Debates of Feb. 8th, 2017

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is right in some part. CETA offers an opportunity for our manufacturers and Canadians to do business more easily in Europe. It is one piece of the puzzle in the long term. I say that because the previous Conservative government had started exploratory discussions on launching free trade negotiations with other countries. I think it is important to remember that agreements are being signed bilaterally and multilaterally by many other countries. Canada can place itself in the best possible position if we look at CETA as one part of the puzzle. As we negotiate with others, we can say, “We have access to the European Union. How about you negotiate an agreement with us and you can use us as a flowthrough for logistics or transportation?” Those exploratory discussions the previous government had were with Thailand, the Philippines, and Mercosur, including Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. It is an opportunity, and we need to take advantage of it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, earlier the Minister of International Trade referred to this as the gold standard of trade deals. However, I would like to draw the attention of all hon. members of this House to the fact that all is not well within the European Union. There is a German constitutional challenge against CETA that has garnered 125,000 signatures. There is a recently launched referendum campaign in the Netherlands that has collected over 200,000 signatures. We also know that each individual country of the EU must ratify this agreement.

To pass off these concerns as simple protectionism is too simplistic. There are some very legitimate concerns that people in the European Union share with us here in the NDP. Among those is the investor court system and the uncertainty that surrounds this institution.

My constituents' big concern about any trade deal is that Canada must maintain sovereignty over its ability to formulate policy for the good of Canadians. Would the member not agree that maintaining the ability of all levels of government to pass good laws for Canadians and for Canada is of paramount importance? Would he not agree that the ability of our federal courts to interpret and pass judgment on those laws is also of paramount importance?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I already addressed many of the member's concerns in my speech. I would just like to mention, again, bringing it back to subclause 7(d) of this agreement, that Canada will still be able to regulate different areas that are domestic areas.

I think we need to look beyond this just for a moment and look at the principle. I often hear New Democrats talking about being globalists and looking globally. They seem to be globalists until it comes to free trade, and then they are not globalists anymore.

When I look at this opportunity we have, we just cannot pass it up. It forms a building block of what we are trying to create, where Canada will be right in the middle, taking advantage of the opportunities offered to it. Those opportunities will be taken by Canadians as they see where they can grow their companies, create wealth, and exchange and trade with others.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to touch on a little of what the minister said earlier, that exports are 30% of our GDP. Exports consist of $16 billion in services to Europe alone.

The hon. member mentioned that it came down to cities and how cities could benefit. He mentioned eastern Europe. Could he talk about a city that has benefited from these trade deals?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I was born in the city called Danzig, which benefited greatly from the grain trade almost 600 years ago. It really reshaped the city.

I could talk about the city that I call home and that I am proud to represent. The part of the city I am in is called Calgary Shepard. Calgary has become a regional logistics hub. Walmart and Canadian Tire have major centres for distribution to all of western Canada and into the northern United States. It has profoundly affected the shape of the city, how the city has grown over time, and where companies choose to cluster. It has also been deeply impacted by the free trade they enjoy with other companies. It is the proximity and the opportunity that really impact how a city grows and sometimes the people who choose to live there and the professions they practise. We are known for oil and gas, but Calgary, especially, is also known as being a logistics hub.

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

Madam Speaker, we heard from the minister earlier about how all these trade agreements are about the people of Canada. I just want to ask the member how significant increases in the price of prescription drugs for Canadians would benefit the people of Canada through CETA.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member when he predicts that the price of medicine will automatically go up and that it has to go up.

Through free trade, we will find opportunities to obtain the goods we want, including medicine and pharmaceuticals. It is an opportunity.

We should not only see the barriers. That is all I hear, the pessimism on that side. That feeds the image and the protectionism Baron Macaulay talked about in 1824. That protectionist feeling returns time after time, and it is usually hidden behind talk of fair trade.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-30 at third reading today. As we know, Bill C-30 is implementing legislation for the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This debate is the last one we will have before the legislation is passed by this House and moves on to the Senate.

The Canada-EU relationship is extremely important, and perhaps it has grown in importance since Canada's relationship with the U.S. faces new challenges.

The New Democratic Party believes Canada should absolutely be deepening trade relations with the European Union. After all, our countries share deep social and cultural ties, and the EU is already our second largest trading partner. This trading relationship is extremely important. In fact, as I have said before, it is too important to get wrong.

I would like to begin my speech by highlighting some of the testimony received by the Standing Committee on International Trade. After, I would like to revisit some of the New Democratic Party's outstanding concerns with CETA, and the challenges with this agreement, moving forward.

While the trade committee only had four meeting to hear from outside witnesses on CETA, we heard some very good presentations. I wish we could have had more meetings and more witnesses, as I felt they made very valuable contributions.

One of the challenges that is often overlooked in trade discussions is how the government will actually help micro, small, and medium-sized businesses access potential new markets. Only about 10% of Canadian SMEs do business outside of our borders.

It is the job of the Minister of International Trade to develop, and implement a new strategy to support Canadian businesses exporting to international markets. This theme was often raised at the trade committee, as witnesses discussed how the government could support Canadian exporting businesses.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association testified that it was very supportive of CETA. However, it also highlighted critical issues around the conversion of potential markets into real trade. Canadian meat producers are essentially shut out of the European market, so they welcome the access that CETA may grant them. However, I will point out that for Canadian beef exports, the increased quota would be phased-in over six years. On the other hand, EU exporters would have tarrif-free, quota-free access to Canada on day one.

The Cattlemen's Association pointed out significant differences between Canada and EU food safety regulations. Its support for Bill C-30 and CETA implementation is contingent on three conditions: first, it wants a commitment from the government to develop and fully fund a comprehensive strategy to eliminate non-tariff barriers to Canadian beef; second, it expects EU beef imports would comply with Canadian food safety requirements; and third, it wants to see government investment in beef processing and beef producer operations to help them comply with the complexities of the EU market.

As we can see, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that Canadian exporters can access potential new EU markets.

The committee also heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which affirmed that trade agreements are just a starting point. Canada needs a vigorous trade strategy to help smaller businesses take advantage of new opportunities.

I would like to point out some comments provided to the committee by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses which, as we know, represents over 100,000 Canadian SMEs. Ms. Corinne Pohlmann of CFIB said:

Almost two-thirds of our members in a very recent survey are supportive of international trade agreements. However, nearly one in five small business owners felt they didn't have enough information to answer this question, suggesting that perhaps more needs to be done to inform them about the opportunities trade agreements can bring to their business.

She also pointed out that supply-managed producers have strong concerns and should be compensated for losses they would incur on CETA. According to the CFIB, smaller businesses want more consistency, fewer regulations, standards that are simple to comply with, simpler border processes, less paperwork, and lower costs. These are all principles that the NDP agrees with resoundingly.

This is exactly the kind of trade that we support. It is a shame that CETA includes so much else that we simply cannot support, like extraordinary legal rights for foreign companies to challenge our domestic environmental laws, and IP rules that favour name brand pharmaceutical companies that would drive up the cost of medication for Canadians.

These are the elements of comprehensive agreements like CETA and TPP that we simply cannot support. These elements are not in the best interests of Canadians. Canadians need elected representatives who are willing to stand up and challenge these harmful ideas.

CETA will also hurt Canada's dairy sector, and the so-called investment package offered to dairy farmers falls far short of compensating them for their losses. I would like to read a quote from Yves Leduc of the Dairy Farmers of Canada who appeared before the trade committee:

In regard to the government's announcement of a transition assistance package for CETA on November 10, DFC was pleased to see that the government decided to invest $250 million in dairy farms as well as $100 million in funding to help spur investment into updating Canada's dairy processing infrastructure...However, it only partially addresses the damage that will be caused by CETA. For dairy farmers, CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production, representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the production of the province of Nova Scotia alone. It will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million in perpetual lost revenues.

Let us take a look at the math here. Canadian dairy farmers will perpetually lose $115 million-a-year, while the Liberals' so-called transition plan will provide $50 million-a-year for only five years. This simply will not compensate dairy farmers for the losses they will incur under CETA, and some farmers will never see a penny of this money.

The government says that it supports supply management, but when it comes time to act, it turns its back on our dairy farmers. There is no action on diafiltered milk, and now the government has sent Brian Mulroney over to the U.S. on Canada's behalf, who just last week openly called for the elimination of supply management.

This is the person the Liberals have sent to the U.S. to supposedly defend Canadian trade interests. I hope the Minister of Agriculture is urging the Prime Minister to send Mr. Mulroney back to Canada, because Mr. Mulroney cannot claim to be fighting for Canada while opining that supply management has got to go.

Supply management is the backbone of our dairy industry, and it provides Canadian farmers with reliable incomes. It keeps prices stable, requires no government assistance, and supplies Canada with healthy, local milk. However, supply management has been eroded under TPP and CETA. It is time the government makes good on its word, and starts standing up for Canadian dairy farmers.

On CETA, the Liberals have completely ignored the issue of compensating Newfoundland and Labrador, which is expected to give up its minimum processing requirements under CETA. These rules are very important to Newfoundland and Labrador. They require that fish caught in the province must also be processed there. This keeps jobs in the local rural economy.

In 2013, a $400 million fisheries fund was set-up, with Ottawa contributing $280 million and Newfoundland and Labrador contributing $120 million. Where is the money now? Why has the Liberal government backed away from this pledge? For Heaven's sake, why is every Liberal MP from Newfoundland and Labrador not rising to their feet and raising these concerns?

I would like to read a quote:

The abolition of minimum processing requirements is clearly of great concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and your government’s support of the CETA was earned, in part, by a promise from the Government of Canada to help the industry adjust to the new reality. That promise should be honoured.

Do members know who said that? It was the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, in a letter to the former Prime Minister.

I agree, Mr. Prime Minister, the promise should be honoured, but will the government commit today to the promised compensation, or is this just another Liberal broken promise?

There is another Canadian industry that stands to be severely impacted by CETA, and that is our maritime industry, which supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. Under CETA, foreign-owned vessels will be permitted to transport goods between Canadian ports. Opening up cabotage to foreign vessels is a first in Canada, and seafarers are rightly concerned that this will lead to Canadian job losses. These European vessels will be allowed to hire non-Canadian workers.

I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues the issue of flags of convenience, which is a practice whereby a merchant ship is registered in a country other than that of the ship's owners. Owners do this because it gives them many advantages: minimal regulation, cheap registration fees, lower or no taxes, and freedom to employ cheap labour from around the world. For workers, this means low wages, as low as $2 an hour, as well as poor onboard conditions, inadequate food, clean drinking water, and very poor working conditions.

I hope my hon. colleagues can appreciate the ramifications this may have on Canada's maritime industry. The Canadian Maritime and Supply Chain Coalition, which includes the Seafarers' International Union of Canada and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, among others, is very concerned about CETA. It estimates it could result in the immediate loss of 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs from the east coast, to the Great Lakes, to the west coast.

I would like to highlight CETA's impact on one additional Canadian industry. It is an industry that is very important in my riding of Essex. I know it is important in many of my colleagues' ridings as well, including those with ridings in the Niagara region and British Columbia. Of course, I am speaking about Canada's wine sector.

Currently, the EU exports 180 million litres of wine to Canada, but Canada only exports 123,000 litres to the EU. Under CETA, this trade imbalance will be exacerbated.

The Canadian Vintners Association is asking for federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and prepare for the implementation of CETA. I am hopeful the government has considered the implications of CETA on our wine industry, and that it will offer support to help them adapt.

With any trade agreement, there are trade-offs and concessions to be made. Canada made some significant concessions on the assumption that the U.K. would be part of the agreement. We now know it likely will not.

If CETA moves forward, some sectors will also have to make significant adjustments. I urge the government to be a strong partner to affected Canadian industries, and assist them as needed with transition support and compensation where required.

I have been very disappointed in the Liberals' apparent unwillingness to listen to Canadian concerns with CETA. As I mentioned, we have had a very limited committee study of this legislation, and even sectors that support the agreement had specific conditions and concerns regarding implementation.

This agreement has no doubt had a rocky path, and it is still very unclear whether the EU will ever fully implement it. If the EU parliament ratifies CETA, it still has to be ratified by each individual member state and in some cases, regional parliaments must ratify too.

Last month, the EU trade committee voted 25-15 to endorse the deal. However, this past December, the EU committee for employment and social affairs voted 27-24 to reject the deal. It is clear that there is still a lot of opposition, both in Canada and in the EU, to CETA. The Liberals have been trying to say all progressives in the EU support the agreement, but that is simply not the case.

In addition to political opposition, there is widespread public opposition. Last year, there were several protests with over 100,000 people in attendance at each. A German constitutional challenge against CETA garnered 125,000 signatures, and a recently launched referendum campaign in the Netherlands has already collected over 200,000 signatures.

I do not believe this opposition can be pegged on a rising tide of protectionism. There are very concrete reasons why people are opposed to CETA. Angella MacEwen, senior economist with the Canadian Labour Congress, said to the trade committee:

The gains of these trade deals are never as big as they are projected to be, and the gains for CETA are small. They are among the error bars for what our economic growth is projected to be anyway.

Of the few studies that have been done on CETA, most are based on unrealistic assumptions, such as full employment, lack of capital mobility, and equal sharing of projected income gains. Even with these assumptions, GDP gains from CETA are not projected to be beyond 0.76%. I would also like to point out that after trade agreements are implemented, there is really no way of measuring whether they create any new jobs, or how their benefits are distributed.

Studies based on a different set of assumptions have shown CETA will increase inequality, and could lead to 204,000 job losses in the EU and 23,000 job losses in Canada.

At the end of the day, I do not see a commitment from the government to mitigating these negative impacts. In fact, Liberals refuse to even speak about them whether here in the House or at the committee level. I urge the government to listen to these very real concerns around CETA.

The Liberals have spent over a year consulting on the TPP and still cannot make up their minds, but on CETA, the other Conservative-negotiated trade deal, they essentially did no consultations. They slapped a gold star on it, called it progressive, and are pushing it through Parliament. I see no difference between the trade policies of the previous Conservative government and those of the current Liberal government. With the change in the U.S. administration, Canadians are looking to this government to stand up and fight for Canadian interests. It is time the Liberals showed us what a progressive trade agenda actually looks like.

Today, The Globe and Mail reported that a new poll shows Canadians expect our Prime Minister to “stand up to the President’s aggressive America-first strategy even if it leads to a trade war with Canada’s biggest trading partner”. For New Democrats, standing up to the President means standing up for Canadian jobs. Canada must stand firm on protecting its dairy industry, softwood lumber industry, and other trade-dependent industries. If the United States wants to reopen NAFTA, there is also an opportunity for us to push for more stringent labour and environmental standards and to get rid of regressive provisions like investor-state arbitration rules similar to those we see in CETA and the TPP.

I would like to conclude my remarks today by adding a word of caution. There has been a lot of criticism of the previous Conservative government for negotiating trade deals in secret. They did that with the TPP and they did that with CETA. There is a better balance to be struck between protecting confidential negotiating details and informing Canadians of what is on the table.

The Liberals promised Canadians more openness and transparency, but when it comes to trade, I see them slipping into the Conservatives' patterns. There has been no peep from them on the trade in services agreement, nor have they given Canadians any clarity about what will be on the table in the NAFTA renegotiations.

I urge the government to be up front with Canadians. They want greater transparency and meaningful, honest discussion with Canadians on the potential impacts of any trade deal.

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

Madam Speaker, the government has actually been very straightforward with Canadians on this. I am sure the member is quite familiar with the fact that, prior to the election, our leader indicated that Liberals are supportive of CETA. In fact, when we talk about trade agreements, the very progressive Liberal Party has looked at how Canada benefits when we have trade agreements. We have been consistent over the years, going all the way back to the Auto Pact days.

When it came to the Auto Pact, of course, New Democrats opposed it, like they oppose CETA today, but there are some strange anomalies. For example, they supported the agreement with Jordan. They voted for the trade agreement with Ukraine, and I applaud them on that.

Could the member opposite explain to the House what was in the Jordan trade agreement that New Democrats voted in favour of, but will now vote against what the vast majority of individuals throughout Europe and Canada say is a good, solid agreement for both Canada and Europe and that there will be significant gains for all Canadians?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member had listened to my speech he would have heard me say that Canadians have serious concerns with this trade agreement. What we saw from the Liberal government around CETA was a far-reaching campaign into Europe to ensure that this deal would be signed at any cost against major opposition in Europe, which still exists today. It is quite disheartening that members of the House refuse to acknowledge that this deal is far from being done in Europe. There is major opposition to it. A referendum is being called. There is the side agreement, the declaration that exists to the side.

To address the member's question, the NDP supports deals when they are progressive, when they line up with our progressive values, when they line up with what Canadians ask us to do. If we in the House do not listen to Canadians, then we will never stop the cynicism that is happening around trade deals, and we will never be able to sign more progressive trade deals if we do not have an eye toward that.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Essex for that amazing critique of the trade deal. She has raised a number of concerns that are widespread, in my riding as well, one being the impact of this deal on prescription drugs.

I also want to talk about what people generally call supply management, which I have been hoping to get people to think of as food security. Would the member agree with me that one of the possible impacts of this trade agreement would be the undermining of Canadian production, which makes sure that we have Canadian producers producing the food we need, and also makes sure that we have producers who produce the high standards of food that Canadians have learned to expect in our market?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the member that when we are looking at opening up our supply-managed sectors, it is a question of food safety and food sovereignty within our own country. It is incredibly important to us that we have a strong supply-managed sector, and lately, trade deals have been attacking Canada's supply-managed sector. We see this in both the TPP and CETA. The compensation package that came forward under the government falls far short. We will see great losses across the provinces. Every province will be affected, because we have a dairy industry that spans our country. Certain provinces like Quebec and Ontario will see great losses. Many dairy producers and dairy farms in the member's province including on Vancouver Island have been there for generations. It is important that we protect our food safety and also protect family farms.

It would be great to see a commitment from the government, particularly under NAFTA, that it would not allow supply management to enter into the renegotiations of that trade deal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has not been consistent on the trade file. Let me give a couple of examples. When those members were the official opposition, they supported the agreement with Jordan, and I understand to a certain degree they supported the Korean deal.

The member said that her party consults with Canadians and does its homework, and so forth, yet it opposed the TPP even before any details were released on it. At least we committed to look into it before we took a position, something which we continue to do.

Why has the NDP chosen to oppose this particular agreement given the benefits to Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it? It seems to me that those members have lost touch with reality in terms of the benefits of trade given the importance of international trade to every Canadian. No matter what region of the country, we all benefit from trade. We are a trading nation. Why has the NDP lost touch with this issue saying this particular agreement is not going to advance that whole trade agenda?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite curious that the member has asked what parts of this deal we have a concern with when I just gave a 20-minute speech on exactly those pieces. If he had read the amendments that I brought forward, he would have seen a wide representation of the things that we have concerns about, that Canadians have concerns about. I would encourage the member to read the entire agreement and read the amendments that were brought forward by the NDP, which he voted against yesterday.

I will take no lessons from the Liberals on consistency. When we look at trade and the number of meetings and the amount of attention and the cross-country tour that we took with respect to the TPP and compare that to CETA, no consistency exists from the Liberal side of the House. Four hundred witnesses came forward on the TPP but no decision is being made on TPP. On CETA, I had to fight at committee to have more meetings. We heard from a handful of witnesses. Witnesses from the maritime sector were unable to appear. If the member wants to talk about consistency, we opened up the trade committee to the public with respect to the TPP. Sixty-five thousand Canadians wrote about the TPP. The Liberals refused to allow the same process to take place on CETA. I will take no lessons from the member on consistency.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Essex for the incredible work that she has done on this file. As one of the members of the class of 2015, to be handed this portfolio with all of these trade deals, she really has done an exemplary job.

I, too, will take no lessons on consistency from the Liberals, especially in light of their fundamentally broken promise on electoral reform. I think Canadians are beginning to see that their words really have no weight in this House.

I want to ask my colleague about the fact that the government broke its own policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. As we all know, this was signed on October 30, and the implementing legislation was brought forward on October 31. It violated the fact that the memorandum outlining key components of this treaty must be tabled, and Parliament must have 21 sitting days to consider these weighty implementation bills and so on.

This Parliament is being asked to sign a blank cheque when there is still so much uncertainty surrounding this deal. I would like to hear the member's further comments on that rushed, botched, and ultimately failed process that the government failed to live up to.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, the member's question speaks to the Liberals' inconsistency. This also speaks to the fact that average Canadians feel entirely left out of trade agreements. They do not feel that trade agreements have benefited them in their everyday lives.

When we look at this particular deal, we certainly see that if we had had information ahead of time, if this had been tabled in the appropriate manner and not had an exception made after the fact, then all of us as parliamentarians would have been able to fully and properly look at this massive trade deal, the largest trade deal that we are signing since NAFTA.

It is incredibly important, and it is incumbent upon all of us in this House to ensure that we understand what we are signing onto and the implications that it will have on every Canadian in terms of the cost of medication, the seafarer jobs that will be lost, the sectors that will never be able to see the benefit because of non-tariff barriers that have not been addressed, and the investor-state provision which has been changed into a court system that still has no definition, that is giving sweeping powers to the minister to appoint people.

There are grave concerns that Canadians have, and I hope that all parliamentarians will address these issues at some point in this House.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today on this important piece of legislation. It is a privilege to speak in support of the passage 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.

I congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the minister of the previous government who was involved, as well as the team of negotiators for their diligent and successful work in bringing this international trade agreement to the final steps required for implementation.

There are many reasons to support freer trade. It ensures that consumers, businesses, and government have access to a broader assortment of goods and services. It enhances competition and makes available better quality products at lower prices. In a broader policy context, it provides leadership, with an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade and the development of more sophisticated, effective, and valuable trade agreements. However, most of all, trade leads to economic growth, and economic growth means more jobs, and more jobs means greater opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

In an uncertain global trading environment, Canada's economy will thrive only if we pursue a market diversification strategy. That strategy requires that we should always be exploring new markets while at the same time improving sales performance in as broad a set of our existing markets as possible. The European Union is the world's second largest market. To illustrate the scale, 500 million Europeans buy more from the rest of the world every year than everything that Canada produces in a year.

When trying to improve sales, the first place to look is whether there is room for improvement with the customers we already have, like Europe, where we have been doing business for 200 years. Europe is already one of Canada's best customers. The European Union is Canada's second largest trading partner, after the United States. In 2015, Canada's merchandise exports to the EU totalled $38 billion.

I represent the electoral district of Kitchener South—Hespeler, in southwestern Ontario. To bring the issue a little closer to home, in 2015 Ontario's merchandise exports to the EU totalled $19.7 billion, more than half of all of Canada's exports to the EU. Ontario and Kitchener South—Hespeler stand to benefit from increased access to the European market.

Once CETA is implemented, Canada will be strategically positioned to become one of a few developed countries with preferential access to the world's two largest markets, which are the European Union and the United States.

I want to bring this a little closer to home. In my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, the implementation of CETA stands to benefit advanced manufacturing, which is a big economic driver there. It employs many people with well-paying jobs in my riding.

We are able to achieve that $38-billion level of sales to the EU despite the fact that 75% of what we sell to the EU is currently subject to tariffs and taxes, which the EU collects on Canadian goods at the border, adding to the cost of our goods for Europeans, making our merchandise less price competitive. CETA would make Canadian goods more competitive and give our goods an edge over goods from countries that do not have preferential access to the European Union markets.

On the first day that CETA enters into force, 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods will be duty free, including the most significant Ontario exports: metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, chemicals and plastics. Within seven years that duty-free percentage will rise by one more per cent to 99%. Virtually all manufactured goods Canada exports to Europe will be duty free.

Similarly, for agricultural and agrifood products, 94% of EU tariff lines would become duty free immediately, rising to 95% within seven years.

The European Union is also the world's largest importer of services. Under CETA, Canada's service providers would benefit from the greatest access the EU has ever provided in an agreement. This is particularly important for the Ontario economy, in which services accounted for 77% of the province's total GDP and employed more than 4.9 million Ontarians in 2015. Once Canadian goods or services have been imported into the EU, CETA provides that they must be treated no less favourably than the locally produced products. For example, they cannot be subject to higher taxes, stricter product regulation, or restrictions on sale than for a similar domestic good.

At the end of 2015, Europe was a venue for 21% of foreign direct investment by the Canadian companies, totalling $210 billion; and $242 billion of foreign direct investment in Canada had been made by European companies, representing 31% of all foreign direct investment in Canada.

CETA would provide investors in both Canada and Europe with greater protection while respecting governments' ability to enact legislation and to regulate in accordance with the public interest, such as environmental protection or people's health and safety.

Governments are some of the most substantial purchasers of goods and services. The annual procurement spending by European governments is estimated to be in the area of $3.3 trillion. CETA would provide Canadian firms with the opportunity to bid on contracts to supply their goods and services to European governments at all levels.

Under CETA, skilled Canadian professionals and business people would find it easier to work on a temporary basis in the EU and to move across borders as required; for example to establish branch offices and to provide services related to goods sold.

I stand here today, enthusiastic about the increased trade agreement with CETA. Trade means more growth. Growth means more jobs. More jobs mean greater opportunity for those trying to enter the middle class. CETA would be good for my constituents in Kitchener South—Hespeler, creating jobs and opportunities, it would be good for Ontario, and it would be good for all Canadians.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my neighbour from Kitchener South—Hespeler for acknowledging the great work of the member for Abbotsford, who did the lion's share of the negotiations on this committee, and that has been acknowledged by his minister so I thank them for that.

My colleague mentioned the benefit to advanced manufacturing in Kitchener South—Hespeler, and indeed all of southwestern Ontario and I could not agree more, but one sector that the trade agreement would impact greatly is the agricultural sector. We have beef producers, pork producers, and grain and oilseed producers who are ecstatic that this trade agreement has been signed. It would benefit them greatly.

When we were in government, our government made a commitment to the supply-managed sectors of dairy and poultry and also to the fishing industry for some specific commitments. I wonder if my colleague would stand in this place today and commit to following through on the very commitments that our government made to these sectors.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, according to Canadian Business magazine:

The sectors where higher tariffs still exist—agricultural goods; food, beverage, and tobacco; chemicals, rubber, and plastics; and motor vehicles and parts sectors—will experience the largest export gains as a result of tariff elimination under CETA.... Overall, we estimate that tariff elimination on goods is likely to result in over $1.4 billion being added to Canada's product exports to the EU by 2022.

This deal is a historic deal that would benefit all sectors, and many sectors that the hon. member mentioned.

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

Madam Speaker, many Canadians are deeply concerned over the investor court provisions in trade deals, which give foreign corporations more rights than those enjoyed by Canadian companies or ordinary Canadians. Does the member believe that the Canadian court system is not equipped to handle complaints from European companies?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have full confidence in our justice system to protect Canadians and to protect Canadian jobs. That is why our government and the previous government have worked on a historic deal, one that is equal to NAFTA, or second to NAFTA, and we are looking to protect Canadian interests and Canadian jobs.

I want to quote from a CTV News article. “Stefan Renckens, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, whose research interests include international trade deals and EU politics, said the elimination of tariffs on Canadian products in the EU will make Canadian companies more competitive in those lucrative markets”.

There are many experts who have been talking about this trade deal saying that CETA is a historic trade deal that will benefit in many different avenues, many different fields, and a lot of entrepreneurs and companies would benefit from this gold standard trade deal.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member outlined the benefits of CETA. Could he comment on the industry that would be most benefited by this agreement in Canada?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many industries that would benefit. As I mentioned, advanced manufacturing in my riding would benefit. On the west coast, it would benefit many forestry industries and many rural areas would benefit in the agricultural sector.

This is a great deal that would benefit many different sectors.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as things stand, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C-30 at third reading. It is with heavy hearts that we will vote against it. As everyone knows, we supported the Canada-Europe agreement in principle. The agreement will benefit Quebec in many important ways.

Right now, our neighbour to the south is fairly unpredictable. Some would even say erratic. The election of Donald Trump reminds us that hitching our wagon to the American star is not good enough. We need more than one partner. Europe is perfectly suited to be that partner.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage was absolutely right when she said yesterday that Quebec is the high-tech heart of Canada. We have an international reputation for the cutting-edge sectors such as aeronautics and artificial intelligence that are part of our economy. Thanks to our creative people, we are considered world leaders in sectors such as video games.

Quebec is also at the head of the pack in research and development despite inadequate federal government support. We have the most highly rated shipyard in North America. Quebec is a world leader in green energy production. In contrast to Canada, which is mired in tar, we will emerge victorious from fossil fuel dependency. Quebec's future is bright.

However, developing a leading-edge product is a long and expensive process. Our high-tech companies, our industries of the future, could not possibly be profitable based on domestic markets alone. We need access to the world. Our high-tech sectors depend on it. Our future depends on it.

The Canada-Europe agreement could have been a great agreement. It had the potential to be tailor-made for Quebec, which in some ways already serves as a bridge between North America and Europe. Approximately 40% of the trade between Canada and Europe is done with Quebec. On top of that, about 40% of European investments in Canada are made in my province of Quebec. The strength of the Quebec economy speaks for itself. Our development model is a little different than that in the rest of North America, but this does not frighten European investors. After all, Germany is much more unionized than we are, and it is doing very well, thank you. Europeans do not mind that our employees are more unionized than anywhere else in North America. The exact opposite is true of American investors, who fear the differences in Quebec, in part because Canada is doing a terrible job promoting and selling Quebec's strengths.

Considering the growing protectionism in the United States, Europe will be looking more and more to Quebec to act as a gateway to North America.

Yes, this agreement presented its share of opportunities, but we cannot support just any old thing. We see what happens all around the world when governments fail to support those on the losing side of trade agreements. The Canada-Europe agreement has its share of victims in Quebec, and Ottawa is neglecting to compensate them. Quebec is a trading nation and we have always played our cards right, despite the fact that Quebec is not independent and must continually fight to ensure that Ottawa takes Quebec's differences into account in trade agreements.

Unlike the government, we will not leave our people behind. We have a very stable dairy and cheese sector thanks to supply management. The Canadian government has chosen to favour the western beef industry at the expense of Quebec's cheese producers. The reality of the European market is quite different from that of Quebec's market. In Europe, producers are highly subsidized, which is not the case in Quebec. They can easily sell their cheese here in Quebec below cost. That is not possible in a system where supply meets demand in order to avoid waste and where farmers are ensured stability. More often than not, Quebec's cheese producers are small artisanal businesses, fragile businesses. The Canada-Europe agreement will open the Canadian market, including the Quebec market, to European cheese products, but the reverse is not true. Under WTO rules, the supply management system does not allow us to export our products. The cheese producers are in a lose-lose situation.

European businesses that receive very large subsidies will be able to sell cheese in Quebec at a very low price. That will put tremendous pressure on our producers. Given that Quebec produces half of Canada's cheese and more than 60% of its fine cheeses, Quebec is most affected by this agreement.

The agreement will give 7% of the Canadian market to Europe, specifically 18,000 tons of cheese. Almost all future imports will consist of fine cheeses. I will repeat that Quebec produces over 60% of Canada's fine cheeses and it will be the first victim of the agreement. It is estimated that cheese producers will loose more than $300 million year after year.

The government has never committed to compensating producers for all their losses. In fact, it offered the dairy and cheese industry a total of $350 million over five years. It did not provide any details about the criteria or the allocation. Moreover, it gave no guarantees for the future. All we were asking the government to do was to make a firm commitment to fully compensate producers for their losses. It never wanted to do that.

Quebec's cheese producers are resigned to the fact that the government is implementing the Canada-Europe agreement and is opening up our market to European cheese. Consequently, UPA is requesting financial compensation for the losses that dairy and cheese producers will inevitably incur. The Government of Quebec is also asking for compensation for these producers.

Our cheese producers are concerned, and the Canadian government has not done what is necessary to reassure them by giving them the guarantees they have asked for. Diversifying our markets is a good thing because having more trade partners will make our economy more stable. However, unfortunately, the Government of Canada has once again failed to consider the Quebec market.

Since Quebec is not a country, Canada speaks on its behalf, even though Canada does not understand the Quebec model. Often, the Quebec model is not compatible with the Canadian model. Of course, in those types of situations, the federal government does what is best for the rest of Canada, simply because it is more politically expedient to do so. It is a matter of numbers. That is what is happening again with the Canada-Europe agreement.

If the government had done its homework, it could have proposed innovative solutions, such as allowing artisans and small businesses to get import licences for European cheese. That way, they could have profited from selling European cheese and compensated for any losses incurred because of this agreement. If nothing is done, the large chains will get licences and they will be the ones to profit. That will be even more harmful to our producers. To date, the government has not given any indication that it is sensitive to the plight of our cheese producers.

In short, for all of these reasons, we cannot support this bill. The Bloc Québécois will not abandon Quebec's dairy and cheese producers. We made a firm commitment during the last election. We promised that we would support the Canada-Europe agreement only if the government promised to fully compensate the dairy and cheese industry. Since the government has not made a clear commitment in that regard, we will oppose the bill. The Bloc Québécois keeps its promises, and it condemns the government's insensitivity toward producers. We stand with producers.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Joliette had a lot to say about agriculture. Agriculture is very often the loser in international negotiations. The parties agree on all kinds of issues, but agriculture is the last thing they talk about.

In Canada, we had the same problem with culture. The World Trade Organization held culture in low regard. Some years ago, Canada decided to push for an international instrument on culture. We wanted to remove culture from WTO negotiations and create an international instrument under UNESCO. We believed that future negotiations should not put culture on the same table as guns, submarines, computers and so on. Culture is the soul of the people, and we felt it had no place in the WTO, so we took it away from the WTO and found a new home for it in an international instrument under UNESCO.

Why not do the same with agriculture?