Debates of June 19th, 2019

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the top of the speech, we support trade. What we look for in trade agreements is fair trade. We want to ensure labour rights are respected and that standards are improved for labour, health and safety and for consumer standards and environmental standards.

We like the European Union model. When a country joins the European Union, its standards need to be raised to the level of the highest standards of countries in the European Union. We should be looking to that model.

I appreciate that in this round of NAFTA there have been labour organizations and other civil society organizations involved in the actual negotiations, and that is important.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith has outlined a lot of concerns with the legislation and this trade agreement, including that it sides more with big corporations and pharmaceutical companies than it does with people and workers' rights.

What we have not heard from the Green Party is whether it will support the legislation. We would like to know that. Therefore, is the Green Party supporting this legislation? Will the members be voting in favour of Bill C-100, yes or no?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will support the bill. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands thinks that this might be as good as it gets.

I understand the New Democrats think the Democrats in the United States might be able to improve the deal. I know there is some progressive movement within that party, but it has been very neo-liberal in the past and I am not sure the leadership in the Democratic Party in the United States has changed enough that we will see progress from them on this issue.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has less trust of the Democrats. I am not sure she thinks we will get a better deal than what we have. I think we could be getting a better deal. I am not whipped in my vote. We will see how it all comes down when we vote.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said earlier that there could be trade deals that he might be in favour of, and he referred to the European Union. Of course Canada has a free trade agreement with the European Union. We also established a free trade agreement and approved the TPP by making it the comprehensive, progressive agreement. We brought labour and environmental issues into that trade deal. In the most recent new NAFTA deal, environmental and progressive trade practices are in there to protect the environment and labour.

Therefore, maybe the member could give us some specifics in areas, for example with CETA, where he did not see something that could have been it. What would make it a trade deal that he would support?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with CETA is that there is some change in the way investor-state dispute settlement is done, with the tribunal process, but it is still not good enough. I have listened to trade experts, like Gus Van Harten from Osgoode Hall. He says that it is basically the same kind of thing, the same sort of investor-state dispute settlement. It has just done it with a more permanent court.

We need to improve the judicial system. We need to deal with these issues within domestic boundaries. When we talk about domestic law, let us deal with disputes within domestic boundaries. If we are dealing with countries that do not have good judicial systems, let us make that part of the trade conditions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today.

I support Bill C-100.

Not that long ago, our workers and our businesses were in a state of economic insecurity. The U.S. president had demanded a renegotiation of NAFTA, which has guided our shared North American economy for 25 years. In response to that challenge, our government rose to the task. We met it head on, and it brings me great pleasure to say that we have been successful.

We are now in a place where we have secured our access to the U.S. market and have secured stability for Canadians. We have projected the economic relationship that Canada, Mexico and the United States have built together. It is hard to overestimate the importance of this economic relationship to Canadians.

In 2017, trade between our countries exceeded $1 trillion, more than a threefold increase since 1994, when NAFTA was born. The North American free trade zone is the biggest economic region in the world, encompassing a $22-trillion regional market of more than 480 million consumers. Additionally, with CETA and the CPTPP, we have now secured markets of a combined total of 1.5 billion consumers. Not only have our renegotiations secured our access to this market, but the new NAFTA will reinforce the strong economic ties and support economic opportunities.

Our achievements have brought back predictability and stability to the economic relationships between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. This modern trilateral agreement turns the page and focuses on what makes our economic relationship so successful: stability, economic integration and rules that work for our businesses and our workers.

From the start of the negotiations, Canada had three primary objectives. The first was to preserve important NAFTA provisions and market access to the U.S. and Mexico. The second was to modernize and improve the agreement where possible. The third was to reinforce the security and stability of our market access into the U.S. and Mexico for Canadian businesses.

We have achieved those objectives.

First and foremost, the new agreement would preserve Canada's market access into the United States and Mexico, securing our most important trading partnership. Canada's preferential access to these markets is vital to the continuing prosperity of Canadian workers whose livelihoods rely on trade.

As two of Canada's largest trading partners, it was a priority for our government to ensure that modernizing NAFTA would not allow for any disruption of North American integrated supply chain. We understand how vital this is to Canadian companies and to exporters.

As an annual average, from 2015 to 2017, Canada exported more than 355 billion dollars' worth of goods to the United States, Canada's top export market. For the same time period, Canada exported an annual average of 12.4 billion dollars' worth of goods to Mexico, Canada's fifth-largest export market.

The CUSMA ensures continued preferential access to these key export destinations. The new NAFTA preserves our market access. This means that duty free access for all non-agricultural goods from NAFTA will be maintained. For agricultural goods, Canadian exports will also continue to benefit from duty-free access for nearly 89% of U.S. agriculture tariff lines and 91% of Mexican tariff lines.

This is a big deal for Canadian exporters and a big deal for Canadian farmers.

Maintaining these tariff outcomes provide Canadians with an advantage over those countries without a preferential trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. It also ensures predictability and continued secure market access for Canadian exporters to our largest trading partner.

Other key elements of NAFTA are also preserved, including chapter 19 and state-to-state dispute settlement, the cultural exception and temporary entry for business persons. The new agreement also creates new opportunities for Canadians. It opens new market access opportunities in the U.S. market and improves existing market access.

It has new customs and trade facilitation measures that will reduce red tape and make it easier for companies to move goods across our border, including by eliminating paper process and providing a single portal for trade to submit most important documents electronically. This will make it fast and efficient, while keeping up with a fast-paced industry in the 21st century.

The agreement includes a new stand-alone chapter on rules of origin and origin procedures for textiles and apparel goods that will support Canada's textile and apparel sector.

The new NAFTA enhances regulatory transparency and predictability, which will provide added assurance for exporters that their goods will make it to market and not be delayed by unjustified or unclear measures at the border.

The new NAFTA also ensures Canada's agricultural and processed food exports can rely on sanitary measures that are risk-based and that increase predictability of market access, so products make it to market in a reasonable amount of time.

In addition, the section 232 side letter on autos and auto parts provides added security and stability for Canadian automotive and parts companies that export to the U.S. market and will reaffirm Canada's attractiveness as an investment destination for automotive and parts manufacturers.

I want to speak a little about the auto sector now.

In the new NAFTA agreement, we made key changes. One was that the parts for automakers used to be at 62.5% of North American parts. The new NAFTA agreement will raise it to 75% by 2023. This will increase North American parts made and will ensure that we increase and stabilize the auto sector.

Another addition to this new NAFTA deal on auto is that wages are at least $16 an hour, which will help keep jobs in Canada, instead of what we have seen with jobs going to Mexico. This increase in wages and stability in wages will ensure we keep jobs here.

I want to talk about Toyota in my riding. Canada will now produce the Lexus NX crossover and it will selling the RX sport utility in 2022. Up until now, these two vehicles have only been made in Japan. This will be the first time these two lines will be made in Canada. We are securing jobs, particularly in and around my region of Kitchener South—Hespeler.

I also want to mention that the federal government last year invested $110 million to support 8,000 jobs in southwestern Ontario. That will help create an additional 450 new jobs in the auto sector.

This is a progressive agreement that meets the needs of the 21st century, including bringing obligations on labour and environment directly into the agreement and subjecting them to dispute settlement.

The new NAFTA preserves key elements of the North American trading relationship, allowing for our continued regional prosperity and stability. It reinforces the strong economic ties among Canada, Mexico and the United States, while also recognizing the importance of progressive and inclusive trade, including key outcomes in areas such as labour and environment. This modernized agreement is good for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses.

We have faced up to the largest challenge in U.S.-Canada relations in decades and we have achievements and outcomes that benefits us all. This is a great achievement for Canada. This is a great trade agreement. It modernizes it in the 21st century. I am happy to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have some concerns around this trade agreement, especially when it comes to biologic medicines that are the most expensive and profitable class of medicines out there. For example, popular biologics to treat rheumatic arthritis and Crohn's disease can cost between $20,000 and $30,000 annually. The cost for certain biologics designed to treat rare diseases can be substantially higher. Biosimilars can significantly lower these costs, increasing access and stretching heath dollars further. Even insulin costs are going up.

Why does the government want Canadians suffering from these types of illnesses to have to pay more for their medications? That is what is going to happen if this trade agreement is ratified as it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been many negotiations and we had a strong team of negotiators. They have illustrated that the price of prescription drugs would not be increased. This would actually have a positive benefit, because we would have more access to markets.

The statement that the hon. member just made is inaccurate. The cost of prescription drugs would not increase under this new NAFTA.

[Tony Clement, Independent, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important trade deal, one I generally support, but I do have concerns about particular items, as do other members of the House.

As someone who was responsible for a time for changes to better protect copyright laws while balancing that with access for consumers, I am always concerned when the Americans bring up copyright. They are always trying to pursue with Canada and with Canadian law watering down some of our protections for consumers: for instance, the notice and take down provisions that the United States tries to push on Canada when it comes to posting on the Internet, and the fair dealing provisions that we have in Canada versus the fair use provisions that are found in the United States.

I am wondering whether the hon. member has a point of view on those issues as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we were negotiating, we wanted to ensure that we protected jobs and Canadian culture, and we did that with this agreement. We fought really hard and it took many months to ensure that we got a great deal for Canadians, and Canadians should be proud.

Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said this:

The Chamber congratulates Minister Freeland and Canada's negotiating team for delivering an agreement that remains trilateral and that will continue to deliver prosperity for Canada, and for doing so under extraordinarily challenging conditions.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and my neighbour, the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler, for his very comprehensive review of the advantages of this deal.

We are both proud of representing a region that is very advanced in many things, whether it be education or insurance. Another thing we are very advanced in is advanced manufacturing. The pride and joy of our community is all the sub-suppliers and subcontractors that supply the Toyota plant in the hon. member's riding.

The member mentioned the side letters. He mentioned the impact of auto and the tremendous advantages this deal would provide to the auto industry in Canada. It would provide a lot of advantages to our region for people who live, work and play there.

Could my hon. friend highlight some of the advantages this deal would provide, not only for our region but also for the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, our region is known for its high-tech sector, as well as for education, insurance and advanced manufacturing. We use a lot of high-tech technologies to advance some of the technology in our vehicles. That is why Toyota is investing in technology.

The federal government invested $110 million in Toyota. This will build more RAV4 vehicles. Toyota cannot sell enough of these cars. They have been selling like crazy. Every time I meet with Toyota officials, they tell me they cannot keep pace with the demand. It is a very popular model, not only across the country but exported to markets in the United States. That is why this deal is great for the auto industry. It is great for Canada, and I am supporting this deal.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-100, the implementing legislation for the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

Last fall, we concluded negotiations on the new NAFTA with the U.S. and Mexico. Throughout the intense negotiations, we remained steadfast and focused on what really matters to Canadians: jobs, growth and, of course, expanding the middle class.

We refused to capitulate, and we secured a good deal for Canadians. Since negotiations began in August 2017, Canada has engaged constructively and pragmatically with our NAFTA partners to reach a good deal for Canadians.

The agreement provides key outcomes for Canadian businesses, workers and communities in areas such as labour, the environment, automotive trade, dispute resolution, culture and energy.

We guaranteed continued access for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses to our largest export market, and we succeeded in preserving key elements of NAFTA, including chapter 19, which is really the heart and soul of the agreement, the all-important dispute settlement mechanism and the cultural exception, something we had fought very hard for in the negotiations in the 1980s.

We addressed important bread-and-butter issues like cutting red tape to make it easier for Canadian businesses to export to the U.S. market.

The new NAFTA will safeguard more than $2 billion a day in cross-border trade and tariff-free access.

I will provide just one example to the House. In 2017, trilateral trade exceeded $1 trillion, more than a threefold increase since 1994, when NAFTA was first born. The North American free trade zone is the biggest economic region in the world, encompassing a regional market of $22 trillion U.S. and over 480 million consumers. With only 7% of the world's population, the U.S., Canada and Mexico together now account for more than a quarter of the world's GDP.

The new NAFTA represents an opportunity for Canada to build upon the highly integrated economies in North America. Implementing and ratifying the new NAFTA will help maintain Canada's global competitive position. Our three countries are among one another's largest trading partners and sources of foreign investment.

It is important at this juncture to acknowledge all the work that went into these negotiations. I am referring to the Prime Minister, who was highly engaged on this, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other ministers who were very much embedded in the process and, of course, the many members of Parliament who consistently went to the United States to explain the significance of this agreement to Canadians.

Preferential access also means a level playing field for Canadian products and will provide Canadian companies with a leg-up on others that do not yet have the same level of access to the U.S. and Mexican markets. This will translate into increased profits and market opportunities for Canadian businesses of all sizes, in all sectors and in every part of our beautiful country.

Our relationship with the U.S. and Mexico is about more than simply trade. Our relationship is also about friendship, shared values, prosperity and security. We do not just trade with each other; we make things together and we co-operate to ensure the mutual safety and security of the continent.

It is important to emphasize that throughout the negotiations, this government worked hard to advocate for the interests of Canadian families. Our efforts extended to all levels of government and society, from continuing constructive dialogues between Prime Minister Trudeau and the U.S. and Mexican presidents to conversations—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is the second instance, not for this particular member, but we have had a couple of occasions just in recent minutes. I am sure members are not doing it on purpose, but they should just watch that they do not cite actual given names or family names of other hon. members. Just switch it to their title, or their riding name works as well.

The hon. member for Willowdale.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that oversight.

Of course, what I meant to highlight and emphasize was that numerous people were highly engaged in this process. As I mentioned earlier, there were many members of this House who took their responsibilities very seriously. Of course, we also reached out to business leaders, labour leaders and everyone who could assist along the way.

I think it would be fair to say that, in all these interactions, we have been unwavering in sharing our message in the U.S., and our message was very simple. We were informing Americans that it was in their self-interest to keep strong relations with Canada. Good, middle-class jobs in every U.S. state depend directly on trade with and investment in Canada. Apart from being a friend and a neighbour, Canada is also the most like-minded ally the United States can find in the world.

Similarly, Canada and Mexico continue to weave ties for the future through our shared values and commitment to a secure, prosperous, inclusive and democratic world. I should highlight that this year marks the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Mexico, and we very much look forward to building on this milestone to create an even stronger partnership.

In negotiating the modernized agreement, we underscored that a good deal is one that reflects the Canadian national interests and in which Canadian values are defended. That was at the core of our negotiating priorities and approach, and we were consistent throughout.

The new NAFTA is a win-win-win agreement for Canada, the United States and Mexico.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and was shocked when I heard the end part.

Back home in my riding of Jonquière we have a lot of dairy farmers. In the last budget the government announced a compensation plan, but there is no date and no money going directly to our dairy farmers. Now the government is boasting that the agreement is a win-win-win.

I have some news for the government. These farmers are the hands that feed us. They work every day to provide us with fresh food. The government promised them all kinds of things they are entitled to, but they have been shortchanged again. This is a third breach of supply management. The House will soon be adjourning and we still have nothing.

How does this government plan to compensate dairy farmers and comply with the agreement it signed with them?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising an issue that is obviously of concern to our government as well.

As I indicated throughout my remarks, we were keen on maintaining a dialogue with various sectors of our economy, and that communication has been ongoing. I can tell the member that we have received every assurance that dialogue will be ongoing with dairy producers, and they have been very pleased with the progress we are making to ensure that we stand up for their interests and make the necessary changes.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is about article 22 and annex IV, which gives a carve-out to the Trans Mountain expansion project.

When we are dealing with climate change, do we not think that perhaps it would be a good idea for other state-owned enterprises to be available to us in dealing with a climate emergency?

Also, I would like to know about this carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion project. What is the plan? We have seen that it is not really economically feasible. I have read reports by Robyn Allan and others who say that this pipeline is not economically feasible.

What is the plan if the government cannot sell it to the private sector within the 10-year period, as outlined in article 22?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising a very good concern.

Of course, as with any other trade agreement, it is important to make sure that we are focused on the details as negotiations go on. The member will recall, for example, that when the original NAFTA was negotiated, Canadian negotiators made sure that there were all sorts of reservations for various things. In that particular instance, the big issue Canadians expected us to stand up for and preserve was culture.

In this particular case, it was quite obvious to our American friends and to the Mexicans that the environment is something we take very seriously as a country. However, as with all negotiations, there were some carve-outs, which is something that epitomizes the process of negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for his speech. We have done some work on some tough files together. On behalf of my constituents, I appreciate his efforts.

We keep hearing the Liberal government is committed to the creation of a national pharmacare program. Maybe this member can explain why it would sign this trade deal, which includes patent extensions that would make it harder and more expensive to create a pharmacare plan.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to reciprocate and say I have very much enjoyed working with my hon. colleague.

As the member is well aware, these issues are serious issues. They are legal matters. They are issues that require that each of the negotiating parties be familiar with various provisions. I think it would be fair to say that lawyers in the department are very much aware of some of the limitations that might exist, but that will certainly not get in the way of this government's commitment to pharmacare in the future.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak tonight. In the final days of Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not thank my colleagues in the NDP for our tireless fight for fair trade for Canadians, who represent farmers and workers, to keep the cost of pharmaceuticals low and to address the issues Canadians care about and matter to them in terms of trade.

I would like to thank my family for the time that I have been able to devote here, my husband Germaine, my sons Maxwell and Maliq. I thank them for their support and love and for the wild ride we have been on this last four years and I look forward to going further. I would like to say a quick thanks to my team. They are just so incredible. I thank Nadine, Lindsay, Katrina, Joseline and Megan and the many volunteers throughout the years.

We are back on Bill C-100 and I am pleased to rise to speak on this stage of the bill. I thank my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who brought forward a reasoned amendment, something the government should consider, which is to decline to give second reading to Bill C-100. Before I get into the reasons, which my colleague laid out quite well in her reasoned amendment last night, there has been a lot of discussion about what is happening in the U.S., the moves the Democrats are making. We know they have written four letters from the subcommittee on trade to Ambassador Lighthizer.

They are in the middle of negotiations right now and it is quite shocking to know that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be going to Washington, for Donald Trump, to pressure the Democrats to drop these progressive elements that they are trying to achieve. I do not think that is something that Canadians widely support. It is certainly not something that Speaker Pelosi has said she is willing to do. She said that the Democrat-controlled House will not take up legislation to ratify the deal until it is tweaked to address her concerns, which include issues with enforcement tools, labour reforms in Mexico, environmental protections and provisions on pharmaceuticals.

Are these not things that we in Canada should all be pursuing? Is this not something that the Liberal government should be getting behind and supporting instead of ramming this through, closing down debate in the dying days of Parliament with an uncertain future throughout the summer on Bill C-100? I understand that we are heading into an election and that it is in the best interests of Liberals to try to get this done, to put something on the shelf to show Canadians that they have achieved something on the trade file. I just say “something”. I reserve my comment as to the value of it or how this deal is being viewed.

I want to go back to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the reasoned amendment she put forward. The first reason she states is that this new deal, the NAFTA, the CUSMA, the USMCA, whichever one chooses to call it, fails to improve labour provisions necessary to protect jobs. This is entirely true. Yesterday, there were 12 witnesses at the trade committee. There was a witness from Unifor who expressed concerns about the labour provisions. Unfortunately, what was initially attempted was not fully achieved. We know the Democrats are working hard to improve it.

I want to talk about more specifics and the uncertainty that still exists. The first thing I want to talk about is working women. In the agreement that was signed last fall, there was a negotiation that included provisions for improving the conditions of working women, including workplace harassment, pay equity and equality issues, but in the scrub phase of this new deal, those things disappeared. They are completely gone from the agreement now. The Liberals have yet to answer why. They have yet to acknowledge that these important gender gains have completely disappeared and they have yet to ask what happened to them and say they need to be put back in Bill C-100. I would be curious to hear why the Liberals are not pushing for these gender changes that have now somehow disappeared.

There is a lot of discussion about the $16 U.S. per hour wage that has been talked about. The unfortunate part of this provision, and I hope that Canadians understand this, is that it is not a minimum $16 per hour; it is an average $16 per hour, and the determination of that has yet to be defined. If we use the example of an auto assembly plant or a manufacturing plant, we would have to include everyone, the CEO, all of the shareholders, all of the stakeholders, all the way down.

If we take the average wage of everyone working there, $16 an hour is not going to be what people are being paid in right-to-work states in the U.S. or in Mexico. It is simply what the average wage has to be among workers in that whole company. Again, while this appears to be something progressive on the surface, I want Canadians to understand there is no guarantee here that people will actually be paid that amount of money. That is definitely a concern to us.

We know that in the Mexican government, the people have moved toward some labour reforms. The problem is that we are taking a gamble on the backs of working people in hoping that this thing will correct the imbalance and have the jobs continue to drain down to Mexico. There are many Canadian companies that have footprints in Mexico that are not paying a fair wage to people in plants. These are North American multinational companies. Of course, when executives are looking where to put a new manufacturing facility, they know that in Mexico people are being paid a very low wage, there are no labour standards, no legitimate unions and no environmental provisions, and then they look at the Canadian standard.

This is the reason we have not had a new greenfield site in Canada over the life of NAFTA. We will continue to have this problem. It is a great gamble that is being taken, once again, on the backs of working people. We have lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs over the life of NAFTA. We lost our entire textile industry. We lost 50% of our vintners, our wineries that are in a lot of our ridings here in the House. There are a great many questions, to find out whether the provisions in this deal would actually work and would actually help the Mexican working people, the U.S. working people and the Canadians. It is a great gamble and risk that we are taking here. I do not believe that I have heard a strong argument from the other side, other than to say that this is the best that we could do. Canadian workers deserve better than that.

Most people, when they think of the U.S. and Canada and labour standards, certainly do not think of the U.S. as being more progressive than we are, but that is exactly what is happening there now. The Americans are actually trying to stand up for working people in the U.S. It is a shame that we do not see the same thing happening here in Canada.

The other thing I want to talk about, which my colleagues have touched upon and I have in my previous speech, is that this deal allows for the extension of drug patents, which would significantly increase the cost of medication for Canadians. We know that Dr. Hoskins came out with his report saying that we should move toward a single-payer universal pharmacare plan in Canada, something New Democrats have been saying and putting forward as a plan to Canadians for quite some time. It is disappointing to see the Liberals dangle that carrot once again in front of voters, saying, “Do not worry, we are going to do it”. We have been hearing that for 20 years.

Here is a deal that would make drugs like insulin, drugs that are used for Crohn's disease and drugs that are used for rheumatoid arthritis more expensive. That is so counterintuitive to where we need to be going because we know that Canadians already cannot afford the medication that they are taking. The fact is that Big Pharma is getting its way once again in a trade agreement. This is a complete TPP hangover. This was part of the original TPP that, thankfully, disappeared when the U.S. left, but it is right back on the table again.

My colleagues have rightly pointed out the impact on supply management. We heard from the egg farmers at committee yesterday. I just have to pause to point out that it is shameful that we had only 12 witnesses before the committee on a study on the new NAFTA, or the CUSMA, when we had over 400 on the TPP. We did a whole cross-country tour on the TPP, where we not only included everyone in the local communities but we also had open-mike periods. Now we have the complete opposite. While the Liberals keep saying this is our most important relationship and this is why we have to do this, I believe that is the reason it deserves proper attention and proper oversight. Certainly that is not what is happening here.

I am very pleased to rise to say that New Democrats will always fight for fair trade that is in the best interest of people, communities and workers, and we will put the poorest and most marginalized Canadians in the best position when we do so. When we continue to sign trade agreements that will have negative impacts and violate people's human rights, do not address gender inequality and do not work to make the wealth inequality in our country shrink, we are doing a disservice. We need to do better. New Democrats are committed to fair trade at every turn.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder if the NDP would like no trade agreements, without regard for the consequences.

The hon. member, who gave a very eloquent speech, described the USMCA as “something on trade”, forgetting that it was an arduous negotiation that was carried out wonderfully by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government.

However, I would like to go back to the extension of pharmaceutical patents. I would accept the hon. member's point if we were talking about traditional drugs. In the case of traditional drugs, generics are ready to pounce the moment a patent is lifted, but we are talking about biologics and biosimilars, which are the generic versions of biologics.

All experts agree that the barriers to entry into the biosimilars market are extremely high, because we are dealing with extremely complex drugs. The notion that patent extensions may be having an impact really is moot, because the barriers to entry will prevent biosimilars from quickly entering the market when there are no patent protections.

It is not really a proper parallel to make. It is alarming Canadians for no reason. Could the member comment on that?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member does not have an issue with what I am saying, but I think he should talk to the PBO.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway initiated a study on the new CUSMA with the PBO, and when the report came back, the PBO estimated that the increased drug costs would be $169 million in the first year alone.

I would encourage the member to look at that report from the PBO. I thank the PBO for the work that they have done throughout this Parliament. Certainly they have shone a light on things that the Liberal government does not want Canadians to know or understand. I would encourage the member to go and read that study. I would encourage Canadians to do the same.

I would say that the pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity in Canada is operated by the generic pharmaceutical industry, and there are about 11,000 Canadians who work in the industry. However, the true question is, if we could remove that regressive provision—because the member is saying, “Do not worry; it is not going to impact us”—as they are attempting to do in the U.S., would the Liberals not support that? That is the true question.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member speak, I think of her riding and the amount of time I have spent in the automotive industry, working on automation applications on tier 2s and tier 3s and also going on to tier 1s.

I want to correct one thing for the record. In terms of the labour value content, it states that 40% of a passenger vehicle and 45% of a pickup or cargo vehicle must be made by hourly workers who earn a wage of $16 U.S. an hour or more. There are other provisions in terms of R and D credits and credits for high labour value areas.

I have seen the automotive industry go up and down over the years. Usually it was the exchange rate that put us out of work, or it was changes in technology. Right now, we have really good conditions for the automotive industry, with the lowest marginal effective tax rate in the G7, 13.8%, and 100% writedown of investments on buildings when we are trying to green buildings. As well, our exchange rate is very stable where it is, so things should look pretty good for Windsor.

Could the member comment on any positive things that she sees developing in the automotive industry in Windsor?