Tracey Ramsey

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the parliamentary secretary that there was exactly this type of weighting in looking at CETA, on balance, and at the impact, both positive and negative.

In CETA we see 25% of the bill impacting patent extension rights. That means that every Canadian will pay more for pharmaceuticals. We certainly see seafarers losing a great number of jobs, 3,000 jobs upon the signing of CETA, because we will not have Canadian-run vessels anymore for our own Canadian seafarers.

There are the ISDS provisions, which are not included in CUFTA but are part of CETA. There is the court system that is being created. There is the declaration, which is a side agreement that Wallonia and the Belgians were able to bring forth for themselves, but we will not share those benefits. There are many pieces that are of concern in CETA, and it is quite shocking to me, actually, that the parliamentary secretary does not have as part of his process that he would review all aspects of a trade agreement and not just slap a gold stamp on something that was negotiated in the previous government.

As a parliamentarian, I take my role very seriously in looking at trade agreements, the entire agreement, and listening to Canadians about the impact it will have on them. I encourage all members to do that on every piece of trade legislation in this House.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-31, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, also known as CUFTA.

We have been speaking a lot in this place these last few days about trade deals; namely, about the Canada-EU deal. I am certainly not surprised that my Liberal and Conservative colleagues, once again, agree that CUFTA should move ahead with no questions asked.

I will note that in this case, unlike with CETA, the government fulfilled its treaty tabling obligations by tabling Bill C-31 at least 21 sitting days after tabling the treaty, tabling an explanatory memorandum, and completing a final environmental assessment. None of these three elements were done for CETA.

I would like to speak in greater detail about CUFTA.

There are certainly some positive elements of this agreement. It would provide opportunities for both Canadian exporters and for the Canadian government to strengthen our long-standing friendship with Ukraine.

I would also like to speak about some concerns with the agreement, which I hope can be addressed during Bill C-31's legislative process.

CUFTA is an important agreement, particularly for our friends in Ukraine. Their country has faced tumultuous times over the past number of years, countering Russian aggression that culminated in the annexation of Crimea. At that time, the NDP called for greater financial aid for Ukraine and tougher sanctions against Russia.

The Canada-Ukraine friendship is an important one. In fact, Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence, back in 1991. Today, more than 1.3 million Canadians have Ukrainian heritage. They are very proud of this heritage and their cultural traditions.

The Canada-Ukraine trade relationship is relatively small. In 2015, bilateral trade totalled $278 million, with Canadian exports to the Ukraine accounting for approximately $210 million and Ukrainian imports to Canada accounting for $68 million.

Ukraine represents less than 1% of the total Canadian global exports. Of course, this should increase with the reduction of tariffs under this agreement.

CUFTA would lead to Ukraine eliminating tariffs on 86% of Canadian imports, while Canada would eliminate tariffs on 99.9% of Ukrainian imports. Many of the tariffs would be eliminated immediately, although some would be phased out over three to seven years.

Canadian exporters have largely welcomed the deal, including the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Canadian Pork Council, and the Canadian Meat Council. As they are with all trade agreements that reduce or eliminate tariffs, they are of course pleased to have new opportunities to diversify and to increase their exports.

Additional Canadian products that may benefit from CUFTA include iron and steel, industrial machinery, pulses, canola oil, and fish and seafood. I was initially concerned about the elimination of tariffs on steel, although stakeholders have not been too concerned that this would lead to a barrage of new imports.

As members in this place know, Canadian producers are already faced with a low global price for steel, which is caused by dumping, in part. There have been multiple cases brought before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, including against Ukrainian exporters.

It is very clear that Canada needs stronger measures to tackle this very serious issue. The Canadian Steel Producers Association and the United Steelworkers have been very clear that the government needs to do more. Canada's trade remedy system needs an overhaul so it can do a better job of protecting our steel industry.

It is an issue of jobs and keeping these good-quality jobs in the communities where they are needed. The member for Hamilton Mountain has been working tirelessly on behalf of steelworkers in his riding. I commend his efforts to bring these issues to the forefront. He is fighting every day to protect good steel jobs in Hamilton.

I know we are both looking forward to the international trade committee completing its study on steel issues, like dumping, that are hurting Canadian producers' ability to compete internationally.

Coming back to CUFTA, I have spoken quite a bit about tariffs because that is largely what this agreement is about. It also includes chapters on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, government procurement, intellectual property, environment, and labour.

On the procurement chapter, in this regard CUFTA is quite different from CETA. CUFTA would open access to government procurement at the federal and provincial levels. On the other hand, CETA would, for the first time, also open up procurement at the municipal and school board levels. This is very concerning. It is why we saw many municipalities coming out against CETA.

By and large, Canadians like to support Canadian jobs and Canadian products. We like to buy locally and procure locally, because we know the benefits are going to our neighbours and our communities.

There are many concerns over opening up procurement contracts to non-Canadian companies. It already happens, but do we really want to continue expanding that practice? I am glad CUFTA does not follow the same route as CETA.

I have spoken about what is in the agreement, but it is also important to discuss what is not in the agreement. CUFTA does not include chapters on cross-border trade in services, investment, financial services, telecommunications, or temporary entry. However, there is a review that would happen two years after CUFTA comes into force, and the government has been quite clear that it would like to extend the agreement to additional areas, such as services.

I ask that the government be forthcoming with these negotiations when they happen. I also note that Canada is currently in negotiations with several dozen other countries for a trade in services agreement, or TISA. The Liberals have been quite silent on this, but this agreement could be quite significant. It would liberalize international trade in services and set binding international rules on how countries can regulate services. It could cover a wide range of services, including banking, telecommunications, health, and energy.

I hope the government will be forthcoming with this agreement and set a different tone from how the Conservatives like to negotiate trade agreements. There is absolutely no reason why a government cannot tell its citizens about what is on the table before a deal is finalized. I think Canadians have been very clear that they do not like the way their government negotiated TPP or CETA. Canadians were kept in the dark about what was being negotiated. When we finally learned what was on the table, the deal was already finalized, and the government said there was absolutely no way to change anything at that point.

I reject the notion that Canadians who want to know about negotiations can simply sign a confidentiality agreement and jump right in. It is obviously an exclusive process that is not designed to inform average Canadians on trade negotiations. The government must do a better job of updating all Canadians on the status and scope of negotiations, not just those who are well connected.

I would like to speak about another aspect of CUFTA. While the agreement includes a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, it does not include ISDS, investor-state, provisions. However, it is important to note that these provisions actually existed before CUFTA came to be. Back in 1995, Canada and Ukraine signed a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, which includes these investor-state provisions.

New Democrats have gone to great lengths these past few days to draw attention to the ISDS provisions in CETA. These provisions do not belong in trade agreements, yet so many of Canada's agreements include them. We have long maintained that foreign companies should not be granted special privileges above and beyond those enjoyed by domestic companies. Foreign investors should be obligated to go through domestic courts before being granted access to a special court where they can sue our governments.

New Democrats analyze trade deals as a whole. We have supported deals in the past, including the South Korea deal. This is because we are able to step back and examine all parts of a deal and draw our conclusions based on the sum of its parts. New Democrats support trade. We always have and always will. That does not mean we are going to go blindly into every trade and investment deal. Our approach is similar to how we have approached omnibus budget bills. There are many aspects that we support, but there can also be egregious aspects that are worth standing up against.

Yesterday, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona gave a great analogy about how other parties tend to talk about trade and their blind support for any and all trade agreements, no matter who the partner, no matter the provisions the agreement contains. He compared this to a large company looking to merge with another company. Imagine them sitting down in the boardroom and saying, “We don't have the time to study this. We don't need the numbers to analyze the deal, because obviously, bigger is better. This is a good economic principle, and therefore we just need to go ahead, no questions asked”.

Obviously, this sounds ridiculous, and yet I see the government pushing ahead with deals like CETA without having done the same due diligence. Where is the analysis of the benefits and the costs? Where is the analysis of where we are going to gain or lose jobs? Where are the consultations? Where are the studies? Canadians should expect better from their government.

My colleague the hard-working member for Vancouver Kingsway has done a lot of work on the trade file in the past. He developed a very pragmatic approach to assessing trade deals on the whole. He outlined several criteria for how we as parliamentarians could do our due diligence in assessing whether a trade deal is in fact in Canada's best interests.

First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in these regards, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals?

Second, is there a significant or strategic value for Canada in having a deal with the proposed partner?

Finally, is the deal itself satisfactory?

There are no easy answers, but this lens is very helpful in looking at deals and deciding whether, on balance, they make sense for Canada. I certainly considered this lens in evaluating the Canada–Ukraine FTA and, on balance, I do think this is an agreement New Democrats can support. That said, there are some areas of concern. Ukraine has had a tumultuous few years. It certainly appears to be on a positive trajectory toward a stronger, democratic society that upholds human rights, environmental standards, and labour standards. On the other hand, there continue to be conflicts and tensions, as well as some human rights concerns.

It was not very long ago that the EU postponed its trade agreement with Ukraine over concerns with human rights and democratic values. Therefore, I am hopeful that Ukraine will continue on its positive trajectory. We need to be realistic about the ongoing challenges, and therefore I would like to see a human rights impact assessment as a component of this agreement.

I have noted that the Canada–Ukraine trade relationship is a relatively small one. However, we are also historic friends, and Ukraine needs its friends very much right now. Canada sent a training mission to Ukraine in 2015, known as Operation Unifier. There was no debate in this place before 200 troops were deployed, which is a dangerous precedent. Now Ukraine is asking for Canada to extend this mission.

We also know that last year the government launched a consultation on the possible addition of Ukraine to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List. Adding Ukraine to this list would make it permissible to export Canadian-made weapons to Ukraine. The government has been dodging questions on the results of this consultation and on whether Canada will in fact add Ukraine to the list. It is time for the government to be forthcoming on this, particularly as we debate ratifying a free trade agreement with this country.

I would also like to note an environmental concern with this agreement. I read through the government's final environmental assessment of CUFTA, which is a requirement as part of the government's treaty-tabling process. The assessment makes really no mention of the impact of increased imports and exports of coal. We would like to get some more information on this, also at the committee level.

Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to ask these questions of the minister when she came to our committee the other week. We had just an hour of her time to cover both CETA and CUFTA. I do hope the minister will make herself available again, as I do believe it is important to give these agreements proper study and due process.

I would like to end by reiterating that New Democrats intend to support the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement at second reading. I have outlined some concerns with the agreement that we would like to see addressed. However, I have also outlined many benefits of the agreement. It would allow us to strengthen our historic friendship with Ukraine and would benefit various Canadian exporters. This would be the second of three pieces of trade legislation that have come before this Parliament that New Democrats support.

As I have outlined, New Democrats are strong supporters of good trade that benefits Canada. The trend of multilateral deals that deal with everything but the kitchen sink is not the way Canada should be engaging with our partners. Bilateral deals, such as the one before us today, have much clearer benefits and do not ask average Canadians to bear the brunt of extending corporate privileges to foreign investors. I look forward to seeing Bill C-31 come before the trade committee and to participating in today's debate.

As I believe this will be my last speech in this place before the House rises until January, I would like to wish my constituents and my colleagues very happy holidays and a merry Christmas. I would like to particularly thank all the people in this House who work behind the scenes to make Parliament function so well every day. I thank everyone who helps in Parliament. Merry Christmas.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster for his work on the trade committee. We enjoy working together. Although we may not always agree, we work very hard on that committee on many different issues. I believe his party and my party are trying to get these issues addressed, issues like steel and softwood, which are incredibly important.

The NDP has supported two of the pieces of legislation, one that received royal assent. We worked hard on Bill C-13 at the committee. It received royal assent last night, and is now in law. I believe we will continue to work together on many critical issues that are important to Canadians, and certainly to working Canadians, like softwood lumber.

The NDP and the Conservatives agree in principle with CUFTA. We agree on the need for the government to do more on the softwood lumber deal. Could the member speak to his concern about the government's failure to get a deal on softwood lumber and how this will result in job losses and mill closures?

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, Canada and Ukraine have an historically strong friendship. There are over 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian descent, as the hon. minister is as well. Canada was one of the first western countries to recognize Ukraine's independence in 1991. New Democrats believe that Canada has a strong role to play in supporting Ukraine as it works toward building that lasting peace and stability the minister spoke of, and a strong democracy as well.

CUFTA is a relatively straightforward bilateral trade deal. This is the kind of trade that New Democrats support, unlike CETA, which makes significant changes to intellectual property rights, grants investors special rights not enjoyed by Canadian companies, and hurts Canadian dairy farmers.

Would the minister agree that deals like this provide a greater net benefit for Canada than controversial comprehensive, multilateral deals like the TPP and CETA?

[International Trade, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to not have an answer on softwood lumber, because this is such an important issue for Canadians.

We are pleased to see the premier addressing this issue in Quebec, but he is certainly asking for support from the federal government as well. Next April, softwood producers will see duties of 25% to 40%. Mills are closing. Jobs are being lost. It is disappointing to not get an answer.

I will ask the question once again. Is the federal government prepared to provide loan guarantees to assist Canadian companies with keeping their doors open and their workers employed?

[International Trade, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to speak about a critical ongoing issue, the uncertainty in Canada's softwood lumber industry. The industry and the many thousands of workers whose jobs depend on its viability are deeply concerned that the government cannot seem to get a new deal with our friends in the U.S.

The Liberals promised they could get the job done, but the standstill period has long since expired, and the U.S. industry recently filed a petition with the Department of Commerce, asking for duties to be slapped on Canadian imports.

The industry is already hurting. This fall, the Tolko mill in Merritt, B.C. closed its doors, leaving 200 people out of work in a small town that depended greatly on these jobs. It closed because of a lack of timber supply resulting from the end of salvageable beetle timber, another issue compounding the uncertainty facing B.C.'s forestry sector.

The same company recently sold another mill in The Pas in Manitoba. This mill, too, is the town's single largest employer. If a buyer were not found, the mill was set to close its doors.

I think this speaks to a wider trend in the industry that we should be very concerned about as this softwood lumber dispute continues with no prospect of a resolution. Lumber mills and saw mills tend to operate in smaller towns where they are the town's biggest employer. If mills are forced to close because of the softwood dispute, entire towns and communities are devastated.

In early 2017, the U.S. is expected to begin applying tariffs to Canadian lumber, despite the fact that Canada has consistently proven that our softwood lumber is not unfairly subsidized. The prospect of Canada's getting a fair deal with president-elect Trump seems like a daunting task.

Last week, Quebec announced that it's prepared to provide loan guarantees to affected companies, even if the federal government does not come on board.

The Liberals have failed to deliver on a deal, so the least they can do is to give Canadian workers some peace of mind and answer whether or not they will provide loan guarantees. I will ask the government again, is it prepared to provide loan guarantees to assist Canadian companies in keeping their doors open and their workers employed?

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from London—Fanshawe has asked an excellent question, a question I posed for the trade minister and for many Liberals in the House. No one seems to want to address it. No one wants to talk about the fact that 25% of the implementing legislation we are talking about today consists of patent changes that will cost Canadians more money.

The minister has said that it will be eight to 10 years off. Eight to 10 years is not a long span of time. Many drugs will be coming forward to be patented, such as the biosimilar drugs. These drugs could be the future. They could cure cancer and diabetes. When those drugs are patented, Canadians will have to pay more. The government has absolutely no plan to deal with that cost to the provinces. There was mention of that under the previous Conservative government, but absolutely nothing under the Liberals. I have yet to receive an answer to that question.

We would be hard pressed to find one Canadian outside of the chamber who thinks that signing a trade deal that increases the cost of drugs for them, their neighbours and loved ones is a good idea. No one thinks this is a good idea.

The other issue is pharmacare. Canadian nurses have told us quite clearly that we will likely never see pharmacare in our country, that we will be sued for trying to bring such a plan into Canada. Many countries in the EU already have—

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying is incredibly valid. As regulators and legislators in the House, we are here to protect public health, public safety, the public good. We are here to ensure that everything we do benefits Canadians, that it will have a positive outcome for Canadians.

When she talks about the regulatory chill, it is very real and it does exists. What happens is that when we start to bring in progressive legislation, we find ourselves being sued. We need look no further than to Quebec and what happened on the moratorium on fracking there.

A company came in and decided it wanted to do fracking underneath the St. Lawrence River, a body of water that all Canadians respect and understand the ecological and freshwater, and how important it is to that community. What ended up happening was the province of Quebec decided to put in some legislation to regulate and prevent fracking. Immediately, a company from the United States turned around and sued the province of Quebec.

Something the member has said is very important. All of this comes out at the federal level. Even if provinces and territories are making decisions that are being challenged by investor-state, whether it is the court system in CETA or under chapter 11 in NAFTA, it always come to the federal level. Therefore, the responsibility falls on the federal government.

Are we sitting here as parliamentarians, saying that we are going sign ourselves on to a provision that could prevent us from legislating in the interest of Canadians? I think not.

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed that the Liberals are ready to shut down debate on CETA. No Liberals are even speaking today to Bill C-30 in this House. It is incredibly important that Canadians hear that their concerns are being listened to, and the New Democrats are proud to be doing that today along with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I appreciate her words today as well.

This agreement is far too important to get wrong, and it is far too important for parliamentarians to simply rubber-stamp before we fully consider the range of implications that it would have for Canadians. I have participated in the second reading debate on Bill C-30, and what I saw was that the few Liberal and Conservative MPs who rose to debate this legislation completely ignored the very real concerns around this agreement. It is easy to look at one side of an agreement and only speak about the positive. What takes courage and dedication to the people we represent is to stand and also address the negative aspects.

This deal is far from perfect and it is far from done. In Europe, each of the 28 EU member states, as well as Belgium's regions, must approve the parts of CETA that fall under their regional competencies. If any of these states or regions refuse to ratify, the deal falls apart. I also hope that my colleagues are aware that in the Netherlands right now activists are collecting petitions of signatures to trigger a referendum on CETA. There is still a lot of opposition to this agreement. Just last week, the European Union's employment and social affairs committee voted 27 to 24 for a motion saying that the EU parliament should refuse to approve CETA because it would lead to the loss of some 200,000 EU jobs.

The reality that my colleagues do not want to face is that these kinds of massive, so-called trade agreements actually lead to job losses and greater inequality. Deals like the TPP and CETA are not traditional trade agreements. They go so much further than just reducing tariffs. They set new rules of commerce that benefit the largest multinationals. People push back against these agreements not because they are afraid of trade, but because they know these agreements would continue shrinking the middle class; eliminating good-paying manufacturing jobs and jobs in seafaring; and trading away the public interest in favour of corporate interests.

Canadians support trade. It is vital to our economy and supports jobs in every single region of our great country. New Democrats support deepening trade with Europe and expanding those opportunities for Canadian exports. We also take very seriously our duty to evaluate trade deals on the balance of what they offer to Canadians, and we want the government to do the hard work to fix the remaining problems with this deal.

As I have said before, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. Yet my colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative parties seem to have their blinders on. They are so ideologically supportive of any and all trade and investment agreements that they refuse to properly study these massive trade deals before passing them into law. Canadians deserve better.

There are still so many unanswered questions and unaddressed concerns, including the following:

Why does this bill include investor-state provisions, when EU member states have said they will not ratify the agreement if these provisions are not removed?

If Bill C-30 goes through, how will the minister appoint judges to the investor court? These judges have enormous powers. Will the minister have all the power to select them, unilaterally and with no oversight or consultation?

What would be the implications of changes to the Patent Act on prescription drug costs in Canada? How much more would Canadians be paying? How would the provinces and territories be compensated?

If Bill C-30 is meant to be implementing legislation only, why are there clauses that go above and beyond what is in the actual CETA?

Why will the government not provide clarity to Canada's maritime sector about which cabotage routes would be open to Europeans? How many jobs would these new rules cost us? Why are these provisions not reciprocated by the EU? Why are we opening up cabotage for the first time in Canadian history when we know how many well-paid Canadian maritime jobs are on the line? Why do we not insist that foreign-flag vessels employ Canadian and not foreign crews?

The list just goes on and on.

Just last week we heard from the Canadian Vintners Association. They support the removal of tariffs but are concerned that CETA will deepen the already large trade imbalance on wine between Canada and the EU. In fact, they estimate the EU exports to Canada 180 million litres valued at $1.16 billion, compared to Canadian exports to the EU of 123,000 litres valued at $2.77 million. They state that they support CETA, but that, “Ratification must include federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and take advantage of, and prepare for the implementation of major trade deals, such as CETA.”

We have a thriving wine industry in my riding of Essex, and we all want it to continue to grow. I ask my Liberal colleagues if they have considered this important industry and what kinds of support should be offered to them to ensure they can remain competitive should CETA come to pass.

All of these concerns that I have mentioned have not been given the proper attention in this place or at the international trade committee. We have only held a handful of meetings on CETA, giving it just a fraction of the time and attention that we devoted to studying the trans-Pacific partnership. We have barely made time to hear from witnesses on CETA's intellectual property provisions and changes to the Patent Act. We still have not heard from the maritime industry, which will be significantly impacted by CETA.

Even the beef industry, which supports this agreement, has several recommendations and outstanding concerns that they would like to see addressed before CETA is implemented.

I feel compelled to ask my colleagues in this place to consider the many outstanding concerns with CETA and to push for those changes that this agreement needs.

We should remove the ISTS rules that give foreign companies special rights and privileges that our own domestic companies do not enjoy. If they want to attack our rules and regulations, they should be obligated to go through our domestic courts first.

We should study how much CETA will increase prescription drug costs in Canada. Canadians already pay some of the highest cost drugs among the OECD countries, second only to the United States.

I frequently hear in this place that Parliament should not worry about studying CETA because we have known about the deal for a long time. It is true that negotiations started many years ago, and that the trade committee studied CETA in 2012 and 2014. I have read these reports, but I wonder if any of my Liberal colleagues have done the same because when I read their dissenting reports from 2012 and 2014, I was left with the impression that they felt more consultation, study, and analysis was needed before CETA was ever finalized.

In 2012, the Liberals recommended the report be titled as an interim report, and that further hearings be held, given that the committee's meetings were “deficient” and that CETA would have a greater impact on Canada than NAFTA. They recommended that the government share with the committee an analysis that clearly indicates both the benefits and costs of the agreement identified by the sector.

The Liberals talked about the impact of CETA on prescription drug costs. They said. “it was of concern that the federal government has provided no third party analysis with respect to the entire issue.”

Where is this concern today? When I raise the issue with the minister, she accuses me of fearmongering and says that there will not be any impact for eight years, so it is no big deal. The hypocrisy is truly astounding.

I also read the Liberals dissenting report from 2014, and I have to say that they restated their support for the 2012 recommendations and made even more. The Liberals, in 2014, said, “it is hard for Canadians to give outright support to an agreement when they haven't yet seen the text but only the technical summary.” So much seems to be speculative. All that witnesses are able to do is speculate about the possible gains, losses, and/or other impacts of CETA.

Here we are, in the next Parliament, and we have done very minimal consultation. We have heard from witnesses at the trade committee in a very few meetings. There are many other people who want to appear before the trade committee on CETA and are not able to do so. They are not even able to provide a written report to the committee.

I would be happy to share with my Liberal colleagues copies of their own party's reports so that they, too, can get a sense of the work remaining to be done on this agreement. I simply cannot understand how they can now turn around and pretend to have no concerns with CETA.

I appeal to my colleagues from all parties on both sides of the House to vote against the motion to shut down debate. At the beginning of my speech, I outlined some of the many issues and concerns that we, as parliamentarians, should consider before rushing through an agreement of this size and scope. There is no reason we cannot do our job as MPs and take our time with this NAFTA-like agreement.

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up jobs, and we need to have an understanding of what we face in terms of employment under CETA, but, unfortunately, we do not because the current Liberal government has not done any analysis. We do not know what the projected job losses could be, but we do have one study coming out of Tufts University in the United States saying that Canada would lose 30,000 jobs from CETA. It is not just Canada that is concerned. In the EU as well, just last week the European Parliament's employment and social affairs committee voted for a motion saying that the EU parliament should refuse to approve CETA because it would lead to the loss of some 200,000 jobs in the EU.

There is no evidence to back the potential number of jobs that we hear the government and the trade minister talking about all the time; but quite the contrary, what we only see going forward in Canada and the EU are job losses.

Does the member for Elmwood—Transcona believe that we should have a full analysis of the job losses that would incurred in Canada?