Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2016

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member in his speech talked about an offer we cannot refuse. The last time I heard that line, things did not go so well in that particular situation.

All kidding aside, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the cost of prescription drugs. That issue is often forgotten in this debate. We have been talking a lot about the investor-state dispute settlement clauses and the impact on the dairy industry, particularly in my province of Quebec, and with good reason. However, the cost of medication is going to increase by approximately $850 million, which will affect not only the provinces, which administer the health care system, but also the people who have to pay for those medications.

Although we recognize the importance of free trade with Europe, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the impact this will actually have on the cost of living of people who need medication, particularly seniors.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and again, like the previous questions from my colleagues in the NDP, it probably bears a bit more thought and more investigation.

On the pharmaceutical front, we must consider that the pharmaceutical industry in Canada is worth over 27,000 jobs and involves over $1 billion in R and D. This is only going to increase as we have much greater access to the European market. I will comment that it is about $800 million in new drugs and only a small percentage of that is in generic drugs.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to support the CETA agreement.

I would like to talk about a couple of things, basically that this comprehensive trade agreement opens up opportunities to many investors on both sides of the agreement, Canadian investors and European investors. I will move on from there to talk about some of the things that an agreement like this inspires and that, hopefully, can move this country toward, including by dealing with the trade barriers that exist within our own border.

The Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, will create jobs, strengthen economic relations, and boost Canada's trade with the second largest market on the globe.

As I think back to the time I have been in Parliament and part of the previous two governments, I recall the words of Prime Minister Harper on many occasions when he spoke about getting the business fundamentals correct. What CETA and the 40-plus other trade agreements the Harper government put together did was to focus on business fundamentals.

What are the business fundamentals in this country? They include things like keeping taxes low. In fact, compared to the United States, the total business tax load in this country is 46% lower. That was something we worked on during more than 10 years of government. We made that particular goal of setting and making sure the fundamental of keeping taxes low for business was right.

Why is that important in the context of a free trade agreement? It is important because we have to look good to investors from Europe. Europeans can now come here with this free trade agreement, know that goods can flow back and forth freely between our countries and consider making investments here, such as the one that we have in my community of Brantford, which is the Ferrero Company, a family company that came to this country nine years ago. The family came to North America. They decided where they would have their North American operation, and thankfully they landed in Brantford, Ontario, for all of their North American product lines. People will know Rocher, Tic Tac, and many of the products the company makes, with close to 1.5 million square feet of production.

I bring up that example because when companies like Ferrero, an Italian family company, make a decision, they make it based on research into what type of business environment they would be going into, what type of country, and how they will be treated as investors.

Among its other benefits that CETA provides in its market access provisions is enhanced investor protection. CETA will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, transparency, and protection for their investments, easing investment restrictions. The net benefit review threshold under the Investment Canada Act will be raised from the current $60 million Canadian to $1.5 billion, following CETA's entry into force.

The advantage over other countries is very significant, especially in the Americas. None of the other top destinations for EU investment in the Americas—the U.S., Mexico, and Brazil—have investment treaties in place with the 28 EU member states, because only CETA provides that. CETA is an agreement, as I said from the outset, and many people have talked today about the scope of CETA, the potential 80,000 jobs, the potential $1,000 per family benefit it would brings if we extend the benefits across our population. It brings us into a privileged environment in the world in terms of being free traders, allowing us to say to the globe that we can negotiate a deal like this when other countries are not about to do so.

I would like to transition into talking about what we face in this country today, namely the enormous trade barriers within our own borders, the provincial trade barriers today facing certain industries. Obviously, the debate we had earlier in this Parliament that my colleague entitled “free the beer” was an aspect of that. I am going to describe it from the point of view of my background, from having been in the construction industry in Ontario and trying to do business in other provinces.

First of all, what we need in this country more than anything else is a keen focus by the current government and the provincial governments on removing those trade barriers. I was very disappointed that the government chose not to vote for the free the beer initiative of my friend. That would have been a beginning, sending a signal to other industries to do that.

In the construction industry, particularly with tradespeople, this is significant, especially when there are downturns in certain parts of the country while other areas of the country are prospering. A person can have credentials as an electrician, plumber, carpenter, or whatever, and may be a licenced carpenter within Ontario's borders, but as soon as that person wants to practice that trade in other parts of the country, those credentials are not accepted as proper. One has to go through a retraining and certification process all over again in certain jurisdictions.

More so, when electrical companies or plumbing companies expand to a certain size and want to expand across the country, when they look at projects in other provinces, they are restricted from bidding on those jobs. They are told that they are restricted, because they are Ontario-based companies. This happens right here in the Ottawa area with our neighbouring province, Quebec, all the time.

However, it depends on the province. The Quebec contractors can come over to Ottawa and do work here, but Ottawa contractors cannot go to Quebec and do work there. These are the types of provincial barriers that I am talking about, which we need to focus keenly on reducing in this country.

I recall the 1988 debates around the NAFTA agreement. The NAFTA agreement in 1988, for all kinds of reasons, was opposed by different political parties, including the opposition and the typical groups right across this country. They thought we were going to lose our national identity from all of it, that we were going to lose our autonomy, and that our water was going to be taken away from us. All of these exaggerations were disproven.

The visionary part of a free trade agreement goes right to the top, reflecting who the prime minister of the day is. I can recall in those days looking to Prime Minister Mulroney and thinking that his was leadership that could hold the ground. He had the backbone to stand up to the type of opposition at that time, fight an election over it, and bring that free trade agreement, NAFTA, into existence.

I can tell members that today I feel the exact same way about Prime Minister Harper, who made free trade agreements a focus of his. CETA is part of the legacy of his leadership. I am proud to be here today to support this important free trade agreement and to have been part of the hard work since 2007 on that by Prime Minister Harper and the leadership of the Conservative Party.

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

Madam Speaker, the member just mentioned Brian Mulroney fighting an election over NAFTA, but of course it was not NAFTA. It was the free trade agreement. NAFTA was actually brought in by the Liberals. To be sure, it was negotiated by Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives, but it was actually the Liberals who ran on a promise to change it and who gave Canadians the impression they were not very committed to it, then went ahead and brought it in.

I cannot help but notice the similarity of that to the position we are now in. For instance, in the election, the Liberals said they were not really in support of the TPP. Since coming into government, they have launched consultations within the country, but internationally, the Prime Minister has been out promoting the deals. They took CETA and picked up right where the Conservatives left it. They have been moving that project ahead despite the fact they have not presented any real evidence about how it will be good for the country, and they have not done anything to mitigate some of the real costs of the agreement.

I wonder if the member has noticed the same approach to trade by the Liberals, to give Canadians who have legitimate concerns about free trade the impression that they are on board with those concerns when they were in opposition, and then steamroll ahead when they are in government.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, this I know, that free trade agreements are good for our country. Let us remove the politics from this. The fact is, the new government should get the credit for coming in and picking up the ball and getting the deal done, just as it has given credit to our government for spending the years from 2007 to 2015 putting all the essential pieces together, so that really all the current government needed to do was to sign it.

My colleague from the NDP can go on into the weeds about the people who are against these things. Free trade has done nothing but bring prosperity to our country, and it will continue to do so. Hats off to everyone who has put this deal together.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to what the member had to say. He spoke about transparency, and I could not agree more that we need transparency on what exactly we are signing on to as parliamentarians. When we talk about pharmaceuticals, 25% of the implementing legislation of the bill is to change the Patent Act in Canada. These will be the biggest changes to our Patent Act in over 20 years. It will result in Canadians paying more for medication for years to come.

We are being asked to approve these major changes, with the majority of the details only coming out later in the form of regulatory packages. The language in the act is a blank cheque regarding pharmaceutical costs for Canadians, and it is incomplete.

Is the member concerned that CETA will lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians, particularly as Canadians already pay more for prescription drugs than nearly every other OECD country?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the quick answer is no, I am not concerned, because I believe the opposite will happen. I sat on the industry committee when we looked at the patent laws of our country compared to other countries we import products from, and at the intellectual property debates we have had in the country. Frankly, we have a big reform to do to make sure our pharmaceutical costs stay competitive with other jurisdictions', as sometimes they are not because of the rules and regulations.

The more we harmonize with developed economies, such as the 28 European countries who are part of this deal, and the United States, our neighbour, and the more we bring those harmonization rules to patenting and intellectual property, the more consumers will benefit at the end of the day. It is a process. It is a transition, but I totally disagree with the premise of that question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 Drummond, Official Languages; the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Rail Transportation; the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, International Trade.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and provide a bit of an antidote to the Conservative-Liberal love-in that has been taking place in the House of Commons today over CETA, which we cannot deny has been pretty cozy. When we have the international trade minister and the international trade critic of the Liberals and Conservatives respectively hugging in the House of Commons over a deal, I think it is fair to say if there was anything we could call a love-in within Parliament, that is it. That happened on the day they signed the deal and has continued throughout this debate.

Therefore, I am pleased to rise and provide a different perspective, one that frankly is shared by many Canadians and many people across North America who are fed up. That energy needs to be channelled in the right way, with having this kind of condescending claptrap from parties and politicians who have big business as their allies, and who, every time we criticize the fact that in some cases these deals have meant good jobs leaving the country, tell us that we just do not understand trade or that we are against trade.

The NDP is for trade. We understand well the importance of trade for our local economy and for workers. However, I think insurance is a good idea. We could pontificate on the history of insurance and that it came to be because some things were not the way they should be and families ended up in dire straits. Therefore, insurance is a great product and we should have insurance. We would not take any insurance policy and sign it without reading it, so it is not about whether we are for or against insurance that we decline a particular policy or not, and it is not that the NDP is against trade that we say that there are problems with this deal. On balance, we think the problems are not worth the proposed benefits.

What we have heard members say is that they are in favour of the possible benefit of the potential market. What we have not seen from the government is a province-by-province analysis of what this will mean for jobs. We have not seen a sector-by-sector analysis to say who the winners and the losers will be. In some cases, we do have a sense of who the losers will be. We know that they are in the agricultural sector. We know that the former government negotiated a settlement with some of those producers to the tune of over $4 billion. Nothing has changed in the agreement, and presumably nothing has changed in terms of the consequences for those producers, but the current government has arbitrarily lowered that compensation package. However, what we have not heard, and what the Liberals have not said, is why we are hurting those producers and why it is worth spending taxpayer money to compensate those producers, even though they are not doing it to the extent that the Conservatives saw fit, because these people over here will win, and these are the jobs that will be created, and these are the businesses that are just waiting with an export development plan to move their business into Europe and to capture that market, instead of just talking about the paper access that we are buying, and not inexpensively, as we go through some of the other items in this deal.

I was talking to a farmer in Manitoba just last week who was saying that it is true that for certain agriculture products there are quotas on what can be exported from Canada into Europe. It is true that CETA raises those quotas. That is great. It would be even better if those agricultural producers were actually meeting the existing quotas. However, they are not. Therefore, we will sign up for certain investor-state dispute settlement clauses, we will sign up for an agreement that will interfere with the ability of local governments to use buy local provisions in their procurements, and we will sign on to a higher cost for drugs. Why? To expand a quota that is already not being met.

When we talk about trade-offs, it seems to me that the kind of theoretical benefit of an expanded quota that producers are already not meeting is not worth the very concrete costs that are represented in higher drug costs, for example. That is an argument the Liberals should understand as it is comparable to an argument they made about the tax-free savings account when they reduced that threshold. They asked why the threshold should be increased from $5,000 to $10,000 when most people are not already availing themselves of the $5,000 limit. It is the very same argument. Therefore, why would we incur higher drug costs, which is a very real cost for Canadians, in exchange for higher quotas on certain agricultural products, when those quotas are already not being met?

I think we need to come down to earth a bit and stop making this a debate about whether we are for or against trade. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge said in his speech that he wanted to talk about what was in the agreement and whether on balance certain things were better or not. Then he launched into a diatribe against the NDP just for saying that we think there are some problems with the agreement. I did not hear him once mention something that he thought was problematic in the agreement.

I do not know how we could conceptualize a debate on the content of an agreement and the nature of the trade-offs without actually mentioning any of the trade-offs, but just launching into a platitudinous speech about how wonderful this is without concrete examples.

I already mentioned that part of the problem here, if we want to get real and assess an agreement, is that there is not enough information to do that. We do not actually have anything approaching a comprehensive study by the government, released to Canadians, talking about what the impact on jobs and industry in Canada is going to be.

We do not know what the relative impact, from province to province, is going to be. We do not know how the various sectors are going to be affected. We do not know, frankly, and we could not know, the economic impact of everything that is being given up in this agreement without a blink. This agreement covers everything except for what is carved out.

There are certain carve-outs, for instance, on the buy local provisions. Some provincial governments have advocated to say that this sector should not be touched or that sector should not be touched, when what that gives up is everything we have not already thought of.

If members in this House think that they are so smart, and everyone in provincial legislatures is so smart, as to have thought of every technological and economic development that is going to happen over the lifetime of this agreement, which incidentally is not a temporary agreement, then so be it. I am a little more modest. I think we ought to be more modest.

There are a lot of things that can change. We live in a world that changes very quickly. It is imprudent at best to sign on to agreements that essentially give up everything that we have not already thought of. We do not know what the impact of that is going to be.

No one has said why it is a good idea to sign that kind of an agreement that essentially covers everything we have not already thought of versus an agreement that just covers the things we are talking about, in the sectors that we know about today and some of those particular trade-offs. On the face of it, that seems like a better approach.

We also do not know, recently having had a referendum to leave the European Union, what the impact or consequence of that is going to be. We do know that it is going to take years for European parliaments to ratify this agreement. I simply do not understand why we are in such a rush here in Canada. I have not heard a good answer.

We heard one member say that he does not see a need to put on the brakes on a good deal. How do we know if it is a good deal when we do not even know who is in it yet? Is the member saying it is immaterial to the benefit of the agreement to Canada, whether Britain is covered by the agreement or not? That is a ridiculous thing to try to maintain.

If we do not do that, if we take the sensible approach and say that it actually does matter whether the United Kingdom is covered under CETA or not, and that that has an impact on what the potential benefits are for Canada, then the right thing to do would be to put the brakes on and take a little bit of a wait-and-see approach.

The agreement is not going anywhere. I think it would be far more prudent to come back to it when we actually have a better sense of what the lay of the land is. It is a time of a lot of change and uncertainty. To me, that says it is the wrong time to jump in with both feet into a major economic treaty.

With this agreement, there is a recurring problem, in my view, with a lot of the trade agreements that we have signed since 1993, which is the investor-state dispute settlement clauses. In my mind, those have very little to do with trade. Foreign investors who have an issue and who do not feel they have been treated fairly can go to Canadian courts and can seek fairness in Canadian courts. They can do that without tying the hands of government in terms of its ability to regulate for the benefit of the environment, for the benefit of workplace health and safety, for health benefits. That is a reasonable approach. There is nothing wrong with that.

The Canadian court system has certain principles of openness and transparency that I think we would all agree are important. No one is advocating we get rid of those principles. When we take that decision-making power out of the hands of the Canadian court system and transfer it to the international trade tribunals, for which we do not have the rules or the guidelines according to which arbitrators are going to be selected, we are doing serious damage to the ability of Canadians to make their own decisions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I understand the member still had a lot to say, but he will be able to do it through questions and comments, given that the time has expired for his speech.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is interesting because he talked about the fact that many members spoke in favour of the agreement saying it was very good news before they ever truly had the chance to look at it in detail.

What is currently going on in committee is a good example. I do not want to get into the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure, but this is an important point. At the Standing Committee on International Trade, a decision was made not to accept written submissions from witnesses who cannot physically appear before the committee, either because they do not have time or the committee does not have time to hear them.

That is the opposite of what is done 99% of the time at other parliamentary committees. This is extremely worrisome given how important it is to hear from all those affected by this agreement. In the spirit of hearing all views, I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks about this problem and this unprecedented move by the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If we compare the CETA consultation process to the electoral reform consultation process, what emerges is enough to make anyone cynical.

On CETA, the Liberals do not even want to let Canadians send in written submissions. The Liberals do not want to hear what Canadians have to say even though this is a major agreement that will have long-lasting repercussions.

On electoral reform, MPs, ministers, a special committee, and a website were all mustered for consultations. Now they even want to reach out to people by mail.

Apparently, when they do not want to do something, they hold all kinds of consultations, they talk a lot, and they never do anything. In contrast, when they want to do something, they go ahead and do it without holding consultations.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the matter has gone through the trade commissioners. It has been approved. I support the government's position on CETA. I support the government's position on supply management, which is different from my colleague, of course.

The Belgium issue took us by surprise. It took everybody by surprise. However, the next issue is that it has to go through the European Parliament for a vote, and then it has to go to the individual member states for a vote.

Does the member have any recommendations to the government in case there are more surprises where the vote might be defeated in the European Parliament or in one of the member states? Does the member have any recommendation as to what the government could do to ensure that there would be swift passage through the European Parliament and the 28 individual member states?

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

Madam Speaker, the Belgium issue gave a lot of people a surprise, Liberals and Conservatives especially, because they were not paying attention.

People have been criticizing the invest-state dispute settlement clauses in these types of agreements for a long time, and so it was not a surprise to New Democrats when we found out that people in Europe were looking at those same issues and saying that they had a problem with them. It is not a surprise if we look at the model of the European Union, which is very integrated, but it does not have the same kind of investor-state dispute settlement clauses that are governed by the corporate elite. Therefore, if we have been watching and paying attention to the way these deals have been playing out, it was not a big surprise.

The best way to try and head off further surprises is to take our time, that is not rush it through Parliament here; to start listening instead of dismissing these concerns as being unreasonable; and then to change the agreement to get rid of those problematic provisions. We could then get people onside in Europe.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to the CETA bill.

Canada is a trading nation. We all know that. One in five jobs is directly related to the export of goods, products and services. I am immensely proud to belong to a political party that has long fought for the elimination of trade barriers, and is focused on the opening of new markets around the world.

The Conservatives understand that free trade agreements increase economic activity. They drive prosperity, create new jobs, and foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies.

It is important to point out that the party opposite does not always share the same passion and commitment to free trade. It was less than 30 years ago when the Liberal Party decried the historic free trade agreement with the United States. We all remember that the 1988 election was almost fought solely over the issue of this agreement. It took the second election of Brian Mulroney's government, which won a resounding majority, for the Liberals to do an about-face and see the benefits of free trade.

Today, I for one applaud the Liberals for seeing the light and to have supported NAFTA, the Canada–South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Canadian-Ukrainian free trade agreement, the pan-Canadian free trade agreement, among others.

Now, due to the tireless efforts of previous Conservative ministers, such as the members for Abbotsford, Battlefords—Lloydminster, Durham, York—Simcoe, and I cannot say enough about the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, we were able to sign free trade agreements around the world.

To speak briefly on the domestic front, I would like to congratulate Manitoba's new premier, Brian Pallister and his Progressive Conservative government on recently signing on to the new west partnership trading agreement.

It is becoming evident that political parties from across the country are now openly advocating for the removal of trade barriers, either monetary or regulatory. I will relish the day when products from one Canadian province can be sold in another with no strings attached.

Members of the House should applaud my hon. colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for his private member's bill that allowed Canadian wine to be shipped across the country, and for his recent leadership on freeing the beer. No Canadian should ever go to jail or be charged for carrying a case of beer across a provincial border.

With these thoughts in mind, it is why I am pleased to speak in favour of the Canada-EU comprehensive economic trade agreement. This landmark agreement is our country's biggest bilateral trade initiative since NAFTA. With 28 member states, the EU represents the world's largest single market for an investor and trader, with over 500 million people and an annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion.

When CETA comes into force, Canada will be one of the few countries in the world to have guaranteed preferential access to the world's two largest economies, both the EU and the United States.

CETA was not accomplished overnight. It literally took years of hard work, as did NAFTA, especially by our world-class trade negotiators who poured their hearts and souls into this endeavour. I applaud their efforts immensely.

It was nice to hear the current Minister of International Trade pay tribute to my colleagues on this side of the House who spearheaded this initiative. However, I would be remiss if I did not say that I was a little discouraged to see her only hours later change her tone during question period and play down the efforts of previous Conservative ministers.

While it is true that sometimes over-the-top rhetoric is used during fiery debates, I would like the hon. minister to know that Canadians, and in particular the good people of Brandon—Souris, are not too enamoured when the minister pats herself on the back, while forgetting the amazing contributions of others before she assumed her role.

I would also like to commend the members who have sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade. They completed two economic studies on the benefit of CETA. During these comprehensive studies, the committee found that CETA would be of net benefit to Canada, and had the support of a majority of Canadian stakeholders. In fact, in total transparency, all provinces had input and signed on before it was taken internationally.

Furthermore, the joint Canada-EU study concluded that this free trade agreement would bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion annual increase in Canada's economy.

What does this agreement mean for hard-working Canadians? It is an economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family income or almost 80,000 worth of new jobs to our economy.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for the federal government to implement policies that will lead to private sector growth, as its current path has only resulted in billions of dollars of new debt and the elimination of jobs.

CETA is a beacon of hope for many who have struggled for these past 12 months. It is an example that when government is on the same side as job creators, it can lead to the creation of new, high-paying jobs. We have learned many lessons after the great economic recession of 2008-09.

First and foremost, Canada must expand and diversify the countries to which we export our goods and services. We can no longer rely on selling the vast majority of our goods and services to the United States. To put it succinctly, we cannot have all our eggs in one basket. The importance of diversification is even more important now with the change of leadership in the United States.

While our Prime Minister seems to be willing to open negotiations on NAFTA, it sends shivers down the spines of those whose livelihood is directly tied to exporting into the American market.

As the Liberal government figures out how to work with the new administration, Canadians can rest assured that our Conservative caucus will continue to stand up for our bilateral initiatives that are directly tied to millions of Canadian jobs and, presently, $2 billion of trade a day across our friendly border.

We will also press the government to pursue a strong free trade agenda with the new U.S. administration. We expect the Liberals to work with the new U.S. administration to ensure Canadians and Canadian businesses continue to reap the benefits of NAFTA, and to advocate for the ultimate ratification and implementation of the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, which seeks to boost trade in the Asia-Pacific region.

Our Conservative caucus supported the diversification of our trading partners well before the recent American election results. The reasons why I support CETA are many, but in particular, Manitobans stand to benefit significantly from the preferential access we will get through this deal.

On day one of CETA's entry into force, 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods would be duty-free, including those on key Manitoba exports, such as manufactured goods, metals, and mineral products. When this agreement is fully in place, 99% of the EU tariff lines will be eliminated.

In Manitoba, especially in my consistency of Brandon—Souris, farm families are chomping at the bit to have this opportunity to sell their livestock, grain, and oilseeds to EU countries.

Almost 94% of EU tariffs for agrifood products will be duty-free once CETA enters into force. This rises to 95% once all phase-outs are complete, seven years after entry into force. This would mean Westman farmers and beef, pork, and bison producers will have preferential access to the EU market.

It is also good to highlight there are beef producers who are already building their herd, specifically, for the EU market.

To put a face on the importance of this deal, I would like to share the story of the True North Foods, located outside of Carman, Manitoba.

Owner Calvin Vaags has been planning their entry in the EU for months. Just recently, his plant received federal approval and can now ship meat products anywhere across Canada and has been designed to meet all criteria for European, Chinese, and American markets. Operating at full capacity, the plant would process approximately 1,000 head of cattle a week.

Not only will this plant help Manitoba beef producers get into new markets, it also means that it no longer has to haul its cattle to Alberta or Ontario for slaughter. The plant will also provide the capacity to slaughter cattle, bison, elk, sheep, and goats, as well as offer heavy carcass capability, accommodating even the largest bulls.

This story may not sound like a lot in the big scheme of things, but for a constituency such as mine, it will offer Westman cattle producers opportunities that they would never have had previously.

With the very possibility that Americans might try to resurrect country of origin labelling, it is paramount we secure new markets for Canadian beef. Canadian products are considered high quality. When something is stamped “made in Canada”, consumers and customers know they are getting superior products and can trust the safety and food security of our food processing facilities.

When it comes to our agricultural sector, it goes without saying that Canadian farmers produce the best agrifood products anywhere in the world.

I know Canadian businesses would thrive in the EU marketplace. I know jobs will be created and incomes would go up due to this trade initiative. I know diversifying Canada's markets is necessary. Most of all, I know that when trade barriers are eliminated, consumers on both sides would have the choice of lower prices.

Free trade is not a theoretical concept. Free trade is a way of doing business that would grow the Canadian economy. Our preferential—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately the time is up for the member's speech, but I am sure he could finish it in a few minutes during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard a lot of points in the member's speech, especially around beef. There are still some non-tariff issues that exist in CETA. There still are some concerns by cattlemen on being able to get that product in. It is often non-tariff that actually prevents them from seeing the benefits of that tariff reduction. There are still some issues that need to be fixed around beef and exports, and that comes straight from their presentation to us at the committee level.

My question for the member is something about which he did not speak, and that is the cost of drugs for Canadians. Twenty-five per cent of the agreement speaks to patent changes that will impact every Canadian, all Canadians who are already experiencing the high cost of drugs. I have people in my riding every day in my office. They are struggling to pay the costs of medication. Affordable medication in our country is a serious issue, and I would hope it would be a serious issue for the member as well.

Could the member speak to how it will impact his riding to have seniors and people who will struggle with the cost of medication because of the changes in CETA?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a concern, but as I said in my presentation, every province had opportunities to make those issues known during the negotiations within Canada for CETA. It was done transparently, and every province bought into the process.

I am very aware, having come through the farming community, of the types of generic products that have come forward in the medical field as well. As these become more opportunities for trading, perhaps we will even end up with more pharmaceutical opportunities in the marketplace. It is yet to be determined whether the price of these drugs will go up, as the member has indicated.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Let us look at the Brexit fallout. Some 42% of Canada's exports to the European Union go to the United Kingdom.

I will not get into Great Britain's internal politics because that is all kind of up in the air right now. That is actually a good reason to take a step back and consider the impact of Great Britain's possible exit from the European Union on the deal.

My colleague rightly praised the Canadian negotiators. However, I feel certain that, when the agreement was negotiated, the negotiators took into account Great Britain's considerable share of Canadian exports to the European Union.

What impact does the member see that having on the agreement? Has the government truly taken that impact into account?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not as pessimistic as my colleague is about the opportunities that lie before us. I still believe they will be great. That is like saying we should not continue to negotiate the TPP because the United States says that it may not want to be a part of it.

We have a great opportunity here to continue with the growth. I had an opportunity to be on a trade mission to England with our former trade minister. We looked at the amount of seafood products the British wanted to have from Canada. They wanted more shrimp, lobster, Arctic char, and just about every type of seafood we could offer.

The Brexit agreement has made a change. Whether England continues to negotiate those concerns within the European Union is something that it, as my colleague indicated, will have to do within its own legislative forum.

However, I believe we will continue to have those opportunities. If we do not, that is why we need to continue to have the diversification of markets I referred to earlier.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a mere handful of protections between average citizens and the predatory nature of global capitalism. The most important of these is a strong sovereign state with the regulatory power to champion the needs of its citizens over those of the non-human entities of global finance and multinational corporations.

In a 2012 dissenting opinion to a CETA-related trade committee report, the Liberals called for further consultation with Canadians on CETA. Now, the trade committee has already passed a motion in camera that will restrict written submissions to only the witnesses selected to appear.

On the other hand, the committee held dozens of meetings on the TPP. It heard from over 400 witnesses and received written submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians. With 95% of submissions critical of the TPP, it is no wonder that the government does not want to hear from Canadians on CETA.

The sheer determination of the current Liberal government to get CETA ratified despite the genuine concerns and protestations of citizens groups across the European Union and Canada demonstrates to the world what its true priorities are. These priorities are the extension of global corporate rule into every remaining space in the Canadian economy.

For Liberals, it is as if they have had no lessons to learn from Brexit or the Trump phenomenon. Rather, as I suspect, it is as if they wish to get these deals done before we in this country reap the Canadian variants of these whirlwinds.

Let me be clear. The NDP supports deepening the Canada-EU trading relationship to diversify our markets, but there remain significant concerns and unanswered questions about this proposed deal.

As I mentioned before, when the Liberals themselves were in opposition, they agreed with the New Democrats that more consultation and analysis were needed on CETA. However, the minister has ignored calls for the removal of investor-state rules, refused to address the rising costs of prescription drugs, and neglected to consult Canadians.

The underlying point here is that Parliament is essentially being asked to write a blank cheque on this implementation bill, despite the fact that each of the 28 EU member states will have to ratify CETA for all of it provisions to apply, a process that is expected to take between two to five years.

I ask, as others here have, what is the hurry? What is the government trying to ram through here? Why is it not letting parliamentarians undertake due oversight when there is obviously enough time for us to examine the bill?

Indeed, there is plenty of time to engage with other signatory members, the EU countries, who are also alarmed by the investor-state dispute mechanism. New Democrats support trade deals that reduce trade tariffs and boost exports, but we will always remain firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten our sovereignty have no place in trade deals.

In February of this year, during CETA's legal scrubbing phase, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat possible conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new investor court system, the ICS, still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits. Foreign companies will have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws without going through the domestic courts.

This is deeply concerning, as Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world as a result of the dispute mechanisms we have already agreed to. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments, and the Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases while continuing to be subject to ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Existing ISDS measures have also contributed to a regulatory chill in which governments fail to take actions in the public interest that they fear may trigger an investor claim. One thing we have learned very quickly from reading trade agreements over the years is that the priorities of global finance and global corporations are always front and centre in these deals and are always binding. It is environmental, labour, and general human rights concerns that are always relegated to side agreements, where they are non-binding and voluntary. It is strange how that happens.

Witness the so-called joint interpretive statement concerning the investor court system I mentioned earlier. This statement was negotiated as a way to placate the concerns of ordinary citizens who worried that these courts cede far too much of their nation's sovereignty to bodies that are not subject to domestic democratic oversight. Was CETA amended so that these concerns could be included? No, it was not, oddly enough. The joint interpretive statement falls outside the text of the treaty, and therefore would not have full legal weight. We can be absolutely sure this is no accident.

Likewise, the chapter in CETA on intellectual property rights goes well beyond Canada's existing obligations. The increased patent protections granted to brand-name pharmaceuticals would have the effect of delaying the arrival of cheaper generics and would increase the cost of prescription drugs to Canadians by between $850 million and $2.8 billion per year. This is a cost that I do not think seniors are prepared to take on. Furthermore, I would argue that it would hamper any efforts to bring in a national pharmaceutical strategy, both at the federal level and in what individual provinces are trying to do with their already ballooning health care costs.

In opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study of the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government, the Liberals are telling provinces that they will cut health care transfers while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces.

Most distressing for me, as someone from municipal politics, is the minimum local content policies that could be compromised, even outlawed, above a certain threshold, even in municipal and provincial government procurement. I ask members to think about that and about the initiatives they have worked on when representing people at the municipal level of government, as I know many members have done.

As noted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, these provisions would likely threaten very popular buy local food programs at provincial hospitals, school boards, and other public institutions. They would almost certainly outlaw programs such as the Green Energy Act in Ontario, which requires significant local content in solar and wind projects in order for private energy producers to benefit from generous feed-in tariff rates designed to encourage more renewable power generation. The Canadian Environmental Law Association states the following about CETA:

It will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism...will impact the federal and provincial governments’ authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.

Companies will also have an expanded ability to use temporary foreign workers without studying the impacts of that on Canadians. This is a matter of great concern in the Windsor—Tecumseh riding that I represent and the Essex County area at large, where there is a high unemployment rate.

To conclude, the NDP supports trade with Europe. As I have stated previously, we have deep historical and cultural ties with Europe, and within the EU are some of the world's most progressive democracies. However, we are concerned about specific measures in CETA that were negotiated, and it is our job to uphold the interests of Canadians and the global citizens we are. The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix this agreement, but the deal is not done—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, your time is up for this speech. I am sure you will be able to use some of it for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I heard two important points there, because they illustrate the Liberal approach. The Liberals had a certain attitude when they were in opposition, but now that they are in power, their attitude is the exact opposite, and one that I have to say is disappointing.

This comes down to two specific points. The first is the higher drug prices that will result from this agreement. During the previous Parliament, those same Liberals asked for studies on the impact this agreement would have on drug prices. Now they seem to have forgotten all about that and want to move quickly without really examining the impact the agreement will have on people and what they will have to pay for their medication.

The second point has to do with compensation for dairy farmers. The Conservatives had promised $41 billion to compensate the farmers. Now farmers are being offered peanuts, just $300 million. That is a lot less than what the previous government had promised.

I wonder whether the member could talk about the Liberals' broken promises and how their attitude has changed since they came to power.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member brought up these two very profound issues that I could speak to at length.

I will start with pharmaceuticals. This is a real challenge for Canadians today. In the House, when we talk about the threat to universal health care and our conviction on this side to defend it, one of the key things the governing party keeps bringing up is that it is going to reduce costs by looking at some ways to come up with a pharmaceutical plan and that it is working on that.

CETA will cripple that initiative. We will not be allowed to do that. Anyone can read this in the document. The myths with regard to this are really frustrating. Every single day in every constituency, members have people who are suffering because of the cost of pharmaceuticals and health care.

Another thing I want to bring up, which we have not talked about at all, is innovation and research in pharmaceuticals. Government-sponsored research and innovation for particular types of cures for certain diseases is also going to be undermined by this deal. Intellectual property will be undermined by this deal.

When it comes to issues like dairy farmers being compensated, I do not understand how we can have the government, on one hand, championing the cause and making these kinds of promises, and then—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have to allow time for more questions. Questions and comments.