Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2017

House of Commons

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like the House to take note of today's use of the wooden mace.

The wooden mace is traditionally used when the House sits on February 3, to mark the anniversary of the fire that claimed seven lives and destroyed the original Parliament Buildings on this day in 1916.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There are 53 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-30.

Motions Nos. 1 to 53 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Seeing that the member is not present to move Motion No. 1, I will now put Motions Nos. 2 to 53 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 8

Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Schedule 3.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures. It is a very important piece of legislation, one that I fear has not been given due study or consideration by parliamentarians.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I was dismayed to be the only member of Parliament who voted against a heavy-handed motion that restricted our committee from receiving feedback on this legislation from anyone but the few witnesses who were selected to appear.

It is vitally important that we hear from Canadians on the legislation that comes before us at committee. Shutting the door on the voices of Canadians goes against the spirit of openness and transparency, which should be the very cornerstones of our democracy.

With limited committee meetings and witnesses, there were many issues that the committee failed to properly address, such as the impact of CETA on mariners' jobs. Even of those few witnesses we heard from, groups that are supportive of the deal have concerns about how it will be implemented and how the government will support their industries in accessing potential new markets.

CETA has been called the biggest trade and investment deal since NAFTA. It covers a wide array of issues, including significant reforms to Canadian intellectual property rules related to generic and non-generic pharmaceutical drugs.

Deals like CETA are part of a new generation of trade deals, such as the trans-Pacific partnership, which include many controversial aspects that have more to do with investors' interests than the public's interest.

There is growing concern around the world, where people are questioning if these massive trade and investment deals are in the public's best interests. The Minister of Foreign Affairs claims that swift passage of CETA is necessary to send a message that Canada still supports these deals in the face of mounting public opposition to trade agreements. However, passing this legislation with little study of its impacts on the lives of everyday Canadians is the opposite of how we as legislators should be proceeding.

Much has changed in the world since CETA was signed. We are having many conversations about the trade agenda of the newly elected U.S. president and what it means to have fair trade or free trade.

I would like to read a quote from Angella MacEwen, senior economist at the Canadian Labour Congress, who testified before our trade committee:

There are market failures, distributional impacts, and very real concerns that workers have, because trade deals can increase inequality if you don't take proper action to make sure they don't. The answer isn't in rushing more trade deals through. The answer is in taking a minute to examine those very real concerns that people have and those very real negative impacts to see how you can mitigate them.

I agree that the proper response is not rushing more trade deals through. This is why I pushed at committee for more meetings, more study, and more input from Canadians on CETA.

I proposed various amendments at committee and I was pleased to see the Liberals agreed there need to be some changes to the bill's intellectual property rights. We agreed on several amendments to these provisions in the bill.

I also proposed amendments to limit CETA's controversial investment chapter. There is no reason Bill C-30 should have contained these provisions. European states, namely Belgium, have made it clear that investor-state provisions must be removed before it is willing to ratify CETA, yet the Liberals are asking parliamentarians to sign off on CETA as it stands, including these investor-state provisions. If these provisions will not be provisionally applied and will be rejected for ratification in Europe, why would Parliament sign off on them?

In the event that an investor court system is established as Bill C-30 proposes to do, there is an issue with how tribunal panellists will be selected. As pointed out by Gus Van Harten, these panellists will hold incredible power yet their appointments will be unilaterally selected solely by the Minister of International Trade. I proposed an amendment at committee that this process be opened up and I was disappointed to see that government MPs had no interest in debating my proposal.

I also proposed an amendment to remove the increased threshold for mandatory foreign takeover reviews. CETA includes a clause that would raise this threshold from $600 million to $1.5 billion, meaning foreign takeovers of Canadian companies under $1.5 billion would not be subject to review of whether such a takeover would be in our national interest.

I would also like to discuss the issue of how CETA impacts maritime jobs. CETA will, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports and will open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers. This will lead to the estimated loss of 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high quality, well-paying jobs. This industry as a whole supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs.

I received a phone call in my office over the holiday period from a woman who was distraught over the impact on maritime workers. She was also distraught that her Liberal MP would not respond to her request to understand the situation he was putting their community in. These communities rely on these good-paying jobs, and this has simply been ignored.

I was shocked that the Liberals did not even say a word at committee during the debate around this motion. There was not one word. That is incredibly disappointing for parliamentarians who are committed not only to represent the people in their own riding but across the country, when they sit on such an important committee as the international trade committee.

We also know that CETA will allow foreign boats to bring in foreign workers, with no requirement for a labour market impact assessment. These workers can be paid as little as $2 an hour, and suffer from low safety standards and poor working conditions. Over the holiday period, there was a ship on the west coast that came in with workers who had not been paid and workers who had been on the ship a year beyond their contract and could not be released to go back home. These workers are being mistreated, and only when they reach Canadian ports and someone discovers this is happening are Canadians able to intervene on their behalf. This is an issue of human rights in our own waters.

I would also like to point out that by permitting more foreign flag vessels CETA encourages tax avoidance, since foreign ships registered in flags of convenience countries, such as Malta or Cypress, take advantage of tax havens and the cheapest labour available.

Today, at report stage, on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, I am proposing amendments to delete clauses of Bill C-30 that would implement parts of CETA's investment chapter, implement changes to the pharmaceutical intellectual property rights, implement a host of new geographical indicators, raise the threshold for foreign reviews, and change the rules for coasting trade.

I want to go back to the geographical indicators for a moment, because the European Union was quite clear. It requested over 170 carve-outs for geographical indicators. Some in the House may be asking what these exactly are. These are things like cheese designation for Asiago cheese, or feta cheese. It is things like champagne or Darjeeling tea. These are things that Canadian producers will no longer be able to label with those names because they will own those geographical indicators in Europe. If Canadian suppliers or producers attempt to put the name on them, they will be in violation of CETA.

The interesting part about this is Canada received zero geographical indicators. Think about Nanaimo bars, Saskatoon berries, maple syrup, or Montreal smoked meat. None of these things are protected. That means European companies can continue to label their products in this way. This is a huge loss to all of these growth industries.

I look forward to further debating these amendments today, and I ask fellow parliamentarians to take a serious look at these proposed changes before the House moves on to the third reading of Bill C-30. There are many unanswered questions and outstanding concerns regarding CETA. As parliamentarians, we cannot simply turn a blind eye to the very real concerns that exist in this trade deal.

It is disheartening to me that the Liberals refuse to address the increase in the cost of pharmaceutical drugs that will impact every person in their riding, I believe it is a disservice to Canadians not to look at the good and bad in every piece of trade legislation that comes before the House. We actually are obligated to do that. We have taken an oath to do that. I ask parliamentarians to take that seriously today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who, like me, has been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for the past year.

In committee, we studied the trans-Pacific partnership and the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Compare the two, and it is easy to see that CETA is a progressive agreement. We will gain tariff-free access to 500 million new customers for Canada in the European market.

My colleague just said that some workers make $2 per hour. I would like to know where in Europe that is the case. After all, working conditions there are very much like ours. I would be very surprised if that were true, and I would like my colleague to comment on that.

If we miss this opportunity to sign CETA, I have no idea what could happen given everything that is happening in every country around the world.

Like me, the member keeps up with the news, so I would like her to comment on that. I cannot imagine why she would consider saying no to signing this agreement.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the trade committee with the member opposite. I am pleased to see her rise, because she was silent when all of these amendments came forward. She said not one word when all of these amendments came to the trade committee. Therefore, I am very curious as to why she is rising in the House today, when she was silent in the period of time when we we were going clause by clause in committee before the House rose for the holidays. That is shocking to me. If there were legitimate concerns that she wanted to bring forward, why did she not do so when she had the opportunity with the minister and chief negotiators? Was she under a gag order? That is how it appeared on the Liberal side during clause-by-clause.

Even one of the European Union's standing committees released a report saying that it was against signing CETA because there were no economic benefits, there would not be jobs. Similar reports have come from think tanks here in Canada. Unfortunately, the studies we have on CETA predate the Liberal government, so we do not have current statistics on where we are at and, of course, this is post Brexit.

There are many moving parts in CETA. Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. This deal can be fixed and these amendments speak to the things that could fix this trade deal in a way that would represent Canadians' interests. There was no attempt to do so in the negotiating phases. Therefore, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to those we represent to bring forward the amendments that we feel will best benefit.

The other thing that shocks me about the member opposite is that she did not support my proposal to have more people appear before the committee. We heard from a very limited number of voices. In fact, the witnesses brought by the Liberals were all for CETA, so there was no balance in the conversation. There was an unwillingness by the government to listen to any opposing views or any concerned Canadians.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite suggested that European countries have very similar wages and labour standards as Canada. I am wondering if my colleague from Essex could explain to the House the risk of vessels flagged in places of convenience, like Cyprus or Malta, coming in with very low-wage workers and if she might also speak a bit about the level of wages and labour conditions in a number of eastern European countries that are members of the EU.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we have a conversation about maritime workers in our country. The member opposite asked me about the $2 per hour. This was a flag of convenience ship, which means that the flag belongs to another country and is sitting in our waters. It is bringing products into our ports, staffed with people who are having their human rights violated. They were being paid $2 per hour on that one particular ship. There were reports of being paid less, to be honest, and in a lot of cases, they are not being paid at all.

How are Canadians, working in this field, supposed to compete? Aside from ensuring that the health and labour standards of these workers are being protected, how are Canadian workers supposed to compete with workers at that wage in our own waters? This is in Canada. They are transporting things across Canada.

This puts our maritime workers at an extreme disadvantage and I fought at committee to remove the pieces from Canada's Coasting Trade Act that were being changed. The maritime industry was not consulted on this and it will lose jobs.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House in support of the legislation before us today, and to introduce why the historic Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, also known as CETA, is so important.

It is a great step forward in our government's progressive trade agenda. CETA addresses a full range of Canadian interests and touches on all sectors with Canada's second-largest trading partner, the European Union. The foundation of our international relations between Canada and the countries of the EU is a clear example of working together towards greater prosperity for Canada and our trading partners in Europe.

The EU is Canada's second-largest trading partner after the United States. In 2015, Canadian merchandise exports to the EU reached $38 billion, and imports totalled $61 billion. The EU is a strong, established market to which Canadian firms will gain preferential access when CETA enters into force. Canada and the EU already share a robust commercial relationship, which is about to become much deeper, to great mutual benefit.

With a total population of 507 million people and a combined GDP of over $21 trillion, the EU is the world's largest foreign investor and trader. It accounts for approximately 16% of global trade. Investment also forms a substantial portion of the Canada-EU economic relationship. The EU is Canada's second-largest source of foreign direct investment, something which is very important to our minister, totalling $242 billion in 2015 and representing over 30% of total foreign direct investment in Canada.

As well, Canada has significant investments in the EU. Our foreign direct investment totalled $210 billion in 2015, which is 21% of our foreign direct investment abroad. Clearly, our commercial ties to the EU are significant.

Trade is about goods and services, and procurement. The services sector is responsible for 70% of economic activity in both Canada and the EU, which is reflected in the current volume of trade and services. We exported $16 billion in services to the EU in 2015, and imported $22 billion during the same period.

Hon. members know that the EU is currently the world's largest importer of services. This is very good news for Canada, as we are one of the largest exporters of services in the world. Our service providers will benefit from the best market access the EU has ever provided in a trade agreement, as well as the most ambitious commitments on temporary entry that the EU has ever granted to a trading partner.

During the pre-study on Bill C-30 by the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the reasons their members want to increase their trade into Europe to expand their business and pursue more opportunities as their economy recovers is because this is an alternative and important opportunity on top of their arrangements with the U.S. market.

CETA recognizes the increasingly important role that services play in global trade. It creates a wealth of new business opportunities for Canadian service providers. This agreement will ensure that Canadian service suppliers compete on equal footing with domestic providers in the EU. Canadian companies will receive better treatment than most competitors from non-EU countries.

CETA covers nearly all sectors and aspects of Canada-EU trade. It addresses the removal of tariffs, the conforming of product standards, professional certification and assessment procedures, the cultivation of investment, and alignment of regulatory regimes.

CETA creates greater certainty for business, greater protection for investments, vastly improved access to EU markets for goods and services, and new opportunities for procurement markets. That will translate into real benefits for Canadians and contribute to Canada's long-term prosperity.

CETA will provide Canadian companies with a distinct advantage in the EU market over our competitors, including the United States. It will enable Canadian businesses to have first mover advantage in developing customer relationships, networks, and joint projects. It offers Canadian small and medium-sized business enterprises the opportunity to be part of global supply chains anchored in the EU.

CETA leverages not only EU markets, but also the other trading partners of the EU. Approximately 98% of the EU's tariff lines on Canadian goods will be duty free immediately upon implementation. The elimination of tariffs under CETA creates enhanced opportunities for many of our exports to the EU, where tariffs to this day remain high. For example, Canadian fish and seafood exporters currently face EU tariffs as high as 25%. Tariffs on wood products may be as high as 14%. These tariffs will be virtually eliminated under CETA.

A protocol on conforming assessment will allow Canadian manufacturers in certain sectors to have their products tested and certified in Canada for sale in the EU. This is a significant innovation that will save companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, time and money.

CETA also includes provisions to enhance the recognition of professional qualifications in Canada and the EU, which is a key aspect of labour mobility. CETA's labour mobility provisions will enhance the ability of Canadian and EU business people to move across borders. It will make it easier for short-term business visitors, intra-company transferees, investors, contract service suppliers, and independent professionals to conduct business in the EU.

As well, CETA will open up new opportunities for Canadian businesses in the EU's estimated $3.3 trillion government procurement market. Once CETA enters into force, Canadian firms will be able to supply goods and select services to all levels of EU government, including its 28 member states and thousands of regional and local government entities.

CETA's obligations are backed by a mechanism for investment dispute resolution, which includes an appellate tribunal. Canada needs to attract more investment. More investment means more jobs for Canadian workers, more growth for our economy, and a stronger middle class. At the same time, it is very important to ensure that CETA protects the rights of governments to regulate in the public interest. We need to ensure that increased trade does not happen at the expense of environmental protection or labour rights. We need to ensure that trade is fair and that everyone benefits from the increased economic activity that trade delivers.

Our government believes strongly in an open global economy, and we will continue to champion an open society and open global trade. However, we cannot ignore the fact that many people are very concerned about trade globalization, which is blamed for job losses. We are now seeing the growth of anti-trade and anti-globalization sentiment. We are seeing a rise in protectionism. It is imperative that we understand and address this concern.

This is why one of the most important things that our government did right after taking office was to listen to the critics of CETA, both in Canada and in the EU. It is important to appreciate that we partnered with stakeholder, labour, and environmental groups to ensure that CETA is the most progressive trade agreement ever negotiated, and that it reflects today's expectations for doing business in a way that respects the environment, the economy, and our shared social values.

CETA represents an important step towards the development of our progressive trade agenda, one that places more emphasis on the promotion of strong labour and environmental standards; clear provisions to ensure that governments can regulate in the public interest in areas such as health, safety, and the environment; as well as the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

CETA is a progressive trade agreement with the EU, a like-minded and long-standing trading partner. The relationship between Canada and Europe is the result of extensive historical, cultural, political, economic, and deep people-to-people relationships. We believe our shared values are important for the dignity and prosperity of all, and increasingly important in a world of shifting global power. CETA is a progressive trade agreement that upholds and promotes the values that we share with the EU.

We look forward to implementing this landmark agreement with our European partners in 2017.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I am a huge supporter of trade, and expanding trade to create jobs for Canadians. However, one question I have is about the details of the CETA agreement and how it will be impacted by Brexit. Will that have an impact on the deal? If it does, are we planning to do something separately with Britain? What is the government's thinking on that?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and for the work by the previous government and this government to make CETA the best possible deal.

If CETA is passed by the EU, we will have a deal with the U.K. until things unfold in that country. Canada, of course, has an interest in maintaining access to the significant U.K. marketplace, and we believe very strongly that CETA provides an excellent baseline for future negotiations.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, through Foreign Affairs, I believe.

I would like to address one of the things she spoke about, “this being the best possible deal”. With all due respect, that is not the case. Saying that they went around Europe to speak to people is absolutely true. There is clear evidence that they were in Europe talking to partners there about the implications; we see that in the side agreement that came forward. However, where was that happening in Canada? It did not happen at the international trade committee. It did not happen across all of the provinces. It did not happen in a consultative phase as it did with TPP. We certainly did not see any engagement with the public from the government around CETA. I think it is disingenuous to say that this is the best deal for Canadians when Canadians were not even a part of that conversation.

The Liberals like to speak about the positives of the deal, but I want to speak about the very real losses, because the losses are there. They exist and they will impact people.

Let us go coast to coast. Let us start in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fish processing plants will be impacted. There is still nothing from the government on what will happen with them. There is no compensation package, as was promised under the previous Conservative government.

Then we move to Quebec, where there are lots of dairy jobs. This will devastate them. Half of all the dairy farms are in Quebec. They will see significant losses from CETA. The money that came forward from the government is simply not enough to bear the brunt of that over the next five years, I would say. Within a generation, we will see a massive loss of family farms.

We see all of Canada being impacted by the increased cost of drugs. Everyone who sits in this House, everyone, will be impacted by the increased cost of pharmaceuticals that we are signing on to in CETA. Twenty-five per cent of this legislation has changes to the Patent Act for pharmaceutical drugs.

Then we move to the member's end of the country, on the west coast. I believe she sits in a coastal riding, so we are talking about coastal jobs. We are talking about maritime jobs where people take the work that they do very seriously. They are often the ones who first see an indicator of something that is wrong on the waters. They are the ones who call into the designated departments and say there is a spill or there is something happening.

This member represents cabotage workers, maritime workers. Where is the analysis from the federal government on the job loss, province by province and sector by sector, that will be incurred under CETA?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

With regard to consultations across the country, we have taken that very seriously, and we learned a lot about the individual provinces and their concerns. The provinces are on board. For instance, tariffs for fish and seafood products will be reduced by 25% in the EU marketplace. As we know, the minister has announced an up to $350 million package for dairy in order to recognize the shift that this opportunity represents.

It is precipitous and perhaps somewhat alarming to suggest that drug costs will go up. Europe has lower costs right now for pharmaceuticals than Canada. As we have heard the Minister of Health say many times, she is working diligently on improving the cost of pharmaceuticals to Canadians.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House to discuss the importance of the comprehensive economic trade agreement, also known as CETA, between Canada and the European Union. I am glad to speak to it as aspects of it will have major effects on my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, located in southeast Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan has the potential to benefit greatly under CETA. The EU is Saskatchewan's fourth largest export destination and the fourth largest trading partner. With 28 member states, the EU represents 500 million people and an annual economic activity of almost $18 trillion. It is the world's largest economy and is also the world's largest importing market for goods.

This party strongly supports international trade initiatives that will generate increased economic activity, drive prosperity and job creation, as well as foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies.

The Canada-EU trade agreement will emphasize the importance of secure access to international markets through a rules-based trading system. Canada should strive to maximize the benefits we have as a free trading nation, and the need to establish trading relationships beyond North America is exactly what CETA would accomplish.

In short, the EU represents a huge market. Having access to that market would significantly and positively impact producers in Saskatchewan, especially within the agriculture industry.

Right now times are tough in my riding. The downturn in the oil and gas industry has hit my constituency hard. Thousands of men and women are out of work, and part of the issue is the jobs simply are not there. This has a trickle-down effect as well. Without the oil and gas workers, small businesses, such as restaurants and retail stores, are having to close their doors for good, as their customer base is disappearing. Parents are wondering how they are going to feed their families once their employment insurance runs out. It affects all levels of the population and the economy.

The announcement of a Liberal carbon tax, as well as the planned phase-out of the coal-fired electricity, has also devastated my constituents at a time when jobs are already scarce. At this point in time, my constituents are looking for their government to create jobs and get them back to work.

Despite the Liberals' lack of action on that front, I am pleased that CETA will provide an opportunity for employment through the opening of markets for several industries, namely agriculture.

Once CETA comes into force, 98% of all tariffs between Canada and the EU will immediately be eliminated. The tariff exemption on goods will result in over $1.4 billion being added to Canada's merchandise exports to the EU by 2022. It is hoped that the removal of tariffs and barriers to trade will create the jobs my constituents so badly need and that it would improve productivity and promote growth.

My riding contains hundreds of farms. The agricultural industry is the backbone of my constituency. I am greatly supportive of any trade deal that would bolster that industry. Farmers feed Canada and the world and so anything that can be done to increase the access of these farmers to international markets should be done. Through CETA, these producers will have an additional 500 million consumers to which they can market their agricultural and agrifood products.

For agricultural and agrifood products, specifically, almost 94% of the EU tariff lines on Canadians goods will be duty-free once CETA enters into force. As the tariff phase-outs are completed, this will rise to 95% of products, approximately seven years after the agreement comes into force.

This is great news for Saskatchewan producers. From 2013 to 2015, 80% of principal merchandise exports from Saskatchewan to the EU were from the agriculture and agrifood industry, amounting to $935.4 million. With the current EU tariff, tariffs on products such as durum wheat are as high as 148 euros per tonne. Once CETA comes into force, tariffs such as this would be eliminated completely.

Again, this will create a trickle-down effect, but a positive one. Agricultural producers will not only have access to a large and mature market, but they will also save money when it comes to the elimination of tariffs on their exports. This will mean they will be able to hire more employees, creating jobs, while also gaining access to the world's largest market. This is exactly what Saskatchewan and, in particular, my constituents need at this time.

I am also pleased that CETA will provide Canadian producers with preferential access to markets. As this is the first comprehensive trade deal between the EU and any other country, Saskatchewan farmers and ranchers will be in a position to market their products to the largest economy in the world, products such as beef, pork, and bison. I know my constituents are supportive of any initiative that opens up markets for trade. I hope the government can recognize just how important it is to have this happen as soon as possible.

A joint Canada-EU study that supported the launch of negotiations concluded that a trade agreement with the EU could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade, and a $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy. This is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the income of the average Canadian family, or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. At a time when jobs are scarce in my constituency, this added revenue will make a huge difference in the lives of those who are struggling to find work. By opening new markets, jobs are both directly and indirectly created, something that is badly needed in my riding.

The implementation of CETA will also affect a number of other industries, though more indirectly. For example, when a farmer needs to get his grain to market, he has to hire someone to transport that product. This is a job that might otherwise not exist, and so it is essentially job creation. Farmers also need to utilize services of maintenance workers for their heavy machinery and equipment. Again, this is job creation. At a time when my riding is in dire need of jobs, CETA allows easier market access to producers, which allows producers to hire more people, especially in the services industry, and benefits the economy of Saskatchewan overall.

While the focus of my speech has so far been mainly on agriculture, the services industry I just mentioned will also benefit from CETA coming into force. The services sector is a key contributor to Saskatchewan's economy, accounting for 57% of the province's total GDP, and employing more than 394,000 Saskatchewan residents in 2015. With preferential access and greater transparency in the EU services market, there will be more secure and predictable market access in the areas of interest to Saskatchewan, such as construction services, as well as research and development services.

Currently, Saskatchewan is recognized as a world leader in agricultural biotechnology and life sciences, with cutting edge research centres spawning high-tech industries. An example of this is the Canadian Light Source synchrotron and Innovation Place research parks.

Through CETA, Saskatchewan and Canada will have preferential access, as well as greater transparency, in the EU services market, something that can only stand to benefit our research and development sector.

Saskatchewan is a vast province. In addition to agricultural exports of $15.1 billion in 2015, the province is gaining worldwide attention for its wealth of mineral and energy resources. Saskatchewan is Canada's second largest oil producing province, and the third largest natural gas producing province, making the oil and gas industry one of the largest contributors to the provincial economy, with sales of $15.9 billion in 2014. Despite the downturn in oil and gas prices, the industry remains integral to the economic well-being of the province.

For those who may not be aware, Saskatchewan is also a world leader in carbon capture and storage, with expertise in enhanced oil recovery. SaskPower, the province's power utility, has undertaken one of the world's largest carbon capture and storage projects at the Boundary Dam power station, located in my hometown of Estevan. This project is one of the first to develop and demonstrate carbon dioxide capture at a coal-fired power generation plant on a commercial scale, in part, because of the previous Conservative government's funding of $250 million toward the project. I have toured the facility and have seen first hand just how much work has gone into developing this initiative. Governments worldwide are sending their representatives to Boundary Dam in order to learn about this technology.

The comprehensive economic trade agreement between Canada and Europe is good news. It is good news for our farmers, our manufacturers, our service suppliers, and many other industries. It is pertinent that this deal comes into force as soon as possible.

My riding is struggling right now, and many of the provisions contained in CETA could help to alleviate that. We need job creation, and this trade deal has the potential to meet that need.

I am proud to support this agreement that would not only help Saskatchewan's varied economy, but also strengthen the relationship between Canada and Europe.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I both share something in common. We represent ridings that border on the United States.

The fish and seafood industry in my riding is thrilled with this agreement but also anxious for the agreement to be ratified. One in four jobs is related directly to trade and services, as my colleague mentioned. There is a ripple effect.

Canada has a good opportunity geographically. We have the CETA agreement but we also have NAFTA, so we have the potential to be a trading nation within a population of one billion people.

As the representative of a U.S. border riding like mine, would the hon. member agree that CETA will offer Canadian businesses unique opportunities as the springboard to our neighbours to the south?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the southern part of my riding sits on the U.S. border and it makes up half of the province. We have established a trade corridor, and a huge amount of trade goes back and forth across that border. CETA provides the opportunity to allow for U.S. goods to come into Canada, like NAFTA, but also extends that into Europe. I see that as a win-win situation.

I tell everyone in my riding that our province is an export province. It exports wheat, coal, gas, and potash. Many people have moved to other countries, but some have come back to the riding and we want to keep them there.

I see CETA as a win-win situation. It will create jobs and that is what we want to see.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, is the member concerned that CETA will lead to the increased cost of prescription drugs for Canadians, given that Canadians already pay more for prescription drugs than nearly every OECD country?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the bill comes into force, we expect that the Liberal government will honour the commitments it has made.

As we look at the issue of pharmaceuticals, we recognize the patent agreement will stay the same when it comes to Canada and how things are done in our country.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the chief negotiators on CETA that the phase-in would take place over the course of 10 years.

Looking at the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, if there is no clear measurement on that, then we as Canadians should always be concerned about that.

Looking at past trade agreements, would my hon. colleague not agree with me that we should not be making rash decisions, that we should be working with all stakeholders to keep the cost of prescription drugs down and not scare Canadians about something that may not take effect?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. We need to continue to work with these organizations and ensure that all of the issues are looked at, including patent issues, et cetera, and focus on keeping those costs down throughout Canada.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the province of Saskatchewan is the lone jurisdiction in our country that is against carbon capture.

My colleague mentioned NAFTA and the United States. Our Saskatchewan premier has really been worried about the trading agreements, especially those in agriculture, where they will be unbalanced. The Americans will have the advantage over us because of carbon tax.

How will CETA affect our province and, more important, NAFTA, which should be coming up shortly?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with the implementation of a carbon tax and the impact that will have on our farming industry, it is a big worry in Saskatchewan. It is going to drive up the costs of everything, from fuel to equipment to fertilizer, et cetera. Those costs will put us into the position of selling our wheat and our canola at higher costs than the U.S. Therefore, the huge impact the carbon tax will have on the province is a big concern for the people of Saskatchewan.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During my question, I said “carbon capture”, and I should have said “carbon tax”. Please make that correction for me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Pierre Demers

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Pierre Demers, a distinguished physician and true Quebec patriot, passed away on January 29 at the age of 102. His contributions to science earned him the Prix du Quebec and the Grand Prix des sciences Léon-Lortie. Founder of the Ligue internationale des scientifiques pour l'usage de la langue française, an alliance of French-speaking scientists, he remained actively engaged in the cause of Quebec independence throughout his life. He never missed an opportunity to contribute to it.

Recently, his research focused on the Act of Union. According to his findings, Quebeckers have spent an estimated $264 billion, in today's dollars, to pay down Upper Canada's debt. It is important to keep this in mind any time someone disingenuously talks about the issue of equalization.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to offer my condolences to Pierre Demers' entire family. This great Quebecker will be sadly missed.