Madam Speaker, in my previous question I mentioned the Canadian Nurses Association visiting the trade committee and warning us that the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the TPP and other agreements like CETA could block Canada from ever implementing pharmacare. The evidence is clear about these dangerous provisions.
There is growing resistance around the globe to the investor-state provisions that are part of trade agreements. These provisions allow foreign corporations to sue the federal government for legislation or regulation that protects things like public health. What the Canadian Nurses Association mentioned is a real threat. The ISDS or ICS, which we see in CETA, could make Canada a target for trying to legislate a pharmacare program.
Why do we need a secret tribunal where we can be sued when we have a progressive court system in Canada?
This is the same provision that we have in Chapter 11 of NAFTA, under which we have the distinction of being the most sued country. We have intimate experience with these cases and it has been negative. Why would we sign another agreement with these provisions?
CETA and TPP also include provisions to extend patents for name brand pharmaceuticals, which would delay the entry of generic alternatives, thereby driving up the cost of prescription drugs. The cost of medication is something that affects the health outcomes of everyone: seniors, youth, families, and communities. When people cannot afford their medication, they face tough choices like taking a full dose of medication or paying their hydro bill. If I were to ask the people of Essex if they wanted the government to take measures to make medication more affordable in Canada, they would all answer yes.
If we all agree that we need a form of pharmacare in Canada, then why would we sign a trade deal with a provision that would allow us to be sued for doing so? Does the minister feel this is in the best interests of Canadians?
Will the minister finally stand up for the interests of Canadians and reject this provision in all trade deals?