processing losses. Again, this is a time we should be adding value to our natural resources, not trading them away.

Given all these concerns and all these unresolved issues, I will quote Maude Barlow, from the Council of Canadians:

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.

I will leave, finally, by saying once again that New Democrats want better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects Canadian jobs. This is not a progressive trade deal until those measures are implemented. If the Liberal government will not stand up for progressive trade deals, New Democrats surely will.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, at the international trade committee, we heard from the chief trade negotiator, Steve Verheul. Regarding the cost of drugs, he said specifically that it is very difficult to conduct a specific analysis, mainly because the types of changes we will see with the changes to the Patent Act, particularly for the additional two years of protection, are not likely to kick in until the agreement has been in place for probably eight years or more, at least for the majority of changes.

Looking at the changes in agreements with the provinces, the provinces are on board regarding CETA. Certainly Health Canada could do a substantial amount of work looking at reducing overall drug costs in Canada.

Looking at what the chief negotiator said, how can we make any prediction about the cost of drugs without scaring the general public with “what ifs”?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will rely on the advice of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, the Canadian Health Coalition, and in fact, Health Canada itself. They all say that the direction of prescription drug costs is way up. Nobody is estimating it down. We are already in a huge crunch.

Canadians pay more for drugs than any other consumers, and we are the only country in the world that has a public health care system that does not have a pharmacare plan. We have work to do. It is a service we could provide, which New Democrats are committed to providing. We certainly are concerned that entering into a forever trade deal like this would limit those opportunities.

This is absolutely a place to slow down, as the Liberals proposed in the previous Parliament, and study this and be much more clear. With 215 out of 338 members of this House newly elected, we would certainly all benefit from more study in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the lack of compensation for dairy farmers. The amount the Liberal government is putting on the table is even lower than what the Conservatives were proposing and that was already low enough. What is more, compensation will be granted only on the condition that dairy farmers invest their own money toward improving their facilities. In other words, dairy farmers have to spend money in order to get a very small amount of compensation.

What impact does the hon. member think this will have on dairy farmers? This is very important for Quebec, the province I represent.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want my colleague's constituents to continue to make cheese, because it is the best. From British Columbia, I can say that the hon. member's cheese is the best, although ours is good.

This is a very good point the hon. member raises. The Conservatives promised a $4.3 billion compensation package for supply management farmers affected by CETA and TPP, but the Liberal government's offer, finally, after a lot of delay, was announced to be $350 million. I will say those numbers again. It was $4.3 billion under the Conservatives. It will be only a $350-million package for dairy farmers, so that falls far short.

This is a time when we need to be increasing our local food security, stimulating and protecting our local economy, and absolutely adding value to the resources we have.

The dairy industry is a vital partner and a long-standing part of our local economy, and we cannot risk alienating it and impeding its ability to continue to feed Canadians in this way.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell members how excited I was when I saw that job creation in Central Nova was going to be on the docket for debate today, which is what international trade is all about.

Whether we are talking about the agrifood producers in the Musquodoboit Valley, the fisheries on the north Northumberland Strait on the eastern shore, small businesses in Antigonish, or manufacturers in Pictou county, international trade is about generating new business and ultimately creating jobs, which is my top priority as long as I hold this office.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to highlight the global context within which this debate about the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic trade agreement takes place.

There is a growing trend toward what I will call inward facing politics. Quite honestly, I find this to be one of the most troubling political trends, and potentially the greatest intellectual debate that we may have in a generation next to climate change.

What I see around the world, whether it is with Brexit or a rise of nationalism in different parts of the world, is an attitude that we do not need our neighbours to get by. When it comes to matters of immigration to security, economics or climate change, I firmly believe we are better when we work together, when we co-operate.

It is easy to understand where this belief comes from. When we talk about billions and billions of dollars, when we frame everything in the context of GDP, I can empathize with many people at home who perhaps see these numbers and think that is not working for them. However, I could not disagree more strongly, because international trade is one of the avenues that we can pursue to help grow our economy and create jobs in my own community.

The starting point for me is that economic development is a good thing. Perhaps it is a bit obvious, but it is worth stating. It is not just because we have the opportunity to have more money in our bank accounts. With economic development, we see improved health care outcomes and better hospital care for our kids. We see improved economics and job creation in our communities so people have something meaningful to do with their career. We see better education opportunities for young people in our communities. We see more vibrant communities and ultimately a higher quality of life for Canadians.

How do we get to economic development in Canada?

I look at some of our assets. We have an abundance of natural resources. We have been blessed in every square inch of the country to be able to produce something. We also have an incredibly skilled workforce. We have tremendous education. We have the tools to make economic development work for our communities.

However, one of the shortcoming we have as a country is a small population relative to the magnitude of our resources and our skilled workforce. What we have to do to turn these opportunities into jobs is start selling to customers outside of our own country. This is where international trade comes into the picture for me.

If we can open up new markets for our natural resources and the products we create with our skilled workforce, we will be able to put more people to work in our own communities. This is why I have been incredibly thrilled with the approach that the government has taken toward international trade. Indeed, after some strong advocacy by my colleagues in the Atlantic caucus on this side of the House, we have managed to secure investment and trade as a key pillar to the Atlantic growth strategy, which was announced this past summer.

With this context in mind, I would like to turn this into a more local discussion.

When I look at these small businesses in my riding, I need to look no further than MacKay Meters on Abercrombie Road in Pictou county to identify a perfect opportunity of how the Canada-European Union trade agreement is going to create jobs in my home town. This is an incredibly innovative company that makes parking metres. There is only a handful of companies that make parking metres in the global community, and these guys do it better than anybody.

The company makes solar powered parking metres, sometimes made almost exclusively of recycled materials. It is also very close to working on a technology that can retrofit its parking metres to become electric vehicle chargers. It also holds a patent that allows it to accept major credit cards for payment for parking and potentially for charging electric vehicles.

When I look at what is going on around the world, I see the Netherlands has adopted legislation that says that after 2025, it will not be selling any more cars that use gas or diesel to move the wheels. It is going to be purchasing electric vehicles in Europe. If I want to be able to create an opportunity for a company that has a manufacturing base in my community and a research and development office in Halifax, I would look no further than this group that has powered automobiles across Europe for a generation.

It is not just one company. There are a lot of small and medium-sized businesses that generate positive economic outcomes. I can look at Velsoft, a company that creates computer training materials for tech giants like Microsoft, that will not face unfair tariffs and that will help expand its access to global markets. I can look at a company like Bionovations based in Antigonish that manufactures through its own research and development shipping containers that allow it to transport live seafood, which is our nation's second largest export, and a massive opportunity for eastern Canada.

While I am on the lobster fishery, we are already seeing incredible economic returns from a policy of engaging with the world when it comes to our seafood exports.

In lobster fishing communities there are only a couple of things one can do to really have a bumper crop, so to speak. There could be more fish in the water, which is, for the most part, beyond the scope of government policy, or there could be a better price for the fish that we sell. Last year, it was incredible to see fishermen in my community getting $7.75 a pound, which is nearly unheard of. The best thing I can have for some of the communities that I represent, whether it is Sheet Harbour, Lismore, Sonora, is a high price on lobster. This is a terrific thing, although it might be personally inconvenient for me at times when I get hungry at home.

This agreement will help sustain rural Canada. We are going to be saving little fishing communities along the eastern shore and the Northumberland Strait if we continue to engage with the world. The demand for Nova Scotia lobster creeps higher and higher with every conversation we have with another member of the global community.

It is not just the primary industry or the small manufacturers that are going to benefit. We have tremendous opportunity in 21st century sectors like the aerospace industry. We have Halifax international airport in my riding. The Aerotech Business Park is right there as well. Pratt & Whitney Canada is currently subject to significant barriers to trade and tariffs when it comes to the EU, which is the largest importer of aerospace technology. I see an opportunity for these innovation players, like Pratt & Whitney, in and around the airport. If that means there will be more aerospace engineers working in communities I have been elected to represent, I will feel as though I am doing my job fairly well.

We also have tremendous opportunities when it comes to transportation. I have two coasts in my riding, each of which is dotted with shipyards and ports. The port in Sheet Harbour would love to have open access for local markets to the European Union. It has a deepwater port that it would love to expand and take on the increased traffic that would be shipping. There would be more work for the stevedores and their community.

It is not just international trade from which we have such a great benefit. Embracing modern trade agreements like this also promote investment in our communities.

I need to look no further than the shipyard in Pictou where it manufactured turbines that went into commission just recently to generate 21st century clean power through tidal resources in Parrsboro. This is a benefit to the entire region, promoting clean energy, high skilled manufacturing jobs that we can do in Canada, and we need to be promoting them.

If we can give certainty to investors around the world so they have their international companies putting money from somewhere else into the communities that we represent in Canada, that create jobs for people in our communities, we can be very proud.

As I mentioned at the outset, my number one priority from the moment I stepped into this office was to create more jobs at home. By promoting international trade and opening up markets for Canadian businesses in the European Union, we will create opportunities for the private sector to grow and hire more people who live in Pictou county, Antigonish, the Musquodoboit Valley, the Eastern Shore, and everywhere in between.

By standing up and speaking in support of this legislation, I will have done the job I have been elected to do and I will help businesses create work for the people who so desperately need jobs at home.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a question for him about the investor state provisions and the right to have a legal system parallel to our own, domestic systems. Foreign businesses, that is to say those that are not Canadian, can take legal action against the federal government, provincial governments, even municipalities, if they are not satisfied or if their profits decline due to a regulation, law, or new rules implemented by a government in Canada.

Is my colleague concerned, as are the Europeans who are discussing this issue, about investor state provisions? The elected members of legislative assemblies adopt rules and represent the people. When a decision is made, the fact remains that foreign businesses sometimes have the last word in a legal system that operates parallel to our domestic system. In the end, businesses have every right to challenge the decisions of the elected representatives of the countries in which they operate.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. No, I am not concerned. In fact, I have significant experience working on an international dispute resolution practice group for a major national Canadian law firm. Not primarily, but a major part of my practice did focus on investor-state dispute resolution.

The argument suggests, tacitly, that there is somehow an erosion of Canadian sovereignty when we allow a foreign investor to sue the Canadian government. It cannot be further from the truth. In fact, it is an act of sovereignty to adopt an agreement that provides rights to investors to secure investment.

However, if we want to look to a domestic example, constitutionally we cannot enter into a contract that fetters the discretion of the state. We know that well. Case after case has gone to the highest levels of court. The remedy is that if we pass a law that interferes with an investment, we have to pay the investors for the harm they have suffered. We have an option to either uphold the laws we have agreed to uphold, or change the laws and compensate the investors. To do otherwise puts a closed for business sign on our country's borders, which we cannot afford to do when the people in my community need to get back to work if they are to succeed.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's position on the compromises and the addendums to the report, which were secured by the Walloon parliament.

What does my colleague think of the amendments, especially those concerning the courts where investor state disputes will be heard?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, of course there will be a dispute resolution mechanism put in place and arbitrations between investors and the states in question. I will not deny that is part of the process.

What we need to have, if we are to engage with the world community, is a fair and neutral place to serve as the forum of arbitration for our disputes. If we say that investors will make investments based on the current conditions that we have laid out in our laws in the form of a stability clause, it is only fair to them that they have some certainty. Without that certainty, their capital would go elsewhere.

I believe that Canada is now a party to in excess of 30 bilateral investment treaties. Of course this trade agreement would add, in effect, 28 more. We need to provide an opportunity not only for foreign investors to challenge decisions by the Canadian government, but for Canadian investors to challenge decisions by other governments as well. If we do not have this neutral place, we may find ourselves as Canadian investors trying to seek a dispute resolution forum in a country with a different legal tradition, with business practices we are unaware of, and a court that may or may not favour the host country.

In Canada, we do not have a history of expropriating the assets of foreign investors. We do have a history of adopting policy that serves our own national interest. The impact that those policies are going to have on foreign investment and international money coming into our communities is one important thing to consider, but not the only one.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

I have listened intently over the last few days to the debate. I think it is a healthy debate. Clearly, there are two groups here that support this agreement and are willing to move forward and create some Canadians jobs and, clearly, there are others in the House who appear to be against trade, despite their tweeting and facebooking on the iPhones and the Apple computers they have, which are products of trade. It is surprising to me that we have people here who put up every type of roadblock against trade.

I would like to start by acknowledging the hard work of our hon. colleagues on this side, the hon. members for Abbotsford, Battlefords—Lloydminster, and Prince Albert, who worked hard on this agreement under the previous government to get it to the point where it would come to fruition. I think it should be noted today that a lot of that heavy lifting was done by our Conservative government and our trade team, which did a considerable amount of work on this project in getting it to where it is today.

In light of the Canadian Football League and the Grey Cup that will be taking place this weekend, I am going to start my speech with a few football analogies, if I can.

It was our previous minister of trade and our trade team that got us to first in goal. The present Minister of International Trade and trade team is now at fourth in inches, so to say. The heavy lifting, again, as I said, was done by us and our trade team. The hard work our trade team did got us to a goal line drive. It did an amazing job and brought us to the goal line drive and the present government has used every timeout and down to get us within inches of the goal.

Now, there is more to be done. I am not taking away from the Liberal government the work it has done to get us to this point and I am acknowledging that the present Minister of International Trade has got it to where it is today. However, I also would like to acknowledge the strong leadership of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who fought passionately for Canadian jobs and the Canadian industry.

Former Prime Minister Harper understood that Canada is first and foremost a trading nation. He understood that one in five jobs was dependent upon trade and that 70% of our GDP was driven by trade. When former Prime Minister Harper sat at the negotiating table, he got the job done and, surprise, surprise, not a selfie needed to be taken to get it done.

This deal was successful because of the leadership and efforts of our former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his understanding that trade deals are what make our country competitive in an ever-increasing globalized world and that international trade agreements generate increased economic activities because diversification of our trade drives prosperity and job creation, I think it is definitely appropriate for us today to stand in the House and give kudos to our former strong trade team, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and, as well, as I said, the present Minister of International Trade.

Our previous government signed 43 trade agreements over the course of its tenure. We made critical investments in industry, transportation, and market development. That set Canada as a leader on the international stage, which helped us weather the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. It was through former Prime Minister Harper's strong vision that Canada's trade diversified.

CETA is our country's biggest bilateral trade agreement and trade initiative since NAFTA. When it comes into force, Canada will be one of the few countries in the world to have guaranteed preferential access to the world's two largest economies, the U.S. and the EU.

Well, that was until just two weeks ago, when the Prime Minister finally decided he was going to renegotiate NAFTA—but that is a speech for another time.

Imagine, as we go down the path with TPP and CETA, that the TPP would connect Canada to a market of 800 million consumers, with a combined GDP of $29 trillion or 35% of global GDP, which combined with CETA would give Canada the opportunity to be a North American trade hub and to take advantage of something that our friends from the south are woefully, right now, kind of tossing in the wind.

We are here to talk about CETA, a deal that is good for all of Canada and, specifically, for my home province of British Columbia. CETA connects Canadian producers to 500 million consumers. It provides access to the largest economy in the world. It is a good deal for Canadian producers and a great deal for Canadian consumers. It will open trade, almost eliminating tariff lines for trade with the EU.

Studies show that CETA would bring a 20% boost to our bilateral trade and a $12 billion increase to Canada's economy. That is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income, or creating 80,000 jobs. Adding 80,000 new jobs is incredible.

The EU is already B.C.'s fifth largest export destination and our fourth largest trading partner. British Columbia stands to benefit significantly from preferential access to the EU market. Once in force, CETA will eliminate tariffs on almost all of B.C.'s exports and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. The provisions in CETA will help erase regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights, and ensure more transparent rules for market access. B.C. is well positioned to take competitive advantage of this new agreement.

CETA is good for our farmers. It has been said time and again by members on all sides, whether in regard to our dairy, our beef, or our pork producers, that this is something that will benefit our agricultural sector and those beef and dairy farmers who wake up every morning before the sun rises and hard at work long after the sun goes down.

If the Liberals could only act in a similar way to the previous Conservative government and bring home a new softwood lumber agreement, everything would be amazing. Maybe we would even stand a chance of maintaining our current employment levels in our forestry industry.

Our Conservative Party believes that Canada should strive to maximize the benefits we have as a strong trading nation. The establishment of trading relationships beyond North America is exactly what CETA accomplishes.

Our fish and seafood exporters would also benefit from CETA, as the EU is the largest importer of fish and seafood, averaging $21 billion annually. The seafood industry has gone through many transitions and faces an uncertain future. When CETA comes into force, almost 96% of the EU tariff lines for fish and seafood will be duty free. In seven years, 100% of the products will be duty free. This is hugely important because, as I said, the EU is the world's largest importer of fish and seafood products. It comes down to a competitive advantage. Once the deal comes into force, Canada will have just that.

I would like to turn my attention back to my province. Through the strong leadership of the Conservative government, investments were made in British Columbia ports, gateways, and structures that would allow Canadian consumers, as well as manufacturers, to take full advantage of trade deals. We invested in the Asia Pacific gateway fund. We invested in the Go Global program that allowed small and medium-sized companies the opportunity to find out, once they get a trade deal, how to take advantage of it and fully prepare themselves to enter those markets. Not only did we do that, but we invested in ports, airports, railways, and roadways, so we could get our goods to market. That is exactly what our government did. We understood.

B.C. is a strategic gateway and can take full advantage of this new agreement. As a matter of fact, in my riding alone, we have the port of Prince Rupert, one of the largest and fastest marine routes. We have the third longest runway in Canada in Prince George, which is equidistant to Europe and Asia.

One of the things we need to talk about is what we do after we get this agreement in place. We need to look at our policies as to how we take full advantage of it. We need to develop programs for how we can invest in our markets and our small and medium-sized organizations so they can fully experience the full opportunities of this agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we get to questions and comments for the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women; the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît, the Environment; and the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard earlier today from another colleague in the opposition that over the last 10 years, 55 new trade agreements have been signed. I want to raise this because I think that fact is excellent. However, I also want to mention that of the one million small to medium-sized enterprises in Canada, only 41,000 are exporting. My hon. colleague talked about taking advantage of the policies.

What has the government done over the last 10 years to expand on the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service, and programs and studies between universities and colleges to support businesses not only entering the export market but also helping them to sustain themselves in the export market, because that has not been done well, in my experience.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I am very happy that my hon. colleague brought that up. I believe it was back in 2014 that our government introduced the Go Global program, which helped our small and medium organizations to work with our trade commissioners and associations that are doing business on the world-wide stage. We invested in making sure that those companies had the tools available to them. Signing an agreement but making our producers fully available and capable to take full advantage of the incredible opportunities that trade deals offer is exactly what our government did. We set up the Go Global program and it was wildly successful. We are hoping that the current government follows suit with it, because signing a trade deal is just one thing. We have to be able to provide the capacity to our consumers and businesses to take full advantage of this opportunity.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, which is at the westernmost end of the country, is concerned about the fate of fish processing plants out in Newfoundland. There have been signs of concern here.

Once again, we have a government that is clamouring to sign when we do not have a package. He mentioned something about making sure our producers and business people are ready.

I would therefore like to ask him if they are ready. If not, does that worry him?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, we are concerned. That is why, in my role as the official opposition critic for fisheries, oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, I asked the question a number of times. The Liberal government has been talking with the Atlantic provinces about the CETA investment fund that should be going to our fishers in support of the issues and the changes they will have to make in their processing. We have yet to get an answer on that question but it is something that was raised.

Overwhelmingly, what CETA brings is a connection. The EU is the world's largest importer of fish and seafood, with an annual average of $21 billion. I believe this opens up incredible opportunities for those coastal communities that have been hard hit. Whether with respect to northern cod or Atlantic salmon, this is a great opportunity for us to expand in that market, and hopefully the Liberals will follow through with their CETA investment fund for the Atlantic provinces.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, how will we support the 54% of micro-businesses, those with one to four employees? How will they be able to take advantage of these opportunities when they are too busy managing their everyday circumstances of just making meeting their payroll? I think that is an important question.

In terms of rolling out any trade agreement, certainly that is part of it but so is the ongoing preparation. Through these negotiations, we have known for years that trade agreements were forthcoming. However, I do think there is a significant amount of work to do with respect to preparation, trades training, and preparing young people to get involved in trade and succession planning for our businesses. Would my colleague agree with that?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those are great questions coming from across the way. I am going to first say that I am a small business owner as well. As a small business owner, the onus also is on me. If I want to expand my business, I cannot always go to the government for a handout or for a leg-up to be able to expand my business. To be able to expand my business, I should plan ahead of time and make sure that I am putting in place either the succession or the capacity so that I can take advantage of that, but that is a great question. As we expand these agreements, we want our micro businesses to take full advantage of this.

It goes back to my earlier comment that the government signing that deal is just one step. The government has to follow through with building those plans, marketing communications, but not only that, teaching and educating our small businesses and micro businesses how to take full advantage. Doing business internationally is considerably different than doing business domestically. I can speak from experience. When I was with the small Prince George Airport Authority and we were developing our business case, I spent a considerable amount of time on the international stage and it was a learning curve. It is something that we had to do but we had great trade commissioners right across the world who do phenomenal work.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to all my colleagues in the House, congratulations on a great debate thus far. I have been in this House since 2004. I have been involved with the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. I am now proudly president of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. We have talked a lot with our counterparts in the EU, both with individual members of Parliament from member states, whether they were U.K. MPs or senators from Italy and the like, and also the members of European Parliament, who are expecting a vote on this debate, just as we are here today, in the month of December. In a few weeks from now our counterparts in Brussels will be doing much of the same.

The EU represents a very important economic partner. It is the world's second largest economy and Canada's second largest trading partner after the United States, of course, so this is a monumental agreement.

In addition to that, I know we are second to the United States as far as that is concerned, but consider this for a moment: This is not one particular bilateral agreement, this is one agreement with 28 nation states. It is comprehensive to say the least. Not only did we include the fact that we are dealing with 28 member states in the European Union, but it had an unprecedented involvement of the provinces of this country in the forefront of negotiations way back when.

We talked in the past about how involved provinces have been, and in a piecemeal kind of way. Some successes include the Rideau conference on the environment. There were talks on the free trade agreement with the United States that took place in the late eighties, but they were never involved to the level that they are now, because a lot of this CETA deal will involve provincial jurisdiction. Procurement is one of the big ones, and this is one of the original demands of the European Union to discuss how to get the provinces involved in the discussions so that they will not turn their backs on some of the issues contained within this agreement, and rightly so.

Although they do not have the ratification authority, I can honestly say, and this is from a personal standpoint, what I have seen in the involvement of all the provinces with the federal government in negotiating this have been quite thorough. I have spoken to officials from my home province, Newfoundland and Labrador, who have been involved quite a bit.

There was, in the beginning, some trouble regarding seafood, regarding seals and that sort of thing, and certain trade embargoes and bans, but we have got over that at this point. I am still working, trying to convince European parliamentarians that their ban on seal products is something they should not proceed with and we should look at changes in doing that from a commercial aspect, but that is a battle for another day, as they say.

My hon. colleague from British Columbia talked about some of the numbers and about $21 billion in seafood. Think about this for a moment. On a personal level, in my particular riding, I had a shrimp plant. It was northern shrimp, the little ones. They are called salad shrimp in Europe, and there is an insatiable appetite in the United Kingdom for this type of shrimp, and we export quite a bit of this.

Over the past 15 to 20 years, shrimp has represented a large portion of income for a vast number of fisheries throughout northeastern Newfoundland, and a lot of it was exported to Europe. They were slapped right away with a 20% tariff on top, and it was a very difficult situation. We made a lot of sales despite that, but I think of the opportunity lost.

A large shrimp plant closed down in my riding about four years ago in Port Union. I truly believe to this day that if this deal had existed back then where there were no tariffs on the shrimp, that plant would have survived today. We have had a resource issue on shrimp, but I think this particular plant would have survived, based on the sales that they could have had with the European Union, in particular, western Europe, and that is a shame. They made some qualifications where the first 20,000 tonnes of shrimp would be subject to a 7% tariff instead of 20%. Thanks to this, now we go to zero.

As was pointed out earlier as well, 96% of these tariffs vanish on entering into force. It is an incredible opportunity for seafood, processed particularly, because we want to provide employment for our plants no doubt.

I heard some of comments about agriculture, and quite frankly, from some of the numbers that have been thrown around here, especially in pork, there is an incredible amount of money to be made in revenues from this trade agreement.

In the beginning, we talked about some of the hiccups or issues that the European Union had with us, such as fuel quality directives, and I spoke of the seal issue. However, we have managed to overcome that to the point that, not only do we have a commercial trade agreement, we also have a strategic partnership arrangement, or SPA, as well. Basically, we have political lines when we talk about human rights, and the fact that we will uphold the values that we hold dear in human rights to parallel with this commercial agreement. Of course, if we do something that is a violation of human rights, then we must look at this commercial agreement and question it as well, which is a good thing. This is why I think the agreement will hold as a gold standard for other bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Labour and environmental standards were also addressed. Of course, in the legal scrubbing of the legal agreement, we discussed the dispute settlement. Personally, I have always questioned the dispute settlement in this arrangement, simply because there has to be one, and I will give an example.

In my riding, there was a mill that was confiscated by the former premier. A mistake was made, and the province wanted to take back the rights of the water to flow to the rivers and the forestry. In essence, it ended up confiscating a mill at the same time, and was fined for it under NAFTA. These are the types of things where we need to settle disputes. I believe in them, and we have a tribunal set up to do that.

On the tribunal going forward, of course, it would come into force once the member states ratify this agreement, and is part of the less than 10%. For the most part, a little more than 90% will come into effect following the vote of the European Parliament and sanctioning by the European Commission.

I want to mention a few other things as far as the agreement is concerned.

Procurement is also going to be a golden opportunity for us as we look to share expertise in the jobs that we do and export some of our skilled trades. Over the past 20 years in my area in central Newfoundland, in Newfoundland and Labrador in general, and all rural areas really, one of the greatest exports we have right now are skilled trades.

The collapse of the cod industry in 1992 saw a rash of smaller private colleges opening up to compensate, because a lot of people were getting remuneration for training. At the time, these colleges were able to gear people toward the new world, oil and gas, and mining, where a lot of technical trades are involved. Now for these people, after being educated and with 10 to 15 years in the workforce, as someone described it, they do not go to the wharf as much to go fishing, they go to the airport and bring their skills with them to places such as Africa, Russia, Norway, and Alberta.

The recognition of skills in this agreement is a major part that I am glad to see. There is a chapter on that, which I think will prove to be another gold standard as to how we can recognize the work that we do and are able to go to other markets exporting these skilled trades.

However, there is an alarming trend. The most recent report for the World Trade Organization and other international institutions on trade barriers published in June noted that G20 economies introduced 145 new trade restrictive measures between mid-October 2015 and mid-May 2016, which is the highest monthly average since 2009. I witnessed this myself.

The anti-trade movement and some of these concerns were brought up here earlier. I share the same concerns, such as dispute settlement concerns, pharmaceuticals, and concerns in the seafood and agriculture industries. I believe that a progressive trade agreement such as this will help this country simply because, as has been said probably hundreds of times today, Canada has to punch way above its weight when it comes to trade. We have no choice.

For a nation of this size, with an economy of this size, and with 35 million people, I mean, it is almost to the point where free trade or no free trade is a ridiculous argument. It has gone way past that. It is like an argument over whether the earth if flat or round. No, we are free traders, it is as simple as that. We have no choice.

I do believe that this goes a long way to providing us an example of how we can do this in the future. For example, we know Brexit is going to happen. I would encourage our government and others to start a negotiation with the United Kingdom to make sure that the standards that have been set in CETA follow through on what I guess we would call “Brexit plus one”.

That being said, I look forward to the questions and comments.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's speech, and I work very closely with him as he is the chair of our fisheries and oceans committee, and I have great respect for him. I have a question for him with respect to the Atlantic provinces and the CETA investment fund. Does he feel that the government is going to follow through?

This is a loaded question, obviously, but we have asked it a number of times and we have gotten very vanilla answers. I am going to ask it for our hon. colleague because he is an Atlantic province MP. He is the chair of our fisheries committee. We have gone through the northern cod study and the Atlantic salmon study, and the member knows first hand how impacted the fisheries are on the Atlantic coast. Does he feel that the government is going to follow through with the CETA investment fund?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not sound too vanilla. I hope to inject a bit of Neapolitan into this debate and provide maybe a bit more.

I was there during the ruckus that occurred between the last two governments. I say this, and I will try not to get too partisan about it, but here it goes.

There was an agreement on one side and not the other. There was a dollar value that was agreed upon on one side and not the other. The intent was fine. It is a transition fund that the member is talking about to go from certain species of fish to others, but primarily focused on the processing part, which is the minimum processing requirements.

Do I believe in a transition fund? He can bet I do. I think there is a valuable investment that can be made to do this. If I can look to another example of that outside of the dairy agreement, I am also talking about the European fisheries fund, which was something that helped small communities around much of eastern Europe.

I hope that was a little less vanilla, if I could use that term.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not disagree with the encouragement of my colleague across the way around the prospects of trade with the EU. The European Union is ideal for us to work with, which is why we want this to succeed with the details being right.

Following on my Conservative colleague's question, we are looking for a little more detail around the mechanisms to address negative impacts on the Atlantic fisheries. The concerns that the fishery would be hurt by the removal of minimum fish processing requirements for seafood for the EU, during the Conservative time, were proposed to be dealt with by this $400 million offer, this interim work with the provinces and the feds.

I ask that the member tell me what is in the deal under the Liberal government, because we have not heard any details on compensation for Atlantic fisheries around value-added processing, and surely that is a detail we need to get right before this is signed. I am curious.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I can totally kill the curiosity, but nevertheless I will give it a shot.

The member mentioned something about an agreement that was in place. There never was an agreement. There was not even an offer, not even that. There was an assumption of an agreement that took place by the province, and the province said it had something in place, but the federal government said it did not. That was the problem with it, because there was so much confusion. They had a huge press conference. Nobody from the federal government, not one bureaucrat, even showed up. That part is out.

As I mentioned from my other colleague's question whether I believe in a transition fund, yes, I do. Will I always work for it? Of course, I would. I always believe that, as a government, we need to invest in how we transition from one fishery to the other or, in this case, minimum processing requirements. I can honestly say that there is so much to be done because our fishery is transitioning, not just from MPRs, but there are several other factors.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend's riding name has changed, but he is still my friend. It is now Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

My question is going to be as brief as I can make it. Premier Danny Williams did not expropriate a mill. There was a 99-year lease, if members can imagine, between AbitibiBowater and the Province of Newfoundland. They extended it, so it was over 100 years that this entirely lopsided deal had let AbitibiBowater run a pulp mill and have the right, for free, to use the water for hydro.

If we had had a proper hearing in proper courts instead of a chapter 11 secret tribunal, Danny Williams had a legal case. But the federal government under Stephen Harper threw Newfoundland under the bus and said that the next time around when money was paid for something like that, they would go back and claw it back from a province.

I just want to ask if my hon. colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see that go to court.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to see anybody take over resources; there is no doubt about it. However, going back to the original comment, if he did not expropriate a mill, why do we own it? We now own it. I do not know how this happened without his expropriating the mill. No deal was signed.

What I would say in this particular case, to the essence of whether a tribunal would look at our rights over natural resources, yes, absolutely. On the secretive part of it, NAFTA aside, I hope that this one is thorough. I think the instruction is right in there, in CETA, that tells us there would be a thorough mechanism by which these disputes would be settled.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and talk about CETA, the trade arrangement between Canada and Europe. What is interesting is that we have this agreement coming forth, and one of the things that we have not heard much about in the debate is the measurables of a trade agreement. I have raised it a few times myself. The measurables of a trade agreement that matter for Canadians are whether or not they are getting a job or their children's future is going to be better because of the agreements that Canada signs.

I will include the Liberals and Conservatives in the ideological right. Remarkably the right argue that, if we just have free trade, everything gets better. We hear that argument that we should just open these markets and have trade that goes back and forth. Then they start to realize and complain later that the reason we do not do well in these agreements is that Canadian labour is too high and that the governments do other things. They have the concerns in the same sentence, but they never connect the two.

When we try to add labour rights, environmental rights, and social responsibility rights, they are often put on the side of these trade agreements. There is an advantage in this agreement because we have Europe, which has some commonalities with us for that, but we also do not take into account the massive corporate subsidizations that take place in the European Union. I can point no further than to the auto sector, for example, which receives massive and state involvement.

Liberal members say it is going to be a fair market, but meanwhile they promote and sacrifice industries like the auto industry in deals like the one with South Korea, for example, where state-owned companies compete against us. They close their markets as well. They do non-tariff barriers. The Liberals say we are going to trade more and we are going to have more accessibility and, by the way, we are going to compete against state-owned car companies that are owned by the people, have a national strategy, and get massive subsidization that imports millions into our country over the terms of the deals and we hardly get any back to South Korea; just dozens. It is not reciprocal, but the Liberals are okay with that.

I know there are fireworks today because the Prime Minister is attending fundraisers with the Chinese and other business people from a Communist state government, but the reality is the use of their dollar and their environment and their dirty energy competing with Canadian companies. We brag and boast about the fact that we are going to sell our energy everywhere and make a difference in the world. However, we sell it for fire sale prices to countries that use the energy that is subsidized to build things and put Canadian workers and companies out of business and attract other business there, because they use energy as a subsidy for development and production of goods and services.

However, we cannot talk about those things. We do not have that type of mature debate in the House of Commons. The reality is that we actually facilitate the demise of Canadian jobs, not based on competition but on the fact that we are okay with others' manipulation of the so-called free market economy and state intervention, and state subsidization against our workers here who beg for a national strategy on certain issues but get nothing.

Take, for example, our exports of automobiles to Japan. Canadian automobiles are equal or better on J.D. Power and other types of independent assessments of vehicles for quality, workmanship, production value, and for consumers; yet we cannot produce and ship into those markets. How fair is that? It is not. Yet this says that if we just opened more markets, then we should be doing great and we should be doing well.

From the year 2000, for trade agreements, promotion and protection agreements, and investment agreements, this is where we are at. We basically go to countries and we increase corporate rights. We do the work that taxpayers fund and we have no expectations on these agreements leading to Canadian jobs. We do the work for the corporations to get them into these markets without any expectations of what is going to take place with regard to jobs.

I will give the House an example and this one is really sad. Over the last number of years I have heard both the provincial and federal Liberals talking about trade and doing missions in India. Some companies have gone over there on the Canadian taxpayer's dime. I coach hockey and I know the people who come out with their kids. These are working people. Some are engineers. These engineers are in the process of losing their jobs. They are training people from India who come over here with an engineering degree and take their jobs. Congratulations on a great strategy. Those people are funding the trips from India and the expenditure and now are going to subsidize the fact and deal with the reality. They have to deal with the reality that day to day they will work with the people who will get their jobs even though those jobs are considered value-added jobs in Canada. These are well-paying jobs in Canada. This is taking place in a tool and die and mould-making company that is a stalwart of our local economy. It is a Canadian success story that is unequalled in the world in terms of quality and workmanship. It cannot be denied that tool and die and mould-making in Canada is the best. We are facing subsidization of our jobs.

Since 2000, we have signed agreements with countries, agreements that are supposed to give jobs to Canadians, that are supposed to increase the chances for economic improvement for not only themselves but collectively for the nation. Here are some of the countries that we have signed agreements with since 2000: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Guyana, Hong Kong, Iceland, Jordan, Korea, Kuwait, Latvia, Mali, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Tanzania, and Ukraine. These agreements were signed just in 2000 alone. There has been no talk about the others.

Let us be clear about this. Some of the provisions in CETA will crush Canadian industries. We have signed all of these agreements but where are the jobs? The Conservatives get up on a daily basis and tell the Liberals that they have not created a single job despite the fact that we have signed a number of different trade agreements over the last number of years. Where are the jobs? We would like to know. We would like to see what they are so we can at least measure them.

We will have certain exposures in these agreements that are well known. The cost of pharmaceuticals is a huge one. Investment-state provisions is another, and the dairy industry.

We need to at least hear from the government about what the measurables are that we are going to put in. The government pulled a number out for the agricultural industry in terms of supply management. We need to know, just like the Chilean agreement and others that we have signed in the past, where the jobs are, where our neighbours are employed, and most important, if there will be an adverse effect on the cost of living. We need to know what the agreement will do for us because we have subsidized it.

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

Mr. Speaker, although I totally disagree with many of the comments from across the way, I appreciate what the member is saying.

Earlier today I made reference to the fact that New Democrats seem to take the position that there is no such thing as a good trade agreement. They say that they have supported one. I believe it was the Korean one. I do not know what it was about the Korean one that was so outstanding that it was the single trade agreement they supported.

The member talked about Japanese cars. Many Japanese cars are actually manufactured here in Canada. I would not want to sell our automotive industry short. We have some of the best cars in the world being produced here in Canada. We should be very proud of that.

Trade equals jobs, good middle-class jobs. At one time, we had a significant trade surplus, under a Liberal administration. We were working towards getting more trade, more world trade, because at the end of the day, Canada is a trading nation.

Would the member not acknowledge that Canada is dependent on international trade? Without international trade, we would lose tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of jobs. Would the member not at the very least acknowledge that fact?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every nation state requires trade. They have been doing it for decades, generations, and centuries. That is obvious. The question is about trade agreements. That is the difference.

We are still going to have trade. For example, we have the South Korea trade agreement. We did not address, which I pushed hard for, non-tariff barriers. That is why, interestingly enough, with the TPP and others, non-tariff barriers are the things that prevent an open market from developing.

What South Korea does is block, directly and indirectly, for example, dealerships from opening in South Korea. Canada can sell there all it wants, but good luck to people who actually buy a Canadian product, because they cannot get it serviced. That is what has to stop. If we did the same thing, those South Korean cars would not be dumped here.

There are good cars produced across Ontario. There is no doubt. Workers do that for Canada, not the government.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually chair of the committee when we went through the South Korea trade deal. I remember that the NDP and Liberal members supported that unanimously as it went through committee. In fact, it was the first time the NDP members actually supported a trade deal, which surprised us. I know the joke around here was that they got mixed up and thought it was North Korea, not South Korea, and that is why they supported it.

When we look at the NDP on trade, when we look at its party policy when it comes to resource development or taking advantage of the sectors we have, strengths here in Canada, it seems to want to shut them down. It seems to be scared of the fact that Canadian companies can actually compete, and not only compete but succeed and do very well and hire more people. They can generate wealth and generate taxes, which gives us our health care and the social programs Canadians actually want.

If we do not have trade, if we do not have agreements like CETA, if we do not have situations where our companies can grow and compete around the world, what happens is that companies lay people off and we do not have a tax base.

What would be the member's suggestion? If he does not want trade, where are all these people supposed to work? Where is all the food supposed to be shipped to? Where are all these jobs going to come from? Obviously he does not like trade. What is the member's solution?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was actually kind of bizarre.

First of all, our automotive industry is integrated with the United States. With the United States going into free trade with South Korea, we had no real option in the sense that we had to pursue that.

Similar to CETA, there is greater protection for other industries than what Canada gets. It is similar to what has been happening in other trade agreements, like the TPP. Malaysia out-negotiated these guys. Malaysia gets 12 years for auto. We get five years.

This is the immature element of the argument: “If we do not have a trade agreement, we are not actually going to trade with these people.”

England is our third-largest trading partner. We are still going to trade with it, even if it is out of CETA, with Brexit. It is going to happen. It is a choice of whether we enhance WTO trading privileges. It is not whether we are actually going to trade with some countries.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the CETA negotiations provided a great opportunity to innovate, especially regarding provisions on investment protection and the mechanism for the resolution of disputes between investors and states. Our government fully seized that opportunity and developed a new and improved approach to investment chapters in Canada's free trade agreements.

Let me tell members today about some of these innovations.

I know that members of this House fully appreciate that the Canadian government and the European Union and its member states have a sovereign and inalienable right to regulate in the public interest. It is, in fact, our solemn responsibility to do so for the benefit of all citizens, especially those among us who are the most vulnerable.

It is also important to know that there are well-recognized principles of international law establishing that such a sovereign right to regulate in the public interest is not affected by provisions in international trade agreements. Nevertheless, to ensure that CETA is clear on that principle, we modified the investment chapter and introduced a dedicated article reaffirming the right of governments to regulate in the public interest, including in such areas as the environment, health, and safety.

Another significant CETA innovation our government is proud of is the transformation of the mechanism for the resolution of disputes between investors and states. CETA is indeed the first international trade agreement that establishes a permanent tribunal to hear claims by investors alleging that states have breached investment-related obligations.

There are currently around 3,000 international investment agreements in force worldwide, and a large majority of those include a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between investors and states. In all of those agreements, including those to which Canada is a party, investment tribunals are constituted on an ad hoc basis and are thus dissolved when a final decision is issued. The members of those tribunals are jurists who are appointed by the parties to the dispute; that is, the foreign investor and the respondent state. Critics of this process have been deeply concerned about arbitrator independence.

The CETA tribunal, in contrast, will consist of 15 members appointed solely by Canada and the European Union. Ethical requirements will be central to the process leading to their appointment. Among others, members of the tribunal will not be allowed to act as counsel or expert witnesses in an investment dispute under any international investment agreement. Members will be appointed for a five-year term that may be renewed only once. Individual cases will be heard before a three-member division of the tribunal, and those members will be selected on a rotation basis, ensuring that the composition of a division is random.

Our government is convinced that such innovations address the concerns about a perceived lack of arbitrator independence and will give greater legitimacy to the dispute resolution process.

Moreover, as the members of a division hearing a specific case will be in a position to consult with the other members of the tribunal, we expect that the coherence of decisions will also, as a result, be much improved.

That is not all, however. In addition to the first-instance tribunal, CETA will establish a permanent appellate tribunal, thus creating another precedent in international investment law. The appellate tribunal will function in a way similar to the first-instance tribunal. Its tasks will be to review decisions that are contested by either the foreign investor or the respondent state.

In time, the first-instance tribunal and the appellate tribunal will develop a body of decisions that will constitute effective jurisprudence. This, in turn, will create greater legal certainty for both foreign investors and governments.

We believe that these innovations regarding dispute resolution are great accomplishments, but our government intends to go even further.

Indeed, our ultimate objective is to establish, with the European Union and other interested trading partners, a multilateral institution for the resolution of investment disputes. Once established, this new institution would take over the resolution of investment disputes under CETA and could become the mechanism for investment dispute resolution for all future Canadian investment agreements with trading partners who agree to sign up with the multilateral institution.

The above innovations regarding the right to regulate and the mechanism for the resolution of disputes are certainly significant ones that our government is proud of.

However, let me now turn our attention to another important innovation of the CETA investment chapter that may be less visible. We have clarified in CETA that, absent a specific commitment made to an investor to that effect, a decision by Canada or the European Union not to issue, renew, or maintain a subsidy does not constitute a breach of CETA's investment protection obligations.

We have closed the doors to shopping by clarifying that investors cannot seek to import provisions from other Canadian or European trade agreements through CETA's most favoured nation treatment article. Canada and the European Union have clarified what constitutes a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard to ensure the standard is not interpreted in a broader manner than intended.

CETA encourages the use of domestic courts by suspending the timelines for the submission of a claim while domestic remedies are being pursued. We added an article on mediation to encourage early settlement of disputes without recourse to the CETA tribunal. We have provided CETA with a mechanism for the early dismissal of frivolous claims. We have taken small and medium-sized enterprises into consideration and have added provisions that make it easier for them to access the mechanism for the resolution of disputes.

We have made it mandatory for an investor who submits a claim, while benefiting from third party funding, to be transparent and disclose the identity of its funder.

Importantly, we have established a committee that provides a forum for the CETA parties to consult on difficulties that may arise regarding implementation of the chapter, as well as on possible improvements to the chapter, especially in light of experiences and developments in other international fora.

It has been Canada's practice to prevent so-called mailbox companies from benefiting from Canada's trade agreements. CETA is no different. In order to be considered as an investor under CETA, a European Union enterprise that is owned by interests of a third party is required to have substantial business activities in the territory of the European Union. It cannot simply establish a mailbox company in the EU for the sole purpose of gaining access to the dispute resolution mechanism of the CETA.

Finally, the CETA demonstrates Canada's continued leadership with regard to promoting transparency in the dispute resolution process. Under CETA, all hearings are open to the public and all documents submitted to or issued by the tribunal are made available to the public.

Our government is genuinely proud of the progressive investment chapter achieved in CETA. We believe that the progress made here may become the world standard for future investment agreements.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sits on the trade committee. I want to congratulate her for her hard work on the trade committee. I know she has worked very hard on this file. I think she is as happy as we are to see this move forward, and the results for Canadian businesses.

That brings about my question. Does she feel Canadian businesses are ready for this trade deal? Are they ready to take advantage of the opportunities here? I look for her opinion on this.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on the trade committee.

There is a lot of work to be done in preparing Canadian businesses for international trade. As I mentioned to my colleague in a previous question and comment, over the last 10 years, 55 trade agreements may have been penned by the previous government. We have one million small to medium-sized enterprises with only 41,000 that are currently exporting. There is a significant amount of work to be done.

The trade committee heard that the agreement did not only constitute the 500 million people of the European Union. We are in a unique position in Canada, with access to one billion, because we have the advantage of NAFTA. We take in to the tip of Mexico, all the way over to the borders of Poland.

There is a significant amount of work that has been done, but more work can be done, particularly tying in our universities and colleges to help our small to medium-sized enterprises find out what they do not know about international trade.

The committee heard about the expansion of the virtual trade commissioner service. Many of our Canadian companies would benefit even more greatly if they knew the benefits of being a qualified company under the commission. Also, there are the advantages and the necessity of looking at export insurance. Many Canadian companies want to get involved in export, but they are not sure what they need to know, and those that do not need to know. We know that 75% of first-time exporters are not exporting in their second year.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There will be three minutes remaining for the period for questions and comments for the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest when the House next returns to debate on the question before the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 22 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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Joliette has two minutes to finish his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was told that there were two minutes remaining for questions and comments on the previous speaker's remarks and that I would then have 10 minutes for my speech.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Sorry. My mistake.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Mr. Speaker, the context surrounding the debate on the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Europe is unique. People everywhere are starting to be skeptical about free trade agreements, when they are not downright angry about them. We saw it last summer with the Brexit vote, and we saw it more recently still with the U.S. election.

Working-class America, rust belt America, the America hit hard by outsourcing, that is the America that expressed its anger by voting for Donald Trump. It is easy to condemn populism. It is easy to be condescending and say that the people do not understand, but those who claim to represent the people are failing in their duty if they refuse to listen to those people.

There is a reason why people react with skepticism when they are told how great more open markets are. They are expressing their dashed hopes. For 30 years now, governments have been swearing that deregulation internally and liberalization externally will result in everlasting prosperity. We know that was no more true then than it is now.

Making our workers compete with men and women who are being exploited in developing countries puts downward pressure on wages here in Canada. Manufacturing a product in violation of international agreements on labour rights and environmental protections is a form of unfair competition.

This is all to say nothing of tax havens. By allowing multinationals to avoid paying their taxes, the government is placing the burden on the rest of the population. That is also part of the dark side of globalization.

Although elite businesspeople and the politicians who serve them have been insisting for 30 years now that the opposite is true, this kind of liberalization is harmful. It increases inequality. It rewards countries with no environmental laws, and it makes it harder for states to act for the common good.

Given the neo-liberals' failed promises, reality is imposing itself, and it is not always pretty. That is what happened in the U.S. That is what happens when you refuse to face reality, out of ideology, and when you do not keep your promises.

The government keeps saying that it understands people's concerns, but it does nothing to address the problems. In 1988, it said it understood those who were concerned about the free trade agreement with the U.S. The implementation bill even included the provision of an adjustment fund. As we know, that fund never came to fruition. The government did not contribute a single penny to it.

The same thing happened in 2002, when China joined the World Trade Organization, the WTO. The government said that it understood the concerns and that it would help the sectors that might be threatened by the Chinese competition. Again, nothing was done.

At the time, Montreal was the North American capital of fashion. Textiles and clothing accounted for more than 40,000 jobs in the Montreal area. Three years after China joined the WTO, all 40,000 jobs were lost. These were not high-tech jobs, but they were often the first jobs of newcomers, their gateway to economic integration. That all collapsed overnight. With Ottawa cutting access to employment insurance, many of these newcomers fell into a trap of misery and despair.

Today, Ottawa strikes again. Today, it is our cheese and dairy producers who are footing the bill for this agreement. The compensation that was announced is woefully inadequate.

Every trade agreement should have a compensation fund and, above all, an adjustment fund for sectors affected by these agreements. The government is required not only to announce it, but also to fund it.

Therefore, yes, skepticism is understandable, and I, too, am skeptical. However, I do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Jacques Parizeau understood this very well when he wrote that we should not descend into “a sort of general condemnation of free trade.”

Quebec is the high-tech heart of Canada and it accounts for almost half of Canada's technology exports. Developing a leading-edge product is a long and expensive process. In order to make a profit, you have to be able to sell it abroad because our small domestic market is not enough. We must have access to global markets to remain a developed nation, period. Quebec is a trading nation. We export 56% of what we produce.

In spite of the devastating consequences of previous agreements, I cannot systematically condemn all free trade agreements. Quebec needs good free trade agreements. This leads us to today's debate on the agreement with Europe.

As this trade partner consists of many countries with standards that are similar to ours, the fears are less pronounced. Europe will not put downward pressure on our wages, as its wages are often higher than ours. We are not talking about China.

Europe will not exert downward pressure on our regulations because its own are often stronger than ours. Europe is not the United States. Europe is not a threat to our culture or our public services. Europe is facing the same challenges as we are. Let us be serious. We are talking about Europe here.

CETA is a broad agreement with a very wide scope. Obviously, it contains some measures that we are less pleased about. For example, I do not like the chapter on investment protection. Although the mechanism it sets out is much better than the one provided in chapter 11 of NAFTA or those in other international agreements that Canada has already signed, we did not need it.

Our Civil Code protects property rights. We have clear rules governing expropriations. Our courts are independent. It is the same in Europe. However, despite these irritants, we support the principle of the bill at this stage.

Europe and Quebec have a lot of commonalities. Today, even before the agreement is concluded, 40% of the trade between Canada and Europe is done with Quebec. It is the same thing when it comes to investments. A total of 40% of European investments in Canada are made in my province of Quebec.

The Quebec model is not all that popular among business people in the United States and English Canada. There is a reason why we attract less than 15% of American investment in Canada. Our society is somewhat unusual on this side of the Atlantic.

The opposite is true in the European business community. They are not afraid of high unionization. Germany is much more unionized than we are, and it is doing very well. For them, unionization ensures a peaceful society and civilized labour relations. Similar thinking governs state intervention in the economy. They tend to see state participation in business as a guarantee of financial security. Yes, Quebec and Europe have what it takes to get along. Quebec is a bridge between America and Europe, and the role suits us. The conditions are right for us to play this role.

The agreement Europe was negotiating with the United States is probably doomed. There is every reason to believe it will be scrapped once Donald Trump takes office in January.

That makes it more interesting for European companies to set up shop here as an entry point into the American market. We are ideally suited to serve as the bridgehead for European companies in North America. This is an unprecedented opportunity for our people, as long as it is done properly.

I would like to close with a nod to René Lévesque. In his farewell speech upon leaving politics, he urged us to take a good look at Quebec on a map and to observe how it resembles an open hand, the palm resting firmly on the United States and the fingers open to the Atlantic, stretching toward Europe.

Perhaps that way lies our cultural, social, economic, and geographic future as a nation. That is why, at this stage and despite its flaws, we will support the principle of the bill before us today.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He is right in saying that Quebec and Europe already have strong ties. This is worth pointing out. Just think of our ties to our French cousins, for instance.

That being said, another important aspect of the agreement affects Quebec in particular. Of course I am referring to its impact on our dairy farmers.

In the previous Parliament, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé moved a motion that passed unanimously. The motion was to the effect that if Canada accepted this agreement, dairy farmers would have to be financially compensated. The Conservative government promised $4.3 billion in compensation. Now, that amount has been reduced to $300 million. As my colleague's party put it so well, that is nothing but peanuts for the industry.

I am wondering whether they plan to support the bill at second reading. How can they reconcile that support with the considerable harm this is going to cause our farmers in our regions?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very important speech.

Clearly, it is Quebec's cheese and dairy farmers who are being sacrificed in this agreement. We were given assurances that they would not be forgotten. The announcements that were made in the past few weeks do not really cover the consequences for these producers.

Let us not forget that the fine cheese makers, who work specifically in Quebec, will be in competition with highly subsidized European producers. They are therefore not on a level playing field.

Over the past few decades, cheese makers have developed a top-notch industry that we can be proud of. It is in jeopardy because of unfair rules. Measures need to be taken. I am sure that my NDP colleagues and I will continue to pressure the government to improve the compensation.

Let us not forget that in Quebec, the Union des producteurs agricoles is in favour of the agreement. We agree with the Union des producteurs on the need to ensure adequate compensation for our cheese and dairy farmers. We are certainly not going to give up the fight.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and true understanding of what Quebeckers think of this trade agreement.

I would remind members that all political parties in the National Assembly, whether it is the CAQ, the Parti Québécois, or the Quebec Liberal Party, support the agreement. Consequently, as Quebec MPs, we must be the spokespersons for the National Assembly.

In his speech, the member referred to chapter 11 of NAFTA. Could he expand on the questions he has about this chapter?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his question.

We are getting into fairly technical details. The sections dealing with investor rights are usually one of the problems with international agreements.

For example, chapter 11 of NAFTA indicates that if a multinational operates in a country and that country adopts new rules that could reduce future profits, the multinational could sue the government and be fully compensated for all profits, even those not realized but forecast. That is the case for NAFTA and for almost every other international agreement that Canada has signed to date.

That is not the issue with the Canada-Europe agreement. Compensation would be provided on the basis of fair market value, which is already recognized by the Civil Code and related rules in effect in Quebec.

I mentioned in my speech that since we already have these mechanisms in place, as do European countries, we do not need this type of provision. Nevertheless, the provision that was negotiated and announced will have much less of an impact than what is in NAFTA, for example.

I hope my explanation has not been too boring and was sufficiently clear for my colleague.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have said this before in other speeches and others have said it during debate on this bill, but it bears repeating. Canada was built on trade. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada today depends directly on exports.

Trade between the colonies of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia provided the impetus for Confederation, and debates among the Fathers of Confederation demonstrate that an internal free trade zone in British North America rivalled mutual defence as their top priority.

Canada's history as a trading nation does not stop within our own borders. Following divisive debates about free trade over a century ago, recent decades have seen a concerted push to broaden our horizons and establish free trade agreements with other countries. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Canada, the United States, and later Mexico formed a lucrative free trade zone, which tripled trilateral trade, tripled investment in Canada by Mexican and American companies, and contributed more than 4.5 million Canadian jobs over the years.

The debate over free trade has at times been fierce, and trade has been a significant ballot question over many federal elections. The 1911 election was a virtual single-issue election over reciprocity with the United States. More recently, but still some time ago, many will recall the bitter election campaign over free trade with the United States in 1988. Brian Mulroney was the prime minister of the day, and he had successfully negotiated a monumental free trade agreement with the United States.

During that campaign, outrageous claims were made by opponents of free trade. They argued that Canada's social safety net would not survive free trade with the United States. They claimed that public health care would disappear. They claimed that trade would threaten Canada's culture, and that even our sovereignty was at stake. It was all complete nonsense.

I was a 17-year-old high school student during that election, and even then I could see through the rhetoric and recognized the fearmongering for what it was. Although I was not old enough to vote in that election, I was old enough to take a stand and choose a side in a debate that would profoundly affect the future of my country.

I took my first concrete step into political activism; I joined the Conservative Party. I could not understand those who thought it was in the interest of a trade dependent country like Canada to make imported goods more expensive and to make our exports less competitive. Instead, I knew that the free trade debate was about freedom. Under the visionary leadership of Brian Mulroney, the original free trade agreement was expanded to include Mexico, and became the agreement we now know as NAFTA.

Opposition to free trade began to wane. Eventually the Chrétien government grasped what was at stake and ratified NAFTA. Successive governments launched a flurry of free trade negotiations with many other countries. Ultimately, the previous government concluded an agreement with the European Union representing 28 member states, which we are discussing today, as well as concluding negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership representing 12 countries.

Now it falls to the current government to carry on where the previous government left off, to conclude the agreements it started, to bring into force the ones it concluded, and to launch new ones to continue growing Canada's economy through access to markets for our goods and services. I am pleased that Liberals and Conservatives can debate how to achieve free trade rather than whether there ought to be free trade.

We have before us today a bill to ratify the Canada–European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, commonly called CETA. The history of this agreement highlights one of the best points of Canada's political order and electoral system, which is the possibility of the smooth transitions between governing parties without interruption to important national projects which are clearly in Canada's best interests.

The process began with Canadian and European counterparts looking into the merits of a closer trade union in 2007. By August 2014, trade officials succeeded in working out the full text of an agreement, a fact which the previous government rightly celebrated as an important milestone.

However, the treaty still needed to go through extensive legal review for compatibility with numerous different legal systems and to be translated into many languages. By October 2016, it was ready to sign. As my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, pointed out, this was a very difficult process, translating and getting this agreement into a form compatible with and understood in all of the languages and legal systems of the European Union.

As of today, the vast majority of the agreement is ready to implement, and the few outstanding issues that remain can be ironed out and implemented in short order.

Colleagues on both sides of the House have spoken already about the merits which CETA will bring to Canada, such as the prospect of creating 80,000 new jobs, adding $12 billion to our GDP, and boosting bilateral trade by 20%.

I will not belabour these points further, since they have already received much attention by those better versed in the details. Instead, I would like to address concerns that have been raised, although many of these concerns are the same tired, old, unfounded, knee-jerk clichés that have circulated in some circles since the FTA with the United States was negotiated 30 years ago.

Opponents of free trade claim, for example, that trade agreements allow business elites to engage in a race to the bottom in terms of workers' wages, labour standards, and environmental regulation. Although I do not accept that premise, I will point out the following to those who do.

The European Union represents Canada's peer countries. The European Union is not bursting with sweat shops with barely paid workers. It has strong labour laws and comparable costs and standards of living. The European Union does not play dirty through currency manipulation. It can be expected to bargain honestly and in good faith. The European Union enforces human rights and environmental standards comparable to our own. In short, CETA is a good deal with a good trading partner, which will produce good outcomes for Canadians and Europeans alike.

To those who rightly value Canadian sovereignty and examine all agreements for possible infringements, allow me to point out that CETA does not interfere with Canada's right to regulate our own affairs, such as on the economy and environment. The agreement does not touch public services like education and health care, which will remain under exclusive Canadian control. Additionally, the agreement does not interfere with financial measures like debt restructuring.

As a brief aside, I should mention that at the rate the government is piling on debt and threatening social structural deficits not seen in the country since the time of Trudeau senior, that latter point about financial measures may be more important than one would hope.

However, moving from a discussion of concerns about CETA back to one on the benefits it will bring to Canada, ratification of this bill comes at a critical moment in Canada's relations with our largest trading partner, the United States.

As I had mentioned earlier, NAFTA has spurred much economic growth and generated much prosperity in Canada over the last few decades. However, the incoming American president has expressed concerns with NAFTA and may want to renegotiate parts of it. Since over 70% of Canada's exports currently go to the United States, the current government must make maintaining or increasing the benefits of NAFTA a top priority in the coming years. It must also continue the previous government's drive to diversify Canada's export markets through new agreements like CETA and also the trans-Pacific partnership.

I hope the Prime Minister will not make any more blunders like the one he has already made by making an unsolicited offer to renegotiate NAFTA. As a trained boxer, the Prime Minister ought to know better than to lead with his chin.

Other steps which the government must take to facilitate trade include approving construction of oil and gas pipelines to get our exports to market and building transportation infrastructure into the north to make it more accessible.

There is also much to be done on internal free trade. I was disappointed when the government voted down my colleague's motion to free the beer and seek legal clarity from the Supreme Court as to the constitutional limits on implements to internal trade, but that will be another day.

The Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement is a good deal for Canada. I look forward to jobs created for my constituents by gaining access to new markets. I also look forward to better choice for consumers in my riding as well.

I pay tribute to Canada's expert, professional negotiators and their years of hard work. I acknowledge the tireless efforts of the members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster when they were in government, and the visionary leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper. I also thank the current Minister of International Trade and the current Prime Minister for their willingness to finish the job and for their acknowledgement of the role members from both parties have played in getting us to where we are today.

After years of rising expectations, a bill to implement this historic agreement is finally before the House, and I for one plan to vote for it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech today on this historic deal.

I agree that trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. Many things have changed throughout this agreement, things that have happened in this very year that have changed the context of this agreement.

One of those things is Brexit; 42% of Canadian exports to the EU are to the U.K. Canadian concessions in CETA were based on the premise that the U.K. would be part of CETA. After Brexit, the Liberal government has failed to re-evaluate the net benefit of a CETA without the U.K.

If the U.K. triggers its exit from the EU, and also leaves CETA, is the member comfortable with the concessions Canada has made in CETA, given that the U.K. represents nearly half of Canada's export market to the EU?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it almost sounds like a bit of a sign of some hesitant support from members of that party, that they might actually be on board with a trade agreement, which is refreshing.

Going to the question about the fact of the Brexit vote and the effect on this agreement, I do not see any reason to take our foot off the gas in getting this agreement approved. I see every incentive and every reason why the government must engage with the United Kingdom, no matter what it does, so we may not also lose an opportunity for free trade with the United Kingdom, whether it leaves the European Union or not.

It is unfortunate that this has happened in the midst of the CETA process, but I do not see any reason for the government not to continue to press forward and approve CETA, and be engaged with the United Kingdom so we do not lose opportunities in the event that it leaves the European Union.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the importance of promoting free trade with partners like Europe that have similar laws on human rights, environmental regulation, and more specifically labour rights. I would like to draw his attention to the matter of environmental regulation and the investor-state provisions.

Let us look at a specific example of the use of chapter 11 of NAFTA. In 2011, Quebec refused to issue a fracking permit to Lone Pine Resources, a Calgary-based company with subsidiaries in the United States. That company took advantage of the loophole to take the Government of Canada to court and seek $230 million in restitution.

Under the investor-state provisions, a European company could do the same, so although I believe that the European countries are acting in good faith when it comes to their relationship with Canada, unfortunately, I do not have the same trust in their corporations.

Is my colleague not worried about this type of provision and that fact that it puts the federal government and other levels of government in Canada at risk?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not entirely familiar with the details of the case that the member makes specific reference to under NAFTA.

However, in the broadest terms, we cannot lose the opportunity to ratify this agreement. If we want to seek out reasons why we should not do an agreement, because in an agreement of this size there is a portion of it that is unacceptable, we could talk ourselves out of just any agreement.

We need to seize the opportunity we have before us, take advantage of the work that has happened, and get this agreement approved.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada, the European Union, and its member states.

A trade agreement of this nature is long overdue and has long been fought for.

Before I speak to the merits of this agreement, I want to join my colleagues in thanking the members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster for their long years of work to negotiate this agreement, as well as all of the members of the previous and current governments who had a hand in establishing, negotiating, and concluding this agreement.

I also want to thank the Right Honourable Stephen Harper for his leadership on this and many other trade files. Under his leadership, we signed more trade agreements than any other Canadian government.

Members could probably take it as a given, by virtue of my membership in this party, that I am a strong proponent of free trade. With the recent waves of protectionist sentiment sweeping the globe, it is important to once again reiterate the benefits of freer trade, and why a country like Canada must continue to reach new markets for our products, investment, and labour.

I want to talk about four points today: the objective benefits of free trade; the benefits of free trade to Canada, and the specific components of CETA that benefit Canada; the specific benefits of CETA to my home province of Alberta; and the benefits of CETA for accessing EU government procurement business.

Trade is good for Canada. We have an enormous amount of products, resources, and skills that require access to other markets in order to reach a meaningful potential. The EU represents roughly 500 million people and almost $20 trillion in economic activity. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than our entire GDP. These are customers and businesses that Canada needs to access in order to maximize our economic growth.

We strongly support international trade initiatives which strengthen the bonds with friendly countries, increase economic productivity, and drive prosperity and job creation. When we complete trade deals, Canadian job prospects increase substantially as we access larger markets. Prices for goods decrease as we eliminate tariffs on goods entering our country. The benefits to Canadian consumers, Canadian workers, and Canadian businesses are enormous, and CETA helps us realize these benefits on a bigger, global scale.

Specifically, CETA is projected to lead to a $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy, which is equivalent to adding $1,000 dollars to the average family income every year, or almost 80,000 new jobs. Nearly 100% of all EU tariffs on non-agricultural products will be duty-free, and nearly 94% of EU tariffs on agricultural products will be duty-free. This is an offer we cannot refuse.

More importantly, for my constituents in Edmonton West, and those of my colleagues across Alberta, CETA will increase Alberta's economic potential to a substantial extent. The European Union is already Alberta's fourth largest export destination, and is our third-largest trading partner. For the past five years, on average Alberta has had exports of $1.4 billion to the European Union, driven by the agricultural, metals and minerals, and advanced manufacturing sectors.

Once in force, CETA will eliminate tariffs on almost all of Alberta's exports, and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. CETA includes provisions that ease regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights, and ensure more transparent rules for market access. CETA will provide Alberta exporters with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU.

On the day CETA's provisions enter into force, 98% of EU tariffs on Canadian goods will be duty-free, including those on key Alberta exports, such as metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, and chemicals and plastics. For agricultural and agri-food products, almost 94% of EU tariffs on Canadian goods will be duty-free, which rises up to 95% once all phase-outs are complete, seven years after CETA enters into force. This duty-free access will give Canadian agricultural goods, such as beef, pork, and bison, preferential access to the EU market.

I do not think I need to tell the House how important beef is to the Alberta economy, but I do want to mention some specific potential benefits to industries affected by the tariff reductions listed in CETA.

According to the CBC, with CETA, Canada is poised to supply about 1% of the European Union's beef needs under the new pact, which could mean almost $600 million in revenue.

In addition to beef and agriculture products, CETA would also provide for increases in eligible trade for products with high sugar content. I want to talk about a small business in Edmonton that started in a basement in Sherwood Park. It is a much-renowned startup company called Jacek Chocolate Couture. It has expanded from Sherwood Park to downtown Edmonton and now to Canmore, Alberta. The company sells its famous chocolates across our entire country, and now could reach a massive new customer base, growing its revenues and creating new jobs.

We know how things are tough in Alberta right now. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we approve this trade agreement which would have demonstrable benefits to Alberta's industries. This agreement would create jobs by opening the European Union's market to more Alberta goods and would lower prices for importing EU products. Lower prices and more customers for business are exactly what Alberta needs right now.

Specific to oil and gas, CETA would increase market access for Alberta products. This comes at an ideal time, as supplier diversification is one of EU's top energy priorities. Currently, Russia holds over 30% of the EU's oil and gas market share, placing it first. Canada comes in 26th, with just 1%.

It is well known that Russian President Putin uses his country's oil and gas reserves as a weapon and, given that Russia supplies almost a third of the European Union's oil and gas, his position is strong. The EU needs to diversify and wants to diversify, and Alberta has plenty to offer. As CETA would eliminate tariffs on oil and gas products, Canada and Alberta are well poised to fill this gap and become a crucial energy ally. This is an opportunity that we should not and, frankly, cannot pass up.

The elimination of tariffs and barriers would also have advantages to procurement opportunities. Under CETA, Canadian firms could bid on contracts to supply their goods and services to the three main EU-level institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council. Canadian firms would also be able to bid on EU member-state government contracts and those of thousands of regional and local government entities.

The EU procurement market is worth $3.3 trillion annually, and holds significant potential for Canadian suppliers. This kind of preferential market access would benefit Alberta-based multinational firms such as PCL and Stantec, who both have their headquarters in Edmonton. Indeed, by virtue of the fact that Alberta has long been the entrepreneurial province, there are hundreds if not thousands of businesses in Edmonton, Calgary, and throughout Alberta that would benefit from access to this $3.3 trillion procurement market.

Trade is good. Trade lowers prices and enables competitive and valued Canadian businesses to expand, hire new employees, and prosper in a globalized world. Free trade would allow billions of dollars in Canadian exports to reach new markets, and ensure that European goods flow in at competitive prices for Canadian consumers. Free trade would help Alberta's businesses grow and prosper at a time when Alberta needs it most.

I am proud to support this agreement that would help Alberta's small and large businesses, Albertan consumers, Canadian industry, and Canadian producers, and that would also deepen the long-standing ties between Canada and Europe.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out something. The previous Conservative government promised a compensation package that would be attached to the losses that dairy would incur in CETA and across TPP. The previous Conservative government negotiated that CETA would see an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production, and farmers say this would cost them $116 million a year in perpetual lost revenues.

Yet, the Liberals are only providing this compensation package, worth $250 million, over five years. Does the member agree with the NDP that this math simply does not add up to the losses that dairy farms and supply-managed sectors would see in our country?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and bears looking into. This plan would provide compensation to farmers. It may not be at the level previously done by the Conservative Party, but this plan would also open up a vast new market for our farmers, our beef producers, for Alberta and Quebec farmers.

In the long-term, it will be a benefit to all Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciate that the member referenced Jacek Chocolate Couture, which is a phenomenal business in my constituency. I had an opportunity to go on a tour there recently.

I do want to ask the member an important question about NAFTA. We have had the current government, right out of the gate with the new president-elect, basically not show confidence in the importance of this trade deal; basically throw it under the bus and say, “Sure we would be happy to negotiate it”.

We should all appreciate the benefits that come from NAFTA, a trade deal that has been in place for a very long time. The protectionist talk that we are hearing from the United States is not about trading more. It is about tightening that deal, not expanding it.

Could the member comment on the importance of international trade, and why we actually need to have a government that understands the benefits that come with NAFTA, and these other trade deals, and that is actually going to stand up and defend them?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important, now more than ever, with what is happening in the U.S., and also in various countries around the world as they start talking about throwing up protective walls. We know that it is going to do the exact opposite. We saw during the Great Depression that protectionist barriers made the economy across the entire world worse.

It is very important that we continue the great work of Prime Minister Harper and the previous government in expanding our trade markets across the world, not only to find new markets but also to counter the effects of protectionism that we see growing down in the United States and in other countries.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member in his speech talked about an offer we cannot refuse. The last time I heard that line, things did not go so well in that particular situation.

All kidding aside, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the cost of prescription drugs. That issue is often forgotten in this debate. We have been talking a lot about the investor-state dispute settlement clauses and the impact on the dairy industry, particularly in my province of Quebec, and with good reason. However, the cost of medication is going to increase by approximately $850 million, which will affect not only the provinces, which administer the health care system, but also the people who have to pay for those medications.

Although we recognize the importance of free trade with Europe, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the impact this will actually have on the cost of living of people who need medication, particularly seniors.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and again, like the previous questions from my colleagues in the NDP, it probably bears a bit more thought and more investigation.

On the pharmaceutical front, we must consider that the pharmaceutical industry in Canada is worth over 27,000 jobs and involves over $1 billion in R and D. This is only going to increase as we have much greater access to the European market. I will comment that it is about $800 million in new drugs and only a small percentage of that is in generic drugs.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to support the CETA agreement.

I would like to talk about a couple of things, basically that this comprehensive trade agreement opens up opportunities to many investors on both sides of the agreement, Canadian investors and European investors. I will move on from there to talk about some of the things that an agreement like this inspires and that, hopefully, can move this country toward, including by dealing with the trade barriers that exist within our own border.

The Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, will create jobs, strengthen economic relations, and boost Canada's trade with the second largest market on the globe.

As I think back to the time I have been in Parliament and part of the previous two governments, I recall the words of Prime Minister Harper on many occasions when he spoke about getting the business fundamentals correct. What CETA and the 40-plus other trade agreements the Harper government put together did was to focus on business fundamentals.

What are the business fundamentals in this country? They include things like keeping taxes low. In fact, compared to the United States, the total business tax load in this country is 46% lower. That was something we worked on during more than 10 years of government. We made that particular goal of setting and making sure the fundamental of keeping taxes low for business was right.

Why is that important in the context of a free trade agreement? It is important because we have to look good to investors from Europe. Europeans can now come here with this free trade agreement, know that goods can flow back and forth freely between our countries and consider making investments here, such as the one that we have in my community of Brantford, which is the Ferrero Company, a family company that came to this country nine years ago. The family came to North America. They decided where they would have their North American operation, and thankfully they landed in Brantford, Ontario, for all of their North American product lines. People will know Rocher, Tic Tac, and many of the products the company makes, with close to 1.5 million square feet of production.

I bring up that example because when companies like Ferrero, an Italian family company, make a decision, they make it based on research into what type of business environment they would be going into, what type of country, and how they will be treated as investors.

Among its other benefits that CETA provides in its market access provisions is enhanced investor protection. CETA will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, transparency, and protection for their investments, easing investment restrictions. The net benefit review threshold under the Investment Canada Act will be raised from the current $60 million Canadian to $1.5 billion, following CETA's entry into force.

The advantage over other countries is very significant, especially in the Americas. None of the other top destinations for EU investment in the Americas—the U.S., Mexico, and Brazil—have investment treaties in place with the 28 EU member states, because only CETA provides that. CETA is an agreement, as I said from the outset, and many people have talked today about the scope of CETA, the potential 80,000 jobs, the potential $1,000 per family benefit it would brings if we extend the benefits across our population. It brings us into a privileged environment in the world in terms of being free traders, allowing us to say to the globe that we can negotiate a deal like this when other countries are not about to do so.

I would like to transition into talking about what we face in this country today, namely the enormous trade barriers within our own borders, the provincial trade barriers today facing certain industries. Obviously, the debate we had earlier in this Parliament that my colleague entitled “free the beer” was an aspect of that. I am going to describe it from the point of view of my background, from having been in the construction industry in Ontario and trying to do business in other provinces.

First of all, what we need in this country more than anything else is a keen focus by the current government and the provincial governments on removing those trade barriers. I was very disappointed that the government chose not to vote for the free the beer initiative of my friend. That would have been a beginning, sending a signal to other industries to do that.

In the construction industry, particularly with tradespeople, this is significant, especially when there are downturns in certain parts of the country while other areas of the country are prospering. A person can have credentials as an electrician, plumber, carpenter, or whatever, and may be a licenced carpenter within Ontario's borders, but as soon as that person wants to practice that trade in other parts of the country, those credentials are not accepted as proper. One has to go through a retraining and certification process all over again in certain jurisdictions.

More so, when electrical companies or plumbing companies expand to a certain size and want to expand across the country, when they look at projects in other provinces, they are restricted from bidding on those jobs. They are told that they are restricted, because they are Ontario-based companies. This happens right here in the Ottawa area with our neighbouring province, Quebec, all the time.

However, it depends on the province. The Quebec contractors can come over to Ottawa and do work here, but Ottawa contractors cannot go to Quebec and do work there. These are the types of provincial barriers that I am talking about, which we need to focus keenly on reducing in this country.

I recall the 1988 debates around the NAFTA agreement. The NAFTA agreement in 1988, for all kinds of reasons, was opposed by different political parties, including the opposition and the typical groups right across this country. They thought we were going to lose our national identity from all of it, that we were going to lose our autonomy, and that our water was going to be taken away from us. All of these exaggerations were disproven.

The visionary part of a free trade agreement goes right to the top, reflecting who the prime minister of the day is. I can recall in those days looking to Prime Minister Mulroney and thinking that his was leadership that could hold the ground. He had the backbone to stand up to the type of opposition at that time, fight an election over it, and bring that free trade agreement, NAFTA, into existence.

I can tell members that today I feel the exact same way about Prime Minister Harper, who made free trade agreements a focus of his. CETA is part of the legacy of his leadership. I am proud to be here today to support this important free trade agreement and to have been part of the hard work since 2007 on that by Prime Minister Harper and the leadership of the Conservative Party.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member just mentioned Brian Mulroney fighting an election over NAFTA, but of course it was not NAFTA. It was the free trade agreement. NAFTA was actually brought in by the Liberals. To be sure, it was negotiated by Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives, but it was actually the Liberals who ran on a promise to change it and who gave Canadians the impression they were not very committed to it, then went ahead and brought it in.

I cannot help but notice the similarity of that to the position we are now in. For instance, in the election, the Liberals said they were not really in support of the TPP. Since coming into government, they have launched consultations within the country, but internationally, the Prime Minister has been out promoting the deals. They took CETA and picked up right where the Conservatives left it. They have been moving that project ahead despite the fact they have not presented any real evidence about how it will be good for the country, and they have not done anything to mitigate some of the real costs of the agreement.

I wonder if the member has noticed the same approach to trade by the Liberals, to give Canadians who have legitimate concerns about free trade the impression that they are on board with those concerns when they were in opposition, and then steamroll ahead when they are in government.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, this I know, that free trade agreements are good for our country. Let us remove the politics from this. The fact is, the new government should get the credit for coming in and picking up the ball and getting the deal done, just as it has given credit to our government for spending the years from 2007 to 2015 putting all the essential pieces together, so that really all the current government needed to do was to sign it.

My colleague from the NDP can go on into the weeds about the people who are against these things. Free trade has done nothing but bring prosperity to our country, and it will continue to do so. Hats off to everyone who has put this deal together.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to what the member had to say. He spoke about transparency, and I could not agree more that we need transparency on what exactly we are signing on to as parliamentarians. When we talk about pharmaceuticals, 25% of the implementing legislation of the bill is to change the Patent Act in Canada. These will be the biggest changes to our Patent Act in over 20 years. It will result in Canadians paying more for medication for years to come.

We are being asked to approve these major changes, with the majority of the details only coming out later in the form of regulatory packages. The language in the act is a blank cheque regarding pharmaceutical costs for Canadians, and it is incomplete.

Is the member concerned that CETA will lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians, particularly as Canadians already pay more for prescription drugs than nearly every other OECD country?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the quick answer is no, I am not concerned, because I believe the opposite will happen. I sat on the industry committee when we looked at the patent laws of our country compared to other countries we import products from, and at the intellectual property debates we have had in the country. Frankly, we have a big reform to do to make sure our pharmaceutical costs stay competitive with other jurisdictions', as sometimes they are not because of the rules and regulations.

The more we harmonize with developed economies, such as the 28 European countries who are part of this deal, and the United States, our neighbour, and the more we bring those harmonization rules to patenting and intellectual property, the more consumers will benefit at the end of the day. It is a process. It is a transition, but I totally disagree with the premise of that question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, Official Languages; the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Rail Transportation; the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, International Trade.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and provide a bit of an antidote to the Conservative-Liberal love-in that has been taking place in the House of Commons today over CETA, which we cannot deny has been pretty cozy. When we have the international trade minister and the international trade critic of the Liberals and Conservatives respectively hugging in the House of Commons over a deal, I think it is fair to say if there was anything we could call a love-in within Parliament, that is it. That happened on the day they signed the deal and has continued throughout this debate.

Therefore, I am pleased to rise and provide a different perspective, one that frankly is shared by many Canadians and many people across North America who are fed up. That energy needs to be channelled in the right way, with having this kind of condescending claptrap from parties and politicians who have big business as their allies, and who, every time we criticize the fact that in some cases these deals have meant good jobs leaving the country, tell us that we just do not understand trade or that we are against trade.

The NDP is for trade. We understand well the importance of trade for our local economy and for workers. However, I think insurance is a good idea. We could pontificate on the history of insurance and that it came to be because some things were not the way they should be and families ended up in dire straits. Therefore, insurance is a great product and we should have insurance. We would not take any insurance policy and sign it without reading it, so it is not about whether we are for or against insurance that we decline a particular policy or not, and it is not that the NDP is against trade that we say that there are problems with this deal. On balance, we think the problems are not worth the proposed benefits.

What we have heard members say is that they are in favour of the possible benefit of the potential market. What we have not seen from the government is a province-by-province analysis of what this will mean for jobs. We have not seen a sector-by-sector analysis to say who the winners and the losers will be. In some cases, we do have a sense of who the losers will be. We know that they are in the agricultural sector. We know that the former government negotiated a settlement with some of those producers to the tune of over $4 billion. Nothing has changed in the agreement, and presumably nothing has changed in terms of the consequences for those producers, but the current government has arbitrarily lowered that compensation package. However, what we have not heard, and what the Liberals have not said, is why we are hurting those producers and why it is worth spending taxpayer money to compensate those producers, even though they are not doing it to the extent that the Conservatives saw fit, because these people over here will win, and these are the jobs that will be created, and these are the businesses that are just waiting with an export development plan to move their business into Europe and to capture that market, instead of just talking about the paper access that we are buying, and not inexpensively, as we go through some of the other items in this deal.

I was talking to a farmer in Manitoba just last week who was saying that it is true that for certain agriculture products there are quotas on what can be exported from Canada into Europe. It is true that CETA raises those quotas. That is great. It would be even better if those agricultural producers were actually meeting the existing quotas. However, they are not. Therefore, we will sign up for certain investor-state dispute settlement clauses, we will sign up for an agreement that will interfere with the ability of local governments to use buy local provisions in their procurements, and we will sign on to a higher cost for drugs. Why? To expand a quota that is already not being met.

When we talk about trade-offs, it seems to me that the kind of theoretical benefit of an expanded quota that producers are already not meeting is not worth the very concrete costs that are represented in higher drug costs, for example. That is an argument the Liberals should understand as it is comparable to an argument they made about the tax-free savings account when they reduced that threshold. They asked why the threshold should be increased from $5,000 to $10,000 when most people are not already availing themselves of the $5,000 limit. It is the very same argument. Therefore, why would we incur higher drug costs, which is a very real cost for Canadians, in exchange for higher quotas on certain agricultural products, when those quotas are already not being met?

I think we need to come down to earth a bit and stop making this a debate about whether we are for or against trade. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge said in his speech that he wanted to talk about what was in the agreement and whether on balance certain things were better or not. Then he launched into a diatribe against the NDP just for saying that we think there are some problems with the agreement. I did not hear him once mention something that he thought was problematic in the agreement.

I do not know how we could conceptualize a debate on the content of an agreement and the nature of the trade-offs without actually mentioning any of the trade-offs, but just launching into a platitudinous speech about how wonderful this is without concrete examples.

I already mentioned that part of the problem here, if we want to get real and assess an agreement, is that there is not enough information to do that. We do not actually have anything approaching a comprehensive study by the government, released to Canadians, talking about what the impact on jobs and industry in Canada is going to be.

We do not know what the relative impact, from province to province, is going to be. We do not know how the various sectors are going to be affected. We do not know, frankly, and we could not know, the economic impact of everything that is being given up in this agreement without a blink. This agreement covers everything except for what is carved out.

There are certain carve-outs, for instance, on the buy local provisions. Some provincial governments have advocated to say that this sector should not be touched or that sector should not be touched, when what that gives up is everything we have not already thought of.

If members in this House think that they are so smart, and everyone in provincial legislatures is so smart, as to have thought of every technological and economic development that is going to happen over the lifetime of this agreement, which incidentally is not a temporary agreement, then so be it. I am a little more modest. I think we ought to be more modest.

There are a lot of things that can change. We live in a world that changes very quickly. It is imprudent at best to sign on to agreements that essentially give up everything that we have not already thought of. We do not know what the impact of that is going to be.

No one has said why it is a good idea to sign that kind of an agreement that essentially covers everything we have not already thought of versus an agreement that just covers the things we are talking about, in the sectors that we know about today and some of those particular trade-offs. On the face of it, that seems like a better approach.

We also do not know, recently having had a referendum to leave the European Union, what the impact or consequence of that is going to be. We do know that it is going to take years for European parliaments to ratify this agreement. I simply do not understand why we are in such a rush here in Canada. I have not heard a good answer.

We heard one member say that he does not see a need to put on the brakes on a good deal. How do we know if it is a good deal when we do not even know who is in it yet? Is the member saying it is immaterial to the benefit of the agreement to Canada, whether Britain is covered by the agreement or not? That is a ridiculous thing to try to maintain.

If we do not do that, if we take the sensible approach and say that it actually does matter whether the United Kingdom is covered under CETA or not, and that that has an impact on what the potential benefits are for Canada, then the right thing to do would be to put the brakes on and take a little bit of a wait-and-see approach.

The agreement is not going anywhere. I think it would be far more prudent to come back to it when we actually have a better sense of what the lay of the land is. It is a time of a lot of change and uncertainty. To me, that says it is the wrong time to jump in with both feet into a major economic treaty.

With this agreement, there is a recurring problem, in my view, with a lot of the trade agreements that we have signed since 1993, which is the investor-state dispute settlement clauses. In my mind, those have very little to do with trade. Foreign investors who have an issue and who do not feel they have been treated fairly can go to Canadian courts and can seek fairness in Canadian courts. They can do that without tying the hands of government in terms of its ability to regulate for the benefit of the environment, for the benefit of workplace health and safety, for health benefits. That is a reasonable approach. There is nothing wrong with that.

The Canadian court system has certain principles of openness and transparency that I think we would all agree are important. No one is advocating we get rid of those principles. When we take that decision-making power out of the hands of the Canadian court system and transfer it to the international trade tribunals, for which we do not have the rules or the guidelines according to which arbitrators are going to be selected, we are doing serious damage to the ability of Canadians to make their own decisions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I understand the member still had a lot to say, but he will be able to do it through questions and comments, given that the time has expired for his speech.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is interesting because he talked about the fact that many members spoke in favour of the agreement saying it was very good news before they ever truly had the chance to look at it in detail.

What is currently going on in committee is a good example. I do not want to get into the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure, but this is an important point. At the Standing Committee on International Trade, a decision was made not to accept written submissions from witnesses who cannot physically appear before the committee, either because they do not have time or the committee does not have time to hear them.

That is the opposite of what is done 99% of the time at other parliamentary committees. This is extremely worrisome given how important it is to hear from all those affected by this agreement. In the spirit of hearing all views, I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks about this problem and this unprecedented move by the government.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If we compare the CETA consultation process to the electoral reform consultation process, what emerges is enough to make anyone cynical.

On CETA, the Liberals do not even want to let Canadians send in written submissions. The Liberals do not want to hear what Canadians have to say even though this is a major agreement that will have long-lasting repercussions.

On electoral reform, MPs, ministers, a special committee, and a website were all mustered for consultations. Now they even want to reach out to people by mail.

Apparently, when they do not want to do something, they hold all kinds of consultations, they talk a lot, and they never do anything. In contrast, when they want to do something, they go ahead and do it without holding consultations.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the matter has gone through the trade commissioners. It has been approved. I support the government's position on CETA. I support the government's position on supply management, which is different from my colleague, of course.

The Belgium issue took us by surprise. It took everybody by surprise. However, the next issue is that it has to go through the European Parliament for a vote, and then it has to go to the individual member states for a vote.

Does the member have any recommendations to the government in case there are more surprises where the vote might be defeated in the European Parliament or in one of the member states? Does the member have any recommendation as to what the government could do to ensure that there would be swift passage through the European Parliament and the 28 individual member states?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Belgium issue gave a lot of people a surprise, Liberals and Conservatives especially, because they were not paying attention.

People have been criticizing the invest-state dispute settlement clauses in these types of agreements for a long time, and so it was not a surprise to New Democrats when we found out that people in Europe were looking at those same issues and saying that they had a problem with them. It is not a surprise if we look at the model of the European Union, which is very integrated, but it does not have the same kind of investor-state dispute settlement clauses that are governed by the corporate elite. Therefore, if we have been watching and paying attention to the way these deals have been playing out, it was not a big surprise.

The best way to try and head off further surprises is to take our time, that is not rush it through Parliament here; to start listening instead of dismissing these concerns as being unreasonable; and then to change the agreement to get rid of those problematic provisions. We could then get people onside in Europe.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to the CETA bill.

Canada is a trading nation. We all know that. One in five jobs is directly related to the export of goods, products and services. I am immensely proud to belong to a political party that has long fought for the elimination of trade barriers, and is focused on the opening of new markets around the world.

The Conservatives understand that free trade agreements increase economic activity. They drive prosperity, create new jobs, and foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies.

It is important to point out that the party opposite does not always share the same passion and commitment to free trade. It was less than 30 years ago when the Liberal Party decried the historic free trade agreement with the United States. We all remember that the 1988 election was almost fought solely over the issue of this agreement. It took the second election of Brian Mulroney's government, which won a resounding majority, for the Liberals to do an about-face and see the benefits of free trade.

Today, I for one applaud the Liberals for seeing the light and to have supported NAFTA, the Canada–South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Canadian-Ukrainian free trade agreement, the pan-Canadian free trade agreement, among others.

Now, due to the tireless efforts of previous Conservative ministers, such as the members for Abbotsford, Battlefords—Lloydminster, Durham, York—Simcoe, and I cannot say enough about the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, we were able to sign free trade agreements around the world.

To speak briefly on the domestic front, I would like to congratulate Manitoba's new premier, Brian Pallister and his Progressive Conservative government on recently signing on to the new west partnership trading agreement.

It is becoming evident that political parties from across the country are now openly advocating for the removal of trade barriers, either monetary or regulatory. I will relish the day when products from one Canadian province can be sold in another with no strings attached.

Members of the House should applaud my hon. colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for his private member's bill that allowed Canadian wine to be shipped across the country, and for his recent leadership on freeing the beer. No Canadian should ever go to jail or be charged for carrying a case of beer across a provincial border.

With these thoughts in mind, it is why I am pleased to speak in favour of the Canada-EU comprehensive economic trade agreement. This landmark agreement is our country's biggest bilateral trade initiative since NAFTA. With 28 member states, the EU represents the world's largest single market for an investor and trader, with over 500 million people and an annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion.

When CETA comes into force, Canada will be one of the few countries in the world to have guaranteed preferential access to the world's two largest economies, both the EU and the United States.

CETA was not accomplished overnight. It literally took years of hard work, as did NAFTA, especially by our world-class trade negotiators who poured their hearts and souls into this endeavour. I applaud their efforts immensely.

It was nice to hear the current Minister of International Trade pay tribute to my colleagues on this side of the House who spearheaded this initiative. However, I would be remiss if I did not say that I was a little discouraged to see her only hours later change her tone during question period and play down the efforts of previous Conservative ministers.

While it is true that sometimes over-the-top rhetoric is used during fiery debates, I would like the hon. minister to know that Canadians, and in particular the good people of Brandon—Souris, are not too enamoured when the minister pats herself on the back, while forgetting the amazing contributions of others before she assumed her role.

I would also like to commend the members who have sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade. They completed two economic studies on the benefit of CETA. During these comprehensive studies, the committee found that CETA would be of net benefit to Canada, and had the support of a majority of Canadian stakeholders. In fact, in total transparency, all provinces had input and signed on before it was taken internationally.

Furthermore, the joint Canada-EU study concluded that this free trade agreement would bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion annual increase in Canada's economy.

What does this agreement mean for hard-working Canadians? It is an economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family income or almost 80,000 worth of new jobs to our economy.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for the federal government to implement policies that will lead to private sector growth, as its current path has only resulted in billions of dollars of new debt and the elimination of jobs.

CETA is a beacon of hope for many who have struggled for these past 12 months. It is an example that when government is on the same side as job creators, it can lead to the creation of new, high-paying jobs. We have learned many lessons after the great economic recession of 2008-09.

First and foremost, Canada must expand and diversify the countries to which we export our goods and services. We can no longer rely on selling the vast majority of our goods and services to the United States. To put it succinctly, we cannot have all our eggs in one basket. The importance of diversification is even more important now with the change of leadership in the United States.

While our Prime Minister seems to be willing to open negotiations on NAFTA, it sends shivers down the spines of those whose livelihood is directly tied to exporting into the American market.

As the Liberal government figures out how to work with the new administration, Canadians can rest assured that our Conservative caucus will continue to stand up for our bilateral initiatives that are directly tied to millions of Canadian jobs and, presently, $2 billion of trade a day across our friendly border.

We will also press the government to pursue a strong free trade agenda with the new U.S. administration. We expect the Liberals to work with the new U.S. administration to ensure Canadians and Canadian businesses continue to reap the benefits of NAFTA, and to advocate for the ultimate ratification and implementation of the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, which seeks to boost trade in the Asia-Pacific region.

Our Conservative caucus supported the diversification of our trading partners well before the recent American election results. The reasons why I support CETA are many, but in particular, Manitobans stand to benefit significantly from the preferential access we will get through this deal.

On day one of CETA's entry into force, 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods would be duty-free, including those on key Manitoba exports, such as manufactured goods, metals, and mineral products. When this agreement is fully in place, 99% of the EU tariff lines will be eliminated.

In Manitoba, especially in my consistency of Brandon—Souris, farm families are chomping at the bit to have this opportunity to sell their livestock, grain, and oilseeds to EU countries.

Almost 94% of EU tariffs for agrifood products will be duty-free once CETA enters into force. This rises to 95% once all phase-outs are complete, seven years after entry into force. This would mean Westman farmers and beef, pork, and bison producers will have preferential access to the EU market.

It is also good to highlight there are beef producers who are already building their herd, specifically, for the EU market.

To put a face on the importance of this deal, I would like to share the story of the True North Foods, located outside of Carman, Manitoba.

Owner Calvin Vaags has been planning their entry in the EU for months. Just recently, his plant received federal approval and can now ship meat products anywhere across Canada and has been designed to meet all criteria for European, Chinese, and American markets. Operating at full capacity, the plant would process approximately 1,000 head of cattle a week.

Not only will this plant help Manitoba beef producers get into new markets, it also means that it no longer has to haul its cattle to Alberta or Ontario for slaughter. The plant will also provide the capacity to slaughter cattle, bison, elk, sheep, and goats, as well as offer heavy carcass capability, accommodating even the largest bulls.

This story may not sound like a lot in the big scheme of things, but for a constituency such as mine, it will offer Westman cattle producers opportunities that they would never have had previously.

With the very possibility that Americans might try to resurrect country of origin labelling, it is paramount we secure new markets for Canadian beef. Canadian products are considered high quality. When something is stamped “made in Canada”, consumers and customers know they are getting superior products and can trust the safety and food security of our food processing facilities.

When it comes to our agricultural sector, it goes without saying that Canadian farmers produce the best agrifood products anywhere in the world.

I know Canadian businesses would thrive in the EU marketplace. I know jobs will be created and incomes would go up due to this trade initiative. I know diversifying Canada's markets is necessary. Most of all, I know that when trade barriers are eliminated, consumers on both sides would have the choice of lower prices.

Free trade is not a theoretical concept. Free trade is a way of doing business that would grow the Canadian economy. Our preferential—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately the time is up for the member's speech, but I am sure he could finish it in a few minutes during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard a lot of points in the member's speech, especially around beef. There are still some non-tariff issues that exist in CETA. There still are some concerns by cattlemen on being able to get that product in. It is often non-tariff that actually prevents them from seeing the benefits of that tariff reduction. There are still some issues that need to be fixed around beef and exports, and that comes straight from their presentation to us at the committee level.

My question for the member is something about which he did not speak, and that is the cost of drugs for Canadians. Twenty-five per cent of the agreement speaks to patent changes that will impact every Canadian, all Canadians who are already experiencing the high cost of drugs. I have people in my riding every day in my office. They are struggling to pay the costs of medication. Affordable medication in our country is a serious issue, and I would hope it would be a serious issue for the member as well.

Could the member speak to how it will impact his riding to have seniors and people who will struggle with the cost of medication because of the changes in CETA?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a concern, but as I said in my presentation, every province had opportunities to make those issues known during the negotiations within Canada for CETA. It was done transparently, and every province bought into the process.

I am very aware, having come through the farming community, of the types of generic products that have come forward in the medical field as well. As these become more opportunities for trading, perhaps we will even end up with more pharmaceutical opportunities in the marketplace. It is yet to be determined whether the price of these drugs will go up, as the member has indicated.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Let us look at the Brexit fallout. Some 42% of Canada's exports to the European Union go to the United Kingdom.

I will not get into Great Britain's internal politics because that is all kind of up in the air right now. That is actually a good reason to take a step back and consider the impact of Great Britain's possible exit from the European Union on the deal.

My colleague rightly praised the Canadian negotiators. However, I feel certain that, when the agreement was negotiated, the negotiators took into account Great Britain's considerable share of Canadian exports to the European Union.

What impact does the member see that having on the agreement? Has the government truly taken that impact into account?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not as pessimistic as my colleague is about the opportunities that lie before us. I still believe they will be great. That is like saying we should not continue to negotiate the TPP because the United States says that it may not want to be a part of it.

We have a great opportunity here to continue with the growth. I had an opportunity to be on a trade mission to England with our former trade minister. We looked at the amount of seafood products the British wanted to have from Canada. They wanted more shrimp, lobster, Arctic char, and just about every type of seafood we could offer.

The Brexit agreement has made a change. Whether England continues to negotiate those concerns within the European Union is something that it, as my colleague indicated, will have to do within its own legislative forum.

However, I believe we will continue to have those opportunities. If we do not, that is why we need to continue to have the diversification of markets I referred to earlier.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a mere handful of protections between average citizens and the predatory nature of global capitalism. The most important of these is a strong sovereign state with the regulatory power to champion the needs of its citizens over those of the non-human entities of global finance and multinational corporations.

In a 2012 dissenting opinion to a CETA-related trade committee report, the Liberals called for further consultation with Canadians on CETA. Now, the trade committee has already passed a motion in camera that will restrict written submissions to only the witnesses selected to appear.

On the other hand, the committee held dozens of meetings on the TPP. It heard from over 400 witnesses and received written submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians. With 95% of submissions critical of the TPP, it is no wonder that the government does not want to hear from Canadians on CETA.

The sheer determination of the current Liberal government to get CETA ratified despite the genuine concerns and protestations of citizens groups across the European Union and Canada demonstrates to the world what its true priorities are. These priorities are the extension of global corporate rule into every remaining space in the Canadian economy.

For Liberals, it is as if they have had no lessons to learn from Brexit or the Trump phenomenon. Rather, as I suspect, it is as if they wish to get these deals done before we in this country reap the Canadian variants of these whirlwinds.

Let me be clear. The NDP supports deepening the Canada-EU trading relationship to diversify our markets, but there remain significant concerns and unanswered questions about this proposed deal.

As I mentioned before, when the Liberals themselves were in opposition, they agreed with the New Democrats that more consultation and analysis were needed on CETA. However, the minister has ignored calls for the removal of investor-state rules, refused to address the rising costs of prescription drugs, and neglected to consult Canadians.

The underlying point here is that Parliament is essentially being asked to write a blank cheque on this implementation bill, despite the fact that each of the 28 EU member states will have to ratify CETA for all of it provisions to apply, a process that is expected to take between two to five years.

I ask, as others here have, what is the hurry? What is the government trying to ram through here? Why is it not letting parliamentarians undertake due oversight when there is obviously enough time for us to examine the bill?

Indeed, there is plenty of time to engage with other signatory members, the EU countries, who are also alarmed by the investor-state dispute mechanism. New Democrats support trade deals that reduce trade tariffs and boost exports, but we will always remain firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten our sovereignty have no place in trade deals.

In February of this year, during CETA's legal scrubbing phase, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat possible conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new investor court system, the ICS, still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits. Foreign companies will have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws without going through the domestic courts.

This is deeply concerning, as Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world as a result of the dispute mechanisms we have already agreed to. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments, and the Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases while continuing to be subject to ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Existing ISDS measures have also contributed to a regulatory chill in which governments fail to take actions in the public interest that they fear may trigger an investor claim. One thing we have learned very quickly from reading trade agreements over the years is that the priorities of global finance and global corporations are always front and centre in these deals and are always binding. It is environmental, labour, and general human rights concerns that are always relegated to side agreements, where they are non-binding and voluntary. It is strange how that happens.

Witness the so-called joint interpretive statement concerning the investor court system I mentioned earlier. This statement was negotiated as a way to placate the concerns of ordinary citizens who worried that these courts cede far too much of their nation's sovereignty to bodies that are not subject to domestic democratic oversight. Was CETA amended so that these concerns could be included? No, it was not, oddly enough. The joint interpretive statement falls outside the text of the treaty, and therefore would not have full legal weight. We can be absolutely sure this is no accident.

Likewise, the chapter in CETA on intellectual property rights goes well beyond Canada's existing obligations. The increased patent protections granted to brand-name pharmaceuticals would have the effect of delaying the arrival of cheaper generics and would increase the cost of prescription drugs to Canadians by between $850 million and $2.8 billion per year. This is a cost that I do not think seniors are prepared to take on. Furthermore, I would argue that it would hamper any efforts to bring in a national pharmaceutical strategy, both at the federal level and in what individual provinces are trying to do with their already ballooning health care costs.

In opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study of the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government, the Liberals are telling provinces that they will cut health care transfers while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces.

Most distressing for me, as someone from municipal politics, is the minimum local content policies that could be compromised, even outlawed, above a certain threshold, even in municipal and provincial government procurement. I ask members to think about that and about the initiatives they have worked on when representing people at the municipal level of government, as I know many members have done.

As noted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, these provisions would likely threaten very popular buy local food programs at provincial hospitals, school boards, and other public institutions. They would almost certainly outlaw programs such as the Green Energy Act in Ontario, which requires significant local content in solar and wind projects in order for private energy producers to benefit from generous feed-in tariff rates designed to encourage more renewable power generation. The Canadian Environmental Law Association states the following about CETA:

It will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism...will impact the federal and provincial governments’ authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.

Companies will also have an expanded ability to use temporary foreign workers without studying the impacts of that on Canadians. This is a matter of great concern in the Windsor—Tecumseh riding that I represent and the Essex County area at large, where there is a high unemployment rate.

To conclude, the NDP supports trade with Europe. As I have stated previously, we have deep historical and cultural ties with Europe, and within the EU are some of the world's most progressive democracies. However, we are concerned about specific measures in CETA that were negotiated, and it is our job to uphold the interests of Canadians and the global citizens we are. The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix this agreement, but the deal is not done—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, your time is up for this speech. I am sure you will be able to use some of it for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I heard two important points there, because they illustrate the Liberal approach. The Liberals had a certain attitude when they were in opposition, but now that they are in power, their attitude is the exact opposite, and one that I have to say is disappointing.

This comes down to two specific points. The first is the higher drug prices that will result from this agreement. During the previous Parliament, those same Liberals asked for studies on the impact this agreement would have on drug prices. Now they seem to have forgotten all about that and want to move quickly without really examining the impact the agreement will have on people and what they will have to pay for their medication.

The second point has to do with compensation for dairy farmers. The Conservatives had promised $41 billion to compensate the farmers. Now farmers are being offered peanuts, just $300 million. That is a lot less than what the previous government had promised.

I wonder whether the member could talk about the Liberals' broken promises and how their attitude has changed since they came to power.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member brought up these two very profound issues that I could speak to at length.

I will start with pharmaceuticals. This is a real challenge for Canadians today. In the House, when we talk about the threat to universal health care and our conviction on this side to defend it, one of the key things the governing party keeps bringing up is that it is going to reduce costs by looking at some ways to come up with a pharmaceutical plan and that it is working on that.

CETA will cripple that initiative. We will not be allowed to do that. Anyone can read this in the document. The myths with regard to this are really frustrating. Every single day in every constituency, members have people who are suffering because of the cost of pharmaceuticals and health care.

Another thing I want to bring up, which we have not talked about at all, is innovation and research in pharmaceuticals. Government-sponsored research and innovation for particular types of cures for certain diseases is also going to be undermined by this deal. Intellectual property will be undermined by this deal.

When it comes to issues like dairy farmers being compensated, I do not understand how we can have the government, on one hand, championing the cause and making these kinds of promises, and then—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have to allow time for more questions. Questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering about the part of the member's speech that she did not get to. Is there a point that she wants to make?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member was very clever. I am going to remember that in the future.

As a matter of fact, as I was being closed down by Madam Speaker, I was just saying that we urge the Liberals to reconsider. That was pretty much the closing.

Of all the points I was making, and they did culminate with that, that is a very important one. We are rushing this through. There is no need for us to be rushing this through. There is a way we could be doing it. As parliamentarians, we take pride in the place we have here in the House of Commons. We all embrace our due diligence. Whether we agree or not, we all do want to delve in and explore things further.

If there is a way to arrive at consensus, we should find it. I have been inspired by members from every party in the House in doing that and being responsive to real concerns. I thank the member for the opening to talk about how it is not too late for us to make these significant changes and be the vanguard leaders we are expected to be.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-30, the legislation that will bring about the activation of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

First and foremost, I want to thank the former minister of agriculture, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and the former minister of trade, the member for Abbotsford, for their great hard work in making sure that this deal came to fruition.

I will give kudos to the government for not screwing it up at the end and for getting the CETA deal finally before us. However, I can tell members that every clause we are looking at, the way the bill is structured, and the way CETA has been negotiated and signed is because of the hard work of the previous Conservative government.

I will just say that it is indeed a momentous occasion. We are agreeing to this great agreement that will bring 28 other countries into free trade with Canada and give Canadian agricultural producers, manufacturers, and service companies access to 500 million consumers in the European Union in those 28 member states.

I can tell members that in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, this is very important. We have a huge agriculture base, with grains, oilseeds, pulse crops, cattle, and hogs, which will all benefit from the preferential access we are going to garner in having free markets in Europe. We are talking about 94% of EU tariff lines against agricultural products being eliminated.

However, there are still some challenges, for our beef products in particular. As a rancher myself and a former member of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, we have dealt extensively with all the phytosanitary and non-phytosanitary standards and actions the European Union has taken against Canadian beef over the past 30 years.

This agreement gives us a resolution mechanism for removing those artificial trade barriers, ensuring that we get back to science-based decisions rather than political decisions, which we all too often see in certain countries that like to put up barriers to trade while they try to protect certain segments of their industry. Over the next seven years, Canadian agricultural food, products, grains, and oilseeds that meet those standards will be able to access that marketplace, which is very important.

It is also important in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, because we produce steel. We have Gerdau in Selkirk, which is a very strong company. It produces steel that it sells around the world, especially its elevator rail steel. This, again, is now going to go to a zero-line tariff over the next seven years as this agreement comes into force. Some commodities are going to see line items move even more quickly than that.

Of course, in Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman we produce the best whisky in the world at the Crown Royal Diageo plant. The world champion whisky right now is Northern Harvest whiskey. It beat out all the other whiskies from Scotland, Ireland, the United States, and other places.

[An hon. member]

Let us drink to that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Let us drink to that is right, Madam Speaker.

This is a product that is world renowned that can now move into the European market a lot more easily because of CETA.

The final major beneficiary of access to the European market is the freshwater fish we catch in my riding. A lot of people are surprised about that. Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is an agriculture-based riding north of the city of Winnipeg, with about 2,700 ranches and more than 3,000 commercial grain and oilseed farms.

I also have over a thousand commercial fishers and their families who will benefit from this deal, especially now that the Province of Manitoba has moved to release the shackles of the draconian Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, a federal crown corporation that has really kept them below world prices of fish, especially for great things like our walleye, our whitefish, and others. This gives us an opportunity to move this high-quality product into Europe at zero-rate tariffs. This is a product that is in great demand around the world. Of course we are going to go where it is easiest to get the most money and where it is easiest to go into the marketplace. Thanks to the work of the previous Conservative government, we are able to do that with CETA.

We have to continue to be vigilant. Canada should still pursue an aggressive trade agenda. Despite the rhetoric we are hearing from the NDP, there are huge opportunities here for us as we see a change in the administration in the United States, through the election of Donald Trump as the president-elect. We know that he wants to renegotiate trade deals. He has been somewhat noncommital to multilateral trade deals like TPP, so let us capitalize on getting preferential market access for Canadian farmers, manufacturers, and businesses so that we can put those trade dollars into our own pockets.

We are looking at a market that is worth over $20 trillion in Europe. With this agreement, based upon some very good research, let us say a 20% boost in our trade with the EU, that would amount to over $12 billion for our GDP. It would create 80,000 new jobs. It would increase household incomes. This is something everyone should be celebrating, not fighting.

The same is true with the TPP. Even though Donald Trump has already said he is not going to sign the TPP, there are many countries that sit at that table that want to move forward. I know the Liberal government would rather do business with Communist China, but I would encourage the Liberals to go forward with our partners with the TPP and actually take the opportunity, given to us by Donald Trump himself, to sign that deal and have preferential access into that large market and give us a competitive advantage over the Americans.

For far too long, the U.S. has enjoyed most favoured nation tariff rates in almost all countries, putting our beef and pork producers, our grain and oilseed producers at huge disadvantages because we have to pay higher tariff rates going into those markets than what the Americans pay. That is why we need these free trade agreements: CETA, TPP, and NAFTA. The European free trade alliance agreement, that we signed a number of years ago; Israel; Chile; and Morocco are all key countries that provide us with more opportunities for those in our ridings. It does not matter if they are a steelworker, an autoworker, a grain farmer, or someone working in an abattoir packing beef, these are jobs that depend upon our trade. If we are not trading, we are flooding our own market. If we are flooding our own market, we are depressing prices, and if we are depressing prices, then we will see guys exiting the industry because they are going broke. If they exit the industry, then those jobs disappear.

We have to take the big-picture approach here to ensure that everyone who is involved in the production of our foodstuffs, the service industry, and those supplying transportation to move our various products across the country into export position also have the ability to participate. Our truckers, our rail companies, along with all our shipping industries, depend upon trade.

As I wrap up, I just want to again congratulate all those on our side of the floor who have negotiated CETA. We are finally seeing it. After seven dutiful years of research, study, and negotiation, we have come up with the best possible deal that Canada could ever have that benefits all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman will have five minutes remaining in his time for questions and comments when the House next returns to business on this question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 23 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.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30. I commend all my colleagues in this House who have spoken to this bill over the last few days. It is a very important bill. I especially commend the member for New Brunswick Southwest, who made a great statement today on this bill. I would also like to recognize our trade minister for all the hard work she has done on this file. She has worked extremely hard on this important agreement, and along with our Prime Minister, on representing Canada across the world as an open, trading country.

I would also like to give recognition to our international trade committee, which I am very proud to sit on as the chair. I would like to thank the members of the committee for their work and engagement during this process. It is a very active committee. We are dealing with softwood lumber and problems with the meat sector in the United States. We also, over the last year, had a dialogue with Canadians and stakeholders on the TPP. We went right across the country. We had thousands of people come forward. During those proceedings, for the first time, the committee had an open mic at the end of each meeting, so we had a lot of feedback on the TPP across this country.

I am here to talk about the agreement with the European Union. Recently we had an excellent meeting with the European Economic and Social Committee, and we will continue to work closely with our European counterparts. They are very excited about this agreement.

Thinking of how Canada was formed, we go back hundreds of years. I guess it was 400 years ago that trade started between Europe and Canada. At that time, it probably started off with fishermen, with probably Spanish and Portuguese fishermen coming and getting fish and trading it back and forth. Other immigrants came over the years and created trade. We had farmers, and of course, the fur industry was another big one, with the voyageurs. Trade with Europe was very important in the early years, and it still is.

As the country expanded and immigrants came, most were from Europe. Ukrainian people came over. A lot of them are in my riding, but many of them went out west and developed the grain fields, and those products were traded back and forth.

Our connection with Europe goes way back, with over 400 years of trade. That continues to be so, though many of the products have changed.

The proposed comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union is a modern, progressive trade agreement that, when implemented, will generate billions of dollars in bilateral trade and investment, providing greater choice and lower prices for consumers and creating middle-class jobs in many sectors. That is what our government stands for. We want to increase the middle class and have it do better, and trade is important. Countries that trade have a larger middle class and have more efficient and competitive industries.

CETA is the product of hard work and frank discussions. We have some of the best negotiators in the world on our team. There was a lot of commitment from our Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade, our committee, and countless other people behind the scenes. I also have to commend the work of the former Conservative government on this agreement. The Conservatives set the groundwork for this. They started the negotiations, and they did a good job. They did not finish it, but they started the process, and we finished it. I have to commend the former Conservative government for initiating this, getting it going, and making it happen.

Negotiating a trade agreement such as the Canada-European comprehensive economic and trade agreement benefits Canadians. It creates new job opportunities and helps many people. The United States is still our biggest trading partner, but we have to look at other markets and see other trading partners. The European Union is tremendous. I think there are over 500 million citizens there. It is a big market, and they want our products. Canada's exports to the EU are diverse and include a significant share of value-added products in addition to traditional exports of resource-based products and commodities.

We have precious stones and metals. We have machinery and equipment. Minerals, fuels and oil, mineral ores, aerospace products, and fish and fish products are some of the top merchandise we sell to the EU.

Atlantic Canada, where I am from, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, is closest to Europe. This will be a big advantage for us. Our two export sectors that will particularly benefit from CETA will be metals and mineral products, and of course, the fishing sector.

In Atlantic Canada, we have more than 400 small harbours. They each have 20 or 30 boats. We cannot eat all the fish in Atlantic Canada, and the rest of the world wants our fish, so it is very important that we have markets around the world for our fish products.

When it comes to exporting our products, Atlantic Canada has ports we can ship from. We ship our products year round. We have good deepwater ports that are ice free. We are two days closer than many other ports, such as Montreal, Boston, and New York. Atlantic Canada is well-positioned to do well, not only with products but by being the entry and exit point for products coming and going.

My home province of Nova Scotia will benefit significantly from CETA and will have preferable access to the EU market. The EU is Nova Scotia's second-largest export destination, and it is its second-largest trading partner, with a large portion of that share coming right from my island of Cape Breton.

Once in force, CETA will remove the boundaries for Nova Scotia exports and will create new markets and opportunities in the EU. Nova Scotia will benefit from improved exporting conditions. CETA will provide us with a competitive advantage over exporters in other countries that do not have free trade agreements with the EU. The United States tried to do an agreement like we did, but it did not succeed.

I have a neighbour in Cape Breton who is from Germany. His company is called PolyTech windows. They are beautiful windows. He is looking at making the windows in Nova Scotia and exporting them to the United States. We will not only benefit back and forth but we will be a gateway into the United States for a lot of products from the Europeans that we can add value to in Canada.

Between 2013 and 2015, Nova Scotia's merchandise exports to the EU were worth $465 million. As I said, fish and fish products were the largest share, at 45% of exports. Following fish and fish products were agriculture and agrifood.

Nova Scotia is unique. We have a lot of different products that have great potential, whether it is potatoes, blueberries, apples, or even beef. We have good beef in Atlantic Canada. It is grass-fed beef, and that is what Europeans like, so we have a great opportunity.

I visited an operation in Lunenburg where they grow the haskap berry, which is a very nutritious product. They are looking at exporting that product to the EU and doubling their production.

When we look at all these different products we can trade and sell, we have a great opportunity.

This important agreement also hits home on a personal note. My parents came to Canada from the Netherlands. They came to Cape Breton, and that is where we started our farm. We also trade. We sell strawberries to Iceland, calves to the Caribbean, and lettuce to the United States. As farmers, and as we have heard from farmers right across this country, whether it is beef farmers, canola farmers, or pork producers, we see this as a big opportunity.

In closing, when other countries are closing their doors to trade and immigrants, Canada is opening our doors. The benefits as a result of CETA for the Atlantic provinces are going to be tremendous. CETA is a modern, progressive trade agreement that could generate billions of dollars in bilateral trade and investment and provide greater choice and lower prices for consumers.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke quite rightly about the skill Canadian negotiators generally demonstrate at trade negotiation tables around the world, but it is an overstatement to say that it was a perfect job done on CETA.

I would like to get his comments on two different aspects of CETA.

First, the Europeans had some 170 geographic indications protected under CETA, and the Canadian negotiators received exactly zero, mainly because Canadian negotiators proposed not one geographic indication. There is no protection for Saskatoon berries, Montreal smoked meat, Nanaimo bars, maple syrup, nothing.

Second, Newfoundland gave up its minimum processing requirements for fish in exchange for a promise from the previous Conservative government of compensation in the amount of some $400 million, and it is adamant that it would not have given up the minimum processing requirements without that absolute pledge from the federal government.

Could my hon. colleague tell us what he thinks about CETA and its inability to get a single geographic indication protected for Canadian producers? Could he also tell us whether his government intends to honour the $400-million commitment made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, all of these countries in Europe ended up coming to the table. Not only that, but all the provinces and territories came to the table here. The member is talking about the geographic portion, but when all the premiers from across this country sat down, they agreed with the agreement. Witnesses did not bring those issues up.

This is a tremendous agreement. The Europeans say that it was almost a miracle to have that many countries agree on this agreement. So many provinces and territories in Canada agreed on this agreement.

The NDP has a hard time with some of these trade agreements, but I encourage that party to come on board with this one. It is not only going to help farmers and fishermen but is going to allow products here with lower tariffs. It is a tremendous agreement.

I know--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to say that someone else has to ask a question as well, and there may be other people. The member could perhaps continue his thoughts then.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are many concerns over CETA.

Let us focus on agriculture alone, something my colleague is familiar with. Many dairy farmers have been voicing their concerns from the start. The losses to the dairy sector will be monumental.

The Liberals agreed to provide compensation, but it does not even cover the $116 million in annual losses the dairy farmers are currently reporting. The compensation provided by the Liberals is not really a compensation. That money is meant to be invested in very costly modernization. Very few family farms can afford that kind of modernization. In fact, they need investments to compensate for their losses.

What are the Liberals going to do to provide the dairy farmers with better support than this compensation that is contingent on modernization?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am proud of the money that was put on the table by our agriculture minister for our dairy farmers and the industry. The money is not just for the farmers but is also for the industry to help it adapt and grow.

If Canadians like some of the products that are going to come in from Europe, our dairy farmers and processors in Canada are going to step up to the plate and have similar products.

There is going to be an adjustment period, but we have the money available for farmers and producers to help them adjust. There will be mutual benefits for both as we go down the road.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about financial compensation for farmers. However, 60% of Canada’s cheese production is from Quebec.

Why is it that under the financial compensation package we are not allocating 60% of the money to Quebec or based on the number of producers per province? Each province is given money on a population basis. About 23% of the financial compensation will be going to Quebec, even though it produces 60% of Canadian cheese.

When there was a problem in the auto sector, all the money was given to Ontario, because that is the province where the auto sector is. When there were problems in the fishery, we compensated people in eastern Canada, because that is where the fishery is. When the prairie provinces had a wheat problem, they were the ones who got the money.

Now Quebec is the one with the problem. Why is Quebec not receiving its fair share?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am well aware of the Quebec dairy industry, and yes, most of the money will go to Quebec because of size and whatever.

Think about the wine industry, and how it developed with NAFTA. The money that was put in by the Canadian government helped it evolve, and look at it now. It has doubled in size. I see the same thing happening with our dairy industry. We are going to help it increase its production and provide better products, so I think we have a good thing going.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-30, one of our government's blueprints for Canada's dynamic agriculture and agrifood industry.

Agriculture is hugely important in my riding, and has played an enormous role in my life, having grown up on a large farm and having produced myself. After finishing university and coming home, I was farming on my own, learning life's lessons through the farm. I worked within primary agriculture off the farm, and in food manufacturing and food processing.

It has really helped me throughout the years to become the person I am. I would like to thank my parents for giving me that opportunity. Growing up in an agricultural household has played a significant role in my life.

I was a supply-managed egg producer for six years, up until just recently. My wife and I recently exited the egg business. Over the last six years, I have had the ability to learn about a supply-managed system and the challenges and opportunities that evolve because of it. It has afforded me the opportunity in my life to learn those lessons, and to see the opportunity that agriculture offers to allow family operations to transition from one generation to the next, not only within primary agriculture but also through secondary and finished production as well. We can link these easily to CETA.

Canada is a medium-sized open economy. Our economic prosperity depends on an open trading environment. One in five Canadian jobs depends on trade. Canada's agriculture and food exports exceed $60 billion a year. Half the value of Canada's agricultural production is exported, which is why our government strongly supports free trade.

The Canada-European trade agreement demonstrates Canada's continued leadership with regard to the opportunities for Canada's farmers and food processors on the global stage, which has been nothing short of breathtaking. I hope it continues in that same fashion.

I believe CETA will allow agricultural producers to flourish. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the global demand for food is projected to increase by 60% by 2050. Much of this demand will come from the growing middle class around the world, which is on track to exceed half the planet's entire population over the next 15 years.

A lot of this production is not going to come from new agricultural operations. It is going to come from the growth that will be sustained through the industry, through people who are able to innovate and accept technology, and grow their businesses through that. This is good news for farmers in my riding and across the country. There is no doubt of the benefits CETA will bring Canada's agriculture and agrifood industry.

We are talking about access to Europe, a region that is among the world's largest market for food. That is why timely implementation of CETA remains a top priority for our government. Since taking government, 99.991% of my constituents believe in the global economy, and our government's efforts to place Canada on the world stage. When we are talking about agriculture in my riding, we are not only talking about dairy. We have a vibrant dairy sector, but we also have a very vibrant beef sector. We also have a very vibrant maple syrup manufacturing sector, so we need to look at the total picture and include all the industries when we talk about trade.

CETA will provide a strong foundation for Canada and the EU to demonstrate leadership on an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade. At the same time, we know that some sectors of agriculture will be impacted by CETA, namely our dairy and cheese producers under the supply-managed system.

While CETA does offer enormous opportunity for many of our farmers, such as our maple producers, beef producers, and aquaculture industry, there will also be greater access for European cheeses to Canada. Canada has provided additional access to the EU on two specific dairy products, cheese and milk protein substances. New imports of European cheese under CETA will represent 4% of Canadian cheese consumption and 1.4% of milk production overall. The supply-managed system has been preserved under CETA.

The Government of Canada fully supports supply management. In fact, we were the government that created it. That is something of which we are extremely proud. Supply management provides a fair return for farmers, stability for processors, and safe, high quality food products for consumers, something I know is important to many farmers in my riding and to constituents across the country.

We recognize the importance Canada's supply-managed sectors play in ensuring a strong rural economy, accounting for over 25,000 direct jobs and over $34 billion in overall economic benefit to the country.

As my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, likes to say, Canada has the responsibility and the ability to feed the world. We need look no farther than the innovation that has already occurred within the agriculture sector, and the ability to capitalize on the innovation in the future.

Canada is the fifth largest exporter and the sixth largest importer of agriculture and agrifood products in the world. With our small population and huge production capacity, Canada is today's world leader in agricultural trade on a per capita basis. Trade accounts for one out of every five jobs in Canada. Canada's dairy industry alone generates farm gate sales of $6 billion, and processing sales of $17 billion, and 22,000 direct jobs.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his colleagues continue to consult closely with Canada's supply-managed sector regarding the transition through CETA.

The Minister of Agriculture has met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Dairy Processors Association of Canada, provincial dairy associations from across the country, and young dairy producers. These meetings were very productive with many ideas and fresh thinking. Discussions mainly focused on how to strengthen the sector in the face of domestic and international challenges, and how to transition assistance for new markets under CETA.

Responding to these concerns, the government is committed to putting in place a transition package to help the sector adapt to the new CETA commitments. This government has said from the get go that we need to help dairy producers and processors make the transition when it comes to CETA.

That is why in early November, the Minister of Agriculture announced an investment of $350 million for two new programs to support the competitiveness of the dairy sector in anticipation of the entry into CETA. The government is supporting the continued strength of the dairy sector by helping ensuring dairy producers and processors continue to innovate and improve productivity.

The two new programs identify $250 million over five years for a dairy farm investment program that will provide targeted contributions to help Canadian dairy farmers update farm technologies and systems, and improve productivity through upgrades to their equipment. I have had over two dozen calls from dairy farmers wanting to know the specifics of these programs, when they will take effect, and how they can access these funds.

There will be $100 million over four years for a dairy processing investment fund that will help dairy processors modernize their operations and in turn improve their efficiency and productivity, as well as diversify their products to pursue new market opportunities. These programs will complement the dairy sector's ongoing investment efforts, help in both current and future generations of dairy farmers and processors to remain profitable over the long-term under a strong supply-managed system.

With regard to the allocation of CETA cheese quotas, the government is currently reviewing the results of the public engagement process that concluded at the end of August. The Minister of International Trade's decision will take stakeholder views and interests into consideration before determining how to allocate the new CETA cheese quotas.

The allocation policy for the cheese tariff rate quotas will be finalized following the passage of CETA implementation, legislation, and before the agreement enters into force.

While there are challenges, the Canadian dairy sector remains a progressive, innovative industry. The Canadian dairy farmers are doing a great job of meeting the needs of consumers on food quality, animal welfare, the environment and, of course, great tastes and high nutritional value of Canadian products.

Consumers love Canadian dairy products. Production continues to grow every year. Butter consumption has risen by 10% over the last decade. Yogourt consumption has increased over 60% during the same period, and is expected to continue growing.

Canadian dairy farmers are among the global leaders in their industry when it comes to the environment. Canada's dairy sector has a smaller footprint for carbon, water, and land than most other leading dairy industries around the world.

Today, Canadian dairy farmers are able to produce 14% more milk than they used to 20 years ago, thanks to better genetics, nutrition, and farm management practices. They are able to accomplish this with 24% fewer cows while producing 20% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That is thanks to advances in animal genetics and nutrition.

Forward-thinking Canadian farmers have contributed to the success of the Canadian dairy industry in many ways. Canadian dairy genetics are exported to over 80 countries around the world, and of course, who can forget our famous Canadian cheeses which are winning top prizes at some of the world's leading competitions.

We all want a bright future for Canada's dairy sector. The agricultural sector continues to create jobs and be a leader in innovation, not only within the dairy sector but across our agricultural industries.

To help build that future, we are investing in science—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. Maybe the member will be able to finish his speech during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay--Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing my friend and colleague did not talk about much was that CETA will lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians.

In fact, Jim Keon, president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association said:

A study prepared for the CGPA by two leading Canadian health economists in early 2011 estimated that, if adopted, the proposals would delay the introduction of new generic medicines in Canada by an average of three and a half years. The cost to pharmaceutical payers of this delay was estimated at $2.8 billion annually, based on generic prices in 2010.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they agreed with the NDP that greater analysis was needed, as well as compensation to the provinces.

Will the member opposite explain why the Liberals are comfortable signing-off on CETA without any further analysis of how these increased drug costs will impact the people in their riding?

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member is very passionate about the subject.

I know it is really hard for members opposite, especially directly across from me, to recognize the benefits of a trade agreement. This is an agreement that we have seen, and not only ourselves but I believe the members opposite farther up the row. They would agree, if we look at the overall, broad concept of the agreement, it is a 100% win for Canadian companies, not only within agriculture but across the board.

When the dust settles and the agreement is completely ratified, everybody in this House will be 100%, completely confident, that we have done our due diligence on this side of the House to ensure that we have signed-off on a very progressive trade agreement with one of the largest, fastest growing populations in the world, and that Canadian consumers and Canadian citizens are going to be able to see the benefits of this agreement for years to come.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member knows very well where the NDP stands with respect to the paltry compensation that the Liberals gave the dairy industry, particularly in Quebec.

Another affected agricultural industry seeking compensation from Canada is the vintners’ association. The European Union exports 180 million litres of wine to Canada, while Canada exports only 123,000 litres to the European Union. This openness has our wine producers fearing the worst.

In order to protect wine producers, are the Liberals planning to properly compensate this industry?

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the wine sector in Canada, it has actually flourished under an open market system in which free trade has abounded for a long period of time.

I respect the hon. member's opinions about the dairy sector. I come from a family, where my wife and her parents are dairy farmers. They are very excited about the opportunities that could come from CETA.

If we look at it from a progressive stance of being within the dairy industry, there are going to be challenges as we transition from where we are today to where we are going to go through this open, progressive agreement. However, there are also going to be major opportunities for Canadian business and, specifically, there will be major opportunities for Canada's cheese and milk producers. Not only that, there will also be amazing opportunities for Canada's wine producers.

We are a trading nation. We have openly said that. Canadians are well aware that, given our small population and large land base, we have to be a trading nation. That is something we have done quite progressively over the years. We have used our large land mass, and our ability to innovate and use new technology to grow our businesses in a progressive manner that allows us to be competitive, not only in Canada or North America but on a global scale.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about a very important trade agreement for Huron—Bruce, the riding I represent.

Huron—Bruce is a large rural riding in southwestern Ontario, and to the west of it is Lake Huron, which creates a unique opportunity for agriculture with regards to climate and precipitation. We are also blessed to have some of the most fertile soil in North America. Therefore, when we look at the opportunities for markets for our crops, which have tremendously high yields, this is a great opportunity for us and one that will continue to grow for many years.

Obviously, everyone in the House by now understands the size of the European market, with 500 million people and $17 trillion to $18 trillion in economic activity. CETA will have about a $1.5 billion impact on the agriculture industry here. It will reduce or eliminate 94% of the tariff lines for agriculture, which is an important point to note. We saw this with the Canada-Korea trade deal and other trade deals as well.

When these tariff lines are looked at in a broad spectrum, we may not think they are so bad with 10% here and maybe 14% there. However, some tariffs are quite punitive, with some at 114%. Our farmers cannot then be competitive when other countries have direct access. Therefore, eliminating 94% of the tariff lines for agriculture will be tremendously important. It will really give producers in my riding and across the country an opportunity to really grow this market and to be able to serve the 500 million consumers in the EU.

I consider Huron—Bruce the breadbasket of Canadian agriculture. Just to give members an idea of the size of it, the farm gate receipts of just that part of Bruce County I represent are more than those of all the Atlantic provinces combined. My two colleagues who preceded me talked about the huge opportunity for them in Atlantic Canada and how important it is for that economy, which puts into perspective just how significant it is for the riding I represent of Huron—Bruce.

Before I go into some of the details, I would like to talk about the quality of farm producers that we have in Huron—Bruce. As I said, we border Lake Huron, and we all appreciate the fresh water and the great opportunities it presents. However, the farmers in Huron—Bruce are innovative, aggressive, and they represent the environment. They take the environment into consideration in all they do, and they have great respect for it. Rivers, creeks, and streams flow into Lake Huron. Some of the farmers in Huron County were innovators over 30 years ago with no-till drilling, which has since been proven in terms of soil quality. There are many different workshops and collaborations between the conservation authorities and farm groups to make Huron—Bruce unique in terms of the yields farmers get and their respect for the environment and Lake Huron.

There are also some tremendously successful companies in Huron—Bruce, which will obviously be dealing with the European Union, and already do. I will mention a few of them.

Gay Lea in Teeswater just made a huge announcement a couple of weeks ago of a $60 million expansion at a time when a lot of jobs are leaving Ontario. It is a co-operative, which I think means a lot. It has hard-working men and women who come to work every day and do a great job.

Also in Teeswaster, we have the Dairy Goat Co-operative. This is a very innovative and relatively new organization, which has really grown.

We have some of the most productive greenhouses in Ontario, and likely in Canada, in Exeter, Ontario.

The Hensall District Co-Operative Inc., whose headquarters is out of Hensall, has grown across the province. It is one of the leading co-ops in North America and continues to innovate and work with farm producers, as well as machinery builders and manufacturers, to really allow the farmers to do what they like and need to do to maximize profits, such as P-N-H Innovations, Thomsons Ltd., Dupont Pioneer, Hayter's Turkey Products Inc., and many pork, beef, and cash crop farmers.

I would be remiss if I did not mention all of the companies in Huron—Bruce that build barns and provide cement foundations and footings. Everything from excavation to building can be done in my riding of Huron—Bruce, which is quite impressive.

I will also mention the farm machinery dealers. Often our farm machinery dealers are not mentioned, but I think they should be. Huron Tractor is a great example, as is Delta Power Equipment, McGavin Farm Equipment Ltd., Hyde Brothers Farm Equipment, and Robert's Farm Equipment, which are located up and down the shoreline. The farm machinery dealers are important because they provide great service and sales to our farm producers, so that when there is a breakdown at 2 a.m. when a farmer is harvesting his or her crop, they are there to make the repairs so the farmer can continue.

With respect to the beef sector, obviously there is beef grown in both Huron County and Bruce County. However, Bruce County is certainly one of the capitals of beef production in Canada. I know that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is a former beef producer. There is 64,950 tonnes of Canadian beef there that will have full access to the EU market. It is a huge opportunity. Beef producers will have to make some changes to to really meet the demands of the European market, but over time it will be a great opportunity for farmers to take another look at that specialty market.

With respect to the pork sector, some of the most modern pork facilities in the world are located in Huron—Bruce, as well as some of the most innovative farmers we could meet. I have had a great opportunity through the years to meet with many of them to see how they have grown and innovated in their farm operations. The European pork market is, and was, really the last frontier for Canadian pork farmers. It represents a market of 80,000 tonnes without tariffs. The European Union pork market is a big market, and Canadian pork farmers are going to have a great opportunity. Two-thirds of the pork grown in Canada is exported around the world. This will be a great opportunity. Again, reducing and eliminating these tariffs is what will allow these farmers to finally break through and service these markets, which will have a meaningful impact. We know that across the spectrum, but specifically with respect to pork and beef, the genetics, the quality of our feed, the health and safety, and the treatment of animals is second to none in the world. We have a great Canadian agriculture story to tell, and our farm producers will be able to do that.

Another component I will mention, strictly from an Ontario basis, is access for barley, corn, oats, and soybeans. In Huron—Bruce, corn and soybeans are two of the three large staple crops. Most people would not believe how big the yields are in Huron—Bruce, but it is the climate and soil that contribute to that. Through the years, as this deal rolls out and producers and resellers are able to really get into Europe and meet the needs of all of those markets, it will be a huge opportunity.

I should also mention that in Goderich we have the deepest port on the eastern shores of Lake Huron. It allows a lot of grain and salt to be shipped, although salt is not something that we are talking about here. That port will be hugely important, as will be the rail lines that run in many different directions.

I look forward to any questions, as well as the continuing debate on CETA.

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

Madam Speaker, I was really encouraged by the member's comments, especially with regard to the pork industry. It is an industry that I have personally followed for the last number of years, and the assessment by the member is quite right that the industry as a whole stands to benefit a great deal.

When we talk about trade and the expansion potential of the pork industry, it is important to recognize that the ripple effect is quite tremendous. The Burns Meat Ltd. parking lot, for example, in Brandon is filled with vehicles. Those vehicles are bought in the community, as well as homes. The ripple effect is quite significant, and that is why trade and this agreement are so important.

On the whole issue of timing, would the member agree that it would be wonderful for a bill of this nature to pass before the end of the year, or does it really matter, from his perspective, when the bill passes?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, we can mark on the calendar that December 7 might be the first time the member and I have ever agreed on anything.

There are many other countries that will need to ratify this through their own parliaments, so I will leave the timing alone. I would say the sooner, the better, as it would be great for all producers.

The economic impact on farms is huge. The processing side, the small abattoir side, the processing jobs that go along with that, the transport jobs, and even the servicing of the transport trucks, are hugely important. All contribute. It could be by a factor of 6:1 or 7:1. Whatever it is, it is huge. The farm gate receipts in Huron County alone are nearly $1 billion. If we multiply that out, it is huge for my area.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have visited the member's riding many times and it is a beautiful spot in Ontario for sure.

I know there are a lot of small communities and working-class Canadians in the member's riding who would be very concerned about the changes that would take place with CETA in terms of the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Every single Canadian would be impacted by these changes. Twenty-five per cent of the implementing legislation consists of changes to pharmaceutical drugs. We already have the highest pharmaceutical costs of all OECD countries and there is no compensation to be had for the provinces, as the previous government spoke about.

The economic impact would be $850 million annually in terms of additional spending by Canadians on pharmaceutical drugs. I am sure that in the member's riding, like in my own riding of Essex, there are many people who are already struggling day to day to afford the cost of medications.

Is the member concerned that CETA would lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for those in his riding given that Canadians already pay more for prescription drugs than nearly every other OECD country?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a fair question. I would say to the member, with all due respect, that the provinces and the federal minister need to get at this immediately. It has gone on for far too long. There is a lack of buying power. The federal government and all of the provinces combined have an opportunity to really get tough on the pharmaceutical companies. They play us for fools, as far as I am concerned, and I really hope the health minister steps up.

Here I will speak about the province of Ontario. It is a disgrace in the province that some drugs are not included, such as the shingles vaccine, and that some seniors are covered and others are not. I cannot even list how many letters I have written to the health minister to try to help seniors and people in vulnerable positions with the high cost of drugs.

I will also mention that in Parliament right now, there is a debate with the Liberals about taxing 13.5 million people's health benefits. It is ridiculous.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-30 concerns the implementation of the Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA.

Trade with Europe is much too important to be taken lightly. It is Quebec’s second largest trading partner. We export about $9 billion in goods and services, and a number of European companies, such as OVH, have set up operations in my riding, Salaberry—Suroît.

The NDP and I want to promote a stronger trade relationship between Canada and the European Union, although there are still major concerns and quite a few outstanding issues regarding this agreement. In Canada, like in Europe, this agreement has sparked a vigorous protest movement. In October, the regional government of Wallonia prevented Belgium from signing on to CETA; it believed that the investor-state provisions could adversely affect them, and several individuals, including some Canadians, also raised alarm bells and said that the matter needed another look. The Walloons agreed to sign on because they managed to retain their right to withhold consent to ratification if the investor-state provisions were not deleted or changed.

Our dairy producers expressed serious reservations about the impact of a massive amount of dairy products arriving on the Canadian market and on the Quebec market in particular. As well, a request for compensation was received this week from wine producers who fear losing their ability to produce here and their ability to sell on the Canadian market.

The Liberal government promised to compensate dairy producers, but this support falls far short of what they would find acceptable. Citizens groups have spoken up about how drug prices will be affected by changes to intellectual property and by generic drugs taking longer to get to market.

CETA is a source of concern for many. As the Dairy Farmers of Canada put it, CETA represents a 2% decline in dairy production, or Nova Scotia’s entire annual production. The dairy industry needs to be compensated for these losses.

The Conservatives had promised a $4.3 billion compensation package over 15 years to supply-managed farmers affected by CETA and the TPP. The current Liberal government decided to establish a fund of $350 million over five years for dairy producers.

The losses sustained by farmers will be permanent; they will not end five years from now. On top of that, the assistance being offered is paltry and not nearly enough to compensate this sector. According to the most conservative estimates, dairy farmers are going to lose $116 million a year.

The $50 million the Liberals are offering will therefore meet only 45% of the farmers' needs each year, which does not even cover the minimum losses that farmers are estimating. The Liberals have not appropriately compensated dairy farmers for the loss of market share.

In addition, the programs the Liberals have put in place are not meant to compensate farmers, but rather to modernize their production systems. The government is, in effect, denying that losses will occur under CETA.

The dairy farmers in my riding are already greatly affected by the diafiltered milk problem. American exporters are getting around Canadian laws by selling their diafiltered milk here. We need to enforce our cheese compositional standards immediately. The future of our dairy farmers, our family farms, and local jobs here in Canada is at stake. Across the country, the agrifood sector employs one in eight Canadians. We cannot ignore this sector when negotiating trade agreements with other countries.

It has been estimated that $200 million was lost in 2015. A farmer might lose $1,000 a week. The Liberals promised farmers that they would resolve the issue of diafiltered milk, but they have not lifted a finger so far. I am still waiting for news from the government, who is supposed to be helping farmers across Canada, as well as those in my riding, Salaberry—Suroît.

Trade relations also have to be based on equity between the partners and carried out in compliance with laws and regulations. CETA is worrisome in this regard as well. The investor-state provisions will allow foreign companies to challenge Canadian laws without going through our domestic courts.

There is so much uncertainty here that we have no idea how we can even appeal such claims or how members of the tribunal will be selected. We know full well that the companies will be able to hire foreign workers without a labour market impact assessment.

Municipal, provincial, or federal governments will no longer be able to require local employees be given priority without risking a trade challenge. Canada is already being sued and has won only three out of 39 cases against foreign investors in Canada. This is rather disconcerting.

In other words, any decision taken by any level of government could end in compensation for foreign companies. Canada is already one of the most sued countries under ISDS. This legal system has not been fully defined. We cannot give the Liberals carte blanche on this. There are many very important elements that could compromise our industries and our values.

The Liberals keep repeating that they cherish Canadian values. That is not evident in this bill. They are trying to ram it through. We even heard a member say that this bill must be passed before the end of the year. Knowing that 28 EU countries must ratify it and that this could take up to five years, why the urgency?

Why did the committee move a motion in camera to prevent those wanting to submit a brief from doing so? The committee is preventing everyone who will not appear as a witness from submitting a brief. In terms of transparency, accountability, and responsibility with respect to consultations, the Liberals are falling far short. Furthermore, they are not answering questions from farmers, wine producers, and producers from the east and the Maritimes who earn their living from the fishery. That is very troubling.

We cannot make an informed decision, for there is still much we do not know about the investor-state provisions. The Liberals also have not explained how they will protect environmental, health, and security regulations from foreign challenges.

The European states clearly indicated that this agreement would not be ratified unless the investor-state provisions were removed. Once again, the Liberals have not provided any information on this. Will they change these regulations? Will they provide a bit more information? As I said, there is a lot of uncertainty here.

The government is leaving us open to a situation where the agreement cannot be ratified by some countries in the European Union.

Let us talk about health. The changes set out in CETA may increase the cost of drugs for Canadians. The agreement will change the intellectual property rules regarding drugs. This will increase the cost of drugs by over $850 million a year, because it will take longer for generic drugs to reach the market.

Since Canada's population is aging, we will need access to drugs. This is just one more hardship for our seniors. There is no guarantee that they will be able to make ends meet since they are already struggling to put food on the table and get access to health care. Now, they may have to pay more for their medication.

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that these regulations could make it more difficult to bring down prices with a national pharmacare program.

For all these reasons and more, I cannot vote in favour of this bill.

I hope that the Liberals will do the responsible thing and consult experts, reconsider some of their positions, and make informed decisions so that we sign an agreement that is truly fair to all workers and all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting whenever we engage in debate on the issue of trade with my New Democratic friends. I know it has been suggested in the past that the NDP will not be supporting this agreement. Could the member provide any clear explanation about why, outside of the pharmaceutical issue, the NDP members feel so passionately about voting against CETA?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me say again that this is a super-important agreement because we know that they are Canada’s second largest export partner. However, we need to take an approach that involves as little risk as possible. We must be able to respect workers, health, anything concerning the environment and the rights of the public.

As for the investor-state mechanism, as I said, a lot of information is still missing. We do not know how certain decisions could be appealed or who will sit on arbitration panels. We do know that we were sued 39 times under NAFTA. This means that Canada is the country that has been taken to court the most and we have no way to defend ourselves. We cannot hand the Liberals a blank cheque.

In my riding, the Liberals offered dairy producers $250 million in compensation, while the Conservatives had offered $4.3 billion. How is it that, all of a sudden, this industry is not so important to the Liberals anymore, even though they claim to defend supply management? There is a lot that does not add up.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the work done by my colleague, especially concerning dairy farmers.

I am sure I will not be able to change her mind about the agreement with Europe. In fact, that party has some rather restrictive views when it comes to trade agreements with other countries. However, with respect to dairy producers, the member has indeed just raised a very important point, and I would certainly agree with her.

In my riding there is a dairy producer who has invested $1.5 million in his farm. The compensation provided by the government supposedly for innovation to help producers get through this crisis would mean he would get about $5,000 a year. This is not an amount of money one can leverage into investments of $1.5 million.

What does the member think that the government should have done to protect dairy producers under this agreement?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that with regard to trade agreements, we supported Bill C-13, which was just introduced and which will move forward. This means we are capable of really thoroughly analyzing international trade proposals.

There are a lot of missed opportunities in Bill C-30 concerning the agreement with the European Union. As for anything related to dairy production, clearly, what the Liberals are offering is completely inadequate. They say they consulted those affected. Dairy producers were very vocal on several occasions to let them know that this was completely laughable. They are going to lose 2% of their production under this agreement. Dairy producers have been a real bargaining chip for a number of years now. There needs to be enough compensation to at least cover the $116 million per year loss. This is the bare minimum. We need to at least compensate them for that.

In the area of agriculture, wine producers are also seeking compensation because 180 million litres of wine will be coming in from the European Union. That is troubling as well. We have asked the Liberals to support the wine industry.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, The Environment; the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Transportation; the hon. member for Calgary Confederation, Health.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, they are the ones who actually supported CETA before seeing it. They are the ones who are actually neglecting to say that we supported the trade agreement with South Korea. We supported the one with Jordan. Why? It was because we did our homework. We studied those agreements with the lens I just mentioned.

They talk about our opposition to TPP, when they actually had a position that said, “We love CETA. We will support it. When can we see it?”

We are talking about CETA right now. We are talking about the same trade deal they supported before seeing it.

As I said, this party has supported trade deals on this side of the House. We have rejected some. On the other side of the House, they have always supported all trade deals, even those with some controversial regimes, like Colombia, where we actually put human rights first, and they neglected to do that.

That is why we feel that our position is the responsible one. They are the ones being dogmatic and approving basically everything that comes along in terms of trade deals.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has to be in his seat to ask a question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, could the member give me a page or show me something in writing that says that the NDP members stood in their places and voted in favour of a trade agreement? I have not been able to see that. I am wondering if the member across the way would accept the challenge and demonstrate that to me.

I understand that the NDP members implied once that maybe they would have supported an agreement, maybe through a divisional vote. However, is there a case where they actually stood in their places in the House and voted in favour of an agreement? I have not seen that. That is not to take away from the NDP's ability to say no, but I am curious about whether the member would accept that challenge and get back to me.

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

Madam Speaker, the member only has to look at third reading on the trade deal with South Korea. We voted in favour.

He is challenging us in terms of costs versus benefits. He is talking about all the benefits it can bring. I agree that there could be some benefits for Canada. Some sectors will win, and some sectors will lose.

The government is mute on the cost to the various governments in terms of the increase in drug costs. There will be massive increases for the provinces.

The government is hiding the fact that the previous government promised $4.3 billion in compensation over 10 years to the dairy and cheese industry, and the Liberals are saying, “We will just be offering $350 million, because we do not feel that you are that important. We do not feel that your pain will be that great”.

It does not make sense. The Liberals are the ones who are minimizing the impact of this deal. We are the ones who are actually studying it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to get in on this.

The record of the NDP is pretty clear. I do not know who has a more clear record on this. In fact, it goes back to the auto pact, over 50 years ago. The NDP did not like the auto pact, which was fantastic for the industry. The NDP did not like the auto pact. It did not like the free trade agreement with the United States. It did not like NAFTA. It does not like TPP. It does not like CETA. I would like to check it out to see if the deal with Korea was a voice vote. Maybe the NDP sent everyone else away and had only three people in here.

Would the hon. member agree with me that there is probably no major political party in the western world that has been as consistently against all major trade deals as the NDP?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member’s time has elapsed. However, I will give the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques a brief opportunity to answer his colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, he is talking about the auto pact. Conservatives opposed the auto pact at the time.

We look at each and every trade agreement. We vote for those we feel will have the greatest benefit for the country and will help Canada, and we oppose those that will not help.

Conservatives support all trade agreements, regardless of the impact they will have.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Be a little more calm than the other fellow.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, I hope to bring some calm and unity to this debate.

It would benefit Canadian policy, all parties in the House, and the advancement of Canadian trade interests if we took some of the ideology out of trade, and actually started taking a very sober, thoughtful, researched, and intelligent approach to trade.

Over the last 10 years, perhaps one of the most damaging aspects of the Harper government was the propensity to make every issue of policy one of ideology, whether it was an exhortation that someone stands with either the government or with child pornographers, or if someone had any criticisms or concerns about a particular trade deal, that person was against Canada as a trading nation.

That kind of foolish and simplified ideology did a lot of damage to this very important issue. I hope that Parliament and all parliamentarians can listen to one another, and recognize there are pros and cons in trade agreements and, really, it is our job as parliamentarians to weigh them against one another.

It is utter folly to point to any trade agreement, and fail to recognize that there are no costs to an economy in a trade agreement. Anybody who stands in the House and tells Canadians that signing a trade agreement will be absolutely 100% beneficial for the Canadian economy is not telling the truth. On the other hand, it is also the case that trade agreements inevitably have benefits to our economy.

Once again, it is the job and duty of responsible parliamentarians to roll up our sleeves, examine these agreements, and come to a decision, on balance, on whether we think over time they will be of net benefit to Canada. That requires us to listen to one another.

Let me de-ideologize a bit of this discussion. Every member in this House understands that Canada is an exporting nation. We all understand that trade is critical to Canada's economic development. It is a very important piece, and we are all in favour of it. When any member of the House gets up and says that New Democrats do not believe in trade, that is putting ideology above common sense and intelligent debate, and it should be rejected by every thinking Canadian.

On the other hand, every party has contributed something to this debate. The Conservatives, of course, have never seen a trade deal they did not like. The Liberals have never failed to support an agreement that they did not read, and New Democrats have always brought a concept of what we refer to as fair trade to every analysis. All of those things, I was being somewhat facetious, contribute to this.

The Conservatives have been strong supporters of opening up markets for Canadians, and should be applauded for that. The Liberals have also, at times, taken a varied approach. I know that the member for Winnipeg North likes to attack the NDP, but he forgets that the Liberals opposed the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, and said that they would revoke NAFTA once they were elected.

There were periods of time when the Liberal Party was not in favour of liberalized trade, so for Liberals to make it seem like the NDP never opposes trade agreements, when they themselves did not oppose two of the marquee trade agreements in our country's history is somewhat perplexing to me.

I am going to straighten something else out. New Democrats have, in fact, supported trade agreements in the House. I was the trade critic for the official opposition when we stood in our places in the House and voted in favour of the South Korea trade agreement at third reading. Second, the NDP also supported the South Korea trade agreement with Canada, and we did that by a vote on division.

The Liberal House leader knows that full well, so I wish he would stop this disingenuous game of asking whether the NDP supported the South Korea trade agreement, when he knows that it is normative in the House for bills and issues to pass on division. It is a perfectly acceptable way to vote. That is what happened with the South Korea trade agreement.

There are a few principles that guide New Democrats' approach to trade. First, we like to examine three things that we think are of profound importance.

First, we like to examine the identity of the trade partner with whom we are proposed to extend preferential economic benefits of liberalized trade. We like to make sure that it is a country that respects the environment, basic labour rights, human rights, has fundamental democratic principles and rule of law, or at least is demonstrably moving in that direction.

Everybody in this House knows this. That is why we put sanctions on countries like Iran, which is the opposite of free trade. We actually refuse to trade with countries, when we come to a decision that their behaviour on the international stage is simply unacceptable. We like to make sure that the entity of the country we are trading with meets basic standards, basic Canadian values.

Second, we like to make sure that the economy that we are proposed to be trading with is of significant or strategic value or importance to Canada.

The Conservatives stood in this House and bragged about the raw numerical number of trade agreements they signed. Yet, who did they sign these trade agreements with? It was with Panama, Honduras, Jordan, and Liechtenstein. These are countries that, in their own rights, have some importance, but these are hardly the kinds of large significant strategic economies that really make a fundamental difference to the Canadian economy.

Third, New Democrats do what we think Canadians send us to Parliament to do; that is, we examine in detail the actual terms of each agreement itself. We cannot say that we are in favour of a trade agreement without actually understanding the terms of the agreement.

I want to go through a few reasons why we are troubled by the agreement between Canada and the EU.

First, and foremost, of course, is its provisions respecting the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism.

The NDP has been concerned about this for a number of years now. I remember three years ago, asking Steve Verheul, the chief negotiator of Canada, whether it was his opinion that CETA had sufficient protection to make sure that Canada could make decisions to regulate and legislate in the public interest without fear of being sued by corporations which might claim that their profits have been interfered with, as a result, and he said, yes.

When we read the language, the language has never been clear enough to give us that complete confidence. As it turns out, the NDP's concern has been justified by the fact that when Wallonia held up CETA in Europe just a number of months ago, it was over its concern that the investor-state provisions were not clear enough. What did the parties do? What did the EU do and what did Canada do? They clarified. Why was it necessary to clarify? If the agreement had been clear from the beginning that nothing in CETA would interfere with a state's ability to legislate or regulate in the public interest, there would be no need to clarify. However, it did need clarification.

Frankly, those concerns exist today. Canadians want more trade. They want liberalized trade. They want to facilitate the flow of goods and services, and people between jurisdictions. However, I would venture to say that Canadians would agree with New Democrats, when they say that they do not believe that a corporation's right to make a profit should ever interfere with a country's domestic sovereignty, and ability to pass regulations or legislation in the public interest.

If this chamber decides that we want to protect the Canadian environment, if we want to bring in a national pharmacare system, if we want to allow provinces to bring in public auto insurance if they want to, if we want to bring in health care programs, if we want to protect culture, if we want to take any measure in this democratic chamber that we think is important for the people of Canada, and then be accountable to the Canadian people. That should never be overridden, ever, in a private tribunal or in a foreign jurisdictional court, by people who are placing the interests of a corporation's right to make profits over that. That remains a concern.

Second, we know that CETA is going to do significant damage to the Canadian economy, in many ways.

At the end of the day, one may have a reasonable difference of opinion about whether it is worth it or not, but how do we know that? Because both governments, Liberal and Conservative, are going to offer compensation. We do not offer $4 billion of compensation to the agricultural sector, like the Conservatives did, if that was not an admission that damage would be caused.

The Conservatives offered $1 billion in compensation to the auto sector; $400 million in compensation was offered and then taken away by the Conservatives to Newfoundland for giving up its minimum fish processing requirements; and provinces have been promised compensation if and when the prices of pharmaceutical drugs in this country go up, as they inevitably will, by CETA. Who knows, maybe billions of dollars of compensation will be offered then.

CETA has some good aspects and some bad aspects. The New Democrats will continue to stand up for fair trade, in the interests of Canadians, to make sure this deal is good for Canada.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have travelled with him on several missions to Europe, and the topic of CETA was always first and foremost for the most part.

The investor-state dispute mechanism that the member talked about is of great concern to me as well in many respects, from the beginning until now. His point about regulating or legislating in the public interest is a key component.

According to the Lisbon treaty, over 90% of the competencies of this will be ratified within the European Parliament; however, there is that sliver of slightly less than 10% of the competencies of the individual 28 member states. They will have to vote on it. My understanding is that the dispute mechanism is involved as well in that particular vote, which is of great concern, because there are 28 votes that have to take place.

How does the member feel about that, and the concerns of Wallonia? Does he echo the same concerns that it did in this particular agreement?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my hon. colleague for the wonderful job he does as chair of the Canada-Europe Parliament Association and his thoughtful approach, not only to CETA but to all matters between Canada and the European Union.

The member raised an excellent point. One of the reasons New Democrats are very concerned, and are not prepared in any way to support this agreement at this point, is because of the uncertainty over the investment chapter in the ISDS provisions. My friend is quite right, it has been hived off now, and will be subject to ratification by all 28 member states of the European Union.

We do not yet know what would happen if one state or more fails to ratify that provision. Does it mean that the entire agreement is null and void? Does it mean that only the investment chapter is null and void? What does it mean for Canada if we sign an agreement, and the European states have taken away the right of Canadian corporations to sue in Europe, but we may be vulnerable to corollary lawsuits from European corporations here?

These are very important questions, and I am glad my hon. colleague has raised them. It is another reason to be very cautious at this point. I also want to congratulate my colleague from Essex for raising that point very clearly in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time for debate has expired. The member will have two and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.