Bill C-30 (Historical)

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

This enactment implements the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, done at Brussels on October 30, 2016.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 14 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Agreement and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenses associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and for the power of the Governor in Council to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.
Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement and to make other modifications. In addition to making the customary amendments that are made to certain Acts when implementing such agreements, Part 2 amends
(a) the Export and Import Permits Act to, among other things,
(i) authorize the Minister designated for the purposes of that Act to issue export permits for goods added to the Export Control List and subject to origin quotas in a country or territory to which the Agreement applies,
(ii) authorize that Minister, with respect to goods subject to origin quotas in another country that are added to the Export Control List for certain purposes, to determine the quantities of goods subject to such quotas and to issue export allocations for such goods, and
(iii) require that Minister to issue an export permit to any person who has been issued such an export allocation;
(b) the Patent Act to, among other things,
(i) create a framework for the issuance and administration of certificates of supplementary protection, for which patentees with patents relating to pharmaceutical products will be eligible, and
(ii) provide further regulation-making authority in subsection 55.‍2(4) to permit the replacement of the current summary proceedings in patent litigation arising under regulations made under that subsection with full actions that will result in final determinations of patent infringement and validity;
(c) the Trade-marks Act to, among other things,
(i) protect EU geographical indications found in Annex 20-A of the Agreement,
(ii) provide a mechanism to protect other geographical indications with respect to agricultural products and foods,
(iii) provide for new grounds of opposition, a process for cancellation, exceptions for prior use for certain indications, for acquired rights and for certain terms considered to be generic, and
(iv) transfer the protection of the Korean geographical indications listed in the Canada–Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act into the Trade-marks Act;
(d) the Investment Canada Act to raise, for investors that are non-state-owned enterprises from countries that are parties to the Agreement or to other trade agreements, the threshold as of which investments are reviewable under Part IV of the Act; and
(e) the Coasting Trade Act to
(i) provide that the requirement in that Act to obtain a licence is not applicable for certain activities carried out by certain non-duty paid or foreign ships that are owned by a Canadian entity, EU entity or third party entity under Canadian or European control, and
(ii) provide, with respect to certain applications for a licence for dredging made on behalf of certain of those ships, for exemptions from requirements that are applicable to the issuance of a licence.
Part 3 contains consequential amendments and Part 4 contains coordinating amendments and the coming-into-force provision.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the Canada-European Union trade agreement.

I would first like to make some acknowledgements to our team members, the ones who made this possible. I speak, of course, of Mr. Steve Verheul and Kirsten Hillman, as well as their team, who worked long and hard and have proven to be some of the very best negotiators this globe has to offer. I speak, as well, of colleagues of mine. They are the member for Abbotsford, who was the former trade minister, and our thoughts and prayers are with him, as he has some health issues, and the former agriculture minister, who is the current trade critic and with whom I have the privilege to sit as deputy critic on the trade committee. We also want to congratulate the Liberals for doing the work that was necessary to bring this home. Today we are working toward signing the agreement and sending it on its way to make it a reality.

I want to start off with a quick history of trade.

We have always traded. People have always known that it is important. It is not only important, but it is impossible for us to acquire what we need without trade. Some of us are blessed with agriculture. Some of us are blessed with the ability to make things. Some of us have other abilities.

Throughout history, civilizations have moved with trade, but there has always been the issue of tariffs. There has always been protectionism that caused trade to slow down. There have been governments that, for their own selfish reasons and ambitions, have taken some of those hard earnings and the work of those who created the goods.

Throughout the history of the world, people and governments have worked toward freeing trade. I think we can begin with the 18th century. Adam Smith argued that we must more and more lower tariffs, eliminate tariffs, and make trade global. That continued in the 19th century and the 20th century. We saw two awful wars. We saw World War I, and the death and destruction it caused, and World War II, which seemed to accelerate the ability of people to wreak havoc on our lives.

There was a renewed call to make people work together and give them a reason to live in peace. Trade is a wonderful example of that. In 1949, the World Trade Organization was formed, and work went on to free up trade.

We saw what that led to. On our continent, it led to NAFTA, an amazing agreement that allowed us to work with the United States and Mexico to have a flow of goods continue to move back and forth, and that has resulted in some prosperity.

There have been some mishaps and some setbacks are happening in the United States at this point. However, here in Canada, we know that NAFTA has been a good thing.

We have also had a number of smaller agreements, but today we want to talk about CETA. CETA is amazing. It has been called the crown jewel of trade agreements.

Trade has lifted nations out of poverty. I read recently that the World Health Organization has stated that extreme poverty has been cut in half in the last 15 years. We know that these are things that work and benefit mankind.

Some hard work and coordination has taken place. The Conservative government's record is excellent on free trade. We understand the importance of free trade. I mentioned NAFTA earlier. There were some smaller agreements the Conservative government arranged, such as the free trade agreement with Korea, and then of course CETA.

We are a trading nation. The Conservatives believe in free trade that will generate increased economic activity, drive prosperity and job creation, and foster greater co-operation among our democratic allies.

In my home province of Ontario, we are quite excited about trade. It certainly has some great possibilities for us. My colleague likes to refer to it as the “reunification bill”, because most of us can trace our ancestry to Europe. Some of us can trace a very recent development with respect to that as well. My parents came from the Netherlands. I know, Mr. Speaker, that your parents came from Italy. I think we could go on and on in this House. There is no question that we have some great roots and ethnic abilities.

There are four things I want to talk about.

First, when CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariffs on non-agriculture products will be duty free, along with close to 94% of EU tariff lines for agricultural products. Why does that make a difference to southwestern Ontario? In southwestern Ontario, we are blessed to have incredible land and a beautiful climate. We produce some of the highest outputs of corn, soybeans, and wheat. We also have an incredible greenhouse industry. It was started by Italian immigrants. This industry has spread and grown. My riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington has the largest collection of greenhouses in North America.

There are possibilities and opportunities to move forward and present them to people who have direct roots in Europe.

Second, the Canada-EU trade agreement will also give Canadians service suppliers. Service suppliers employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of total Canadian GDP. The best market access to the EU has been granted through this free trade agreement. The agreement will establish greater transparency in the EU service markets, resulting in better, more secure, and more predictable market access. We will have that opportunity as well, oftentimes with people we know, people we are accustomed to, and customs that we know. It will provide access to 500 million people and the largest GDP on the planet.

Third, the Canada-EU trade agreement will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, stability, transparency, and protection for their investments. Preferential access to the EU will attract investments in Canada from our largest trading partner, the U.S. Conversely, EU investors will look to Canada as a gateway to NAFTA. If that is true, then it is certainly true for southwestern Ontario and my riding, because we are right at the doorstep of the United States. We have the opportunity to trade with the United States, which will be looking to us to access Europe, because it is not participating in this EU agreement. As well, Europe will be looking to us for access to the United States. It offers us an amazing number of possibilities.

Fourth, the Canada-EU trade agreement gives Canadian suppliers of goods and services secure, preferential access to the world's largest procurement market. What does that mean? There are a number of countries in the EU that are in constant need of services and supplies for their governments. This gives us an opportunity to tap into those.

I want to close with the government's responsibility. I want to talk about the responsibility of government, which is to keep us competitive. We do that by lowering red tape, lowering taxes, and reducing debt. I wish I had more time to talk about that. I implore the current government to not make the mistake it is making by going further into debt, which will cause higher taxes and result in making us less competitive.

I will close by saying that the government's responsibility is to make sure that this agreement works. It is the people's responsibility to be creative and to offer products at reasonable rates that will be attractive to their clients, but it is the government's responsibility to make sure that it will work. It is its responsibility to do that by keeping taxes low and regulations low. I am looking forward to this agreement being signed.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his helpful presentation of the historical context in which we find ourselves today.

As a fellow member of the trade committee and a strong free trader himself, does the hon. member share my enthusiasm for an agreement that may well serve as a model to the world in these changing times internationally?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we work on a great committee and have been working on this agreement for quite some time.

Yes, I do. I know that she, as well, has spoken about the opportunities that will exist in her riding and how they will help change the lives of her constituents. I am very optimistic. I feel that this agreement will open up new agreements. It is a benchmark. We used to hear the Americans talk about their city on the hill and their beacon. This is a beacon. This is a beacon of free trade for the rest of the world.

I am very proud to be part of a government and a country that is moving this trade agreement forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that we want to reduce red tape for businesses. We want businesses in our country to trade globally, to flourish, to thrive. Government's role is to support businesses and reduce barriers so they can get products to market, but it is also government's role to protect everyday citizens, especially the most vulnerable or those facing challenges in access to health care.

With the changes to intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals under CETA, drug costs are expected to increase by over $850 million annually. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that it could make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program.

Is the member concerned that CETA would lead to increased costs of prescription drugs for Canadians, given that Canadians already pay more for prescription drugs than almost every other OECD country? Is the member willing to support a trade deal that could increase costs for the people in his constituency?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that topic was raised repeatedly. There is no question there were some strong concerns about that. When the trade negotiators and the expert panel were at committee, we repeatedly asked that question.

I must confess that there is no uniform agreement on how that is going to work, but I was convinced by the testimony that I heard that this should not affect our costs, inasmuch as they will increase. There is a real possibility that we could see a decrease.

There are other things governments could do as well. I think provincial and federal governments have been talking about how we could pool our purchasing power. That is probably the direction in which we will have to go. I share his concerns about those who are most vulnerable and those who are poor. We want to make sure that any time we enter any agreement, our eyes are on those individuals. We want to make sure their lives are being bettered by it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a very important trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. My question is related to getting this bill through given the importance of trade to Canada. With what is happening in the U.S. today, we are in a great position to capitalize on being a corridor of trade that would flow from the EU to Canada and into the United States.

I wonder if the member could provide some thoughts on that.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is a great opportunity for us to be the link between the United States and Europe. We will be in the enviable position to be the only country between those two great economic powers. I am looking forward to it. I think we are headed in the right direction with this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on International Trade. I am very proud to have been serving on that committee for the past year now.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement implementation act, which has reached third reading.

Having had the unique opportunity of sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade for almost a year now, I can attest that the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, also known as CETA, is not only a priority, but also a great source of Canadian pride for our committee.

As I indicated at second reading, CETA was already a major topic of discussion when I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly as far back as 2007. At the time, I was lucky enough to be the critic for economic development, and I strongly supported economic diversification in Canada and Quebec, specifically through the diversification of our trading partners. I remember how difficult the 2008 financial crisis was for Canada, but I never lost faith in our people and our institutions to get through that difficult time.

Significant changes have taken place on the world stage recently, especially when it comes to trade. The global economic and trading conditions have shifted on every continent. Just look at the United States and how it withdrew from the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations, on which we worked so hard over the past year.

The shift is inward facing. Some of the speeches we have heard could even be described as having protectionist overtones. We have seen it in Europe, where the European Union will now have to negotiate with Great Britain, and even south of the border, where our neighbour's new leader has been making major trade announcements.

During these trying times, I am personally very proud to see Canada assert its leadership on progressive international trade and move forward while protecting Canada's economic interests.

Many economists agree: market diversification is key to the success of our businesses here at home from coast to coast. To our government, progressive trade represents growth, and growth represents more jobs here in Canada and in our local communities, who are all desperate for work.

I know and am convinced that the comprehensive economic agreement with Europe will bring about growth and also real opportunities to strengthen Canada's middle class. Let us not delude ourselves, however. As we have seen in 2008, when our main trade partners' economies falter, Canada is also hit hard. It is in this context that Canada leads the way by negotiating one of the most ambitious and progressive economic agreements ever.

The implementation of CETA, and passage of Bill C-30, is a real Canadian success story that all Canadians can be proud of because we must diversify our economy and accept new trade partners for the sake of our children, our small businesses, and future generations.

Greater access to European markets is the natural next step not only because we have similar values but also because we want to diversify our economies and our trade partners. It is natural for Europeans to want to trade with countries like Canada. First we are staunch supporters of human rights and workers' rights, and we are also an economic hub for innovation and knowledge. Canada is a country that provides excellent training, our workforce is highly skilled, and we understand that the knowledge economy is the economy of the future and of the 21st century.

I can say that my riding in the northern suburb of Montreal has many innovative businesses and leaders in a multitude of key Canadian economic sectors including manufacturing, robotics, automation, aerospace, informatics, and food processing.

I have all of that in my riding. The signing of CETA will lead to many new opportunities for those companies. Since the election, I have been meeting with companies. I have visited their facilities and I have listened to what they have to say about what works for them and what does not. One thing these companies always mention is how they are looking forward to CETA's coming into force.

The implementation of CETA will have an unprecedented impact on these companies. They will be able to increase their production because European markets will now be open to them. The opening of these markets will allow a number of companies, not only in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles but all across Canada, to really take off and finally gain access to a larger demand in some sectors where the customer base may be somewhat limited.

I often hear Canadians saying that SMEs, companies in my riding and across the country, are trapped in the valley of death. Access to European markets will allow many of them to finally cross that valley, find new clients, and have new opportunities that will allow them to really take off.

CETA also provides an opportunity for Canadian and European companies to share best practices in their field, and it may also allow some companies to be able to grow quickly and achieve their full potential.

The sharing of best practices is essential, and it is one of the agreement's strongest elements, as is the provision that facilitates labour mobility. Once this important economic agreement comes into effect, this little-known provision will allow greater labour mobility in a number of key sectors in the Canadian economy, especially the service industry, which has been booming for the past few years. It is also important to note that, not only is the European Union the second-largest economy in the world, boasting a market of 500 million people, but it also has one of the most developed and advanced service industries on the planet.

This agreement will put more Canadians to work; it means growing channels of innovation; and it means exciting times for our small and medium-sized businesses in many sectors.

While much of the rest of the global economy is closing its borders, Canada, for its part, is opening its arms, well aware of the important role it has to play. When CETA comes into force, Canada will be in an enviable position, for it will be able to eliminate tariffs and will be the only country to have such a massive trade agreement with European markets.

As Canadians, we can all be proud of the Canada-European union comprehensive economic and trade agreement that was concluded and, as a result, the opening of our markets with Europe. I am very proud of this. I hope all my colleagues in the House will enthusiastically support this agreement and Bill C-30.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to share a bit about the consultation process that goes into a trade deal like this one. It is obviously an important aspect of the discussion.

I think some people criticize trade deals because they say the discussions happen in secret, but the reality is that many stakeholders are invited to provide their input, within the privacy necessary for those negotiations.

As was the case with the negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership, the same process was followed for CETA, where different stakeholders were able to be engaged in the conversation throughout.

I wonder if the member could comment on that process and the importance of the ongoing consultation that was done by the previous government in the context of negotiating this important trade deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Of course consultations are important. We held a lot of consultations about the trans-Pacific partnership. We also held consultations about CETA even though the process was pretty far along.

There are so many different perspectives. Some people are really going to like it; others are not. For example, when it comes to fish and seafood products, people in the Maritimes will definitely benefit from this agreement because it will eliminate tariffs of up to 25%. Great opportunities will open up for regions on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. In my riding, the manufacturing sector will be the biggest winner.

Ultimately, we will have access to European Union markets. We will be in an enviable position as the only country in America to have that. We will be a gateway. All in all, this is a win.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, did the member consider the recommendations at the trade committee or will she support the CETA revisions we are proposing in the House today, which will give me confidence as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith that some very specific businesses and industries in my region will be protected?

I understand that Vancouver Island cheese producers who use words like “feta”, “brie”, and “Camembert” in their packaging will no longer be able to do that. This will affect the Comox cheese, Natural Pastures, and Salt Spring Island cheese companies, which are big businesses in our region. They will not be allowed to use those words anymore.

The government, both the Conservative and Liberal, failed to negotiate similar protections for our local brands, the Nanaimo bar, for example. Will a European company be able to market a Nanaimo bar? Will it be able to market Saskatoon berries?

I am very concerned that there are no protections for wineries in Nanaimo. Both Chateau Wolff and Millstone are growing wineries in my region. I am afraid the provisions will in fact exacerbate the existing tremendous trade imbalance between European and Canadian wine. The Canadian Vintners Association asked for protections in order to accommodate, but it received no assurances.

I am very concerned about local jobs in the maritime industry. If we no longer ensure it has to be local people, who know our waters intimately, and if they no longer have those jobs, safety is jeopardized and absolutely coastal economy is jeopardized. Three thousand jobs are at stake, and now those can be offshore.

Could the member please assure me that she gave those recommendations serious consideration at committee and that she will support the motion brought forward by the member for Essex which proposes to make CETA a better deal for Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her constituents' concerns with me.

She talked about dairy products and feta cheeses. As a representative from Quebec on the Standing Committee on International Trade, I can tell her that Quebec is the largest producer of fine cheese in Canada and that we are very large consumers of it.

It is true that Europeans produce a lot of cheese and dairy products. However, Canadian companies are very competitive in terms of the quality and variety of their products. Of course an agreement as progressive as the one we are signing will raise some concerns. However, I maintain that this will help create jobs.

I have a hard time with the protectionist talk around the issue. Considering what is happening right now in Europe and the United States, we understand all the problems protectionism can cause. It is my sincere belief that opening the job market and signing the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement is the right thing to do. Of course this is something we consider when we sign a free trade agreement.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments by sharing a few small but important examples with the House on why trade is important to my riding.

Back in 2013, the former minister of agriculture, known in this place as the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, signed a deal with China that would result in an innovative new way to send B.C. cherries to China. It was not only innovative from both a food science and regulatory perspective, it actually resulted in B.C. cherries being able to access the Chinese market two weeks faster than our competitors from other countries. Two weeks is a massive time savings when we consider cherries have a one-month shelf life.

I mention these things because one day I had a meeting with a group of local fruit growers. The growers came to my office not to request more government funding or support, but rather to share with me that this new opportunity in China was working incredibly well for them and was creating very lucrative returns.

Many people in my area are concerned about keeping farmers farming. If there is a good income to be made, the fastest and strongest way that any government can support farmers is to ensure that they can receive those returns. Again, I go back to it. In other words, they wanted me to know what their government had done and that it was working for them.

Now I will briefly provide another quick example. A local winemaker shared with me news that he done a million dollar deal selling his wine direct to Asia. For a small family winery, that is simply massively exciting news for them. More so, when we consider that this same small family winery still cannot sell directly into Ontario. However, that is a topic we will save for another day.

The point of these examples is that trade creates new opportunities that in turn create prosperity. Best of all, it is not government largesse but opportunity that they want. We know now that when Canadians compete with the world, we can and do succeed every day, allowing us to thrive and for these farm families, these small businesses, to flourish.

I say we know now because, of course, as a country, we did not always know that. There was a time shortly after the first free trade agreement when the free trade agreement with the United States was announced, some B.C. vintners threatened to tear up their grapes, so convinced were they that they could not compete with the vast acres of the massive California wine industry.

Today one of my constituents frequently consults and provides his expertise to the California wine industry. Another one of the wineries in my riding is actually buying up a few California wineries.

I believe members can all understand my enthusiasm and my support for what new opportunities will become available with the implementation of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement deal.

On that same theme, I would like to commend the government for carrying on the good work of the former government to see this CETA deal moving forward. Having said that, I do have a few serious concerns I would like to share.

None of us in this place know exactly what changes, if any, may become of our most important trade relationship south of our border. However, I believe we would all agree that diversifying and creating new trade opportunities is the type of due diligence and leadership that we can collectively provide in Ottawa.

However, we must also be very careful. So much as market access is critically important, we also must not forget that trade is always a two-way street. If our side of the street is full of road bumps that slow things down and is more expensive to travel on, then trade can become more of a one-way street and flow more in one direction.

How do we prevent that? Here is the good news. On the regulatory side of things all parties in this place voted in support of the Red Tape Regulatory Reduction Act that was approved in the 41st Parliament. I mention this as the new president has indicated that he will introduce similar measures in the United States, even going a step further than our one for one regulatory reduction, calling for a two-to-one reduction.

Historically, also working in Canada's favour is the fact that we have had lower corporate and small business taxes, something members may recall the Burger King Corporation was eager to take advantage of when it moved its head office from the United States to Canada. Here again the new president has indicated he will seek to lower U.S. corporate taxation rates similar to Canada.

Most of the world has paid no attention to the fact that the president is doing these things because people are mesmerized instead by his presidential Twitter feed. Rest assured that in Canada we need not lose focus on the big picture, and it is the big picture about which I am most concerned.

The Liberal government has dictated a national carbon tax regime that will increase the costs of doing business in Canada. We must keep in mind that none of our major competitors, not the United States of America, not China nor India are following our lead on this. When people are no longer following us, then we are no longer leading the way.

The Liberals say that these increased carbon tax costs will not make a difference to our competitiveness. Here is some food for thought on that.

In British Columbia, in 2008, at the time the B.C. carbon tax was introduced, basically 100% of all cement used in British Columbia was manufactured in British Columbia. Why not? Concrete is not exactly a lightweight, inexpensive product to import and then transport from other jurisdictions. What happened when B.C. produced concrete that was subject to a carbon tax in 2008? It became more expensive.

By 2014, B.C.-produced concrete only accounted for roughly 65% of all concrete used in British Columbia because cheaper concrete was being imported from jurisdictions with no carbon tax. As result of this, the B.C. government is now providing financial subsidies to the B.C. concrete industry. Now the B.C. pulp and paper sector is looking for similar carbon tax relief.

It should also be pointed out that B.C. greenhouse growers have also secured B.C. carbon tax exemptions, not unlike many of Ontario's worst industrial polluters that have also received extensions and exclusions from the Ontario cap and trade way of taxing carbon.

In every one of these situations, these exemptions or subsidies are being provided to protect jobs and support local economies. However, we must not overlook who they are protecting these jobs from, and that is ourselves. It is our own government-imposed carbon taxes that we are now in turn subsidizing to compete against jurisdictions that do not have a carbon tax. Let us not forget the exceptions of the B.C. government that has a balanced budget. Many of these subsides are being provided with borrowed money, borrowed money that taxpayers pay interest on, and this is over and above the carbon tax they pay. We must also consider that in jurisdictions like Ontario, government policies have created some of the highest energy costs in North America.

In Ontario, over 600 jobs are being lost as General Motors is closing a car manufacturing plant and moving jobs to Mexico where they have considerably lower production costs, all at a time when the Liberal government is dramatically increasing the costs on employers through a new carbon tax called big CPP. Even the finance department has said that the big CPP will harm jobs and the Canadian economy for somewhere between 20 and 25 years. We should think about that.

I want to recap something. I am supportive of these opportunities. It is incredibly important that government support these things, but let us not lose sight of the big picture here. The big picture in this government is making us our own competitors. We need to be showing the way in a way that our industries can compete internationally.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for a reasoned speech. I do not agree with everything in his speech, but there were some excellent points.

I think he would agree with me that last November the world changed with the election of a new president of the United States who is wildly unpredictable, more protectionist, and wants to renegotiate NAFTA. I wonder if he could comment on the fact that given those realities of protectionism, unpredictability, and renegotiating of the North American Free Trade Agreement, it becomes more important than ever to actually finalize and approve CETA, and CETA becomes more important than ever for Canada to approve and implement.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I did make it very clear that I was supportive of CETA, but I also mentioned that trade is a two-way street. Inevitably, if we make it more difficult here in Canada for Canadians to compete internationally, if we make it so that we either do not have proper access, or we have more red tape, or higher taxes, and all the things that go along with many of the policies of the government, we will inevitably see trade dry up on one side of that street. We will see Canadian businesses burdened and not able to employ people. We will continue to see those 600 jobs, and more, go from Canada south to Mexico. Why is that? It is because with those increased costs, we cannot compete successfully.

Those farmers I met with could compete because they needed the access, but we need to continue to make sure they can compete, or else we will end up subsidizing and exempting, all to make sure we do not lose the big picture.

I am just asking the current government to take these things to heart, and if it is ready to actually engage, to do the right things and not put us down a road that we are going to regret five, 10, or 20 years out.