Bill C-79 (Historical)

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam

This enactment implements the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 13 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, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and gives the Governor in Council the power 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.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member opposite, but I am very disappointed in her today to not even mention auto, to not talk about the vibrant auto community in Whitby or Oshawa. Unifor Local 222 president Colin James represents 21,000 members. I am talking about the harm to auto, the loss of jobs to auto, how many people will be out of work who will not be able to enjoy Whitby in the way that she described it because of the CPTPP.

The member spoke about the tech industry. I will read a quote from committee, which heard from Jim Balsillie, the former CEO of the Canadian company Research In Motion. He said, “there's nothing in TPP that is specifically advancing any Canadian companies.” Canada would be a “colossal loser” under the TPP.

I want to go back to auto. I hope the member has done the work on this, representing auto workers. I would like her to explain to the House the interpretation of the CPTPP rules of origin and the connection to auto jobs being threatened in her riding of Whitby. I will note that the automotive parts manufacturers are predicting 20,000 jobs lost across our supply chain in Ontario.

I would ask her to explain to the House her interpretation of the rules of origin and why she thinks the CPTPP is good for auto.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite started by saying that I did not mention auto. I did mention auto. I said I would be remiss if I did not mention auto at the end of my speech. I do not expect that the member opposite would agree. We have heard from New Democrats for most of today and yesterday that they do not agree with this particular trade agreement. In fact, they do not agree with many trade agreements.

I will talk about tech for a minute. We have made it very clear that we want to negotiate very good deals for Canadians. Our government has been very clear on ensuring that we are making investments in innovation, investments in ensuring that tech companies and other companies have a level playing field to be able to do well and succeed. We have made the necessary provisions within the CPTPP with intellectual property to ensure that they are succeeding.

When it comes to auto, again we need to be clear that our auto manufacturers within Whitby, within Cambridge and across the country, especially in Ontario, are facing challenges with NAFTA, with steel and aluminum. The ability to diversify our markets, to allow them to get their goods and services and auto parts to different markets is necessary. If the New Democrats cannot get on board with that, then I am not sure what they will be able to get on board with.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate throughout the day and I cannot help but revert back to this idea that the NDP wants nothing to do with trade whatsoever. The reality of the situation is, unfortunately, I guess, for its position, that the world is changing. As we see more globalization and opportunities for businesses to connect to other parts of the world, the reality is that trade is becoming a norm that we have to accept. I really hope that the NDP can, at one point, accept the fact that it is a reality.

I have a question for the member for Whitby. In her comments, she talked quite a bit about what she was seeing in her own community. Could she explain how trade and the trade opportunities that come with an agreement like this will benefit companies and operations within her riding and how they can start to expand into other markets?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we put the CPTPP first on the docket is because we realize the importance of trade. We are a trading nation. When I knocked on doors this summer, many constituents in Whitby were concerned about what is happening with NAFTA, with steel and aluminum. We are demonstrating to the people of Whitby that we are looking at new opportunities to grow their businesses, to give them preferential and duty-free access to an area with over 500 million individuals. Access to those markets is a commitment of this government. This government is demonstrating that we believe strongly in small businesses, we believe in their capacity to expand, and we have confidence in their ability to grow and thrive within the Canadian market and beyond.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. 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 Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always good to be back in the House. It is good to see all of my colleagues here. I had a wonderful time in my riding of North Island—Powell River spending time with constituents and hearing their concerns. I am sure that most of the members here did the same in their ridings.

I am here today to debate at second reading Bill C-79, which is an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership between Canada and 10 other countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It is very important that we have an opportunity to debate this implementing legislation as the CPTPP is a huge agreement with far-reaching implications for Canadians.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, there are several businesses that trade internationally. They are good businesses that provide jobs that support people meaningfully. I want to see trade that benefits people, businesses and communities in this wonderful country of Canada.

The other part of living in my riding is the fact that my communities and I have lived through very hard times. I currently am seeing some of those hard times in some of the communities in my riding. An example in the past is when the mill shut down in Campbell River. I saw a lot of people lose their incomes. Soon afterward, some lost their homes. Many had to have one partner travel to another community to work while the remaining family members stayed at home and did their very best to survive. It was really hard as people lost their savings, and in many cases lost their physical and/or mental health.

Losing one's job is absolutely terrifying. It is the very thing that puts food on the table and puts a roof over one's head. When people lose their job and cannot find meaningful employment, it can break so much in their life. I think of a community right now in my riding, Port Alice, which has been waiting several years for the mill to reopen after years of being closed. It is getting to the point that the mayor and council are having to make some very hard decisions about what resources they can have available to the people in their community and what resources they are going to have to shut down. No one wants to be in that position.

I think about Catalyst Paper in Powell River and how the community came together to work so hard. The community, the unions, the mayor and council, the local representative from the province and I fought hard to overturn the countervailing duties. It was a lot of hard work. I really appreciate how hard the community and the business worked together. It was a big relief when those countervailing duties were overturned. However, during that time when so many in the community were unsure of what was going to happen and the community was worried that the mill would be shut down, I got a lot of emails and letters about that and their stress. They shared with me their concern. They wanted to know what it would mean for workers and the community at large. I want to thank everyone again for their amazing work in addressing this issue. It is a very scary situation to be in.

These are but a few of the realities that the people I represent face and are currently facing. With the CPTPP, this is what too many Canadians are facing. Those occupying the 58,000 jobs under threat are facing this type of experience going forward. As parliamentarians, we must take very seriously that the CPTPP threatens to kill thousands of good Canadian jobs. Once these jobs are gone, they are not easily replaced, and when they are replaced, it is often precarious, part-time, and low-wage work, or community members have to leave their community and families behind.

It is the government's job to make sure that when we make opportunities for trade we open more doors rather than close them. Therefore, I hope that as we debate this issue, all parliamentarians keep in mind that the economic analysis conducted by Global Affairs Canada concluded that the CPTPP would generate economic gains for Canada of $4.2 billion. That sounds good, until we realize that this is over a period of 22 years. This is minimal. The sum of $4.2 billion represents the same level of economic output measured as gross domestic product Canada generates in one day. When we hold on one hand 58,000 family-supporting jobs and on the other $4.2 billion over 22 years, I am always going to vote to keep people working.

Some of my constituents have asked what the difference is between the TPP and the CPTPP. Well, besides more letters, I have to point out that there are not many differences. I am very sad to say that it contains the same harmful provisions on auto, dairy, temporary foreign workers, labour mobility, and investor-state dispute settlement. The idea that the TPP was somehow transformed into something progressive is simply not the reality of the text. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to mislead Canadians.

In the communities I represent there are concerns about keeping people in our communities working. This trade agreement would allow companies to bring in temporary foreign workers without a permit process or a study on labour market impacts. Many of my constituents agree with me when I say that if someone comes to Canada as a temporary worker, he or she should be allowed to stay when filling in a long-term job. I am shocked when long-term work is filled in again and again with changing temporary foreign workers. That is simply not temporary work.

When I look at our small communities and the challenges we face to attract and retain people, and as a parent who hopes that her children will settle close to home once their education is done, the ability of businesses to not connect with the local labour market and provide meaningful employment to the people in our communities concerns me deeply. The CPTPP expands these loopholes for companies to do this.

What is also missing from this trade agreement is the complete lack of safeguards in place to guarantee that foreign workers are getting paid what is in their contract with the employer. I spent over eight years working as the executive director of the Immigrant Welcome Centre serving all of north Vancouver Island. It was my job to support newcomers as they came to Canada, and they came in many different ways. Many migrant workers who came to our communities in the region had very positive experiences. There were a rare few who did not. The lack of support for these folks was just appalling. It is very hard to speak up against injustice when the risk to do so is so high. How can this be called a progressive trade agreement when this fundamental right has absolutely no safeguards for implementation? This is a severe gap and something that should be addressed seriously. That this is not being addressed is shameful in a country as great as Canada.

The response by the government to address many of these serious issues is to refer to the side letters. In fact, this is where the Liberals will point to in addressing all of the concerns that the New Democrats have. However, the reality is that these side letters are created with aspirational language that has absolutely zero enforceability. This is a serious problem. This is also where the Liberals point to the so-called progressive elements which carry very little weight compared to the text of the main agreement. Side letters simply cannot supersede the text of the main agreement, and a side letter is not enforceable through the agreement's dispute settlement mechanisms unless it is explicitly mentioned. This is a reality.

I would really like to hear the Liberals address this in a reasonable way. It is time for a meaningful conversation about these issues. Quite frankly, I am tired of simply being accused of being a person who does not support trade at all. What we are asking for is the basic rights of people in this country to be appreciated. We are asking for the meaningful work that supplies families with jobs, that helps them put food on the table, that helps them put their children into school, be respected, and that if something is going to happen, we do not abandon those communities or those sectors but we stand with them and make sure that the outcome is not as terrifying as this trade agreement is setting them up for.

In closing, I look forward to meaningful questions that really talk about this trade agreement. I have a lot of concerns, but my concerns are reflective of so many Canadians out there. What they want to hear are reasonable answers to those concerns.

I look forward to the debate. I know that this is not going to go the way I want it to go, but I want the government to understand that we will bring up the voices of these people every single time, because the workers deserve to be supported and this country could do so much better.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for taking the opportunity to talk about her constituents and in particular those who are experiencing job losses. That can never be an easy thing for somebody to go through and for her to come here and articulate that is extremely important.

She talked a bit about statistics with respect to trade and how she saw it impacting jobs within her community and throughout the country. I am wondering if she has any statistics on the other hand that talk about what the impact would be on Canada should Canada not be part of this particular trade agreement, if Canada chose an approach that the NDP seems to favour more, that of removing itself from trade deals. What would the impact be on Canada in terms of how that would affect us in our relationships and our ability to continue to create jobs, including good jobs in her riding?

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

Madam Speaker, it is always appropriate for us to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the people we represent and the challenges that they face.

I think about my granny who used to always tell me that if I make a choice that would make other people suffer, then I had better think twice about making that decision. My success would not erase the suffering of others, she told me.

I would first remind the member that it is actually the government's job to make sure that we have the research before us that tells us about the opportunities. The people who are going to potentially lose their jobs, the 58,000 individuals and their families, definitely need to see where their opportunities will come from. They need to see what the benefits will be to them if they lose their positions. I just cannot believe that government members would ever stand in their place and say it is okay if those jobs are lost because maybe an opportunity will be found over here.

The stats are clear: $4.2 billion over 22 years. Tell me how that is going to assure 58,000 people who do not have a job.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sense through the speech of the hon. member that there was a list of benefits versus disadvantages in the CPTPP agreement. Could she list at least two items that would be of benefit to Canada by signing and going forward with this agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, it is really important that when we look at trade agreements, we understand that they are opportunities for us to have meaningful conversations with other countries about how we can invigorate all of our economies in a positive way.

There are definitely some positive things to be said about beef and grain for sure but at the same time, like I said earlier, when we are asking one sector to give up everything so that another sector may get a bit more, it is important as a governing body that we remember our responsibilities, that we remember we have taken an oath to make sure that we support families.

The Liberal government has said again and again that it wants to support middle-class families and those that are willing and ready to join the middle class. I want to see those middle-class families get stronger. I want to see those families that are working so hard to join the middle class get stronger, because the more successful people we have in our country, the better it is for all of us. I just do not believe in any way that this trade agreement is going to provide that opportunity.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about losing jobs and the risk of the unemployment statistics. The unemployment rate in my home province is 16%.

Ocean Choice International is a company located in my riding that employs hundreds of middle-class workers. This company sees the trade agreement as a good thing. It exports some 100 million pounds of product to 35 different countries. CETA enabled it to increase its volume to that point.

I wonder if the member could comment on why this company should be held back from increasing its volume through this agreement as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I am in no way saying that we should create trade agreements or not create trade agreements that would block people from opportunities. What I am saying is that one person's or one sector's opportunity is not more important than another. If a person has more but others have a lot less, we have to talk seriously about that. This is the place where we are supposed to do that work and I honour that respectfully.

I am happy for the people in the member's riding, but at the same time I am concerned about the auto sector that is facing a crisis. We cannot ever minimize its experience.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to talk about Bill C-79, which is finally coming to fruition later this afternoon, to ratify the comprehensive and progressive agreement on the trans-Pacific partnership. Unfortunately it is disappointing that it has taken the Liberal government this long to get to this point.

Throughout the parliamentary session, the Conservative Party of Canada has given the Liberals ample opportunities to get this agreement ratified as quickly as possible. I recall earlier this winter, we outlined a process for them to expedite the approval of the CPTPP. Later in the spring, we tabled a motion to ratify the CPTPP immediately. Earlier this summer, the leader of the official opposition put forward a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to ask the Speaker to recall Parliament as quickly possible so we could ratify this agreement. Every single step of the way, the Liberal government and the NDP blocked these opportunities.

I want to emphasize what we potentially could have risked. We may not have been one of the first signatories to this unprecedented trade agreement that would bring Canadian industries, including agriculture and energy, more than 500 million new customers. This is what was at risk. We had to be one of the first six countries to ratify this agreement. Once the first six countries ratify the TPP, it is enacted within 60 days.

Let us put this into perspective. Had we not been, or we may not be yet, one of those first six countries, that is like going to the prom without a date, then asking for a dance once the music has started and everyone's dance card is already full. We would be sitting on the sidelines. It is very difficult to break into those markets once the trade agreements and side agreements are already made.

I have to emphasize through history just how important trade agreements have been. The previous Conservative government realized how important free trade agreements were. Prior to coming to office, Canada had free trade agreements with four countries. Over the 10 years under the previous Conservative government, we signed free trade agreements with more than 50 countries. The Canadian economy has felt the benefits of those free trade agreements in every level of the economy.

The Pacific region continues to experience among the fastest growth in the world. This is an incredible opportunity for Canadian industries, agriculture and energy to be part of the gem of this agreement, Japan, as well as fast and growing lucrative markets like Malaysia and Vietnam. The CPTPP will reduce tariffs in countries that represent 13% of the global economy. That is $10 trillion in GDP. This will create new opportunities and benefits for Canadian businesses, workers and consumers.

The CPTPP has the potential to boost Canadian income by more than $20 billion over the next decade. If we wait, Canadian firms risk losing jobs, opportunities, advantages and certainly will impact their supply lines. We cannot delay this any further. The risk to the Canadian economy is simply too great. We must be among the first countries to ratify this agreement so we can be part of those first opportunities.

That was why we urged the Liberals to table this legislation as soon as possible. That was why earlier this year we outlined a process to expedite the approval process, why we tabled the unanimous motion last spring to ratify the CPTPP and why we asked the Prime Minister to bring this back this summer.

The new and preferential access under the CPTPP is projected to provide Canadian exporters with tariff savings of $428 million a year, with the bulk of those exports coming to Japan at a total of $338 million.

I cannot stress enough how important this agreement is to Canada's agriculture sector and certainly to the farmers, ranchers and food processors in my riding of Foothills. The stakes for Canadian producers are high. They are high because of the damage the Liberal government has done with our foreign affairs and irritating our trusted trading partners.

Our agriculture sector has lost vital trading markets like India for our lentils and pulses and Italy for our durum wheat. Certainly now with NAFTA hanging by a thread, we are at risk of losing the United States, our number one trading partner. At every opportunity, the Liberal government has antagonized the United States administration by constantly tabling progressive social value domestic issues that have nothing to do with an economic agreement.

That is why we are in an incredibly weak negotiating position when it comes to NAFTA, which makes the CPTPP that much more important. We need to ratify this agreement so we would not only have those additional 800 million customers, but also have important leverage in the negotiations with the United States on NAFTA. I cannot express that enough. For example, Japan is Canada's third-largest export market for agri-food products. That amounted to almost $4 billion in trade in 2016 alone. Tariff cuts by Japan and Vietnam over five years could increase our annual exports of canola by $780 million and our beef exports by $380 million and our pork exports by $639 million. That the United States is out of the CPTPP makes those markets that much more lucrative. The opportunities for Canadian agriculture are incredible. With the tariff-free savings, our wheat and barley exports to Japan could go up by $167 million; our pork products by $51 million, our beef by $21 million, and our wood products $32 million.

These products are essential pillars of the economy in my riding of Foothills. The tariff-free access to the markets like Japan would be felt throughout my riding. It would be felt at Cargill meats in High River, which employs 4,000 people; by the farmer in Claresholm; by the farm-implement dealer in Pincher Creek, and certainly by the ranchers in the municipal district of Ranchland. This would be felt in every single corner of my riding.

According to research commissioned by the Canadian Agri-food Trade Alliance, the TPP would increase agri-food exports by $1.84 billion. Not being part of the TPP could cost Canadian agriculture almost $3 billion. There is simply no choice; we have to be part of this agreement. The agri-food sector is the biggest job creator in Canada, creating more than $2.1 million jobs and contributing 6.7% to Canada's GDP. To put that more simply, one in five jobs in Canada and 60% of our country's GDP are directly linked to exports.

As Conservatives, we understand the profound benefits of these free trade agreements. In fact, the TPP was negotiated by the previous Conservative government and very little of the language in the previous agreement has changed compared with what we are seeing here. What has changed is the delay after delay to achieve very minimal wording changes in the title. That has put our Canadian economy at risk for almost nothing.

There are incredible opportunities in the TPP, but unfortunately other opportunities would go unrealized. Not only is Japan looking for a secure supply of agri-food and agricultural products, but also for a secure supply of Canadian energy. It looks to Canada as a place of political stability, a place where it could have a reliable supply. While the trans-Pacific partnership would give us those opportunities, unfortunately the Liberal government has failed to provide the critical infrastructure to ensure that we can get our energy products to market and access those Asian opportunities.

The most critical piece of infrastructure was already approved and ready to go, with the northern gateway pipeline, but the Liberals made a political decision to cancel that pipeline, and now we have seen them bungle a second opportunity with the Trans Mountain expansion. Not only have they bungled that opportunity, but Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for that pipeline at $4.8 billion and counting.

On the one hand, we have incredible opportunities when it comes to agriculture and agri-food producers across the country, and certainly in my riding of Foothills. On the other hand, I am concerned about those incredible missed opportunities that would help people in our energy sector in Alberta and across the country. Because of mismanagement by the Liberal government, we will not be able to take advantage of those opportunities that would put thousands of people back to work.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague of the facts. I know he did not intend to mislead the House or Canadians but he tried to say that the new agreement did not have many changes from the previous agreement. I want to set the record straight.

The agreement has been dramatically changed from the previously signed agreement by the Conservative Party. We consulted with Canadians for two years on the previous agreement. There has been so many concerns about the previous agreement and I am proud to say that there have been significant changes.

Does the member not agree with the protections this new agreement has for intellectual property which the previous agreement did not have? Does he not agree with the new upgraded and reformed dispute settlement mechanisms that we have implemented? Does he not agree that we need to protect Canadian culture from foreign takeover?

I look forward to his response.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague knows that every expert, including most of the people in this House who have read the new CPTPP, understand that the language is almost identical to what was there before. The labour clause and all of those clauses that he spoke about, the vast majority of those clauses were in there. If he is talking about side letters, side letters are not part of the TPP agreement that is going to be ratified and signed. Those are going to be negotiated and discussed later.

What is here and what is in the TPP was negotiated, the vast majority by the previous Conservative government which understood how important free trade agreements are to the Canadian economy and certainly to build those relationships with our trusted trade partners around the world, which unfortunately the Liberal government is tearing apart piece by piece.