Debates of Dec. 12th, 2016

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

She mentioned in her speech that there used to be three dairy farms along her road. The idea of living out in the country like that, in nature, really appeals to me too.

Can she tell my why they shut down? Did that happen recently or a while ago? Did those dairy farms have to close up shop because of Agropur's huge monopoly? Did they go out of business because of a previous free trade agreement? Was it because nobody wanted to carry on the family tradition?

I am curious about why those farms went out of business.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I was talking about farms that went out of business 15 years ago, some of them 20 or 25 years ago. However, the same thing is still happening all over my riding, and the main issue is that there is nobody to take over.

A career in agrifood is a vocation, as I often tell farmers. They have to get up seven days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a week, especially when they are taking care of animals. They are always on alert because unexpected things can happen. That kind of job is truly a vocation, and it is getting harder to find people who want to take over. That is what farmers tell me.

It is obvious to young workers that the people their age with whom they went to school get better pay, better working conditions, and maybe even pension plans. A lot of young people in farming are in very precarious situations.

Every time a new international agreement is signed, it undermines their production capability because every agreement opens another crack in the supply management system that governs them. I have to point out that supply managed sectors are not entitled to government subsidies. That is an important thing to remember here.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-30 at second reading. This bill implements the Canada-Europe comprehensive and economic trade agreement, or CETA.

I have to say to my colleagues that, unfortunately, we will be voting against it. I would have really liked to be able to support a good agreement between Canada and Europe in order to increase trade, because we know that the European continent is ripe with opportunity for our businesses. They definitely could have benefited from a good agreement that increases trade with Europe. We do already trade with Europe, but a trade agreement would allow us to trade even more.

Unfortunately, the agreement and its implementation bill leave much to be desired. This is not simply my opinion; many Canadian and European experts have been very critical of the bill's provisions. One of the things that has been most roundly criticized is definitely the legal framework for investor-state dispute resolution. It is a parallel system that allows investors like multinationals and states to challenge our own democratic decisions made here in Canada at all levels of government. This means that we could be sued for implementing policies that could be seen as affecting the bottom line of multinationals or working against the interests of foreign states. That will be part of my speech.

I identified many other problems with this agreement. However, as I said earlier, I am disappointed that we did not manage to come up with a better agreement because Europe is a place where we must do business. If ever there were a continent we could work well with outside North America, where we live, it is indeed Europe, where there are very robust workers rights and environmental protections; very solid workplace health and safety regulations that are comparable to what we have here in Canada; and excellent food safety and product safety regulations. This is a continent that Canada can certainly work well with because of our similar rules.

Today, as we speak, many of our regulations are similar to those in Europe. It is therefore important that we increase trade with that continent. Unfortunately, the bill and the signed agreement certainly do not meet our expectations.

Bill C-30 is definitely being rushed through. It allows the government to ratify CETA in full, but does not answer key questions. For example, many measures applicable to investors and states have not yet been defined and are being staunchly opposed in Europe. Right now we have no details about an appeal procedure or how the members of the arbitration panel will be chosen. That is where things stand at the moment.

The Liberal government is asking parliamentarians to sign a blank cheque, telling us it will fill it out later. Canada and Europe tried to alleviate Europeans' concerns about CETA, but the Liberal government has yet to consider Canadians' concerns.

I want to point out four problems that I feel are really important and that must be raised. They may make government members realize there are serious flaws in the economic agreement and possibly change their mind about this bill.

I have already mentioned investor-state measures in relation to our democratic states. These mechanisms are not fair to Canada, and they are not fair to Europe, either.

That is why even European experts and politicians raised this issue. They also felt that there was a problem with allowing multinationals to challenge our laws.

Let us imagine that a political party is elected based on the promise to ban a certain product that its members felt was a danger to the public. When the party takes office, it keeps its promise by declaring the product in question to be contrary to the interests of the economy and the public. Under the agreement in question, the multinational that manufactures the product could challenge the government's democratic decision to ban it and demand compensation by saying that it sold millions of units of the product in our country.

Multinationals and corporations would thus become superior to our sovereign states, which make decisions based on their election promises. These companies could get the last word and obtain compensation under the agreement as it stands today. That is why I want to speak out against this in the House today. I want every member to understand the potential consequences of these investor-state provisions and the parallel legal system created by this economic agreement.

Even though my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did a great job of explaining how this agreement will affect dairy producers, I wanted to mention them too because they are going to suffer major losses. That is why the previous government promised to compensate them when it was negotiating this economic agreement. The previous government recognized that dairy producers were going to suffer real financial losses and that, if it disrupted our supply management system by accepting more dairy products on our market, European cheeses in this case, the sales of our producers here in Canada could be negatively affected. The previous government therefore committed to compensating dairy producers for their losses.

The government often tries to smooth things over by saying that in exchange for allowing a certain number of European products onto our market, Canadian products will also have access to the European market. This is a market of 500 million people, and it is a tremendous market for selling more products, but in reality, because of the support that European countries give their own producers and other factors, it will be very difficult for Canadians to compete over there.

As well, obviously there are transportation costs involved in exporting products there. This sets up an uneven playing field, and it is just not the case that farmers will be able to make up their losses just by exporting and by trying to sell their products in Europe.

Another issue is the rising cost of drugs, which my colleagues have spoken about. Experts have estimated that Canadians will be faced with $850 million in extra costs. When the Liberals were in opposition, they called for a public study on the additional drug costs brought by changes to the intellectual property regime for pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, once elected, they appear to have forgotten about this part, even though it was a prerequisite for supporting this agreement.

The fourth problem I wanted to talk about is that certain rules will prevent current or future rules from requiring greater local content. For example, municipal or other governments might want to see procurement rules encouraging a greater number of local companies to bid on government procurement contracts. These rules could also be deemed inappropriate under the economic agreement.

In closing, I will be pleased to answer my colleagues’ questions if they would like me to clarify what I have said, or anything else.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the member for Sherbrooke's main argument.

I wholeheartedly support this free trade agreement, but it definitely has some measures that, in some ways, take away from our great federation's sovereignty.

However, I get the feeling that his argument cuts both ways because he uses it in this case but not in others. We belong to all kinds of international treaties that diminish our sovereignty in areas such as maritime law. If fishers from Newfoundland and Labrador want to venture farther than 12 or 200 kilometres to catch a certain kind of fish, they could face consequences for that, such as legal action elsewhere in the world.

We belong to all kinds of treaties that diminish our sovereignty. I cannot name them just now, but I am sure there are plenty of them. The NDP supports them wholeheartedly.

Will the member for Sherbrooke admit that he uses this argument when it suits him?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

He says that there are other international treaties that govern or impose basic standards on certain issues, and that they generally make a lot of sense. For example, it might be a question of minimum safety standards and respecting certain rights.

However, in this case, private companies might say that the government is not acting appropriately from their point of view, that of a multinational corporation, and not from the point of view of a multinational framework whose members agree on all the minimum standards. Instead, we are talking about companies who are subjectively saying that the government is taking measures that are hurting them and their profits, and that it must change its approach or compensate them for it.

I do not think that we can compare these two situations. In some cases, this is truly a multinational agreement and every national government agrees on certain things, which obviously must be respected when an agreement is signed.

I do not think that we can compare that to the investor-state system in this case.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his speech. It is always a pleasure and so interesting to hear him speak here in the House. I know that he does a very good job representing his constituents. Many members of my family live in his riding and they are very well served. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for that.

I would also like my colleague's take on an issue that he touched on in his speech, namely government contracts. We know what an important economic lever infrastructure investment can be for stimulating our economy.

If a European company was vying for a contract that exceeded the established threshold, how would my colleague interpret that? Some of us here represent small municipalities of 200 to 500 inhabitants. What major repercussions could this have on these small municipalities?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention. I also want to take this opportunity to say hello to her relatives who live in Sherbrooke.

The member raises a very important issue, one that has also been raised by several municipalities. European companies will have more rights when it comes to participating in public contracts and local procurement.

This is a serious concern that has been raised by several people, one that could have a real impact. We often hear about waste water management, drinking water, and waterworks as examples. European companies could take control of our water management systems. Concerns over that issue are genuine and significant.

As I said in my speech, and I think we have discussed in the House recently, governments are creating procurement policies with a certain percentage of local content. This means that those European companies, once again under investor-state systems—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order, please.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying unequivocally that New Democrats believe that it is possible to create a Canada whose economy is sustainable, just, and fair while remaining competitive on the world stage. We believe that we all thrive in an equitable society where everyone has equal access to nutritious food, a safe home, an education, decent work at fair wages, clean air and fresh water, health care, pharmacare, a secure retirement, and child care.

Just today it was reported that child care costs in Canada are unaffordable. They are through the roof. Canadian parents know that, but the current government does not seem to have a clue. After 40 years of promises from Liberals and Conservatives alike, we still have no national, affordable, regulated child care in this country.

Our trade agreements should reflect not only the importance of a strong social safety net but our values as a nation, and child care is certainly one of them.

Any trade deal should promote and protect our communities and our families. Remarkably, it is not clear that CETA serves Canadians in regard to community needs and values. Because of this lack of clarity, New Democrats cannot support Bill C-30.

The NDP supports deepening the Canada-EU trade relationship to diversify our markets, but that does not cloud our vision or divert us from our commitment to ensuring that our trade deals serve the people who have placed their trust in us.

Despite lofty promises to the contrary, it appears that once again, the current government wants to force this bill into legislation without the transparency, public consultation, and careful consideration it warrants. This kind of smoke-and-mirrors tactic invites a healthy dose of skepticism.

Canada's trade relationship with Europe is too important to get wrong. We should be working to fix problems with the current deal rather than settling for this flawed agreement.

We have significant concerns and unanswered questions about CETA. It has been called the biggest trade deal since NAFTA. Without proper security, however, and scrutiny, trade agreements such as CETA have the potential to bargain away programs, services, products, and even the values that we, as Canadians, hold dear.

Our experience with NAFTA should be a lesson to us. Under NAFTA, Canadian workers suffered when well-paid union jobs moved south to low-wage jurisdictions, leaving communities and local economies devastated. In London, the story of Siemens, ABB, Westinghouse, Philips, and Caterpillar are sad examples.

Under the investor-state dispute settlement provisions of free trade agreements, Canada has become one of the most sued countries in the world, winning only three of 39 cases against foreign governments. Under NAFTA, Canada has paid out over €135 million on these claims, mostly to the U.S., and outstanding cases worth another €1.75 billion remain and are a concern.

This past February, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are purported to improve transparency and neutralize the potential for arbitrator conflicts of interest. However, the renamed investor-court system still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions those governments make, decisions the investors say threaten their profit margins. In other words, foreign companies will have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws without going through our domestic courts.

There is evidence that private corporations have attempted to use the threat of investor-state charges under NAFTA to discourage governments from advancing legislation that is in the best public interest, threatening the progressive social values we hold dear as Canadian citizens.

Critics have argued that CETA threatens our public services, including health care; that it endangers local job creation; that it threatens our sovereignty when it comes to fresh water and a clean environment; that it threatens our food sovereignty and farmers' rights; that our cultural and communications sovereignty is in danger; and that indigenous sovereignty and human rights are threatened, as are labour rights and the quality of our existing jobs.

Several European states have already made it clear that the investor-court provisions of the agreement must change before it is implemented, yet Bill C-30 includes all the necessary legal changes to implement CETA without knowing what those changes will be. Liberals are basically asking parliamentarians to sign a blank cheque and trust them to fill out the amount afterward: Sign the contract and read it later.

It is not an exaggeration to say that our democratic and domestic sovereignty is at risk if we accept a deal whose consequences are unknown. We can do better. Some could argue that Canada and Europe have more progressive policies than the U.S., making CETA different from NAFTA in its potential to affect our democratic sovereignty. Consider, however, that most large American corporations have Canadian subsidiaries. What is to stop one of those subsidiaries from invoking the investor-court provisions of CETA to challenge the environmental, health, and labour policies of signatory states?

New Democrats have been calling for a national pharmacare program for Canada forever. Evidence shows that such a program is not only sustainable but is cost-efficient for the government to implement. It would save billions in taxpayer dollars and would make life easier for Canadians who rely on those prescriptions for their health and quality of life.

In opposition, the Liberals demanded a study of the fiscal impact of CETA on prescription drug costs. In government, they are rushing to implement CETA, while at the same time they are refusing to consider increased health care transfers to the provinces. One would think that sunny ways would require a comprehensive analysis of policies and agreements and their effects on Canadians before signing off, but that does not seem to be the case here. Canadians deserve better.

Recognizing that supply management farmers would suffer under CETA and the TPP, the previous Conservative government earmarked $4.3 billion for compensation to industries affected by the deal. The Liberal government has announced a $350-million package for dairy farmers, falling far short of their actual losses under CETA. Neither has the government explained how it will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for fish processing losses expected under the deal.

Under CETA, companies will also have the increased ability to employ temporary foreign workers without consideration of the impact on Canadians. These effects have the potential to be devastating to our local economies as well as to those workers who must accept precarious working conditions to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.

In opposition, Liberals called for further consultation with Canadians on CETA. In government, they passed a motion in camera to restrict written submissions to those who the trade committee had selected to appear. This is yet another example of Liberals campaigning on the left and governing on the right. It is understandable that Canadians might have a hard time keeping up with this Liberal sleight of hand.

Given that testimony from over 400 witnesses and written submissions from 60,000 Canadians were overwhelmingly critical of the TPP, it appears that the Liberals have learned from their TPP experience. If only they had used this hard-won knowledge to actually listen to Canadians about their very real concerns regarding CETA rather than restricting public consultation and conducting what should have been public business in a closed and secretive environment.

We know from the example of Wallonia, in Belgium, that improving the agreement is possible where there is political will to do so. Because of Wallonia's intervention, consideration of trade union concerns has been incorporated into the legally binding, interpretative instrument of the agreement.

New Democrats do not oppose trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports, but we do not believe that investor-state provisions that threaten our sovereignty are necessary evils. In fact, investor-state provisions are unacceptable evils. They serve corporations and only corporations. These provisions do not serve people.

We believe that the job of government is to pursue better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects our health care system, social security, and Canadian jobs.

We believe that better trade deals are achieved with inclusion and must involve a better consultation process than was employed by previous Conservative and Liberal governments, and now the current Liberal government. It has kept—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She is the NDP veterans affairs critic, and she is very dedicated to her community. I learn something from her every day, and I thank her for it.

In her speech, she talked about the higher cost of prescription drugs that would be caused by CETA. I would like her to tell us about the impact these higher costs will have on her community and veterans because people with physical or psychological injuries have to take medication.

In her opinion, what will be the impact of higher drug costs on those people's lives?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely indefatigable in how she cares for her constituents.

I must say that her concern about the cost of pharmaceuticals is well-placed. The veterans in our community, the people who have given their health and a great part of their lives and their families' lives to the service of this country, will indeed also be adversely affected if they have to pay the horrendous costs of pharmaceuticals as prices increase because of the protectionism inherent in CETA. This applies to seniors as well.

It is interesting that it was also said that NAFTA would reduce pharmaceutical costs and promote investment by pharmaceutical companies and research and development in new pharmaceuticals in Canada. It did nothing of the sort. In fact, investment in Canadian research declined significantly. Pharmaceutical companies are protected and do not have to do the work, but can simply recycle the same old drugs with a slightly different formulary and continue to make excessive profits.

This is not a deal that Canadians can accept.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment and question for my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe.

First, one of the worries I have about this proposed legislation is that it has been rammed through the House in the absence of consultation with our indigenous peoples, without adhering to our constitutionally protected right or obligation to consult and accommodate indigenous peoples. I have seen no indication from the present government that it did so. That is extremely problematic.

One of the things the Canadian Environmental Law Association has said about CETA is that “It will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada.” In particular it “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.”

I would like my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, to comment on that.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his absolutely incredible work with respect to indigenous rights. He has stood up for the people, not just of this nation, but indigenous peoples all around the world.

He is absolutely right about why this agreement is of concern with regard to the environment, and the fact that we owe it to the indigenous people of this country, of this continent, to consult with them when it comes to the environment, because we know that they are the protectors of the land, the water, and the air.

One of the things I want to draw attention to is the fact that Canada has been consistently sued under NAFTA when we have tried to protect our environment. A classic example is the Ethyl Corporation. It sued Canada because Canadians did not want MMT, an additive that not only increases the octane levels of unleaded gas but also impacts children. It is a carcinogenic. Ethyl sued Canada and it got $201 million U.S. because of the protectionist articles of NAFTA.

I do not want that under CETA.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have this opportunity to rise today to speak on Bill C-30, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states.

Let me be clear that I am in support of and in favour of trade. The NDP is in support of trade. However, we want fair trade. We want trade that respects workers' rights, the environment, and aboriginal rights, and does so in consultation with business, ensuring that the business community is protected. After all, Canada is a trading nation.

I was a small business owner and the executive director of a very successful chamber of commerce on Vancouver Island. I know firsthand the benefits that cross-border commerce can have for our economy and Canadian business.

As the progressive opposition, we believe it is important to review the details of trade agreements. We do not blindly support any trade deal. We take our time to look at a deal closely. We want to get it right, so that everyone wins on all sides of a trade agreement, which leads me to CETA.

This trade agreement is flawed, and trade with Europe is far too important to get it wrong. I am going to illustrate three ways in which this deal is flawed, including the investor-state provisions, cabotage, and the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. When it comes to the investor-state provisions, the Liberals are asking parliamentarians to sign off on CETA despite the fact that European states, such as Wallonia, have made it clear that the investor-state provisions will have to be removed before they will be willing to ratify this agreement.

Let us talk about the investor-state provisions, because that is what a lot of folks back in Courtenay—Alberni, my riding, are concerned about when discussing CETA. In February 2016, the trade minister announced changes to the investor-state dispute settlement provisions that were supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat conflicts of interest. Yet, the investor court system will still allow foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits. That gives up local decision-making and sovereignty over our decision-making. That means that foreign companies will have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws without going through domestic courts.

The government has not explained how this would ensure that environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges. The question is, why not? It is now clear that this deal will not pass Europe without significant changes to the investor-state provisions.

Another huge concern, especially in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, is the maritime section of CETA. That part is very troubling to my constituents and residents of Vancouver Island and coastal British Columbia. The maritime section of CETA is of deep concern. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union just released a statement about this portion of the trade deal. They said:

The maritime section of CETA will destroy the Canadian maritime industry as it exists today by ending what is known as cabotage.

Many members are probably wondering what cabotage is. It is a measure under Coast Trading Act that protects our coastal trade by requiring any vessel trading within Canada to be Canadian owned, operated, and crewed. This is very important. It is important that we protect our jobs, environment, and economic health. If CETA goes forward, it will destroy the protection of cabotage. It will allow foreign-owned vessels to work the coastal waterways they are currently banned from. It will allow cheap labour from foreign countries to run their ships here, putting our Canadian seafarers out of work.

When I think about the people working in our coastal communities, they are our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, who have good, safe family-supporting jobs in an industry that is vital to our economy.

These foreign-owned ships also will not pay taxes here in Canada. This is unfair. It is an unfair labour advantage. It is unfair advantage.

For decades, the U.S. and Canada have fought off aggressive attempts to remove our coastal protections, but with one swipe of the pen CETA will remove that protection. CETA will lead to the immediate loss of approximately 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high-quality, well-paid jobs.

I want to talk about how CETA will affect economic development opportunities in my riding specifically.

A plan is being worked on in Port Alberni in the Alberni Valley. This plan will be a great opportunity to invest in short sea shipping. This is being done with the Huu-ay-ah first nation.

Port Alberni is a deep sea port. It is the perfect place for the proposed Port Alberni transshipment hub, also known as PATH. It is an initiative to develop a container transshipment, short sea shipping terminal to move goods from the Alberni Valley to the Lower Mainland. CETA will impact PATH because it will undercut the Canadian labourers working on the docks and the ships. We have been working hard to develop a secure, healthy marine economy to help alleviate some of the congestion in the Lower Mainland, working with the Port of Vancouver and helping to support the Pacific gateway.

One-third of the children living in the Alberni Valley live in poverty. The valley has one of the highest unemployment rates in southwestern British Columbia. We are looking at this opportunity as a way to help drive us out of this difficult challenge that we are facing, to get us back on track, as we transition from a forest economy to one built on our marine economy. This deal will threaten the huge amount of work we have done in pulling all of the stakeholders together.

This trade deal is unacceptable to Canadians, but especially to my constituents who rely on the water for their livelihood. This deal would be incredibly damaging. Rather than building our economy, it would deepen the poverty and increase unemployment in places like the Alberni Valley.

The other major concern with this agreement is pharmaceuticals. Many constituents have sent me messages, telling me they are concerned about how CETA will impact the cost of drugs for Canadians. Changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals under CETA are expected to increase drug costs by more than $850 million annually. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has warned that this deal would make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program.

When the Liberals were in opposition, we know that they demanded that the Conservative government present a study on the financial impacts on territorial and provincial health care systems and prescription drugs. The government is now telling the provinces that it will cut health care transfers while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces without any sort of analysis, which the Liberals asked of the last government.

Canadians are already paying more for important lifesaving drugs than nearly any other OECD country. I have knocked on doors in my riding and met people who tell me they have to choose between buying food or drugs. They are living in pain because they cannot afford their drugs. People have had to come out of retirement to pay for their drugs. How do I tell these people that drug costs will go up even more? We should not be considering anything that could increase drug costs for Canadians.

Right now in my riding, raw log exports have gone up tenfold in 10 years. The Liberal government, without doing a proper economic analysis, reduced and removed a 25% tariff on building Canadian ferries here in Canada, which are instead being built in Poland and Turkey now by people working for low wages. Our fish are being filleted in China and returned to our grocery store shelves. Our coastal economy is being decimated. The impact this agreement could have on our coastal communities is very concerning.

New Democrats are in favour of a trade deal with Europe. We have deep historical and cultural ties with Europe. Europe has some of the most progressive democracies in the world. However, I am concerned about specific measures in CETA as currently negotiated. It is our job as a progressive opposition to uphold the interests of Canadians during this process.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what I said earlier about the duty to consult and accommodate indigenous peoples when legislation is considered here. It is not just about respecting those rights. It is also about our responsibility as members of Parliament to uphold the rule of law, which means respecting the Constitution, in which we find in Section 35 the rights of indigenous peoples and the duty to consult them. That has not happened with this legislation.

My colleague is deeply committed to indigenous peoples, including the indigenous peoples in his riding. Could he comment and perhaps provide examples as to why we must continue to insist that the government upholds its commitments and promises to indigenous peoples, including that nation-to-nation relationship and the consultation it promised with indigenous peoples, including on international trade deals like the one we are considering today? Or is just a case of all talk and no action, as usual?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his incredible work around ensuring that we honour our commitment to the laws of our country, and to the promises made by the current government to fulfill our commitment to work on a nation-to-nation basis with Canada's indigenous people. In this agreement, the CETA, it is clear that has not happened. The Liberals talk about a nation-to-nation relationship, but here we are ready to sign a trade deal with Europe; we have talked about a trade deal with the Pacific region, and aboriginal people have not been consulted. They are not being treated in a nation-to-nation way when we are making deals that could cause friction between aboriginal communities and foreign countries as they move forward with investor-state provisions in this agreement. That is one of the concerns.

Second, it is about our laws. It is about signing a trade deal that could go against the laws of our country. We have to honour laws. Fundamentally, the government has continued to say that it wants to move forward with a nation-to-nation relationship. The Liberals talk about consent, consultation, and accommodation. That is not included in this deal. This is one of the most important deals. It is the first trade deal that the Liberals are looking at ratifying, and they have not fulfilled their honourable commitment to Canada's indigenous people. That should be first and foremost in terms of all trade deals. They should be honouring that commitment before they sign any future deals. It is their commitment and their promise.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I was thinking about as my colleague spoke is the reality in Ontario under NAFTA. The member talked about cheaper food products and the fact that in a huge market, milk and dairy products can be produced more cheaply. That is the reality that we face here in Canada. We could very well be inundated with foreign production, to the point where our family farms and the farms in our communities are no longer viable. Farmers could literally be driven from the land.

That brings me to food security. I wonder if the member would please comment on the importance of food security, our nation's ability to feed itself with safe, clean, reliable products in a timely way. Does CETA worry him in that regard?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of it concerns me, whether it be jobs or food security, or the environment or indigenous rights. There has not been a proper analysis in any of these areas to protect Canadian business people, to protect the environment, and to ensure that we have good-quality food at affordable prices.

The previous Conservative government went forward with promises to compensate those who are in areas that were going to lose on this side. The Liberal government has watered that down, again without further analysis. Now we are finding out that the terms of this agreement, which were negotiated in secret, will have an impact on many companies, food producers, and companies across Canada. Again, they are not being fairly consulted.

There are huge concerns around all of it. There has not been an analysis. There has not been a proper discussion. This deal should not go ahead without that.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to convey my constituents' concerns. I am very grateful to voters from Nanaimo—Ladysmith who have been sending me their ideas by email, Facebook, and Twitter, letting me know what concerns them about the trade deal, CETA, that is on the table and is the matter of debate today.

New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports, while remaining firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten sovereignty have no place in our trade deals. In my view, the job of government is to pursue better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, and protects the environment and Canadian jobs.

A final trade deal must be judged on its net costs and benefits. New Democrats have always been clear on this. We have opposed deals in the past that would jeopardize Canadian jobs and the environment, and that would have a net negative impact on our country.

As has been said so many times in the House, by all parties, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The NDP supports deepening Canadian-European trade ties in order to diversify our markets, but we remain with significant concerns about the proposed deal.

First, I have heard that changes in CETA will increase drug costs for Canadians, and the cost of prescription drugs is already a tremendous problem. If CETA poses a barrier to implementing a national pharmacare program, that is a problem for Canadians.

Second, local procurement could be interfered with. When I was elected to local government, we opposed the TILMA trade deal because it would have interfered with our ability as local governments to bias our procurement policies in favour of local businessmen and women.

Third, Investor-state provisions, as has been said so many times here, would have to be removed before this deal is ratified. We cannot have mechanisms inside trade deals that have the risk of inviting corporate lawsuits that would interfere, or would present a chill on Canadian democratically implemented protections for environment and labour.

Fourth, the Liberals have not properly compensated dairy farmers for the acknowledged negative economic impact on their industry. They would have a tremendous loss of market share, and that needs to be protected.

I want to speak today about two issues that are of particular concern to coastal communities and to Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the riding I am honoured to represent.

Wineries are a problem under CETA, and we are afraid it will exacerbate the already massive wine trade imbalance between Europe and my region in Canada. Currently, the European Union exports 180 million litres of wine to Canada, but Canada only exports 123,000 litres in the European direction. I note that the Canadian Vintners Association is asking for federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and prepare for the implementation of CETA, but we have not had news on that.

Two wineries in my riding are being celebrated and supported by our local chamber of commerce and by the growing food movement, where people are willing to come out and especially support local wineries. The Chateau Wolff Estate winery and vineyard is in the Jingle Pot area of Nanaimo. It is an organic, five-acre vineyard that has some of the oldest vines on Vancouver Island. It is a lovely spot. It is right in the protection of Mount Benson, on a south-facing slope, with a large rock face that helps temper the climate. It creates a very unique growing region. We are proud of it.

A second winery that I want to see protected in this trade deal is the Millstone Winery. It is a family-run, six-acre vineyard, nestled in the Millstone River valley of Nanaimo, where I am elected. These are local businesses that we are protecting, celebrating, and supporting. For them, it sounds like the CETA deal is all downside and no upside.

A second area where coastal communities have significant concern is the impact of the trade deal on maritime jobs. CETA would, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports. It would also open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers.

We have had a huge downturn in our forest industry. We are making the shift from mining to more value-added industries. To lose these highly skilled, very localized local jobs at this time is impossible to contemplate, and it should not be done.

CETA, it is said, will lead to the immediate loss of approximately 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high-quality, well-paid jobs. These men and women have been working their whole lives to get the certification to allow them to do this work on our coasts. The industry as a whole supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. It is very valuable to us on the B.C. coast.

Foreign boats will bring in foreign workers with no requirement for a labour market impact assessment. These workers can be paid as low as $2 an hour, and they could suffer from low safety standards and poor working conditions. By permitting more foreign-flagged vessels, CETA encourages tax avoidance, since foreign ships registered with the flag of convenience countries like Malta or Cyprus take advantage of tax havens and the cheapest available labour.

The Marine Workers & Boilermakers Industrial Union has issued a very strong statement about CETA. It said:

The maritime section of CETA will destroy the Canadian maritime industry as it exists today by ending what is known as cabotage.

Cabotage is the protection given to the Canadian maritime industry under an act called the Coast Trading Act. Cabotage protects our coastal trade by requiring any vessel trading within Canada - from port to port along any of its coasts - is Canadian owned, operated and crewed. It is a simple, powerful and critical protection. It provides our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers with good, safe, family supporting jobs in an industry that is vital to our economy. It ensures that Canadian industry is regulated and inspected by Canada. That protects not only jobs, but also our environment and our financial health. Canadian companies pay taxes in Canada.

The statement went on to say about the negotiations:

...are not only attacking coastal trade. They have also included dredging companies, tugboat fleets and passenger vessels.

Are you willing to see your city government unable to give preference to a local company over a foreign bidder when a harbour needs dredging, barges need towing, logs are boomed or the ferry service critical to our province is required?

That is a statement from Rob Ashton who is the first vice-president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union of Canada. He is also co-chair of the Canadian Maritime and Supply Chain Coalition.

I have heard the same concerns echoed by Graeme Johnston, the president of the BC Ferry & Marine Workers' Union, and by his predecessor Chris Abbott, and by his predecessor Richard Goode, all strong leaders on the coast who are all standing up against CETA and its impact on coastal communities and coastal jobs.

Why pass Bill C-30 now? Given all these concerns and unresolved issues, I am reminded of the words of Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. She said, “Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op?”

On the matter of indigenous peoples, we remain concerned that despite the Prime Minister's commitment to a true nation-to-nation relationship, there has been no duty to consult fulfilled here. When the Assembly of First Nations' national chief Perry Bellegarde appeared before the trade committee on TPP, he called for immediate consultations with all first nations.

I am disappointed that the government is rushing this, and I will say in closing, once again, that while we are in favour of a trade deal with Europe, as it is an ideal trading partner, we are concerned about the specific measures within CETA as negotiated. It is our job to uphold the interests of Canadians in this process. The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix CETA, but the deal is not yet done. We will continue to urge them to remove the investor-court provisions, address increased drug costs, local procurement, compensating dairy farmers, protecting coastal jobs for ferry workers and longshoremen, and protecting the interests of Canadian wineries so we can celebrate local business.

I say once again, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. We must hold out for a better deal that protects Canadian interests and keeps our ties with Europe strong.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for her incredible work on supporting a marine economy in British Columbia, her standing up for the environment, for working with aboriginal people, and relying on local knowledge. We know how important local knowledge is in British Columbia.

When she talked about cabotage and the ending of cabotage, my question is, how important is local knowledge when we are booming our log exports for the forest sector, or for dredging our local communities, or for towing a barge? The member knows coastal waters very well because she was the chair of the Islands Trust in coastal British Columbia. I can rely on her to provide the House with a good opinion of how important this is and how this will impact coastal British Columbians.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is so right. We are at a time that the Salish Sea, the sea between Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia, has increasing vessel traffic of every sort and an aging workforce that has meant that some of the most knowledgeable senior tugboat drivers and so on are leaving the industry. We are very reliant on them and as they move on, we need to capture the local knowledge they have.

The currents run very fast in my region. The tidal exchange is fast and the ecology is extremely sensitive. We cannot imagine even the impact of a tugboat or barge spill, like we saw with the Nathan E. Stewart up on the central coast just a couple of weeks ago. My region does not have sufficient oil spill response and containment, so we must prevent oil spills before they happen. That means having intimate local knowledge about currents, weather patterns, and the ways that waves bounce at different tides to protect local jobs and make sure there are men and women who know the coast like the backs of their hands, as they do.

The idea of allowing those jobs to go to foreign workers, who do not have the same commitment to our country, the same training, the same investment, or the same wage even, is unimaginable. We must stand very strongly against this threat.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith is, indeed, a very strong advocate for her community. She spoke about the environment and in light of the threat of climate change not only to Canadians but people around the world, we are very cognizant of the importance of taking environment into consideration.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association is also very concerned. It said that CETA will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In that regard, we know that Canada has been sued over and over again, to the tune of billions of dollars, whenever governments try to protect the environment.

One case in point that we have to be concerned about is Lone Pine Resources, a Calgary-based oil and gas developer, that obtained permission to explore for shale gas under the St. Lawrence River. In 2011, the Quebec government revoked that permit in response to concerns about fracking under the river and then Lone Pine sued the government, through its U.S. affiliate under NAFTA, chapter 11, for $250 million in compensation. It is not alone, there have been many more.

In that regard, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the importance of directing our own interests and looking after our own destiny when it comes to the environment and her environmental concerns in general.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism and we have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments.

I am concerned, from my experience as a developer of local regulations when I was elected to local government, that it is not only having the horsepower, the budget, and a strong enough lawyer to win these cases but also how a legislative body might inhibit itself and be intimidated against introducing new and stronger regulations. The more we know about the climate change, the more we know we need to act. We cannot be intimidated, and I am afraid that CETA may well intimidate.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that members will grant me a bit of indulgence at the beginning of my speech as we approach the end of our fall sitting to say thanks to all of our families whose support makes it possible for us to do our work here today. I want to give particular thanks to my partner, Teddy Pardede, who keeps things running on the home front while keeping his own life running, which enables me to do my work here in Ottawa.

I also want to give my thanks to my Ottawa staff, Sarah Manns and Michael Wiseman, and my constituency staff, Bruce Fogg, Martha Juillerat, and Elise Cote, without whom I could not do this job as a member of Parliament.

I also want to give my thanks to friends who pitch in and help make it possible for us to do our jobs, especially those of us who have difficult travel to get here. I would give an example from the beginning of this session when my partner had to fly home to Indonesia for a family emergency the day before the session was to begin. My friend of 33 years, Allyson McKay, stepped in to house and dog sit with no notice in order for me to be able to get here and do my work in the House of Commons. My Friend Chris Shewchuk also stepped in to help with the dog walking for the first days of those sessions.

These are all things that we sometimes forget about, our families, friends, and staff who support us in doing this work. Therefore, in the spirit of the season, I want to thank all of them and wish them happy holidays.

Now I will come to the topic of this debate today, the CETA.

The first thing I would say, as all New Democrats I think are saying in this debate, is “Europe, yes”. If there is any country we can trade with, it ought to be Europe, if we treat Europe as a country with its common standards. Why is that true?

Human rights standards are generally high within the European Union, and the European Convention on Human Rights means that many of the concerns that I have expressed in other trade agreements, in particular the trade agreement with Honduras, which has one of the worst human rights records in the world, are not a concern for me when we are talking about CETA.

The second reason for “Europe, yes” would be on the question of labour rights and labour standards. I have no doubt that workers in the European Union are able to organize unions, and those unions are able to represent their members' interests when it comes to things like labour standards. Therefore, if we are going to talk about free trade, of course, I prefer to think of it as fair trade, so that companies cannot win competitions based on who can exploit their workers the best, but they would have to do it on their ability to innovate and be efficient. Again, on labour rights and labour standards, obviously, “Europe, yes”.

On environmental protection, I think I can safely say the same kinds of things. In fact, in many cases, European standards and environmental protection exceed Canadian standards. Once again, we do not really want the competition in trade to be about who can burn through our resources and our environment the fastest and therefore win the trade war.

To start with, the question I have is not why a free trade agreement with Europe but why are we obsessed with one-by-one free trade agreements? What is it that drives us to this position, where Canada will end up with something like 100 free trade agreements if we keep going? Why are we abandoning working through multilateral international forums, like the World Trade Organization, or through conventions at the United Nations, which would lead to trade liberalization? There would be some really big advantages in going at trade in this manner.

We could, for instance, make sure that the poorest countries are not left out of these discussions. When we are discussing free trade, we are quite often talking about the privileged expanding their privileges around the world. It would also mean that underprivileged groups within countries might get more attention on the world stage, in particular, of course, with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which might get its rightful place when it comes to discussing trade agreements if we moved to multilateral international agreements.

We might also get to talk more about food security, and I will talk a little bit more about it in the context of this agreement. However, food security around the world is an important question when we have nearly one billion people, including far too many in Canada, who do not have secure access to food at an affordable price and do not have secure access to nutritious food. If we were talking about this on the world level, then some of the poorest of the poor, both within our own country and within countries around the world, would have their interests much better represented.

In talking about things like water security, we all know that water security is becoming an increasingly important issue around the world, yet it tends to be neglected in our discussions of these trade agreements. Many if not most of the products we produce have water as some aspect of the production process, and water is also needed to grow food and sustain human life.

Finally, if we were talking in more general terms we might then talk about greenhouse gas implications of long-distance shipping of goods all around the world. Is this really what is best for all of us, and are the costs of the long-distance shipping that goes on under these trade agreements really being accounted for at an international level?

I am still one of those who believe that trade liberalization is, yes, a good idea but it probably needs to take place in multilateral fora rather than these one-by-one free trade agreements. The one-by-one process also makes it difficult for those who have an interest in the agreements but maybe not as big a voice as the corporations to get their voices heard. We find that Canadians who are concerned with natural resources, food security, or local procurement have to make their case again and again as each of these agreements comes forward, and burn up precious resources in their organizations in trying to deal with each of these agreements. I think particularly of the environmental movement in this country, which has to examine literally thousands of pages of free trade agreements to try to make sure that our environment is not being damaged by these agreements. I would like to say that again if we were back to a multilateral focus we might have agreements that actually had environmental protection as one of the focuses of the agreements. I do not see that in any of these one-off agreements that we are doing.

When it comes to this specific agreement, are there some good things in it? One of those, I will say yes to as the NDP defence critic. It does have a fairly broad exemption for defence industries so that we can make sure that defence industries can be sustained in Canada. If we were to allow a free trade agreement to mean that our defence industries and our shipbuilding died out, we would be in dire straits in any conflict in being unable to supply our defence industries locally. As I read it, and I think as most people read it, there is a fair degree of protection there for our defence industries. I know that the previous speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, has been a very firm advocate of making sure that we have vital shipbuilding industries around the country.

I have a bit more of a question about maintenance under this agreement. This is something I have raised in the defence committee and I will raise again in the House today. There is an increasing tendency to open up contracts for maintenance of our defence facilities to bidders from outside the country. We know that the British got into a great deal of trouble, in fact, when some of their maintenance and supply contracts had critical materials coming from other European countries. When Britain got involved in the war in Afghanistan, countries that did not like that used their ability to control the end use of defence products to shut off supply under those contracts to the British. I have some questions still about this question of maintenance and supply under the CETA.

I have some other more serious concerns and I am not going to have time to talk about all of them today. The biggest of those is investor-state provisions. I cannot understand why we are entering into trade agreements where there is some substitute for the Canadian courts system being created and where businesses get privileged access to this system of arbitrators, and they can only use that system if they have millions of dollars to put up front to pay for these kinds of cases. As previous speakers have noted, Canada is already one of the most-sued countries in the world under investor-state provisions. How can we ensure that Canadian local, provincial, and even national governments are going to be able to protect our resources, protect our environment, protect state enterprises, protect our public health care, and protect the lower price of pharmaceuticals and not end up being sued under these investor-state provisions? Prescription drug costs are one of my biggest concerns because the agreement, if we sign it, would clearly increase drug costs by something like $1 billion a year in this country.

In drawing this to a close what I really want to emphasize is, yes to Europe. Obviously if we are going to trade with anyone, this would be the one. I am still concerned about this agreement and its impacts on our ability in terms of our democracy to continue to represent Canadians' best interests in the way that elected officials see possible, and not end up being sued and prevented from doing the right thing by the agreement's investor-state provisions.