Debates of Nov. 21st, 2016

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

With regard to the provisions on employment, the draft text of the agreement was made available in 2014, while the final agreement was drafted and published in February 2016. The text was examined by the committee during the previous Parliament, and many clarifications were made in that regard.

With regard to the investors program, we have reached an agreement with the European Union regarding the framework for a transparent and independent process. We will work in good faith on the details in the near future

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very specific question. The parliamentary secretary will know that I oppose CETA and many aspects of it, including pharmaceutical prices going up, intellectual properties locations, and that our auto sector is not fairly treated. However, my main concern is the investor-state provisions. Those were the ones that raised the sticking point with the region of Wallonia.

Could he clarify what has happened? It appears that individual nations, or provinces or states within nations in the EU can opt out of investor states, but Canada is saying that it opts in. This means foreign corporations will have the ability to challenge Canada for damages for decisions we make domestically, but we will not necessarily have reciprocal Canadian corporation ability to sue those states if they opt out. It strikes me that a very bad deal just got worse.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify. First, in regard to the investor-state mechanism, we have known since the beginning of the summer that this fell under the competence of European member states. In the case of Belgium therefore it devolves down to its provinces. We knew from the outset we would be working to elaborate the details of that investor-state dispute mechanism with the 28 member states.

We also agreed with our European partners that nothing would be imposed non-reciprocally. Whatever does or does not get negotiated will be equally treated on all sides.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's speech today. I find it curious that, once again, we are hearing there is in fact a way for this agreement to change, that this is not the final version. What the parliamentary secretary just said was that essentially we could not sign onto investor-state provisions. That is exactly what the NDP and other parties in the House are asking for. I find it curious to hear that from the parliamentary secretary, and look forward to following up with him on that.

My question is around the cost of pharmaceuticals. Recently at the health committee our critic spoke to the assistant deputy minister for Health about the cost implications inside of CETA. She admitted at the committee that there would be a rise in cost of drugs. Where is our analysis on what this will cost Canadians, when the Liberals advocated for that in the previous Parliament, and where is the information and honesty with Canadians about the fact that drug costs will increase if we sign CETA?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is one that concerns me, having taught intellectual property for 20 years in Canada's best law faculty.

There are a number of different factors that go into the pricing of pharmaceuticals. There is the potential for an increase in the length of the protection period of up to two years under the agreement. It is not automatic. It compensates for a regulatory regime in Canada, a good regulatory regime that sometimes delays the entry into the market for certain pharmaceuticals. In that sense, yes, the protection period will be longer and therefore the price of patented medicines, which is higher than the price of generic medicines, could be extended for two years.

However, Canada has a pricing mechanism for patented medicines. We have provincial pricing. Therefore, a lot of different factors go into the actual pricing of pharmaceuticals that are not necessarily tied to the length of patent protection. Europe has had these kinds of patent protections for a long time and yet its prices are lower. It even has pharmacare regimes. There is not a necessary direct link between the price of patents and these other factors.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding in Niagara, an area with which the hon. parliamentary secretary is quite familiar. There is a lot of apprehension about free trade from past free trade agreements. It is the same in many blue collar areas of Ontario and beyond. Could the parliamentary secretary advise the House and my constituents how CETA will benefit the good people of Niagara?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. Catharines. As one of the other members of the House who can spell St. Catharines the way he has to spell it, I am pleased to get that question.

There will be a great deal of benefit to manufacturing industries in Ontario. I know that the auto industry is in Niagara, and this is an agreement that should benefit the auto industry with the reduction of tariffs. I know that at least one automaker is already planning to produce automobiles for the European market. With respect to other manufacturers, it should help agriculture in Niagara, as well as Ontario wine manufacturers expand their markets even further. There is plenty of good in here for Niagara.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, this. Once Canada approves CETA, as it goes through the process here and is approved, and the European Union approves CETA, what is the process from there? I understand it has provisional approval. How does it unfold from there as each country in Europe goes through the process of applying CETA to their country? Also, with respect to the present process, what is tariff-free right now and what is waiting until each country approves it?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his work on the committee. I will talk about the European process, because I believe that is what he is referring to.

With passage in the European Parliament, which we expect by the end of this calendar year, and once ratification in Canada has taken place, 98% of the agreement, everything falling under the negotiating competence of the European Parliament, will be provisionally in force. That is virtually the whole agreement with the exception of the investor-state dispute mechanism, and a few other provisions that we feel are only a very small percentage of the agreement. Those fall under the competence of the European member states, and in each case the member states will have to ratify those parts of the agreement on their own. Once all 28 do, we will have to sit down again to ratify the agreement in a permanent fashion.

For the remaining 2%, this government is committed to working with European member states over the next number of years in order to make sure that the agreement gets ratified.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to reach this state in the House with CETA, to see see it come to fruition in the House now, hopefully go on to committee, get passed in committee, and then move forward.

The Conservatives will be supporting this legislation. It is good for Canadians all across Canada from coast to coast to coast. Whether we look at the agriculture sector, the small and medium enterprises, union jobs, or service industry jobs, this is a great agreement for Canadians.

I want to compliment and express my gratitude to people like Steve Verheul and his team for all the work they have done for this agreement in the background, and for the hours and hours of the painstaking combination of flights and meetings they had to go through to get to the detail that we have here today to get this agreement, which is a good agreement, for all Canadians.

It is also encouraging to see the Liberal government embrace what was done in the previous government and carrying it past the finish line. This is important for all Canadians, especially when we look at our sectors here in Canada. We are an exporting country. We are a country that builds and produces more than we could ever consume. Therefore, it is very important that we export.

Also, I will inform members that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. He has some great comments that he wants to make on this agreement as well.

The EU represents 500 million people. It boasts an economic activity of $20 trillion annually. It is the world's largest economy.

When I worked for Flexi-CoiI and Case New Holland, I was the marketing manager for seeding equipment in Europe. We were looking at different components going into Europe, because, of course, the stuff we built in Saskatchewan was way too big for the European Union's usage. However, I can remember going through the homologation process, the tariff process, to try and understand how it all worked, and also being very frustrated when we had components and products that we wanted to sell into Europe.

The frustration was not only the tariff that would be applied, but the rules that would be applied, and the non-tariff trade barriers that would be applied. All those things were sitting there as hurdles that we had to face. In a lot of cases, European-made products did not face the same hurdles. I found it very unfair and frustrating that a plant in Saskatoon was developing and building stuff, and building it cheaper than anywhere else in the world, and if we built that same product in Europe, we would actually have had an easier process to reach the marketplace. However, when we built in Saskatoon the exact same product, it had a tough time getting to the European market.

Therefore, to see this agreement come to fruition is so important, because it has a mechanism in it to get rid of those non-tariff trade barriers. It removes those barriers and gives the ability to take a product that is made here in Canada and sell it into Europe hassle free. I think that is very important. As we start the exercise of selling the products that we make here in Canada into Europe, we are going to find our small and medium enterprises grow and be stronger. We will also be diversifying ourselves in other markets. It is always a healthy thing to have two or three customers instead of just one big customer.

Bilateral trade would increase by 20%, or $12 billion annually, which is equivalent to adding $1,000 for the average Canadian family, or adding 80,000 new jobs. However, I would put a condition on that. When we bring in a carbon tax, new taxes for families, and taxes for small and medium enterprises, we lose the benefit. This is the concern I have when we start seeing things like carbon taxes come to Canadian businesses here. After all the work we have done to create markets for them, we would lose the benefit, because we have made their cost of production so high they cannot compete by producing in this country.

It has not sunk in on the other side that when the government raises a tax, it costs somebody money. It brings our costs up higher. We compete on a global stage, and so we have to make sure that we have the lowest production cost so that we can compete fairly on that stage.

Therefore, I would put a word of warning out to our colleagues across the aisle to understand that, as they start bringing in all of these taxes, all this spending, and all these deficits, the people who are going to pay are families. They will not have jobs, because companies that they want to work for cannot build the product that they are making cheaply enough to compete on the global stage due to carbon taxes and other things that the Liberals have put on there. We have to be very careful with that.

In Saskatchewan, CETA will be very important, whether we ship agricultural goods, chemicals, or plastics. The service sector accounts for 57% of the Saskatchewan GDP and employs close to 390,000 people. This is very important to all of those people. I look at the pulse production, and the farmers in the field having that market access to Europe. It is a very wealthy market with people who want the products we grow and the products we produce. It is so important to have access to that market, which can actually pay for stuff.

Again, going back to Flexi-Coil, there were markets that we could actually sell stuff into but could never get paid. There was always a problem with eastern Europe and places like that. We had the product, they wanted the stuff we built, but because they could not pay us, they could not buy it.

In Europe that is not a problem. Europeans can pay. They have the cash. They have the ability to finance. They have the ability to take the products that we make and buy them, but when we put tariffs and restrictions on them, they cannot get access to them. This would remove the restrictions and the tariffs, and I think we will see a lot of componentry from Canada going to Europe. That is good for the environment.

I look at no-tillage. I will use this example. We had a zero-till opener called “Barton opener” with very low disturbance. In Europe right now, if members understand ploughing habits, they go in with a plough, they turn the soil over, and release all the carbon that they sequestered that year by working that ground until it is black and then losing all the advantage from the organic matter and everything else that has built up throughout the year. We took the Barton over, which is a disc opener, a no-till opener, and we would not do that. They would save that one operation of ploughing. They would actually just direct-seed right into the stubble like we do here in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. We would save that carbon in the ground, plant that seed precisely where it needed to be planted, and it would grow in the stubble. That seedling is actually protected by the stubble that is there from the environment. They have kept the organic matter in the soil, and that is also good for the environment. The Europeans were embracing that technology.

One of the issues they had was that we put it on machines that were 40 , 50, and 60 feet wide, where they wanted three, four, and six metres. When we started looking at the sizes we had to take that componentry and built it for that size. We could do that. It was something that we could work on and do. Actually, we could get into three-metre road widths that they wanted us to be into, and actually get into 12 metres and widths beyond that. As their farms are getting bigger in France and former East Germany, they want those types of componentry but they need to get through the roads and the small towns. We could do that. We had the technology. We would do all that work, and then they would bring in homologations and then bring in non-tariff trade barriers.

They would bring up reasons why we could not sell that in Europe. The reality is if we had built that same product in Europe we would not have faced any of those issues. Now, with CETA coming into play, we could build those products here in Canada and our small and medium enterprises could actually sell them into Europe and capitalize on the componentry that they have spent so many dollars researching and developing. That componentry, in this case, will reduce our carbon footprint globally. Again we are helping the environment by improving the CETA deal.

One thing that I think we have to be very careful about is talking about diversifying markets. It is good to see that we are going to go into the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement. That is very important. I am very disappointed to see that the Prime Minister offered up the NAFTA basically on a silver platter. That really is a major blunder. We heard presidential candidate Santorum saying it was a major blunder by our Prime Minister to do that. Then to have him double down on that is even worse. The reality is the U.S. market is very important. It has always been and will continue to be an important market. Until we see exactly what happens in the U.S., I do not think anybody should overreact. We should all just take a step back and wait and see what happens.

One thing we do that is prudent, no matter who is in power in the U.S., is diversify into markets other than the U.S. That is something that the previous Conservative government did by signing close to 35 trade deals across the globe so that our Canadian companies had options other than the U.S. to sell their products and goods into. That is why TPP is very important. That the other countries are willing to go it alone without the U.S. and TPP and Canada is sitting on the sidelines is a mistake. Japan is involved in the TPP and that group of six. Japan is a major client for Canadian businesses. That is the third-largest economy in the world. Now we have CETA on the east, and if we had the TPP on the west, just think what that would mean for Canada's position in the global economy; just think of the markets we would have access to in order to sell products built here in Canada and shipped out of Canada. Nobody else in the world would have that advantage. That was such a good thought process. I give credit to the former trade minister, our former agriculture minister, and former prime minister Harper for thinking through that.

Two-thirds of Canada's GDP or one in five Canadian jobs is tied to trade. CETA is an excellent step in the right direction, but the Prime Minister must pursue these steps even more aggressively. We do not ever want to be at a disadvantage. We do not ever want to be in a scenario where we are tied to one country or one region. That is why I try to make the point that CETA is good for moving forward, TPP is good for moving forward. We have the trade agreements with other countries, which is also good.

Our companies are going to be positioned very well to move into the future as far as market access and non-tariff trade barriers go. Let us not hang them with carbon taxes and other taxes that make it impossible for them to produce the products that they design and make here in Canada. We want products built here so that we have Canadian jobs. Let us make sure that we have the environment for companies to do that.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member highlight some of the potential benefits of CETA for people in his riding?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just look at the agriculture sector in my riding, with peas, lentils and pulses. Those are going to Europe, as we speak, tariff-free. When we look at the wheat sector and grain growers, their products are going to Europe tariff-free. The forestry sector is a sector that is really hurting right now. It is feeling the pain of uncertainty because it does not know what is happening with its major market in the U.S. It could pivot into other markets, like Asia, under TPP, or CETA. It gives another option to take the products it makes, 2 x 4s, 2 x 6s, 2 x 8s, and go to other regions of the world. It is not tied to one specific region.

Therefore, when we look at CETA and TPP, and other trade agreements that we do in the future, even between Canada and Ukraine, that is what we are doing. We are giving our small and medium enterprises as many options to sell the good they make to as many people as possible, who really want Canadian-built products.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said we do not want to be hindered by the treaty, yet this is a treaty that was negotiated by both the previous Conservative government and this Liberal government. It was predicated on the belief that the United Kingdom would be part of this treaty as part of the European Union. Now, with Brexit, we see that that may well not happen. I wonder if he has any concerns that the government does not seem to have done the analysis of what this would mean for the treaty.

This was a treaty we thought we were getting into, because almost half of our trade with Europe was through Britain, and now that may not be covered. I wonder if he could comment on that and the fact that the government does not seem to have done that analysis.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the analysis, we still have to move forward. We do not know, and I do not think it is fair to ask the government to know, exactly what Britain leaving the EU would mean for this deal. No one knows. Even the British people do not understand what that means for them, and neither do the Europeans. That has not been negotiated. In fact, I do not think there has even been a proposal put in place between the British and the European Union on what this separation is going to look like and how deeply it will encompass that relationship. Will it keep trade deals in place? It may or may not.

Having said that, if one were to speculate, which is always dangerous in politics, a scenario in which Britain leaves the EU and all of a sudden does not have a trade agreement with Canada, I would encourage the government to hurry up and get one done with Britain. That is very important. It is a big customer of ours. It is a Commonwealth partner, for sure. I would not hesitate. We should be talking to the British as we speak, today, looking at what options there would be if it were to be no longer part of CETA.

However, anything we say here today in regard to that is nothing but pure speculation. That does not mean we hold up the jobs that are sitting there waiting for us with the signing of this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, at this first opportunity I have to address this piece of legislation, I would like to comment that the minister has done a fantastic job in getting an important agreement signed off to the degree we are now debating it with the idea of ratifying it.

I am quite pleased that the official opposition is supporting this. Even when we were the third party, there seemed to a consensus that CETA was in Canada's best interest. However, not all parties in the House are of that same opinion.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it is important that we pass this legislation in a relatively timely fashion. We now have the agreement. It is all signed off. Perhaps he could share his thoughts on how quickly he would like to see the bill passed.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind members of the amount of consultations that went on in the previous government. In fact, the committee did a study across Canada. At that point in time, the NDP member of the committee was in favour of CETA. In fact, when we talked to the unions, they were definitely looking at CETA and saying it was a good agreement, that we should be behind it. That is why I am surprised to see the NDP position here today.

Every province, whether Liberal, Conservative, or NDP, has managed to sign off on the agreement, saying that we should get it done. They are excited about it. They see the jobs and the growth that could happen with it. Look at the opportunities that would be lost if the NDP had its way, and we would basically stall and do nothing, The reality is, the European Union is going to move forward with the agreement. There will be a provisional agreement in place here by the new year. We should be in place also. The jobs will start to happen and be created. That is very important in our environment in Canada today. With the insecurity in North American right now from the change in the presidency, the reality is that if we could have that European market ready to roll, that is good. However, we have to put in place the things that small and medium enterprises need to take advantage of that market. Therefore, I will be challenging the Liberal government to make sure it puts those things in place so we can take full benefit of this trade agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Hochelaga, Indigenous Affairs.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recognize the excellent work of my colleagues from Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster. In their speeches today, they gave a good overview of why we are all gathered here today to talk about C-30, which was introduced in the House by the Minister of International Trade. My colleagues talked about all the work that led up to this economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. They spoke about the difficulties encountered and the work done under the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper. He was able to obtain the unanimous support of his troops and convince them that an agreement with our European Union neighbours was critical. This government had a vision that it shared with its team, and today we are seeing the fruits of that labour with the introduction of Bill C-30. We firmly believe that this is a good agreement that will be good for Canadians.

I will talk abut two very interesting topics: the work that was done and the current situation, and what we can gain from this agreement or how it will benefit our regions and our ridings. Then I will talk about the small mistakes that sometimes happen when conducting negotiations and when we want to have our cake and eat it too, as it seems to be the case with the government, especially when it comes to dairy producers.

By introducing this bill, the government is taking a lot of credit for finalizing this agreement with the European Union. As we know, however, negotiations were well under way and the agreement was practically finalized in 2014. If not for the government's desire to reopen this agreement, we could have finalized it quite some time ago and this bill would have been introduced much earlier in the House of Commons. It almost did not materialize, but, fortunately, the Europeans discerned the imminent danger and were able to rally around a position that, although not quite as positive as in the previous agreement, is now acceptable and will open many markets for Canada.

The main goal of the canada-european union comprehensive economic and trade agreement is to promote trade by reducing tariffs between the European Union and Canada and harmonizing standards and regulations, which governments and businesses call non-tariff barriers.

The previous Conservative government worked on this agreement, which will provide privileged access to a market of 500 million consumers. This trade agreement will give Canadian service providers, which employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of Canada's GDP, the best market access that the European Union has ever given its free trade partners. This agreement will establish greater transparency in the European Union services market by ensuring more secure and predictable access.

It is worth mentioning that Canada and the European Union conducted a joint study that supported launching negotiations and concluded that a trade agreement between the European Union and Canada could stimulate and boost bilateral trade by 20% and inject $12 billion per year into the Canadian economy. That is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or creating 80,000 new jobs in our economy.

Conservatives are very proud of the fact that signing this agreement may help improve the Liberal government's economic performance. If the Liberal government's economic performance improves, Canadians' economic situation will improve too. It seems to me that they need a helping hand with that, and we are extremely pleased to have made such an invaluable contribution.

This is all about hard work and trade, so I would like to talk about a company in my riding that celebrated the grand opening of a $35-million investment project on March 21. The company is called Fruit d'Or, and its president is Martin Le Moine. We marked the grand opening of a new cranberry processing plant in Plessisville. I will read part of what La Tribune had to say about it:

We are producing 20% faster than before and we are producing better products. This investment will help us better position ourselves in the free trade agreement with Europe and help us maintain our position as a leader in organic cranberry production.

Now that is what a free trade agreement is about, and that is an example of a business with a vision, one that believed in the previous government and believed that the government would continue on that path. What will this mean? This will create jobs in my riding and in Canada, and jobs in an industry that is super important.

Having visited that business myself for the official opening, I can say that the president is incredibly and exceptionally dynamic. He is truly dedicated to and passionate about his business. I am convinced that all Canadians will benefit from this new passion. However, there is still work to be done. Like Fruit d'Or, everyone needs to invest, and the investments made today will benefit everyone in the future.

The mayor of Plessisville, Mario Fortin, mentioned that it was the largest investment anyone had made in Plessisville in recent years. This is the direct result of an agreement that had not yet been signed, one that we were certain would be signed. This will produce results. Why? Because people have a vision.

Some people in my riding are happy, but some are not, including dairy farmers. They think the Liberals want to have their cake and eat it too, in that the compensation program announced at the conclusion of the agreement with the European Union is not nearly good enough. It is rather ironic that our dairy producers, without whom we could not make cake, are being shortchanged by the changes made to the compensation program that we put in place to ensure that they could weather the difficult transition period as this large market, the European Union, opens.

I want to share some comments by a dairy farmer in my riding, Michel Couture, who says he is rather worried. He laments the small $250-million contribution for dairy farmers. By telling his story, I hope to paint a clearer picture of the reality of a dairy farmer.

In 2014, he made some improvements to his farm that helped him streamline his processes. How much did he invest? He had to make upgrades of $1.4 million to remain competitive. He made them because he believes in the future of his industry. Today he is being told that he will receive $4,500 a year over five years in compensation as an incentive to upgrade his equipment. I will read what he said because his words carry more weight than mine: “...what can you do with that amount of money?”

We are talking about $4,500 in the hope that farmers and dairy producers will invest $1.4 million to modernize and meet the new challenges arising from the free trade agreement. Farmers and dairy producers do not have it easy. They have a lot of work. It is a little bit like playing the lottery for them. They invest a lot of their own money, several thousands of dollars, to purchase equipment and remain competitive, without really knowing the outcome or financial return, and without being listened to by this government, which has not even been able to resolve the diafiltered milk issue after one year.

What can be done to restore our dairy farmers' confidence and really encourage them to invest and profit from this free trade agreement? What the government needs to do is send them a clear message that they will be properly compensated. I urge the government to draw inspiration from the compensation programs that we put in place for dairy producers, the same way it drew inspiration from the negotiations we held to enter into this free trade agreement with the European Union.

In closing, I must say that I am very pleased with the work that the previous government did to make this agreement a reality. I am very pleased to know that, today, Canadian companies and SMEs will have access to a market of 500 million consumers on one side and 300 million on the other, putting Canada in an enviable position compared to other countries in the world.

However, we will continue to be very vigilant and hold the government to account in order to ensure that Canadians reap the benefits of free trade, not only as a result of the agreement with the European Union, but also as a result of other free trade agreements that are currently being negotiated, such as the much talked-about trans-Pacific partnership, which is just as important.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the member from Mégantic—L'Érable for CETA.

This morning, members spoke about how important it was to make sure that every country in Europe was on board, whether they are left- or right-leaning, and about how we did that.

The question that I want to ask my colleague pertains more specifically to the diafiltered milk issue, which he mentioned in his speech. We agree that this is an important issue. The Conservatives say that they support supply management, but I would like to remind them that they are the ones who dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to talk about the benefits of the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

The hon. member across the way says that the Liberals support our position on diafiltered milk. However, not a single thing has been done about it in the past year. They try to distract us by raising all sorts of other topics that have nothing to do with what we are talking about today. They are unable to resolve the diafiltered milk issue and they are unable to give dairy farmers reasonable compensation, much less in an open and transparent way. In fact, they have done the opposite. They have failed to do every single thing they told dairy farmers they would do from the very beginning. They are doing the opposite.

I do not think that the hon. member is in any position to lecture me on dairy farmers.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We do not often see eye to eye on international agreements, but the NDP also laments the Liberals' inadequate compensation for dairy farmers.

In my riding, Salaberry—Suroît, Lord knows that many dairy farmers are counting on being compensated for being used as bargaining chips in this treaty process.

There is another key aspect of the treaty that we do not understand. In committee, the Liberals recently moved a motion in camera prohibiting interest groups or experts from tabling any briefs. They decided to receive briefs from witnesses physically appearing before the committee only. There is therefore no transparency. As such, a host of experts will not be able to submit certain information. That is quite worrisome because informed decisions cannot be made without all the necessary information.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not a member of that committee, but I have spoken with some of my colleagues about how things are going, and it seems to be doing fantastic work.

What is clear is that the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Although it has been vaunting its transparency since the start of its mandate, now it is imposing restrictions regarding the witnesses who appear before committee to share their fears and concerns. This is exactly the same doublespeak it has engaged in for the past year regarding dairy farmers, as the member was saying.

The problem with this government is that it is completely out of touch with the regions. It does not understand the significance of dairy farmers and all farmers in our regions. It is important to point that out. Where I come from, a dairy farmer is more than just someone who produces milk. It is a small business that supports other businesses, like the gas station and the tractor dealer, for example. That is what SMEs are all about. That is what today's Canada is all about. It is not only Canada's big cities that matter. The regions matter. That is my Canada, and I will continue to support it.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this chamber today to support the comprehensive economic trade agreement. Before I begin, I want to extend my thanks to the Minister of International Trade for her diligent and tireless work in getting this agreement across the finish line. Congratulations to the minister, her parliamentary secretary, her team, and the countless others who worked on this critical file both here at home and across the Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would like to let you know that I am splitting my time with the member for Calgary Skyview.

I would also like to thank the previous minister of international trade, the member for Abbotsford, for his hard work on this deal as well.

This chamber is rightly the place of robust debate, one where competing ideas are exchanged, defended, and challenged. However, one thing all members on all sides of the House can agree on is the importance of trade as an economic driver.

Canada is a trading nation. Fostering strong and productive trading relationships is how we open new markets, grow and strengthen Canadian businesses, and create good-paying middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast.

In negotiating CETA, the minister was very clear. This was not about getting just any deal. It was about getting the right deal for Canada, one that would achieve our objective of growing our economy and expanding opportunities for Canadian businesses while offering Canadian consumers more choice, and often lower prices. I am thrilled to see the final product achieve these goals.

CETA sets the standard for modern, progressive trade deals. It fully reflects the values and priorities Canadians expect our international agreements to adhere to and embrace. CETA was negotiated to uphold environmental protection and to respect the signatories' right to regulate standards that protect the public, including in the areas of health, safety, and labour. It is a deal that promotes good government, consumer protection, environmental protection, and employee rights, all core values and guiding principles for Canada and for Canadians.

Canadians can feel good about this deal. What is more, Canadians can be proud that this deal serves as a model for other progressive countries to emulate. It represents Canada and has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership on an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade.

I also want to talk about the real-world impact this agreement will have on Canada's trade with Europe, the opportunity it presents for Canadian businesses, and how it sets the stage for the growth of Canada as a destination for increased foreign investment.

CETA gives Canadian companies preferred access to the European Union's more than 500 million customers. Their combined economy generates more than $20 trillion in annual economic activity. A closer trading relationship with the EU gives Canadian firms access to more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else in the world, including the United States. In short, CETA provides Canadian businesses with an unrivalled competitive advantage.

Presently, about 25% of EU tariff lines on which Canadian goods are exported enter the EU duty free. On day one of CETA's entry into force, 98% of EU tariff lines will be duty free for goods that originate in Canada. Over the following seven years, a further 1% of these tariffs will be eliminated. As such, CETA will provide Canadian exporters with a massive advantage in a competitive European market.

I would also like to speak more broadly about our government's approach to trade. Maximizing the benefits from international trade and ensuring that Canadian businesses are successful in world markets is part of a whole of government approach for us. We know that supporting and expanding trade does not start and end with negotiations of trade deals. For Canadian businesses to be successful competitors and maximize growth under this agreement, they need a government that will work with them to ensure success in the new market. Such partnerships are how we use deals like CETA to create wealth and jobs for Canadians.

Trade is much more than imports and exports. It is also about attracting the skills and foreign investment needed to ensure that Canadian companies can excel. That is why I am thrilled by the announcements made by the hon. Minister of Finance in his fall economic statement.

Companies from around the world are looking for stable places to invest and grow their businesses, and we want to make sure that Canada is at the top of their list. The invest in Canada hub announced by the minister in the House earlier this month is designed to do just that. A brand new federal body, the invest in Canada hub is a high-impact sales force dedicated to promoting direct foreign investment in Canada. It will work in partnership with other federal and provincial trade and international affairs bodies to ensure Canada's success in attracting ongoing, impactful, and sustainable foreign investment.

Similarly, the recently announced global skills strategy will help ensure that Canadian companies have the talent they need to thrive. The initiative will look at reducing red tape, which can cause undue challenges for companies looking to attract the high-skilled employees they need. It also aims to make Canada more attractive to global companies that are making large investments, looking to relocate to Canada, expanding production, and creating new Canadian jobs.

The strongest trading relationships in the world will not translate into economic growth in Canada if we do not have the infrastructure to support the movement of goods to market. That is why, over the next 11 years, the government will invest $10.1 billion in trade and transportation projects. These projects will be focused on providing efficient routes to international markets and on reducing congestion and bottlenecks along vital corridors.

We all know how vital it is that Canadian businesses be able to get their goods to market efficiently, but we also have to do so in a safe, sustainable, and secure way. That is why, from our new national oceans protection plan to the Minister of Transport's focus on improving rail safety, we are seeing a commitment to improving our trade infrastructure in a way that protects Canadians, their communities, and the environment.

The announcements in the fall economic statement reflect the whole of government approach we are taking with regard to trade. Investments in infrastructure, our innovation agenda, and our commitment to job skills training, for example, complement trade and reinforce our commitment to sustainable economic growth. Working together, these will help to ensure that the Canadian economy is strong and growing.

We are prioritizing inclusive, long-term growth for all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country. CETA is one of many exciting initiatives to help us get there. I encourage all members to support its passage in the House.

Last year, our government committed to delivering on CETA at the earliest possible opportunity. I am proud to stand here today as we take another step toward implementation. I once again extend my congratulations to the Minister of International Trade and her team for their excellent work in moving this agreement forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and government members would know that the Green Party has opposed this trade agreement for specific reasons, particularly the investor-state provisions. It is time for us to sit back and look at the history, starting with chapter 11 of NAFTA, and have what this country has never had, which is a full opportunity for debate and discussion on whether foreign corporations should have superior rights over domestic corporations to bring arbitration cases against other countries. In this case, Canada has had more arbitration cases than many other industrialized countries, and lost them, under chapter 11 of NAFTA. India is looking at this again and is saying that it is not going to go into any new ones. Australia is saying the same thing.

Would my hon. colleague agree that it is time to open a discussion on whether we should have been involved in investor-state agreements at all and whether we should not have another look at the one within CETA?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, CETA is a gold standard agreement, one in which many progressive countries will look to replicate in the years to come.

Canada is taking a leadership role in receiving the CETA agreement from the previous government, looking at that agreement and making some changes to make it a little more reflective and progressive to ensure Canadians, Canadian businesses, Canadian companies are protected, but at the same time are allowed access to markets that will allow them to be a little more competitive, allow members and companies in my riding to compete on a global scale by reducing some of the tariffs that currently exist with our European markets.