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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved 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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege once again to speak about the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, and the benefits for Canadians from coast to coast to coast and across all sectors of our economy. Through the CPTPP, our government is demonstrating our commitment to growing our economy and strengthening the middle class by expanding and diversifying Canada's trade and investment relations.

Canada is a nation built on trade, and as a medium-sized economy, trade is fundamental to our continued prosperity and economic growth. While Asia has more than doubled in importance as a destination for Canadian goods and services since the turn of the century, Canada has lost market share to our competitors, because previous governments were not as seized of the need for strategic, longer-term integration with the region's fast-growing economies. The CPTPP would help remedy this. It would be the cornerstone agreement for Canada to diversify our trade and investment towards Asia and enhance our export presence in the region.

The 11 CPTPP members represent a total of 495 million consumers and 13.5% of global GDP. Canada's exports to our CPTPP partners totalled nearly $27 billion in 2017. The CPTPP would provide Canadians with the tremendous opportunity to continue to expand their business in Asia.

Trade has long been a powerful engine that drives the Canadian economy. Canadian jobs and prosperity depend heavily on our connectivity with other countries around the world. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada are related to exports, while Canadian exports amount to nearly one-third of Canada's GDP. Opening borders to trade and investment and diversifying our trading partners has the potential to boost Canada's wealth and make us less vulnerable to changing conditions in any one market, and it is the creation of wealth that leads to more jobs.

Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, are looking for our government to open up new markets for potential exports, and the CPTPP would help us deliver on this task. Implementing and ratifying the CPTPP would strengthen our economic ties to the 10 other CPTPP members, which include seven new free trade agreement partners: Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. Once the CPTPP enters into force, Canada would have preferential access to 51 different countries through 14 trade agreements, representing nearly 1.5 billion consumers and over 60% of the global economy.

The CPTPP is projected to boost Canada's economy by $4.2 billion over the long term, and that growth would be driven by increased exports of goods and services and increases in investment. This would mean more jobs and more prosperity for Canadians.

For trade in goods, the CPTPP would help Canadian businesses increase their sales and profits by eliminating virtually all tariffs, most of which would be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement, and by establishing mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers to create more predictable and transparent trading conditions.

The CPTPP would allow Canadian companies to level the playing field with competitors that currently enjoy preferential access to key markets, such as Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam, while gaining a competitive advantage over other countries that currently do not have the same level of access. It would help Canadian companies establish customer relationships, networks and other joint partnerships and would offer Canada the opportunity to further integrate with global supply chains.

Opening new markets to our products means that Canada would be at an advantage in exporting more agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, industrial machinery, and everything in between.

New markets for our agriculture and agri-food products would mean more opportunities abroad for pork from British Columbia, beef from Alberta, wheat from Saskatchewan, canola from Manitoba, icewine from Ontario, maple syrup from Quebec, blueberries from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and potato products from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, just to name a few.

Opening new markets for our fish and seafood industry would mean more opportunities for salmon, halibut, lobster, clams, mussels and snow crab, supporting close to 76,000 Canadian jobs based mostly in rural and coastal regions from coast to coast to coast.

Opening new markets would mean opportunities for Canada's diverse and productive manufacturing sectors, such as aerospace, chemicals, cosmetics, industrial machinery, medical devices, metal and minerals, pharmaceuticals and plastics.

I have given just a snapshot of Canada's vibrant economy, and there are many more sectors in which exporters would benefit from the CPTPP. Securing preferential access to CPTPP markets would mean that almost all Canadian products could be exported to our CPTPP partners without facing tariffs. Upon full implementation of the agreement, 99% of tariff lines for CPTPP parties would become duty-free, covering 98% of Canada's current total exports to CPTPP markets.

The benefits of the CPTPP would not stop there. In addition to addressing traditional trade-policy issues, such as tariffs and technical barriers to trade, the CPTPP would cover trade in services, investment, intellectual property, government procurement and state-owned enterprises. These parts of the agreement would serve to provide Canadian companies, service providers and investors alike with transparency, predictability and certainty in their access to CPTPP markets.

For example, the national treatment and most-favoured-nation provisions, combined with a ratchet mechanism, would mean that Canadian service providers' and investors' access to CPTPP markets could only improve over time as they took steps toward greater liberalization, including when they completed free trade agreement negotiations with other countries around the world. This means that the CPTPP would not only open new markets for Canada today but that our access would improve in the future.

This would be complemented by the commitments made on government procurement in the CPTPP, which would establish fair, open and transparent rules for competitive procurement markets. Canadian businesses would enjoy equal treatment vis-à-vis domestic suppliers when bidding for government contracts in CPTPP markets. As a result, Canadian suppliers would benefit from new opportunities in markets such as Australia, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam while gaining expanded government procurement access with existing FTA partners, such as Chile and Peru. It is now clearer than ever that the CPTPP is a big deal for Canadian businesses and workers.

We are making good on our commitment to create opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and to generate economic growth that will benefit all Canadians. This agreement would tear down barriers and build a bridge across the Pacific for Canadian exporters of goods and services.

With the CPTPP, Canada would send a clear signal to the world that it stands firm in its support for a free, rules-based international trading system. In the wake of rising protectionist sentiments around the world, the ratification of the CPTPP would not just secure economic benefits for us today but would solidify our role in the economic architecture of Asia tomorrow and for decades to come. For these reasons, our government is committed to ratifying and bringing the CPTPP into force, and it is why I encourage hon. members of the House to support the bill before us today.

I want to also take a moment to relate the benefits of the CPTPP to my city, the great city of Mississauga. The city of Mississauga is host to 10% of the Fortune 500 companies in Canada. Ten per cent of Fortune 500 companies have their headquarters situated in Mississauga. Most, if not all, of these companies, including the aerospace industry, pharmaceuticals, food processors, engineering companies and financial institutions, would see tremendous benefits from the CPTPP. On top of that, this would be a tremendous opportunity for small and medium-sized enterprises in the city of Mississauga, which would find new access to new markets without any tariffs and with a mechanism to settle disputes that would guarantee them market access.

Mississauga is blessed with a culture of entrepreneurship. There are many entrepreneurs and innovators starting new businesses in technology and the financial industry sector. All those industries and entrepreneurs would also benefit.

The third dimension I want to talk about is people-to-people ties. Mississauga, just like the rest of Canada, is extremely diverse. There are people from all backgrounds who have inherent ties to their ancestral homes, family links and business partners. They would be able to utilize these people-to-people links so that their businesses could benefit, grow their top lines, grow their profitability, hire more workers and expand their businesses.

The CPTPP is tremendously good news for the entire country, but in particular, for my city, the city of Mississauga and the entire Peel region.

The other point I want to talk about is opportunity costs. We cannot afford to miss signing and being a partner within the CPTPP partnership. Canadian businesses are expanding their business relationships in Asia, and if Canada misses the boat on being one of those countries to sign and enforce this agreement as early as possible, our businesses will miss the opportunity of establishing a beachhead in Asia. They will miss the opportunity by falling behind other businesses from other countries, and we cannot afford to do that, because we will lose jobs. Our businesses will lose a competitive advantage that they need today.

Canadians today, more than ever, believe in the importance of diversifying our trade. They know that while we have a healthy, productive and profitable relationship with our neighbours to the south, we can no longer depend on one customer. We need to diversify access to different markets, and this agreement offers our businesses and workers that potential.

I am also proud to stand as a member of a government that worked with our CPTPP partners to enhance the previous agreement, the TPP. We have suspended certain provisions that we felt would not have been beneficial for our sectors. We have suspended certain provisions that we thought could have had an infringement on our intellectual properties or copyrights.

On top of that, we have added bilateral side letters with all the CPTPP partners that guarantee and protect new labour standards, environmental standards and deal with non-tariff barriers. Those side letters are enforceable. There is a dispute mechanism that is prescribed within the CPTPP which not only enforces the clauses within the CPTPP, but also allows us to enforce those side letters that protect workers' rights, the environment, our culture and our intellectual properties.

We are expanding our markets for our business. We are defending the rights of our workers. We are ensuring we have mechanisms to resolve any disputes and deal with non-tariff barriers.

I am very proud to stand here today and share with Canadians the importance of this agreement. I encourage my colleagues in the House of Commons to come together.

I want to take a moment to thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party for their support. They have led the way among the opposition parties, encouraging other parties to support this agreement.

I also want to reach out to my colleagues in the Senate. Hopefully, very soon, they will receive the bill. I want to extend a hand to offer my support. I understand the Senate has to do it job. We look forward to working with it on passing the bill.

This is a good story for Canadians, for Canadian businesses and for Canadian workers. I look forward to seeing it come into force as quickly as possible.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get a chance to speak today in the House, even though a time allocation motion has been moved for a subject as important as Bill C-79.

I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. The NDP supports balanced trade agreements that protect workers and jobs. With the agreement we are talking about today, over 58,000 workers will lose their jobs. Naturally, my colleague spoke highly of the agreement in his speech, but I would like to hear his thoughts on workers. With regard to labour, the CPTPP includes a complaint mechanism that makes workers whose rights have been violated responsible for proving that the violation had an impact on trade. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.

Why do workers still have to prove that the violation affects trade?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to dispute the member's assertion that Canadian workers will lose jobs because of this agreement. I totally disagree with that. I guess it is not a surprise that the NDP and our party disagree on this point. The New Democrats said the same thing about the previous NAFTA agreement and other trade agreements.

I am glad to report to the House and to all Canadians that those fears have not been realized. In fact, Canadians know that trade and open market access create jobs and wealth and are to the benefit of all businesses in Canada.

I am also happy to talk further about the fact that we now have standards and side letters with partners in the CPTPP which uphold labour standards. I am proud to say that those agreements, those side letters, are enforceable through the dispute mechanisms.

My colleague, the NDP trade critic has, frankly, had the opportunity to ask Global Affairs Canada officials about the enforceability of those side letters, about the enforceability of those standards. Those non-political, independent officials told her, with no ambiguity or evocation, that those side letters would protect labour rights and would be enforceable.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague how his party, his government, can put forward an agreement like this when we know full well that the price of joining was supply management, which we gave up to the other parties. They sacrificed our local farmers, our dairy, egg and poultry farmers, without announcing any compensation, without a single dollar or red cent being announced as compensation for our farmers.

We know our dairy farmers were sacrificed to sign the Canada-Europe agreement. The Conservatives announced $4.3 billion in compensation. What did we end up with? Just $250 million, and that was for an investment program, not even a compensation program. It did not work well.

Now we are getting ready to adopt the new TPP, without one red cent being given to our farmers, who are being sacrificed yet again. The same goes for the new NAFTA. I think this is unacceptable. I wonder if there is anyone in this government or party who is willing to stand up for our farmers and our dairy producers, especially in Quebec. I am looking around, but I do not see anyone.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement has been the most consulted trade agreement in Canada's history. After the previous version, the TPP, was signed, we consulted Canadians for over two years. I want to thank all the stakeholders, Canadians, businesses, including members of the supply-managed sector, all those who participated in these consultations. I am proud to say that the outcome of those consultations were incorporated in the new version of the CPTPP.

Our party created supply management, and it continues to support supply management. This government and my colleagues in Quebec have been a proud voice that stands behind our farmers in the dairy and poultry sectors. Let there be no doubt that our government will always support our dairy farmers.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation. Our prosperity continues to be dependent on the trade we have with other countries in the world. To ensure our seniors continue to enjoy the high standard of living they have, to ensure our children also have the same benefits and high standard of living and to support our middle class, these sort of trade agreements are required.

Could my hon. colleague explain in more detail the need to diversify Canadian trade beyond North America and how this trade agreement helps increase the $27 billion in exports we have currently with 11 countries that are part of the CPTPP?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nepean for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. My colleague has been very eloquent in reminding us that we have a strong trading relationship with our neighbours to the south. Close to 75% of our trading activities go to the United States. While that is important and we need to do everything we can to maintain that relationship, it is important for us and our businesses to diversify our markets, to create new markets from which our businesses and workers can benefit and to create create more jobs and more wealth.

Canadians know today about the importance of diversification. We have some of the best industries in the world. We have the most skilled workers in the world. The rest of the world comes to Canada to help it with certain technologies and build certain infrastructure. Other countries need to benefit from our skilled workers in our health sector. They need to enjoy the benefits of our education system. There is tremendous demand for our technology and skilled labour.

Asia is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The CPTPP will provide us with new access to Asia. Our commitment is to build on it and expand access for our businesses and our workers.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals let it slip there a bit. They thanked the Conservatives for leading the way on this. Canadians sometimes wonder what the difference between the two parties really is on trade.

We have seen trade deal after trade deal, with promises of improving labour and environmental standards. We had that great show of force from the Prime Minister, that he would go into NAFTA 2.0 and include gender into the agreement. However, when the NAFTA new deal was signed, that somehow was left out.

We have seen trade deal after trade deal where the environment and labour standards are talked about, yet they are always side agreements. We can look at the TPP, or this new version they call “comprehensive” and “progressive”, which was Canada's insistence. We can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Calling something “progressive” does not make it so. If we look for those labour standards in the agreement, are they baked into the deal or are they just side deals? If we look for the environmental conditions, will they lift up countries that have poor records right now? All this agreement asks them to do is confirm their commitment to the environment. What does that exactly mean in a country that does not have a strong commitment to the environment as it is right now? It is the status quo.

Trade can lift up all countries, but the promise is often not met in reality. We have not seen labour practices improve in South and Central America. We have not seen them improve in Asia through the successive rounds of trade deals.

How can my hon. friend expect people to keep buying this thing the Liberals are selling by simply putting a bit of lipstick on it and calling it progressive?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of pigs, hog farmers are extremely excited about this bill. They know the CPTPP will open up the new markets in Asia and Latin America for which they are looking. They have been advocating for months, if not years, for the Government of Canada to help them open new markets. They know that they have the highest-quality products in the world and they know that customers around the world are asking for that product.

Again, it is not a surprise that the NDP is fearmongering against any trade agreement. We saw that in the 1990s, and we see that today. I encourage my hon. colleague to get with the times and realize how important free trade agreements are for Canada and Canadian workers.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague from Mississauga-Centre for his speech and for taking inspiration from what the Conservative Party did when it started this process.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley just asked what the difference is between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. The answer is that the Conservative Party understands the economy, while the Liberal Party does not seem to be known for much of anything—but at least it generously built on our idea and our initiative to introduce Bill C-79, which is about the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

The CPTPP is a new free trade agreement. It is good for the economy and for the government to open up new markets allowing us to prosper. By prospering I mean enabling our businesses to be very active internationally to increase revenues and create wealth. As a result, businesses and governments can then make more money available to create social programs and help the less fortunate.

Let us create wealth and provide social programs. At the moment, the Liberals are busy spending a lot of money, but they are using a process that was put in place by the Conservative Party to hopefully create some wealth.

The interesting thing is that the CPTPP opens up markets with Australia, Brunei, Canada, obviously, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

I still maintain that this was put in motion by the Conservative Party. The Liberals love to invoke the name of the former prime minister, a man I admire deeply. He is one of the reasons I am in politics today. Stephen Harper, an economist by trade who is no showman, took steps to grow Canada's economy, and I am glad he did.

This goes to show that the Liberals are just improvising. We saw it with NAFTA, now known as the USMCA. The “C” stands for “Canada”. We get the lowest billing in the abbreviation because we are the last of the three countries to have signed or reached an agreement. This proves that the Liberals are improvising, which I find disquieting.

My leader, the leader of the Conservative Party, wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada this summer to speed up the negotiation process. Our government's negotiations with our neighbour to the south, the United States, have been dragging on for 13 months. I think that, strategically, it would have been a good idea to show the U.S. that we are not vulnerable, that even though they are a significant market, we want to develop other markets in order to have some leverage to negotiate with the U.S.

My leader got in touch with the Prime Minister to speed up the process. What is important for this treaty is to be among the first six signatories for the agreement to enter into force. Again, we are here discussing the CPTPP in October, on the eve of Thanksgiving, because of the Liberal government's improvisation, amateurism and lack of rigour. We are wasting time.

One thing we know in the world of economics is that when a player is missing and orders need to be filled, customers will start looking elsewhere if they are disappointed. It is the same when building a new head office, when there are opportunities to bring head offices here but companies choose to go somewhere else. You do not build a new head office every day, every week or every month. There are cycles and investments. When a company is located in a region or a country, transferring its head office to another country is a complex operation. It is a serious decision for corporate leaders to take.

Here is what we can read in Export Development Canada's website: “Free trade agreements like the CPTPP can: Help you reach new B2B customers; Give your firm a chance to bid on government contracts overseas; Buy goods and services with reduced or no tariffs”.

That is a Government of Canada website promoting the benefits of a free trade agreement. I think that is what a government must do. The current government has been slow. It improvised and was not thorough. Maybe the Prime Minister felt like being on vacation this summer. We, as Conservatives, were ready to move that file forward and expedite the process. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's answer to our leader was that it was not possible for him to do anything and that things would take their course. That is the reason why we are debating this bill today.

As I mentioned earlier, the agreement will come into effect 60 days after six countries have signed it. If we delay, if we are not one of the first six countries, it means that we are not helping to speed up the implementation of this agreement. Does the Liberal government really want to open markets? That is rather odd. Last Sunday evening, at 10 p.m., on the Lord’s Day, the Prime Minister decided to hold a cabinet meeting here. Now he wakes up. There is an emergency and we need to move quickly. The government’s amateurism shows us that it has irresponsibly sped things up too quickly with the USMCA. The “C” stands for little Canada, which is in the trio along with the large market of the United States.

This government is just not consistent, and that is what is unfortunate. The Liberals have sped up the process. I have no idea what bit them, although in October flies are usually hibernating. In any case, I do not know what bit the Prime Minister to make him decide to speed up the process and give without taking.

I am not an expert negotiator. I was not at the negotiating table with the United States. When one negotiates, there is usually give and take. There is leverage. One agrees to sacrifice “X” as long as the other party gives “Y”. It is an old principle and it does not take a genius to make sure that there is a give and take. I said it in English so that everyone understands. That is what negotiating is all about.

Let us look at what the Liberal government took in exchange for what it gave. I have to say that I do not see anything in my notes. Nothing was gained. We give, we celebrate, we are happy and we say, “well done, mission accomplished”. Yes, it is important to have a market with the United States, but we must not negotiate on bended knee. We have to stand up. A power balance needed to be established. The process was moving along, and then a fly bit someone around the table and it was decided that we had to move very quickly. It is quite dramatic.

Canada came in third in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The United States and Mexico reached an agreement and told Canada it could join if it wanted to, but that, if it was not interested, they would go ahead as planned. Some position of power. Our Prime Minister’s Liberal government opened up our dairy market for free; the U.S. is still denying our farmers and dairy producers access to its market. At least the CPTPP grants us access to the market.

The government caved in to the United States, allowing it to maintain the surtaxes on steel, aluminum and softwood lumber. We conceded, we negotiated, the other side found ways of exerting pressure, but then, after we came to an agreement, it failed to remove that pressure. That is quite something.

In addition, the agreement extends the data protection period for pharmaceuticals. That means that it will cost Canadians a lot more to stay healthy. That is an impressive bargaining achievement.

Moreover, limits will be placed on the development of the Canadian auto industry. Now there are quotas, where before there were none. What did we get in return?

There is a lot more in the agreement. I cannot address every item. That being said, the more we read, the more we find out, and the devil is in the details. What I am about to say has never been heard before: we will have to ask the President of the United States for permission before we enter into any trade agreements with other countries. I am about to fall off my chair—well, not literally. I do not understand.

Our Prime Minister, however, is happy with the negotiations. As I have said before, it is important to have a free trade agreement with the United States, since the U.S. market is very important for Canadians. It represents practically 80% of our exports. It is important, but not at any cost. The government just managed to survive the negotiations, and it is thrilled. We, however, got nothing in return.

We are told that the negotiations are over. A company in my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, does business in the U.S. and Canada. Unfortunately, its product is on the list of products saddled with surtaxes, a tool the U.S. used to exert pressure during the negotiations. If the company develops products in the U.S. to meet U.S. and Canadian needs and then imports them into Canada, it will have to pay a surtax.

Not to mention any names, Biscuits Leclerc is a well-known company with facilities in 20 countries. It is a Canadian company, and its head office is located in Canada. I am extremely pleased to say that it is located in my riding, more particularly in the Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures industrial park. How important is the company? The industrial park is called the “Parc industriel François-Leclerc” in recognition of the company’s decision to set up its head office there. The company is prosperous and believes in us—and we believe in it.

I will get back to my story. The company produces cookies and ships them to Canada. It produces its own products and exports them to Canada. Do you know what the annual surtax is for the company? One million dollars. The surtax is still in effect, despite the fact that the government is thrilled that everything is settled and proud of what a good job it did in the negotiations. That is quite an example of success.

After signing the agreement, Donald Trump gave a victory speech at a press conference. He was happy. He won, but what did Canada win? It barely survived.

The agreement has been negotiated, but the negotiations are not finished, since there are still surtaxes on both sides of the border, for example on steel and cookies. We were even told that the surtax on steel and aluminum would remain as a matter of national security. Why did we not use food safety during the negotiations to justify holding firm on supply management? Canadian producers’ standards and controls for dairy and other types of production are higher in Canada in terms of safety and hygiene. Health Canada is doing a good job, but the rules are not the same in the U.S.

When we trade with another country or market with lower standards, that means that their production costs are lower. They can produce more at a lower cost. That is unfair competition. Why did the Liberal government negotiators not use food safety as an argument to close the door on supply management? The government told Canadian farmers that it would protect supply management. Great job! It protected nothing, and managed to open a breach. The other agreements included compensation and market access.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister met with farmers. He told them that the minister might give them full compensation. Now the government is backpedalling. People are seeing what we in the House have known for three years. This government is not in control. It consults, it talks the talk, but it is not proactive. Take, for example, the CPTPP, which we are discussing today. It is based on our government's work and I am very proud of that. We must have done something right at some point. Canada's economy is what it is because of the Conservative Party.

We did plenty of things right. Many Canadians I speak to, and I will have the opportunity to meet others because I will be in my riding next week, keep telling me that they miss the previous government, and that is music to my ears. It makes me happy. Canadians are beginning to see this government’s true colours after its constant failures this summer.

I have a piece of advice for the Liberals. I am not an expert, but I have my sources. In Business Insider, Jeff Haden gave 12 negotiating tips. I would have commented on each and every one of them, but since I do not have enough time, I will simply list them: go first; be quiet; know what you want — that one brings up big question marks; assume the best case; avoid setting ranges; only make concessions for a reason; avoid getting cornered; make time your friend; ignore face value; give the other person room; forget about winning and losing; and create a relationship.

The Liberal Party negotiators completely failed in many of these areas. In fact, there is nothing to evaluate, since they did not get any results. I will have the opportunity to talk about this a bit more.

As I mentioned in my speech, we will support the agreement. Opening markets is important. First, we need to create wealth, and then we can establish social programs.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his speech.

Unfortunately, he took the occasion to restate one of the biggest myths in Canadian political thought today, that Conservative governments are good for the economy.

Under the former Prime Minister, the economy flatlined for 10 years, the worst economic record since the Great Depression. There is a very simple explanation for that: The Canadian economy does well when we invest in Canadians. The Conservatives failed to invest in entrepreneurship and innovation. We made those investments. They failed to invest in science and technology. We made those investments. They failed to invest in defence and trade, and we made those investments. As a result, today, the Canadian economy is at the top of the G7.

Does my colleague now understand why the Harper economy flatlined for 10 years?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before the hon. member responds, I would like to remind the members that talking quietly is one thing, but if they are near the microphone used by the person speaking, they are much more audible.

I would ask that members respect one another.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore for his question.

I have to say that we left the house in order. We left Canada with a budget surplus. That is important when we are talking about economic prosperity. I would like to remind my esteemed colleague that Canada was the first G7 country to emerge from the economic crisis.

Where is the Liberal Party’s economic crisis? Why are there so many deficits? Why are they spending irresponsibly? It is going to be great fun when interest rates begin to rise and we are hit with an economic crisis. Where are the oxygen and the space for investing in our society to avoid an economic crisis? That is an important question.

We, the Conservatives, stood in the breach. We lived up to our commitments. I will say again that we are the only party in the country whose main priority is the economy.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to something my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier said. He was talking about Bill C-79 before us today, and he boasted about the economic merits of the trans-Pacific partnership.

Just so I understand, I would like to know what he thinks about the following. Right now, trade in Canada is lower than in the other member countries. If money leaves my pocket faster than it goes in, I am in a deficit situation.

I wanted to know whether he thinks that is a good economy and whether this is a good trade agreement.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Jonquière.

It is perfectly normal for the economy, markets and transactions with countries that we have not signed agreements with to be less strong. Signing an agreement lifts barriers, enabling us to conquer markets all around the world. They come here, and we go there. It is up to us to be creative, seize opportunities and make sure that our Canadian businesses are able to prosper in these regions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We will stop there and proceed to oral questions. The hon. member will have six minutes and six seconds remaining when we return to this matter.

The House resumed 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 third time and passed.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech given earlier by my colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who, like me, comes from Quebec.

Today, we are debating the bill on the CPTPP at third reading stage.

The member spoke at length about the USMCA during his speech while only occasionally touching on the subject of Bill C-79.

Would he be willing to speak to the tremendous benefits of the cultural exemption negotiated as part of the CPTPP? Side agreements were reached with each of the agreement's signatory countries.

Does my hon. colleague realize that this represents 650,000 very good jobs in Canada?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Quebec, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, for her question. It is important to understand that Asian countries pose less of a risk of cultural aggression than our neighbours to the south do. I would remind my colleague that we are not opposed to free trade agreements. Quite the opposite. The reason I did not say much about the CPTPP was because I wanted to focus on demonstrating how bizarre, sloppy and amateurish the current government's strategy for negotiating free trade agreements is.

Again, as I said earlier, things were negotiated and put in place as a pressure tactic, but once the agreement was signed, those tools were left in place, penalizing Canadian consumers with higher prices. I think the member should appreciate that, especially since she introduced a bill in the same vein regarding credit card fees. Her government needs to get its act together and minimize costs for consumers.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, the member will no longer be moving her bill on credit cards forward in the House.

Like the Canada-European Union agreement and the new NAFTA, or United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, the agreement we are discussing today, the new trans-Pacific partnership, sacrifices our supply-managed producers and, above all, our dairy farmers. There is no compensation for our dairy farmers in the new TPP. Not one red cent. We in the Bloc Québécois condemn this omission in the strongest of terms.

Will my colleague side with the Liberals and support this agreement, even though it does not offer a single cent of compensation for our dairy farmers, or will he stand with us and vote against this agreement, which is unfair to the Quebec farmers who are the backbone of our rural communities?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from Joliette, who asked a very good question. We have to understand that the Liberals took a page out of the Conservative book to draft the CPTPP. I find that interesting. However, they should have kept on drawing inspiration from what we had already done, because we had provided for compensation.

Regarding the new deal, the USMCA, the Prime Minister said throughout the 13 months of negotiations that he would protect supply management. That is what we wanted him to do and we asked if he would fully protect it. Unfortunately, we know what happened next.

The government met with farmers and dairy producers yesterday. The Prime Minister spoke of offering “fair” compensation to producers, but before that, his minister said that they would be “fully” compensated.

We heard the same thing in the House today. The language is shifting. Farmers now see the true face of this government. As on many other files, it is not keeping its promises.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, Canadians in all regions of the country will recognize that trade deals, whether with the U.S. and Mexico or the comprehensive trade pact with the TPP partners, are good for Canadians overall.

Members have given a lot of attention to the supply management issue. It was a Liberal government that established that system and this Liberal government is committed to continuing to support that system. The Liberal government has also been very supportive of our rural communities, in particular our farming communities.

At the very least, could the member across the way acknowledge that the Conservatives support trade agreements? This trade agreement will benefit all Canadians. I believe the Conservatives are supporting it for that very same reason.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only party in this House that knows the economy, works to ensure prosperity and diligently develops important and efficient economic mechanisms is the Conservative Party. We cannot just close off markets. We wanted a lot more and we would have gotten a lot more. That is what we are saying. Unfortunately, Canadians chose a Liberal government in 2015, and we have to live with that.

The Liberals sacrificed supply management without getting anything in return. The House is about to shut down for a week. We are going back to our ridings, and Monday is the harvest festival. I hope our farmers will be able to sell their crops and keep their farms going. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use my time to demonstrate why the progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP, which Bill C-79 seeks to implement, is a bad deal.

The Liberals and the Conservative Party seem rather eager to get this bill passed. Try as I might, I cannot comprehend why. There have been extensive studies done in committee. Serious discussions needed to take place, but we should also have had more time to discuss the matter here, in the House. No one even bothered to listen to the evidence presented in committee. More than 400 witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, and comments were made by more than 60,000 people, 95% of which had negative things to say about the trans-Pacific partnership.

It is not just the NDP saying this. The people have spoken, loud and clear. If 95% of the 60,000 people having commented believe that it is a bad deal, I think the message is clear. As usual, however, the Liberals and Conservatives are doing as they please, totally disregarding what the people are saying. Holding consultations is all well and good, but they need to listen to what the people have to say, even if it does not always suit their agenda.

We were all elected to represent the people and to serve their interests, not ours. The NDP will always support agreements between Canada and other countries, despite what the government says and everything that has been said in the House during debate on Bill C-79. However, we do not want a deal at any cost. That is what is important. There are several reasons why this agreement does not deserve the progressive seal that the government likes to give it, and I will have the opportunity to present them in my speech.

We saw the same thing when the Conservatives were in power, and unfortunately, it is continuing under the Liberal government. We keep signing bad agreements. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The government has allocated too little time to debate Bill C-79. I must point out that the Liberals and their Conservative friends allowed a time allocation motion on Bill C-79 to be passed in order to significantly reduce the hours of debate in the House. Because of the adoption of this motion, the number of hours of debate has been reduced from 10 to 4. That is irresponsible. It is important to debate this bill as much as possible so that we can improve it and serve the needs of the people.

We are now at third reading, and I would remind the House that the NDP would like to delete a few clauses from the bill. Several amendments were presented by my colleague from Essex and were unfortunately rejected out of hand.

I would like to focus on some motions moved by my hon. colleague dealing with clauses 11, 12, 19 and 50 of the bill. Clause 11 definitely needs to go, because it grants the minister exclusive power to appoint the members of the various panels. We would prefer that they be appointed in consultation with the ministers of environment and labour as well as with the public, as was suggested in committee.

Clause 12 should also be deleted, as it provides that the government's contribution to the commission's expenses not be disclosed. I find that unacceptable. We need to be transparent with the people. We sought to remedy the situation in committee by proposing an amendment, which my hon. colleague from Essex championed quite well. In the end, we saw the Liberals' hypocrisy at work when they opposed it.

Businesses in my riding are already concerned. They know that the agreement will not benefit them in the slightest and tens of thousands of jobs are in jeopardy around the country. Farms and small and medium-sized businesses are at risk of shutting down. This was already being reported back in March 2018 in Le Quotidien du Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean; a dozen farm operations in the region closed up shop over the past year. Dairy farmers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean were already aware of the dangers of the breaches that the Liberals have opened in supply management.

Again back in March, Daniel Gobeil, president of the Producteurs de lait du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, said he was concerned that the negotiations around what was then still called NAFTA would once again be conducted at the expense of dairy farmers. He was right to be concerned. After what they went through with CETA, he said that dairy farmers did not want to be used as bargaining chips anymore, and yet, that is precisely what happened. Smaller operations saw their profits drop, and the climate of uncertainty created by the Liberals has discouraged some from investing, leaving them with no choice but to bow out.

To please the other CPTPP members, the Liberals opened a crack in our supply management system, a crack that has no reason to stay open, given that the United States withdrew from the agreement over two years ago. Members will recall that it was the U.S. that made this request. When they withdrew, a decision was made to keep it in the agreement anyway. The Liberal government gave up 3.25% of our domestic dairy market, 2.3% of our egg market, 2.1% of our chicken market, and 2% of our turkey market. Farmers cannot accept this wrongful decision, especially since the other countries did not ask for any concessions on our supply management system. I repeat, the United States was the only country to demand this, and it is no longer part of the agreement.

The cracks in our agri-food market are adding up. First, there was the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which has had dramatic repercussions on our cheese producers. Now we have the CPTPP and soon the USMCA, in which the Liberals handed over our agricultural market to the Americans. One crack, two cracks, three cracks—it is starting to sound like a nursery rhyme. When will the Liberals stop using Quebec's dairy farmers as a bargaining chip?

This is getting to be a bit much. I will give you a concrete example from my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Dairy producers are angry. For a brief moment they considered blocking a road in Saint-Bruno with a tractor to show just how unhappy and angry they are. They did not actually do it because they did not want to inconvenience people. In their opinion, the government made false promises on several occasions.

The agreements we are discussing in the House today are affecting dairy farmers. We are talking about the people who feed us, who work day after day to maintain our food sovereignty. These are the people we are attacking every time we reach a trade agreement. We are creeping up on a 10% breach in supply management. Several members have mentioned that here in the House. Imagine if we were to lose a month’s salary. We might be the first ones to complain.

I understand why they are angry and why they no longer believe the government’s promises of compensation. We saw that recently with CETA, with the importation of 17,500 tonnes of cheese. A program was offered, but dairy farmers had to invest money in order to receive compensation. Moreover, some of the producers I met with this summer had still to see any of that money. This is unacceptable. I understand why the dairy farmers in my region are angry and why they no longer believe in the Liberal government’s promises.

Furthermore, the agreement affects more than just the agricultural sector. It threatens Canada's and Quebec’s cultural integrity. As a number of experts have said, the CPTPP has by far the weakest cultural exemption ever negotiated in a Canadian free trade agreement. The government declared that some problematic cultural clauses had been temporarily suspended but not eliminated entirely.

The new agreement makes no mention of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, despite that fact that seven CPTPP countries, including Canada, are parties to it. In addition, it prevents Canada from making sure that, in the future, online providers will support Canadian content. The new side letters can only complete or clarify the basic text; they cannot solve every problem. The preamble to the CPTPP is insufficient to ensure that Canada’s obligations under the UNESCO treaties will take effect.

First, the CPTPP does not acknowledge any of the internationally recognized instruments of cultural protection, such as the 2005 UNESCO convention.

Second, the agreement assumes that if free trade is encouraged, the impact on culture will inevitably be positive. Nowhere does it acknowledge the threats and the challenges that it poses to our provinces' cultural sovereignty.

Third, the agreement does not recognize the promotion and protection of cultural diversity as legitimate grounds for taking regulatory action. What effect will this have? A dispute resolution panel under the CPTPP could very well decide to reject the legitimacy of cultural regulation.

In the past, Canada signed free trade agreements where culture is explicitly protected in the preamble, including the 2009 agreement with Peru, the 2012 agreement with Jordan, the 2013 agreement with Panama and the 2014 agreement with Honduras.

I do not understand the Liberals' reasoning. Why make concessions on culture, which puts a number of jobs in jeopardy?

As my party's labour critic, I, too, object to this aspect of the agreement. The wording of the labour standards remains virtually unchanged from that of the original trans-Pacific partnership. That is worrisome, as it renders the standards unenforceable. This alone disqualifies the agreement from being considered progressive, as the government has been doing for quite some time.

Under the agreement, workers whose rights have been violated need to prove that the violation had an impact on trade, which is virtually impossible. As I have stated earlier, the onus falls once again on the workers, who, on top of everything else, must prove that there has been an impact on trade. We saw how impossible that is to prove in the dispute between the United States and Guatemala.

In the original TPP, the United States had negotiated a 12-page labour reform plan. That reform plan allowed Vietnamese workers to have free and independent collective bargaining. Canada could not obtain the same commitment. Instead, we got Vietnam to accept a watered-down version of that reform plan.

The U.S., under President Obama, also struck labour consistency plans with Malaysia and Brunei in an effort to ensure that both countries lived up to fundamental labour standards, including freedom of association and collective bargaining, as requirements for trade under the TPP.

Under the new deal, these labour consistency plans have completely disappeared. The former TPP made sure that governments were able to invoke respect for workers' rights as a requirement for procurement. That was another tool that helped to ensure that international labour standards were taken into account in public procurement decisions. In the new deal, that clause was temporarily suspended.

According to the Canadian Labour Congress, the labour standards set out in the CPTPP are low and in no way guarantee that the basic rights of member countries' workers will be respected. It also does not guarantee the workers' ability to organize and bargain collectively.

I definitely want to touch on the issue of prescription drugs. Not only does the Liberal government not care what Canadians think, it does not care about their health either.

Canada is already second in the world for drug expenditures per capita. There is one hard truth that the Liberals are refusing to accept: thousands of Canadians cut their pills in half, halt their treatments or eat less so that they can afford the drugs they need. That should have been taken into account in the CPTPP.

In my riding, more than a third of seniors put their health at risk, and that worries me greatly. The CPTPP will only make things worse. It makes even more concessions to pharmaceutical companies, which will increase Canadians' annual drug expenditures by more than $800 million.

Furthermore, this deal jeopardizes our country's sovereignty and the efficiency of our public policies.

I still have a lot to say, but I will conclude by stating that the NDP has always supported agreements that are beneficial to Canada's workers and all Canadians.

As it stands, we cannot support the CPTPP. It contains no progressive measures, which is especially disappointing given that over 60,000 people showed interest and made submissions. In fact, 95% of the comments made were negative, but the government brushed them aside.

I come back to the dairy producers from my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, who demonstrated this morning to show their dissatisfaction. The last three trade deals that were forced upon them have weakened supply management, which affects their bottom line. We need to think about the family farms that feed us and about our food sovereignty.

I will now take questions from my colleagues.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Jonquière.

At the end of her speech, she said that the New Democrats were in favour of an agreement that was good for Canadians.

I sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade, along with her colleague from Windsor, who has been on the committee for two and a half years. They have never supported any of the agreements that we have studied, be it the agreement with Europe, the trans-Pacific Partnership or NAFTA.

I would like our colleague from Jonquière to tell me what agreement the NDP could support.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I could give my entire speech again, but I do not have enough time. I would like to take this opportunity to explain what measures would have been progressive and which are not. We did not talk about foreign workers in the trans-Pacific partnership. If we look at the wage standards for migrant workers, there are no protections to guarantee that foreign workers will receive the wages set out in their employment contracts. There are no protections for them. Since we call ourselves progressive, it would have been easy to protect both Canadian workers and those who come here to help us.

Currently, many of our regions are experiencing a labour shortage, but there is nothing in this partnership to protect these foreign workers who are coming.

I also spoke about what happens to farmers and dairy producers time and time again. We must not keep forgetting about them. It was the United States that asked for a concession of 3.25% of the market; the other countries did not ask for it. Why, then, was that not removed? The government decided to leave that in the agreement.

There is no program for our farmers either. In any case, one broken promise after another only creates frustration. That is clear in our regions. In Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, as I said in my speech, people are openly disgruntled and no longer believe what the government says or promises.

I do not know if my colleagues have any more questions to ask me, but I could keep talking about this agreement all day. This is not a good agreement, and it has no progressive value.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been trumpeting the fact that the new USMCA does not contain investor-state dispute provisions. However, we have the government trying to ram through the trans-Pacific partnership, which includes investor-state dispute provisions. Those provisions of NAFTA empowered multinational corporations to directly challenge our democratic laws, regulations and policies before secretive commercial tribunals.

Could the member for Jonquière offer any insight as to why the government thinks it is such a good thing to remove those provisions from NAFTA, and that is a good thing, yet it seems to believe investor-state dispute provisions are somehow appropriate in the trans-Pacific partnership?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. We are both former union members, and we often have really interesting conversations about the nature of work itself.

What we are seeing right now is a double standard. The Liberals negotiate one way with 12 countries, and then they negotiate a different way with the United States and Mexico. I do not understand how they could have failed to predict the cost of certain provisions, especially since the United States-Canada-Mexico agreement came after the trans-Pacific partnership. They could have anticipated the cost and made the necessary provisions more cost-effective. As I said, the government calls this a progressive deal, but we see nothing progressive about it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her speech.

My question is about the process. This bill is more than 300 pages long and is very complex. However, after only two and a half hours, it will be debated in Parliament for the last time. Only five or six members will have been able to discuss a huge trade deal between many countries that has a profound effect on our economy.

How can this government call itself transparent? The Liberals promised transparency, but they negotiate in complete secrecy and then say that a short speech by one or two members from each party is enough.

There are also contradictions between this deal and others, as other members have said. For example, Donald Trump wanted a horrible section included in the new deal with the U.S. It has since been removed. However, that section is included in this deal, and the Liberals are quite happy to protect a country's companies instead of its citizens. That is mind-boggling.

How can we call this a good deal if the government has to promise compensation to Canadian farmers for the third time in three deals? Our trade treaties with Europe, Asia and the U.S. are so harmful to our farmers that the government has to compensate them.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and I commend him on his impeccable French and his efforts. I am always happy to talk with him, which gives me a chance to improve my English.

This is an important issue, especially for my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. We have more than 354 dairy farmers who feed us and reinforce our food sovereignty. I have mentioned this several times in the House, but it is not today’s topic.

The agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada is the last straw that broke the dairy cow’s back. People, producers and family farms are being attacked and there is no compensation plan. These people get up at 4 a.m. and work well into the night, six days a week. They just want to do their job, but their livelihoods are being taken away. To them, these three agreements mean a loss of one month’s wages, and perhaps more.

Today, what is important is that the government get the message. This must stop. Our dairy farmers must be given compensation and consideration. Our food sovereignty is important. We must not accept rules imposed mainly by the United States.

I wonder about the fact that more and more products are coming into Canada, and we are getting nothing in return. More than 58,000 job losses are expected as a result of the CPTPP, not to mention the losses related to the export-import ratio, which are not yet quantified.

So, I still wonder what is so progressive about it. Why is it that the government did not rely instead on the 95% of the 60,000 people who opposed the CPTPP? They are listening to the 5% instead. What is the point of having consultations or committee hearings, anyway? The committee did excellent work, but you cannot listen to only 5% of the people when it comes to an agreement like the CPTPP.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Willowdale.

I am pleased to speak about the trans-Pacific partnership. I would have liked to ask my colleague from Jonquière another question, since she mentioned dairy products, but not forest products. We kept chapter 19, which addresses dispute resolution. That is very important to her region, but she never mentioned it. However, that is not what I will be talking about today.

I am pleased to be able to talk about protecting Canada’s culture and creative industries within the context of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the CPTPP. I proudly represent the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade for two and a half years, and I am very interested in international trade.

As a nation, Canada can celebrate the vitality of its creative industries. Throughout our history, we have established a wide range of dynamic cultural institutions, created a diversified publishing industry, developed a music industry based on Canadian talent, established a prolific digital media industry, and built critically acclaimed film and television industries. Our cultural sector is a powerhouse in Canada’s economy, and it is at the heart of our competitive advantage on the international stage. Canada’s stories, shaped by our vast, rich diversity, need to be celebrated and communicated across Canada and abroad.

Creative industries drive development and diversity. They create jobs and enhance the quality of life of all Canadians. In 2016, the creative industries accounted for $53.8 billion, or 2.8% of the GDP, and created more than 650,000 direct jobs. That is enormous. They generated $16 billion in exports. Our government believes that the creative and cultural sectors, which account for an increasing percentage of our economy, have the potential to be leaders in accelerating the growth of our prosperity.

Over the years, to promote Canada’s dynamic culture, the government has established a combination of financial incentives, Canadian content requirements, tax measures, and other foreign investment and intellectual property policies and tools.

Among other things, the Government of Canada is investing $125 million over five years in Canada’s creative export strategy in order to optimize the export potential of Canadian creative industries. The strategy boosts export funding in existing Canadian Heritage programs, increases and strengthens the presence of Canadian creative industries abroad, builds relationships needed to make business deals, and establishes the creative export Canada funding program.

In short, the Government of Canada's cultural policy was essentially designed to create an environment for creating, producing, marketing, protecting and distributing Canadian cultural products in Canada and abroad, which contributes to the economic, social and cultural development of our country.

Our plan helps protect major national institutions, supports industries that reflect our unique identity as Canadians, and creates good jobs for the middle class, as well as economic opportunities in the cultural and creative industries.

Our government believes that Canada must maintain some flexibility in developing policies and programs if we want to create the right conditions for success and achieve the objectives of the cultural policies.

With regard to international trade agreements, our approach has always been to have exemptions for creative industries. In negotiating past agreements, we always tried to leave enough strategic leeway to pursue cultural objectives that support creating, distributing and experimenting with Canadian cultural content. We have also worked to promote cultural diversity in Canada and abroad and to open new export markets and opportunities for artists and culture professionals.

The CPTPP is no exception. During negotiations, our government has always been mindful of the importance of the creative institutions and industries that Canadians cherish and promoting the values that define them.

In public consultations, we listened to stakeholders from the Canadian cultural industry.

They expressed concerns about the original scope of CPTPP exceptions with respect to measures affecting cultural industries, which was narrower than that of the exceptions in previous free trade agreements.

In their opinion, such limits would have reduced the range of accessible strategic options for maintaining the success of Canadian cultural content in an open environment. In order to strike a balance in terms of the cultural protections required within the framework of the CPTPP, the government reached bilateral agreements with every CPTPP member.

These agreements state that the agreement’s original limits with respect to Canada’s right to promote its cultural industries in a digital environment do not apply within the framework of the CPTPP. These side agreements are important because they preserve Canada’s ability to promote and maintain programs and policies to promote, create, distribute and develop Canadian artistic content, including in a digital context.

Also, Canada was able to preserve the original warnings about Canadian culture in the chapters of the agreement dealing with the service trade, investment, electronic trade, goods, Crown corporations and government procurement.

In addition, Canada maintained a special exclusion for the CBC, Telefilm Canada and all similar Crown corporations in the future, which protects cultural institutions’ ability to play a key role in promoting, producing and distributing our cultural products.

In conclusion, I would like to repeat that our government is determined to promote Canada’s cultural interests in trade negotiations and to protect its cultural flexibility nationwide.

At the same time, our government places great importance on giving Canadian creators and artists every possible opportunity to take advantage of openings provided by foreign markets and audiences.

By insisting that the rules regarding culture in the CPTPP be tightened, our government demonstrated that it is possible to create new and promising perspectives for exporters and investors in a dynamic region that is experiencing some of the strongest growth in the world, while making sure that the industries that help shape our identity and our values continue to grow.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since we have had problems with the Trans Mountain pipeline, and now with Bill C-69, I would like to ask my colleague how the CPTPP can help us as a nation to become more competitive on the international stage.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I presume that my colleague is referring to Bill C-79 and not Bill C-69.

With respect to the trans-Pacific partnership, we are opening up a market of 500 million consumers. There is no doubt that they want our products, mainly our agri-food products. These products are the ones that are most in demand in Asia. There is an incredible market, and incredible possibilities. The trans-Pacific partnership will help us open up these markets.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting time for the government with successive trade agreements in a row so that Canadians can compare one to the other. Even though they are with different regions of the world, one with Europe, one with the United States and one with the Asia-Pacific region, Canadians can compare what the Liberals celebrate about one and ignore in another.

Let us take the most recent example of the United States agreement, the “new NAFTA”, as some are calling it. In there, the Liberals are lauding the fact that a certain provision called the “investor-state dispute provision”, which allows foreign companies to sue us while protecting them in an inordinate number of ways, was taken out of the “new NAFTA”. Donald Trump actually was the one who seems to have insisted upon it, yet the Liberals are wrapping their arms around that part of the trade agreement that is now gone and congratulating themselves as it was such a terrible aspect of the trade agreement.

One would imagine that there would be some sense of consistency by the Liberals that in other trade disputes the same mechanism would also not be present, because if it is good with the United States then, clearly, it must be something good with Asia or with Europe. However, that is not the case, never mind the fact that each time they sell one of these trade agreements to Canadians, they also have to compensate dairy farmers over and over again. The promises that are made are never fulfilled, as we have seen with CETA and the TPP. Farmers come back at the end saying the promises that were made for compensation are not there. Any time the government has to compensate a sector, that usually means one probably did not argue and negotiate to that sector's benefit. Thus, the government has to take taxpayer's money to compensate them.

I want to stay on the U.S. trade deal. The penalties against Canadian metals remains in place, and yet the Liberals are popping champagne corks.

Back to the CPTPP, if investor-state protections were so bad that the Liberals celebrated their annexation and their removal from the United States agreement, why did they leave them in place with so many more countries involved in this much larger trade agreement with Asia?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to wish teachers a wonderful World Teachers' Day.

I want to reply to my colleague's comment about how we negotiated successive agreements. We have one with Europe, which is amazing, given that it opens up a market of 500 million people. Then we have the CPTPP, which will open up another market of 500 million consumers. Lastly, there is the USMCA, which represents another market of 500 million people, since it covers all of North America. It is one free trade agreement after another. That being said, I sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade for two and a half years, and I realized that no deal is ever good enough for the NDP.

What international free trade agreement would the New Democrats agree to support?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am honoured to rise in the House today to discuss 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.

Bill C-79 is our government's commitment to the swift ratification and implementation of the CPTPP. Implementing and ratifying the CPTPP would strengthen our existing trade partnerships with Chile, Mexico and Peru, and provide preferential access to seven new markets: Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. Doing so would improve market access to an estimated 500 million global consumers with a combined GDP of $13.5 trillion, representing roughly 40% of the world economy. These numbers are truly staggering and offer a glimpse into the endless opportunities afforded by the CPTPP.

This agreement would diversify trade to benefit the middle class and enhance our ability to compete and win on the global stage. As I have previously mentioned during the debate in this chamber over the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, any student of Canadian history knows our great country has been, in many ways, shaped and founded by trade. To this day, nearly 60% of our GDP and fully 20% of Canadian jobs are immediately tied to exports. Our government understands increased trade leads to economic growth and that economic growth leads to jobs for the middle class.

However, this simple fact is currently under siege. As the world slides toward protectionism and isolationism, a regression apparently favoured by some of my colleagues across the aisle, it is vital Canada remains an open society and a champion of open global markets. On this side of the House, we recognize the prosperity of hard-working Canadians and their families is directly linked to diversifying into new markets.

From the ratification of CETA to the recent conclusion of the USMCA framework, our government has long understood a commitment to free and fair trade is absolutely vital. As the only G7 country that is a signatory to all three of these agreements, once CPTPP enters into force, Canada would have 14 trade agreements that would provide preferential access to 51 different countries. Combined, this represents access to nearly 1.5 billion global consumers and over 60% of the global economy.

The complicated progression of this agreement on the global stage, as I have said previously, serves as further proof that these values are currently under attack from protectionist forces. In light of such pressures, I am truly proud of our government for having taken the lead in negotiating this progressive free trade agreement.

Before I continue, I would like to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade Diversification for their hard work on this file, as well as the members of the Standing Committee on International Trade for their insights and contributions. Moreover, as a former international trade lawyer myself, I would like to thank and congratulate former colleagues in the public service who helped make this important agreement a reality.

It was as a trade lawyer that I gained valuable first-hand knowledge into the tangible benefits that well-crafted trade agreements provide us with every day, and it is from that very same perspective I approach today's remarks. In particular, I would like to discuss six broad elements of Bill C-79 to highlight the very benefits this agreement would have for Canadian businesses, exporters, workers and families. My hon. colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles focused on the preservation of our cultural sector. In turn, I will talk about market access, the service sector, investment, government procurement, and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Speaking first on market access, implementing the CPTPP will eliminate over 95% of taxes being imposed on over 99% of Canada's total exports. From making our machinery, equipment and business services more competitive, to protecting and preserving our unique culture, we are improving market access for Canadian business and have secured an amazing deal for Canadians. In fact, the vast majority of related tariffs will be eliminated immediately upon enactment of Bill C-79. After that, we will see the gradual introduction of more products being included in this list of tariff exemption over a period of 10 to 15 years.

To cite just a handful of targeted market access benefits, Bill C-79 would enhance market access opportunities for Canadian pork, beef, fruit and vegetables, malts, grains, cereals, animal feeds, maple syrup, wines and spirits, processed grain, sugar, chocolate confectionary and processed foods and beverages. It would also eliminate 100% of tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products, benefiting the salmon, snow crab, herring, lobster, shrimp, sea urchin and oyster industries. In addition, we would see the elimination of 100% of tariffs on industrial goods and consumer products. Finally, tariffs on all Canadian exports of forestry and value-added wood products would be eliminated.

Delving into services, the CPTPP emphasizes the importance of transparency and predictability in order to give Canadian service providers more secure access to CPTPP markets, including a range of sectors for professional, environmental, mining-related, IT and financial services. In the face of a rapidly-evolving and modernizing global digital economy, the importance of these changes cannot be overstated.

Speaking of investment, this government has gone above and beyond the original conditions set in the TPP to better protect our investors, using Canada's negative list approach. Investors will be protected by provisions such as expropriation and denial of justice, backed by robust mechanisms for the resolution of investment disputes.

On non-tariff measures, Bill C-79 proposes to implement provisions related to non-tariff measures. Non-tariffs measures, as members are aware, refer to provision introduced regarding technical barriers to trade that will protect the key market access gains written into the agreement for the unnecessary and discriminatory regulatory burdens.

Moving to small and medium-sized enterprises, this government recognizes the importance of SMEs to the Canadian economy, which to do this day represents approximately 90% of our private sector jobs in Canada that will benefit from the provisions of this agreement. As a result, we have made it a priority to support SME access to the relevant data and information, a first among Canadian free trade agreements.

Provisions such as improved transparency, enforceable provisions on state-owned enterprises to promote fair business practices and an electronic commerce framework for cross-border data flows and server localization requirements have been made available to better protect Canadian businesses and encourage them to enter into the global market. These new measures will not only place Canadian businesses on the global value chain, but help them compete and thrive.

When our government came into office in 2015, in keeping with our commitment to evidence-based policy-making that listened to the needs and interests of Canadians, we held extensive consultations on the CPTPP, including over 41,000 correspondences and 265 interactions and meetings with more than 530 stakeholders. We did so to ensure a deal that promoted the creation of new jobs and benefits for Canadian families. The end result of this process is an ambitious and progressive trade agreement that will not only benefit Canadian businesses, workers, and families, but will certainly serve as a landmark for global trade arrangements moving forward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that all of this debate is happening under a time allocation. Forcing down Parliament's throat another trade agreement is the typical tactics we saw from the previous government. When the Liberals were in opposition, they loathed time allocation, saying it was undemocratic.

Embedded in this more than 300-page trade agreement is investor-state protection. The Liberals have claimed investor-state protections are horrible and they are so grateful the U.S. trade deal does not include this. They like it in one place, but not in another. They want us to trust them; they are Liberals.

If it was so terrible in the U.S. trade deal, why are they so thrilled to have the exact same provision in a trade deal with so many more countries?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that provisions in each one of these investment agreements are very distinct. To take one and criticize it and then assume that all other agreements are exactly the same is truly not fair. In this agreement, if the hon. member does take the time to look at the provisions, he will see that the most progressive elements are very much contained it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, October 3, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 15, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if you would canvass the House, I am sure you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Accordingly the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 5 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 third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:07 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, October 15, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-79.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #897

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.