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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way wants examples. Truth be known, the NDP does not support trade agreements. That is the reality. The voting record of NDP members clearly demonstrates that.

To recognize the importance of Canada being a trading nation, for example, I made reference to HyLife, which employs hundreds of Manitobans and 95% of what it produces is for export. Last weekend, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg North at Canada Goose where 700 new jobs are coming. Canada Goose exports jackets.

Would the member acknowledge that exportation is critically important to the creation of future jobs and having these trade agreements is one of ways we can secure these markets into the future?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support trade agreements, but not just any trade agreement. This is what we have been saying all day.

Under President Obama, the United States also developed a labour consistency plan with Malaysia and Brunei, to require that these countries respect labour standards. It is not complicated. We are talking about basic labour standards, including freedom of association and collective bargaining. This all disappeared under Liberal rule.

We support agreements that respect workers' rights. At the very least, we are asking that agreements respect the environment, workers' rights, and supply management.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to let the House know I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say once I conclude my remarks.

I am rising today to state my opposition to the trans-Pacific partnership. We could call it the CPTPP, or whatever kind of window dressing the Liberals want to add to pretend it is not just a deal that was negotiated in secret by Conservatives, ultimately to be signed by them with no real meaningful changes. However, I am not going to do that because I have more respect for the intelligence of Canadians than apparently some others in the House. I am going to call it the TPP. I just wanted to say at the outset that is something I am doing on purpose, not by accident.

I, and the NDP, have opposed many trade deals in the past. The reason I oppose this deal is that it is a deal for the few and not the many. That is the problem. There is a concept of trade in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party that is really just about corporations being able to use resources across countries to amass their own wealth but that does not actually allow that wealth to be shared by workers in the countries that are parties to this agreement. That is just as true for Canada as it is for many other countries. Not all trade deals have to be this way, but Liberal and Conservative governments in Canada have chosen to make them this way. That is why that period of corporate globalization happens to coincide with a growing proportion of the wealth produced in those years in these kinds of trade deals. These are the numbers we see over a 25- or 30-year period.

We have seen GDP growth and wealth increase, but the problem is that it is not finding its way into the pockets of the workers who are producing that wealth. A larger and larger percentage of that wealth being generated is going into fewer and fewer hands. It is not the NDP making that claim. We have seen many different organizations track that information and report on it. There is inequity built into these agreements.

What we have been trying to highlight in today's debate are the various mechanisms and what they actually mean for a Canadian worker when we get into the content of the agreement, not just in terms of what the exports at the company they work for are going to be but the wages they are going to be paid once they are in unfair competition with workers in other countries that do not have the same standards and under agreements that do not require some kind of meaningful reciprocity when it comes to labour standards.

Likewise for the environment. What happens to the environment in Canada if we are forced into competition with jurisdictions that do not have the same regulations? What happens to the Canadian worker when the job leaves Canada because we have now given equal access to our markets to products made in countries that do not observe the same standards?

That is why I am quite proud to stand in this place and say that I oppose this deal and the many deals like it.

I look forward to the day when we have a trade deal that actually puts the interests of the Canadian worker first. I look forward to supporting that deal. I do not think we are going to see it negotiated by the Liberals or Conservatives, at least not these iterations. The Liberals had opportunities to fix what was wrong with the TPP. They passed it up. What we are hearing out of the NAFTA negotiation rounds is that they are getting ready to sell out Canadian workers in another international trade deal all over again. The track record over the last 25 years or 30 years just is not there. What the Liberals have done most recently does not show that they have learned any lessons from that past.

We talk about investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, which is a bit of a mouthful, but what does it mean for an ordinary Canadian? What it means is that when one votes for a government that says it wants to institute certain standards for the public good, whether it is an environmental or labour standard, a foreign company could say that a provision, which might be in the public interest, does not matter, as it is going to cost them money. Therefore, one could be taken to court and sued not just for the company's loss of profits, although it gets that too, but also to block the policy change.

To add insult to injury, not only do we not get the policy that is in the public interest, but then we also have to pay money for not getting the policy, which is in the public interest.

This is not available to Canadian companies because Canadian companies do not actually have the same rights under ISDS provisions.

On the world stage, Canada is the biggest sucker for this kind of unfair treatment. I will reserve some of my more inflammatory characterizations of that for a private conversation.

Canada no doubt has been the biggest sucker for this kind of treatment. It has cost us more money than anybody else and now we are lining up another 10 countries that will be able to do that to us again. It does not make sense.

We can look at TPP and ask ourselves questions about how it is going to benefit the Canadian worker. When we look at chapter 12, which is something I have talked about many times in the House and in committee, there is nothing in there for a construction worker who is out of work.

Liberals talk about infrastructure investment and how they are going to put Canadians to work by investing in infrastructure on the one hand, but with the other hand, they are off signing a deal that is going to make it far easier for international contractors to bring in temporary foreign workforces to perform that work when Canadians are out of work. There is no infrastructure to track those workers once they are in the country. There is no infrastructure to find out what they are being paid. There is no infrastructure to figure out whether their training is adequate or if it meets our safety standards.

That is what is wrong with this agreement. On the one hand, Liberals are saying they want to fix the temporary foreign worker program and invest in infrastructure for Canadian workers and on the other hand, they are doing things that are actually going to make it easier for that work to get scooped up by other workers. It does not make sense.

In terms of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, we see it again with respect to the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Even though some of the worst provisions in the TPP have been suspended, we know that they could come back at any time. They are sitting there on the books waiting to drive up the cost of Canadian drugs, even as the government says it wants to bring about some kind of drug insurance plan. We are not exactly sure it is going to be the right kind, but while the Liberals are talking about trying to lower drug costs for Canadians, in their trade file they are off on their merry way making it easier for the international pharmaceutical companies that produce those drugs to raise the price. Once again the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, which is the charitable interpretation, or it could be that the voice of the left hand is being cynically put out there for political reasons, while the real hand of the government remains the right hand.

That is why international corporations get provisions in the main agreement and Canadian workers, if they get anything, get things in side agreements that are not binding and do not mean anything and can be overwritten very easily. That is another measure of how serious the government is.

If some of the language in those side agreements which represent meaningful measures when it comes to labour standards and environmental standards actually made it into the trade agreement, and they are not there currently, then we would have a deal that the NDP could look at seriously to consider whether or not it was going to support it. That would mean the government was actually trying to make a trade agreement that worked for Canadian workers instead of what amounts to a handful, relatively speaking, of Canadian investors and business people who are looking to invest abroad and want to do so on their own terms to get a big return. If they were to bring that money back to Canada and not send it off to Barbados, the Cayman Islands or wherever else they like to put their money, that would show GDP is going up and the Liberals and Conservatives could say they are increasing wealth.

However, if you follow the numbers, that wealth is not going to Canadian workers. That is why they are experiencing the highest levels of household debt in generations. That is why they are finding it hard to find housing. That is why they are struggling to pay the cost of their drugs. It is because of the way the wealth has been created over the last 25 or 30 years under these kinds of trade deals, not trade deals writ large.

The problem is that the Liberals and Conservatives in this place conflate their idea of trade with trade generally speaking. There are different ways to trade. In fact, we trade already with many of the nations that are part of the TPP. In many cases, there are hardly any tariffs on the trade happening between those countries.

That is one way to trade. We have been trading that way. We can expand trade under that model or we could do it under another kind of agreement that actually supports Canadian workers and supports employment for Canadian workers and actually recognizes the environmental impact of trading with certain nations that do not have the right standards. We could do that. That is still trade. In fact, I think it is a better kind of trade and it would be an effective kind of trade.

That is the kind of trade the NDP supports. That is what we are fighting for. It is why we are saying no to this agreement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to come back to the issue of what this trade deal would actually do to communities across the country given the attacks on supply management, which the government has refused to admit is happening within the agreement.

Those of us in the NDP are the worker bees in this Parliament. We have read through the agreement and have actually found its implications. We know that we are looking at losses of up to 60,000 jobs. In terms of supply management, we know what that means for farmers and farming communities in the hon. member's province of Manitoba and what it means in terms of industrial workers, particularly in the auto sector, and those lost jobs.

What does this mean? Why are the Liberals and Conservatives trying to ram this bill through rather than actually looking to fix all of the problems in this trade agreement?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great virtues of supply management is that it has allowed farmers to get a fair price for their product. When we do the comparison between Canadian prices and international prices, in fact, Canadian dairy products are priced competitively. What it means is that we have actually been able to support smaller dairy farms as opposed to just having an expansion of the corporate model. That means a populated rural Canada.

There is a downward trend that we are always trying to fight, but one of the ways we are going to fail in fighting that is by getting rid of supply management which actually allows smaller farmers to be successful and get a fair return for the work they are putting in. The U.S. is encouraging us now to abandon our supply management system. We hear reports of dairy farmers in the United States who are going out of business and in some cases, unfortunately, taking their lives because they are not able to get a fair price for their product. People are willing to pay a fair price for a fair product and we should not be adopting models that in other countries clearly are not working.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his very eloquent speech, my colleague expressed a lot of the frustration that we in the New Democratic Party feel when it comes to trade agreements simply because, as my other colleague pointed out, we do our homework. We look at these agreements from top to bottom. We examine them and make sure that we are representing Canadians and their interests. While members on the other side say the NDP is being anti-trade, do they say the same to the dairy farmers of Canada? Do they say the same to the building trades? Do they say the same to the Girl Guides and librarians? They were some of the 400 witnesses that appeared before the international trade committee.

People expressed their legitimate concerns. They are not anti-trade. They said that with this particular trade agreement, they have serious concerns with the provisions and the impacts they will have on their lives. New Democrats do not deny that and try to gloss it over with some pretty language. We acknowledge the fact that real Canadians feel a real threat to their daily paycheques and their very livelihoods. That is something it seems this Parliament is devoid of on both sides, in the official opposition as well as in the government. There is an absolute refusal to acknowledge how harmful this agreement would be to Canadians, and that does a disservice to trade.

Over the summer we had a conversation about NAFTA that we have never had in this country around trade. It benefits all of us to look at trade agreements in depth, in a way that we have not before, and challenge the way we have been treating the effectiveness of it. My colleague did this very well.

I want to speak to one particular point: the building trades. When representatives of the building trades appeared before the international trade committee as some of the 400 witnesses, they said they were not prepared to be before for us because they had never been part of a trade agreement before, and the government had not even informed them that they would be involved in a chapter in the agreement. The building trades see a direct threat to their livelihoods. I wonder if the member could speak to what he has heard from some key stakeholders in the building trades on the CPTPP.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I am a construction electrician by trade and a proud member of the IBEW. We already know of instances where international contractors are bringing in temporary workforces from outside the country, whether it is Ireland or elsewhere, to perform work when guys down the street are at home waiting for work. It is not fair. It was something that Liberals said they wanted to fix when they were looking at the temporary foreign worker program, but again, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Even as they say they are fixing the abuses of the TFW program, on the other hand, they are writing those very same abuses into the TPP, an internationally binding agreement. It makes no sense and the building trades know that full well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to this very important bill which we are opposing because of the profound negative impact that comes from the botched series of negotiations and the very ineffective way in which this government has implemented it.

I should start by praising the work of the trade critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Essex. She has been extraordinarily eloquent on this issue and she has done her homework. She has actually read through the agreement. She has identified the problems. She was the only member of the trade committee who actually listened to the witnesses, hundreds of whom came forward from a wide variety of backgrounds to talk about the problems with this agreement. She is the only member of the trade committee, having heard that feedback and input, standing up for those Canadians who came forward. We thank the member for Essex for her work on this.

I am in this House in part because of my interest in trade issues. I was interested in trade prior to becoming the CEO of a major social enterprise, WIDHH. That social enterprise was involved in exporting a wide variety of assistive devices for people who are deaf, deafened and hard of hearing. What we did was we opened up our website. We had a wide variety of products that are very unique. What happened when we did that is we found such an interest from the Americans, and even in Europe, that we were starting to receive orders.

I went to the federal government at the time. This was before I was a member of Parliament. I asked what kind of assistance was provided for export support. I was told there was not much and that I could get a loan, the same way I guess one can get a loan to go to a post-secondary institution. One can go into debt. That is about the only way the federal government will help with exports. That is the case today. We are talking 15 years later. We have one of the most deplorable records with respect to providing export promotion support of any major industrialized country. Australia provides about $500 million a year to bolster its export sector. Canada provides only a fraction of that, a few million dollars a year. This is, I think, the foundation stone to what has become a profoundly dysfunctional trade policy.

What we have is a government, first the Conservative government and now the Liberal government, signing agreements but without doing any sort of impact analysis, without understanding the economic ramifications of the agreements that it signs, and then throwing them on the floor of the House of Commons.

As we heard today, the debate has not been on the agreement. It has been from the NDP side, of course, because we have read the agreement. We are bringing forward the objections that were raised at the trade committee by Canadian groups from coast to coast to coast. However, the Conservatives and Liberals speak only in wild theory about trade. Of course we support trade, but there are two different approaches to trade that we see worldwide.

When it comes to Conservative and Liberal governments, there does not seem to be much difference between one party and the other, as we saw earlier today when a Liberal MP joined the Conservatives, and we have seen Conservative MPs join the Liberals. There does not seem to be any distinction between the two parties, aside from colours and some policy. However, regardless of which governments we have, Liberal or Conservative, they all support a very top-down model of trade. They call it free trade, but it is basically top-down. It certainly helps the lobbyists but it does not help regular folks across the country.

We take fair trade as something that we believe could bring the benefits of trade but actually makes sure that those benefits go to regular folks. There is nothing worse than a politician who, having not read an agreement, just gets some talking points and says that this has to be in the interest of everybody because trade is good, and votes to hammer so many sectors in the Canadian economy.

Let us look at the impacts. We have heard from a number of speakers today in this corner of the House talking about what the projected implications are of signing this agreement.

What we are seeing is a significant impact on the supply-managed sector, and not just on the supply-managed farmers in those sectors, whether we are talking about dairy or poultry or egg farmers; the impact is on their whole community when we dissect and rip apart supply management. Liberals may defend that by paying lip service to supply management on the one hand, but on the other hand they are signing agreements and trying to drive bills through the House that would actually devastate the supply-managed sector. However, we on this side actually believe in supply management as an effective approach.

We have been talking all day about the importance of ensuring that those supply-managed agricultural communities stay prosperous. We are going to lose thousands of jobs in the supply-managed sector if we ram this bill through.

Let us look at auto. The member for Essex knows that sector well, and she worked in the industry. We hear from that industry that it is going to lose tens of thousands of jobs. The total job loss that we are talking about when we talk about the auto sector, the supply-managed sector and other sectors is 58,000 jobs, yet we have yet to hear a speaker from the Liberal government address the concerns in this agreement and in the bill. I mean, they talk in highfalutin terms about trade being good, but not all trade is good if we devastate tens of thousands of jobs in our own economy and if we have not done an analysis of the impact on the economy. If we have not done our homework, not necessarily will every agreement be of benefit.

The Liberals have pointed out that there are a few key sectors that, at least at the national level, are supported and that there is potential for growth in a number of areas. However, I come back to my original point about when I was an exporter involved in a social enterprise that had a unique product. The government was not willing to provide export promotion support, and yet every other country does that. In terms of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the beef industry, in the U.S. they spend tens of millions of dollars a year. The United States government provides export promotion support. In Canada, there is nothing—crumbs.

Those sectors, in part, are reacting because of the incompetence of the government when it comes to trade management and providing export promotion support. Those sectors are hoping to provide some benefit or hoping to grow their sectors. However, the problem is not in whether or not we sign an agreement; the problem is a lack of export promotion infrastructure. This is not something the Liberals generated on their own. They inherited it from the former Conservative government.

I have talked to trade commissioners abroad as I have gone around to various countries, formerly as a trade critic, and talked to them about what kind of budgets they have to address these concerns about export promotion support. Many of the trade commissioners have said that they do not even have the budget to buy a cup of coffee for a potential client of Canadian exports. This is why, when we look at what the government had done, as we saw earlier this year, we are now seeing a record trade deficit.

The Conservatives signed a bunch of agreements. Now the Liberals are signing a bunch of agreements. They do not really look at them. They do not do any sort of economic analysis. They just throw them out on the floor of the House of Commons and say that trade is good, hallelujah, and then they leave. However, we see the devastation that results in our communities, because we are on the line with folks who are actually working for a living. What we see is record trade deficits as a result of this incomprehension between bad free trade agreements that these governments sign and the lack of supports for export promotion that could lead to good jobs in Canada.

We have heard today all of the problems that are in this agreement. We have heard the inability of the government to put in front of the House of Commons an agreement that will benefit all Canadians. We know for sure that we are going to lose tens of thousands of jobs. The government hopes that may be compensated for by some growth in some areas, but the reality is that in no way, shape or form can any member stand in this House and say that they have concrete evidence that this agreement is going to be a direct benefit.

When we look at all of the failings of this agreement, including its investor-state provisions, that take away the rights of regular Canadians to put in place public policy to their benefit, members can understand that I, for one, am standing in this House to say that I am going to vote against this bill and against this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was actually fairly well established, even before the NDP saw an agreement dealing with trade and this legislation, that the NDP would oppose it.

New Democrats knew they were going to oppose the legislation and the agreement even before they saw it. I believe that has already been fairly well established. It goes right back to Thomas Mulcair, the former leader of the New Democratic Party.

The legislation comes forward, New Democrats see the agreement and then look for ways to justify their position of voting against it. The reality is that it does not matter, because they vote against trade deals as a general rule.

Out of the 50 or 60 nations that we have trade agreements with, the New Democrats might have been embarrassed into voting for one or two of those agreements. Then they try to create an impression that thousands and thousands of jobs will be lost.

Over the last three years, under this administration, working with Canadians and different stakeholders, we have seen over half a million new jobs in Canada. We believe that by going and securing those markets into the future, we will be able to continue to generate those very important jobs that are so critical to Canada's middle class.

Will the member across the way make it clear that that the NDP's position on this agreement was decided before the New Democrats even saw the details of the agreement itself?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, wow, that's the ultimate conspiracy theory from the conspiracy theorist.

However, the reality is that if the Liberals actually wanted to build a fair trade agreement, they would just listen to what we have been saying for years. We have talked about the components of fair trade. These do not include investor-state provisions. These do does not include eliminating whole sectors that benefit the Canadian economy immensely, like supply management, like our auto sector, through the Auto Pact, a major initiative that we in the NDP supported. Those are the kinds of initiatives we support. We support fair trade.

We do not support the Harper Conservatives' attempt to gut a fair trade agenda. We believed, like a lot of Canadians, that the Liberals would put in place another agenda, but they have not. They have the same agenda as the Harper Conservatives. It is a betrayal of those sincere commitments made in 2015, which Canadians listened to and thought there would be a shift in trade policy as a result of, to a more progressive trade policy, a fair trade policy.

However, what we are seeing today, sadly, three years later, is exactly the same kind of mess that we saw under the Harper Conservatives. That is a shame, because what the member is saying is that Canadians, and almost 60,000 Canadian families, should lose their breadwinner to support the member and the Liberal government's wrongheaded ideology. We reject that completely.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was listening, as I was, to our colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who was talking about the different narratives and approaches to trade, and how there are different ways to conduct a trade deal.

We need to look at how unfair this is to labour groups in our country and other countries around the world. We can look at the fact that investors in Canada have a quasi-judicial panel to go to, but if a complainant from labour is wronged, they have to prove that the wrongdoing had an impact on trade in order for this agreement to take effect.

If the deck were ever stacked against labour, and if we ever needed a clearer example of a corporate-driven agenda against labour interest, look no further than this agreement and multiple agreements done by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments.

Could my colleague comment on that particular fact?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a strong advocate for agriculture and communities that depend on agriculture right across this country and a strong defender of supply management. I wish we had similar members in the Liberal government caucus standing up for supply management in reality rather than just in form and paying lip service to it.

The reality is fair trade is bottom-up. We think of the benefits of trade to people who are working hard, the middle class and folks wanting to join the middle class, and working-class people as well in manufacturing industries and farmers.

Free trade, the way the Liberals and the Conservatives conceive it, is top-down. It benefits lobbyists. It does not benefit regular Canadians. We stand with regular Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The House resumed from September 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-79, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-79—Second Reading

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-79 today, I would like to extend my best wishes to people in Edmonton Centre, who are braving the snow and looking forward to a sunny fall before the snow actually stays for the winter.

I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. We are beginning the debate on Bill C-79.

Our government strongly believes that the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP, is the best deal for Canadians and for our economy. The CPTPP is a historic new agreement between Canada and 10 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, namely Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

Once it comes into effect, the CPTPP will constitute one of the largest trading blocs in the world, representing close to 500 million people and 13.5% of global GDP. The agreement will generate major economic benefits for Canada thanks to trade with countries like Japan, our fourth-largest trading partner and top source of investment from Asia, and with fast-growing economies like Malaysia and Vietnam.

Today, I would like to speak to how the CPTPP will facilitate foreign investment into Canada and provide protections for Canadians looking to invest in CPTPP markets. Investment at home and abroad is vital for the Canadian economy. Foreign investment contributes to job creation across the country. It also promotes trade by facilitating integration into global value chains, improving access to new technologies and enhancing our competitiveness.

According to economic modelling by Global Affairs Canada, the CPTPP will spur an additional 810 million dollars' worth of investment into Canada, and will encourage increased and diversified Canadian investment throughout the Asia-Pacific region. It will achieve this by creating a predictable investment environment to ensure that investors are treated in a fair and equitable manner in all CPTPP markets. If a company is going to invest its capital abroad, it needs to know that capital is safe and secure and is going to provide a return on investment.

The CPTPP will establish a comprehensive and enforceable set of investment protection provisions. It will provide new, more robust obligations on non-discriminatory treatment of CPTPP businesses and investors. These will benefit Canadian businesses through better protection from expropriation or nationalization without compensation, elimination of unfair requirements on foreign investments that favour domestic industries, and easier transfer of capital and profits to and from the host country.

To ensure that these obligations are observed by all member countries, the CPTPP also introduces and includes a fair and impartial mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, is an important component of international trade and investment agreements. With an ISDS mechanism in place, Canadian investors will have greater confidence that they will be treated in a fair and transparent manner in other CPTPP markets. It will also provide an impartial means to resolve any investment-related disputes in the event that specific obligations under the CPTPP are breached by a government. Such protections will help facilitate two-way investment by providing a transparent and predictable investment-friendly environment.

The agreement, once implemented, will encourage Canadian companies to look to fast-growing markets across the CPTPP region to grow their businesses. It will encourage investment in Canada and CPTPP countries. It will also connect Canadians with partner investors and businesses in new markets, and help our businesses further integrate into global supply chains. In doing so, it will create new opportunities and generate jobs for Canada.

It is important to emphasize that while the CPTPP's ISDS rules will help protect Canadian investors abroad and serve to attract foreign investment to Canada, the rules outlined in the CPTPP will also preserve the Government of Canada's right to regulate to achieve legitimate policy objectives. Under the CPTPP, Canada has taken certain exemptions to CPTPP obligations that allow continued policy flexibility to regulate in the public interest in sensitive areas such as health, education, indigenous affairs, culture, fisheries and certain transportation services.

Foreign investors in Canada and all the other CPTPP nations will be required to follow the same laws and regulations as Canadian investors, including laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment and maintaining high workplace health and safety standards.

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, or ISDS, gives investors a way to resolve disputes without resorting to the national justice system of the host nation, but it is not a blank cheque. Damages could only be recovered if specific requirements under the agreement were violated. The ISDS tribunals would never have the power to nullify government decisions or laws. They would only be authorized to grant investors compensation for damages resulting from violations of the treaty.

By suspending certain ISDS provisions that were included in the original TPP, the CPTPP ensures that the ISDS complies with Canada's standard, balanced approach to investment obligations in free trade agreements.

This reflects the concerns that were heard from Canadians through extensive consultations, and I am proud to say that the CPTPP gets ISDS right.

To reiterate, CPTPP will not prevent Canada from protecting the environment or maintaining or enhancing labour, health, and safety standards. In short, it will allow us to continue promoting the values that Canadians cherish, which are the values that make us Canadian.

I would like to highlight for residents of Edmonton Centre, and for all Albertans, that this CPTPP is one of the most comprehensive trade agreements that our country will enter into. It comprises 11 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Once approved, it will open up a market of an additional 500 million consumers, resulting in 40% of the world economy being able to trade with us when we add in CETA, NAFTA and South Korea. This demonstrates our commitment to opening up new markets. It is an important agreement because it will eliminate over 95% of tariff lines, representing over 98% of total trade and over 99% of Canada's exports.

I want to highlight the importance of this for Alberta industry and Edmonton companies. Let us take a look at the agriculture provision.

When CPTPP enters into force, more than three-quarters of agriculture and agri-food products will benefit from immediate duty-free treatment, with tariffs on many other products to be phased out gradually. This means new market access opportunities for Canadian pork, beef, pulses, fruit and vegetables, malt, grains, cereals, animal feeds, maple syrup, wines and spirits, and then processed grain and pulse products as well. All of these products hail from my province of Alberta.

Let us take a look at industrial goods. Under the agreement, 100% of tariffs on industrial goods and consumer products will be eliminated. The majority of Canadian industrial goods exported to CPTPP countries will be duty-free immediately upon the entry into force of the agreement, with most remaining tariffs on industrial goods to be eliminated within 10 years. That is also good for Alberta and Edmonton businesses.

On forestry and value-added wood products, CPTPP will eliminate tariffs on all Canadian exports of forestry and value-added wood products. Many will enter into force immediately, while others will be phased out over 15 years.

With regard to services, our economy is diversifying in Alberta. Many companies in my own city of Edmonton will love the provision in CPTPP that will provide more secure access through greater transparency and predictability in the dynamic CPTPP region.

I would like us to think about professional sectors like engineering, architecture and those related to environment and mining. My riding of Edmonton Centre alone is headquarters to the seventh-largest engineering and design firm in the world, Stantec, and one of the world's largest construction companies, Poole Construction Limited, known as PCL. This is the kind of free trade deal that allows these companies, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises, to continue expanding around the world.

In terms of government procurement, this agreement will provide more transparency and opportunity for companies in my hometown of Morinville, in St. Albert and in Edmonton to compete on the global stage. It is what we promised Canadians during the campaign. It is what our government has been doing. It is what we will continue to do: opening up markets, creating jobs, and growing the Canadian economy.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question about what is not in this deal. This deal looks like it was maybe drafted in the 1990s. There is no mention of climate action and no mention of sustainable development. It contains very dated environmental measures. It completely derogates from the strong measures in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. There is no council of ministers, and no right of the public to petition on a complaint of failed enforcement. It fails to recognize the rights in Canadian law for citizens to file environmental actions.

The member and his government always say the environment can go hand in glove with economic development and trade. Why then is it accepting downgraded measures that were put in place decades ago in the NAFTA agreement?