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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that at least two of the countries that are participating in the CPTPP, Brunei and Malaysia, employ a form of sharia law that imposes severe bodily violence on people if they are members of the LGBTQ2 community. In fact, my understanding is that in Brunei members of those communities can be stoned to death simply for practising their sexual orientation.

Given that the Prime Minister has said that feminism and human rights are to be a cornerstone of his approach to foreign policy and trade, I am interested in my hon. colleague's opinion on whether she thinks the Government of Canada should be rewarding countries with preferential economic benefits if they have policies and laws in place that result in stoning members of the LGBTQ2 community to death for simply being who they are.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that trade alone would counter or resolve issues of human rights. The LGBTQ2 community is definitely one that is extremely vulnerable in the countries that the member mentioned.

Canada will always defend their rights. Perhaps providing them with economic outlays would be one form of helping. I am not pretending that it is the solution in any way, shape or form. We will continue to stand for their rights and to defend those rights.

However, I do not think we can exclude the possibility of entering an agreement with them when there are other countries around the table in this region that are targeted by this trade agreement and not just one or two countries.

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

Madam Speaker, the part that is most troublesome to many of us within the TPP is also a part that is coming up for negotiations in NAFTA, and that is what is called “investor-state dispute resolution” systems.

Strangely enough, Donald Trump has offered up chapter 11 of NAFTA and said that the U.S. would like to get rid of this. We should grab that with both hands and get rid of it. Instead, we are expanding it now and allowing the countries within the TPP region to have the same abilities to bring cases against Canada, initiated by foreign corporations against decisions made by our domestic governments or courts. We have a history of this now. We know very well that Canada loses and has multi-million dollar fines against it for decisions taken in accordance with our laws, in accordance with the rules of fair trade. I need to stress that. Members are confused on this point.

Investor-state agreements are not about Canada doing something wrong. They are private arbitrations, generally in secret, in the interest of corporate power and global corporate rule against Canadian sovereignty. Why would we want to extend that? Why do we want to protect it in NAFTA? Why should we extend it in the TPP?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am totally unprepared to answer that question. I really have very little knowledge on that particular subject. I would by lying if I gave you an answer that I do not have. My apologies.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that she is to address comments to the Chair and not to individual members.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really want to go back to the issue of supply management. I feel that in trade agreements this has become kind of the favoured way for Canada to make concessions on the table.

The people who are hurting for that are our farmers. We hear, clearly, from farmers from coast to coast to coast that they do not want to give up their family farms. They do not want to give up the supply management that has worked so well for our system, that has kept our milk prices competitive, that has kept our food local, that has kept hormones out of our milk and that has responsible animal treatment on our farms.

There are family farms in my riding that are 100 years old or more. I do not really understand how the Liberals can say on one hand that they will protect something, but that they then continue to give up. In CETA, they gave up on supply management. In CPTPP, they are doing the same. At the same time, something is happening, and there is a lot of speculation as to what is happening, in the NAFTA negotiations.

I wonder if the member could provide us with some insight as to what she thinks about the Liberal government saying that on one hand they will protect it, but then it is death by a thousand cuts to these farmers who are the backbone of our communities in rural Canada.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a member of Parliament from Quebec, where supply management is not only extremely important, but is also entrenched in our vision of agri-food development.

Our government's position is very clear: we firmly believe in supply management, and we are absolutely committed to it. Unfortunately, there is an ongoing misconception that Canada overprotects farmers with supply management, but I disagree. As we have heard many times, this system was designed so that the government would not have to subsidize dairy, egg or poultry producers. This system has served Canada well, and some countries are asking if they can adopt it. Personally, I am very supportive of maintaining supply management. All negotiations require concessions, but this government will absolutely support farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

I rise in the House today to reiterate to farmers that we will always stand by them and that we will continue to fight for them. For years, the Conservative and Liberal governments have conceded significant parts of Canada's dairy market to international partners. We need only look at the agreement with Europe, the TPP, the diafiltered milk file, and so on. Canada always makes concessions on the backs of farmers.

The Producteurs de lait du Québec, the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, and UPA Montérégie put their trust in this government, which keeps telling them that everything will be fine. When the Prime Minister was in Saguenay he told them that he would not make any concessions on supply management. Today, we are hearing a different story. It is not just one industry that is under threat today. Supply management is a pillar of our regional way of life, the safety net of our farms and our entire local and regional economy. Supply management is not just a way of protecting our farmers. It is also something that concerns each and every one of us, including Canadian consumers.

I have said all summer long that in Canada we cannot just open our refrigerators and not find milk, eggs or poultry. Supply management is the guarantee of the quality of our products, the assurance that Canadians consume products that have been tested and inspected and that meet strict standards in order to give our fellow citizens the very best of what we produce. In fact, more than 75% of Canadians support the supply management system. Is the government going to turn its back on three-quarters of the population?

I rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the farmers I met throughout the summer who shared their concerns with me. I held a press conference this summer with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé as part of the Saint-Hyacinthe farm Expo to reiterate our support for farmers, who keep wondering whether they will once again have to pay the price for this government's mismanagement. Dozens of farmers reached out to us to thank us for our tireless work on supply management.

On behalf of everyone in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale, but also on behalf of the 13,000 supply-managed farms across the country, I want to reiterate the NDP's request: Canada cannot make any concessions at the expense of farmers. If supply management falls apart, there will be immediate consequences for them and for thousands of farmers and agricultural producers. Does this government realize that that would shut down thousands of farms in Quebec and Canada, and cause the loss of thousands of direct and indirect jobs on our farms and in the food processing sector?

The government must not cave in to American pressure, for our farmers cannot give any more without putting their farms, their plans, and their families at risk. On their behalf, I call on the government to show real leadership.

In my riding, in Upton, more specifically, Martin Joubert and his wife, Émilie Courchesne, from Ferme de la Carrière, told me how important supply management is to the survival of their farm. If supply management breaks down then they will simply lose their farm. Producers like Martin are worried and rightly so. Everything rides on supply management because it is a system that works. The Prime Minister himself told farmers in 2017 that he would not make any concessions on supply management. It is time for him to put his money where his mouth is.

The NDP is the only party that has always defended supply management in its entirety as a way of ensuring our food sovereignty. It is people like Martin and his family that I stand up for every day in Ottawa, here in the House, and knowing how important supply management is to them I will continue to stand up for them. There are roughly 7,000 people like Martin Joubert and his family in Canada. In Quebec, nearly 4,000 farms need this government to show leadership and this Prime Minister to keep his promises not to make any concessions.

Dairy and agricultural production are key sectors of our economy, and keeping supply management is essential for them. Not only are local production and our ability to feed Canadians at risk, but thousands of jobs and family businesses across Quebec and Canada may well disappear.

Canada's government must vigorously defend supply management during NAFTA negotiations. It is all well and good to talk about another agreement today. We know that these negotiations are part of the bigger picture.

During the last two trade negotiations concerning the European Union agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we are debating today, Canada was already weakened by U.S. demands and gave up some market share of supply-managed sectors.

These concessions of 2% of our dairy market in the Canada-European Union trade agreement and 3.1% in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership translate into total losses of $260 million for dairy producers alone. To date producers have not been adequately compensated.

This summer, agricultural producers in my riding were asking me at what point would the system collapse. We have reached 16%. Will it be 17% or 18%? Was it 15% before the supply and demand system collapsed?

We must not say that it is only 1%, 2%, or 3%. That would cause major breaches that could destroy the system.

The fact is, the Canadian market is already one of the most open markets in the world because of those concessions. Canada imports 10% of its dairy needs, primarily from the United States, while the Americans import only 3% of their needs. I think they know what food security is all about. The same is true in the poultry sector, where Canadian imports surpass production by 16%, while the United States imports less than 1% of its production from Canada. We cannot concede any more without jeopardizing the viability of the sectors in question.

Supply-managed farmers should not have to pay the price for every round of trade negotiations, so I have the following questions. When will the government learn from its past mistakes? When will it finally show some leadership and refuse the Americans' conditions? How many losses and new obstacles do our farmers have to face before the Liberal government will finally take action for them, rather than against them?

As I mentioned, I spent the summer meeting with agricultural producers. In a riding like Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, our summer includes the Saint-Hyacinthe agricultural fair, where I spent five whole days, the corn festival, the Saint-Nazaire d'Acton pork festival, the Expo-champs farm show, and the Salon de l'agriculture trade show in January. Expo-champs is held on the side of the highway, in a field set up to showcase equipment and innovations. This summer, there was a lot of talk about smart agriculture. Farmers told me that given the uncertainty surrounding NAFTA and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, they are holding off on investing in their businesses. The next generation of farmers are very worried and have a lot of questions. Will they want to take over the family business under these conditions?

In Upton, in my riding, there are still two country roads where every lot is a dairy farm, which is extremely rare today in Canada. If we concede too much market share and the supply management system falls apart, the landscape of our regions is going to change. Right now, my riding is full of family farms. If the system falls apart, they would be replaced by farms raising thousands of animals. Is that what we want to see?

At the agricultural fair, people were very concerned about animal health and welfare and the quality of the foods we eat.

I learned from producers that Wisconsin's surplus exceeds Canada's total output. Our job here in the House is to protect the family farms that are emblematic of agriculture in this country. We have to make sure those businesses survive. We are here on their behalf, and we will continue to defend them.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on her excellent work with farmers in her region. We hear about it in Drummond, another place where agriculture plays a very important role.

I have here an article from La Terre de chez nous about how supply management took a hit in TPP negotiations. Now supply management is taking yet another hit. I met with dairy producers this summer too. They told me they are sick of always being the ones to take the hit. Farmers are coping with diafiltered milk, CETA, the TPP, and the demise of family farms, and I think they have just about reached the breaking point.

How can the Liberals justify their actions? They are doing exactly what the Conservatives did. Why are dairy producers and other supply-managed producers always the ones taking the hit? How can the government justify that? How can the government be okay with it?

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

Mr. Speaker, we built a collective system. The farmers that I represent refer to this as our collective wealth. It is a supply management system that relies on a collective organization and that allows farmers to work together and agree on how to do things.

I can understand that some people might find it tiresome to organize collectively, but we should be proud of this system. It works. In my riding, there are all sorts of farms. Beef, pork, and maple syrup producers would certainly be better off with this agreement in place, but they tell me that they do not want an agreement that would benefit them to the detriment of their colleagues, neighbours, and friends. That is what will happen if we abandon some of our agricultural sectors, and farmers are opposed to that.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we spent over a year doing consultations regarding the CPTPP. One of the things we heard from so many businesses was how important this type of agreement is for them in terms of diversification and not putting all of our eggs in one basket.

The chapter on labour mobility was a really important one and we heard from so many people who testified before the committee across the country. I am wondering if the member opposite, one, supports trade in general for a fair and just agreement and, two, can comment on the importance of labour mobility, so that if someone is working in the finance sector in Canada, that person can also go to a subsidiary or partner in the U.S. for short stays in terms of temporary work, to do management practices there.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not live on another planet. We know that we need agreements. That said, we are not sure how this one will protect Canada's industries. I represent a very agricultural riding, and I believe that this agreement will hurt the people and businesses that I represent, which is unacceptable.

I will continue to say loudly and clearly that we cannot sign an agreement that will kill businesses and sacrifice jobs here in Canada. There are also concerns about food security. We must never forget that we cannot rely on other countries for our basic food needs. That is a fundamental issue that we need to concern ourselves with.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, after a busy summer in Drummond. I had the pleasure of meeting with constituents, advocating various issues, and touring the municipalities I represent to attend events like festivals, barbecues, and celebrations.

Today is our first day back, and on the agenda is the Liberals' TPP 2.0. In reality, this is far from an improved version. It seems like the government figured it needed to diversify, so it decided to basically sign anything. This is essentially what is going on, and I will explain why in a little bit.

Over the summer I met with a number of people, including representatives from small farms, like those in Saint-Félix de Kingsey or Saint-Majorique, for example. More and more Canadians want to know what they are eating and consuming. I am obviously disappointed that the Liberal government refuses to make the labelling of GMOs mandatory. My constituents are also upset. People want to know more about what they are eating and they want to know the producers. Unfortunately, in the last 15 years we have seen a downward trend in the number of family farms. Human-scale farms are becoming rarer. I recently met with Roger Lafond, from Ferme Gerola, in Saint-Germain, Alain Brassard, the vice-chair of Les Producteurs de lait for Centre-du-Québec, and Christian Piau, from Ferme Botti, which is transitioning towards producing organic milk. These men told me that dairy production and the production of other goods under supply management have suffered enough. They have struggled enough in recent years.

I will give some examples. First, there is the free trade agreement with Europe. That agreement contains a concession of 2% of dairy imports in Canada. That is hurting our farmers. We should not forget that the government said it would set up a compensation program. Let us talk about that compensation program. UPA representatives came to see me to tell me what a terrible failure this program was. On February 4, 2018, Radio-Canada, among others, ran an article entitled, “Canada-Europe Agreement: Dairy Farmers Criticize Compensation Program”.

The article said the following:

Short application window, not enough compensation: the program set up by Ottawa [by the Liberal government, it should say] to compensate dairy farmers after the conclusion of the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, is being criticized. Some farmers and the Government of Quebec question the methodology chosen by Ottawa on the eve of signing another free trade agreement, the TPP, which will open the Canadian dairy market even further.

Canadians, the UPA, and farmers have come to see me to tell me that their application had been rejected. Unfortunately, they applied too late because the deadline was far too short. Just a few hours after the program opened, there was no more room. One dairy farmer, Yves van der Tol, added that it takes a lot of time and energy to prepare the submission. He said he did it himself, but some people hired consultants to prepare their file. They paid money only to have their application denied.

It is not a compensation program so much as an investment program. That is not so bad, except that it does not compensate all dairy farmers. Dairy farmers back home in Drummond are still suffering from this failing in the Canada-Europe agreement. Then there is the whole diafiltered milk crisis.

Since 2015, we have risen in the House countless times to talk about the urgent need to deal with the diafiltered milk crisis. It was not exactly rocket science, but the government dragged its feet for so long that dairy producers and processors took the matter into their own hands.

Those producers have a lot to say to the Liberal government, which said it would defend supply management but now says it plans to give up 3% of the market. Good thing the government is defending supply management. Just imagine if it were not. The market would be wide open. Dairy producers in my riding, in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and everywhere else in Canada are not at all pleased with what this government has done.

That is not the end of the story. Things are even worse than that, unfortunately. Contrary to what the Liberals might think, we are not against trade. What we are against are trade agreements that are not good for Canadians or, in this case, for farmers. We have to have trade agreements that combat inequality and climate change. This agreement does neither of those things, and that is another serious problem.

I had the honour of welcoming Iolande Cadrin-Rossignol to Drummondville, Drummond. She is the director of a documentary my colleagues have probably heard of called Earth: Seen from the Heart, which came out a few months ago. It is an adaptation of a book by Hubert Reeves that talks about the environment and features places that are incredibly significant from an environmental and biodiversity perspective, as well as places that are going to disappear unless we act now.

We held a screening of her film, and over 100 people came. In fact, there is still a waiting list, but residents of Drummond are invited to attend an additional screening next Sunday, September 23, at 2:00 p.m. at the Drummondville CEGEP. Registrations are still open, but people should hurry.

Here is what the director said: “I am happy to see the enthusiastic response to this film in Drummondville. It is clear that people are eager to save our beautiful planet, because it is the only one we have.”

The message of the film is a good illustration of why this agreement must not be adopted: it does not do everything necessary to fight climate change and protect the environment and biodiversity. It all goes to show that this government is in too much of a hurry. It is rushing to sign this trans-Pacific agreement, just as it rushed to pay $4.3 billion to buy a pipeline, angering the thousands of Drummond residents who did not want to buy a pipeline. Buying pipelines is not a government's job, least of all when that government claims to be interested in protecting the environment. That makes even less sense than this trans-Pacific agreement.

I have a lot more to say, especially about the notorious dispute settlement mechanism that also does not work. It makes no sense to be sued for opposing shale gas development in Quebec and to have to pay millions of dollars because we want to protect Quebec's water. Unfortunately, this mechanism is staying in the agreement, and that is unacceptable.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, for his comments on bringing family farms into the House of Commons. It is very important. It seems as though the Liberals are in a crisis about supply management. They are saying one thing, but they are doing another. That is becoming quickly exposed by Canadians and by the families in my riding.

I had a meeting late on Friday evening with dairy farmers, Bernard Nelson, Mark Stannard and Vicky Morrison, and our Essex County Federation of Agriculture president Lyle Hall. There is deep disappointment in what the Liberal government is doing.

Under the original TPP, there was an opening of supply management, but there was some money attached under the previous Conservatives that evaporated under the Liberals. We find ourselves in this situation because of the U.S. When it was in the TPP, it wanted access to our dairy market. That is where this came from. When Canadians went back to the table in the CPTPP, the Liberals were not able to get rid of this provision in the CPTPP. They had an opportunity to do it, but they did not stand strong and did not defend supply management and our farm families.

I thank my colleague for bringing forward those stories because these are real people. Talking about food safety and the health of Canadians is a big part of this conversation that cannot be ignored.

Does my colleague agree with the dairy farmers in my riding and has he heard from farmers in Drummond that this opening of our market is just the beginning of death by a thousand cuts to our farm families in Canada?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Essex for his kind words and good work on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

This agreement is far from being progressive. I do not understand why they included that word in the title. It was probably to project a good image. It is sad to say, but we all know how important image is to the Liberal Party. Calling an agreement progressive does not make it so. In fact, this agreement is not progressive. We want supply management to be fully protected. We must stop chipping away at it. Supply management has been eroded by the agreement with the EU, then by the CPTPP, and then some more in the NAFTA renegotiation. That is unacceptable. We cannot continue in this way as the people of Drummond have told me.

That is not all. The dispute resolution mechanism is extremely important. I did not have time to talk about it earlier. There again, it had to be renegotiated and rejigged because it was not working. We are abdicating our sovereignty. We are abdicating our right to protect our environment and enforce our laws. We create laws to protect the environment. Multinationals are taking us to court because they want to foster their unbridled growth whereas Canadians are asking us to protect our environment and our biodiversity. That should be renegotiated. Unfortunately, the Liberals caved when they renegotiated the agreement. The agreement's 5,000 pages are more or less the same as they were under the Conservatives. They are even worse as we have gone backwards.