Tracey Ramsey

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to what the member had to say. He spoke about transparency, and I could not agree more that we need transparency on what exactly we are signing on to as parliamentarians. When we talk about pharmaceuticals, 25% of the implementing legislation of the bill is to change the Patent Act in Canada. These will be the biggest changes to our Patent Act in over 20 years. It will result in Canadians paying more for medication for years to come.

We are being asked to approve these major changes, with the majority of the details only coming out later in the form of regulatory packages. The language in the act is a blank cheque regarding pharmaceutical costs for Canadians, and it is incomplete.

Is the member concerned that CETA will lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians, particularly as Canadians already pay more for prescription drugs than nearly every other OECD country?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out something. The previous Conservative government promised a compensation package that would be attached to the losses that dairy would incur in CETA and across TPP. The previous Conservative government negotiated that CETA would see an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production, and farmers say this would cost them $116 million a year in perpetual lost revenues.

Yet, the Liberals are only providing this compensation package, worth $250 million, over five years. Does the member agree with the NDP that this math simply does not add up to the losses that dairy farms and supply-managed sectors would see in our country?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech today on this historic deal.

I agree that trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. Many things have changed throughout this agreement, things that have happened in this very year that have changed the context of this agreement.

One of those things is Brexit; 42% of Canadian exports to the EU are to the U.K. Canadian concessions in CETA were based on the premise that the U.K. would be part of CETA. After Brexit, the Liberal government has failed to re-evaluate the net benefit of a CETA without the U.K.

If the U.K. triggers its exit from the EU, and also leaves CETA, is the member comfortable with the concessions Canada has made in CETA, given that the U.K. represents nearly half of Canada's export market to the EU?

[Points of Order, November 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to my own experience in this particular situation in the workplace, I support the comments made by the hon. colleague and echo his position that the bill should not require a royal recommendation. Women already have the ability to begin using their maternity leave benefits while pregnant. This bill would allow them to begin using these benefits even earlier. Therefore, I do not see how this would create any new function.

While the bill may not be the ideal solution for women and their families, they need the flexibility to make the best choices for their health and well-being. They already have some flexibility, so again I do not see how granting them more flexibility would change the purpose of the maternity leave benefits.

I thank my hon. colleague for rightfully pointing out that the question before you, Mr. Speaker, is whether Bill C-243 would change the purpose of or create a new function for maternity benefits. Clearly the function already exists.

[Points of Order, November 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I spoke in support of my colleague's Bill C-243 at second reading, where I stated that this bill is an important first step in addressing the needs of pregnant women who work in potentially hazardous environments.

I believe this bill should move forward to the committee stage. Frankly, I was surprised to see the sponsor's own party and Prime Minister opposing this bill. They say they need to consult more before they can support the initiative. That sounds ridiculous.

Feminist agendas include expectant women. By allowing women working in dangerous jobs to begin using their maternity benefits earlier and by implementing a national maternity assistance program strategy, this bill will provide women with greater flexibility in the decision-making, and hopefully lead to implementation of a pan-Canadian strategy.

It is also important to note that employers carry the obligation of accommodation if that reflects the needs of the women who are expecting in their workplace.

I also spoke about my own experience with a high-risk pregnancy while working on an auto assembly line, and the challenges—

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition on veterans. Those who signed the petition are calling on the government to honour the social, legal, and financial covenants with our veterans that we hold dear.

The petitioners are asking the government to immediately halt the proceedings against the veterans group Equitas. They also ask that the government hold to the commitments made in the last election and go back to the negotiating table and restore their pension plans.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear the member across not acknowledge the cost of pharmaceuticals. Is the member telling me that he does not care about health care for the people he represents, about hospitals, about people being able to afford a pathway to health? I find that shocking.

To get back to his point about farming, he spoke about dairy farmers and access to the market. I would like to quote the Dairy Farmers of Canada about the supply management the member speaks of, that unpredictability from the deal “will result in instability in the Canadian dairy sector, which is the opposite of what supply management was created to do”. That is a quote from the Dairy Farmers of Canada about CETA.

The potential farming loss is nearly $150 million a year. How can the member stand in the House talking about supply management and protecting it while signing trade deals that will hurt dairy farmers?

[Health, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are ramming through CETA, while ignoring the fact that it will lead to higher drug costs in Canada.

Health Canada has admitted this, but the Minister of International Trade continues to deny the basic facts. Canadians could be on the hook for an increase of $1.6 billion a year; that is a 13% increase. I know folks in my riding of Essex are already struggling to cover the costs of expensive prescriptions.

Is the minister not at all concerned that Canadians will be forced to pay more for prescription drugs?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about dairy farmers. The minister was talking about dairy in his speech. In my riding of Essex, I have dairy farmers. These are small family farms that have been around a very long time.

The minister also spoke about market access and entrepreneurship. Under CETA, family farms will hurt. We will lose family farms in Canada. We will lose dairy farms in Canada.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada have said there will be unpredictability and instability in the Canadian dairy sector, the opposite of what supply management was created to do. They estimate there will be a potential farm income loss of nearly $150 million per year. The amount of compensation the government has come forward with—it is calling it “investment” not “compensation”—clearly falls far short. It is a drop in the bucket. We will lose family farms in my riding and across this country.

The government talks about the unfettered access that our dairy farmers will have, including our cheese producers. This does not exist for Canadian farmers. The Canadian dairy association has been very clear that this access will not, in any way, help them with the losses that will occur under CETA.

How does the minister stand in the House, talking about supply management and protecting it, while signing trade deals that will hurt family farms in Canada?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's speech today. I find it curious that, once again, we are hearing there is in fact a way for this agreement to change, that this is not the final version. What the parliamentary secretary just said was that essentially we could not sign onto investor-state provisions. That is exactly what the NDP and other parties in the House are asking for. I find it curious to hear that from the parliamentary secretary, and look forward to following up with him on that.

My question is around the cost of pharmaceuticals. Recently at the health committee our critic spoke to the assistant deputy minister for health about the cost implications inside of CETA. She admitted at the committee that there would be a rise in cost of drugs. Where is our analysis on what this will cost Canadians, when the Liberals advocated for that in the previous Parliament, and where is the information and honesty with Canadians about the fact that drug costs will increase if we sign CETA?