Bill C-4 (Historical)

Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States

This enactment implements the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, done at Buenos Aires on November 30, 2018, as amended by the Protocol of Amendment to that Agreement, done at Mexico City on December 10, 2019.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 20 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, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and gives the Governor in Council the power 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.
Part 3 contains the coming into force provisions.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading of Bill C-4.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Before we go to the question, do we all know the rules?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech in this chamber in the new Parliament, I would like to take a minute to thank the voters of Regina—Wascana for electing me to this chamber. It certainly is an honour and a privilege to be able to represent the interests of Regina—Wascana in the House of Commons. I would also like to thank all of the volunteers on my campaign team who worked so hard putting up lawn signs, stuffing brochures into mailboxes and knocking on doors to make sure that the campaign was a success.

Of course, I have to thank my family, particularly my mom and dad. I am sure there have been many times when they wished that their son would just choose a more normal hobby other than pursuing a seat in Parliament, but I am glad it finally worked out for the better. I would also like to thank my brother Brad, his wife Kathy and my nephews Mason, Michael and Mark. They all had the opportunity to join me for my swearing-in ceremony, and it certainly was a special family occasion.

Now I would like to say a few words about Bill C-4.

On March 28, 2019, the Western Producer farm newspaper ran an editorial about agriculture policy. The Western Producer's editorial board said, “Two years ago, the federal government identified agriculture as a key sector for growth in exports”. Considering the high quality of our Canadian dairy products and the priority that the government gave to expanding agriculture exports, it came as a complete surprise to me that the new NAFTA, the new free trade agreement that the government recently negotiated with the United States and Mexico, had a serious flaw. This flaw, a concession made to the Americans at the expense of the dairy farmers in my province of Saskatchewan and thousands of other dairy producers across the country, is a real head-scratcher.

It is puzzling to me and to my fellow Conservative colleagues on the international trade committee why this government would kneecap our hard-working dairy producers by bargaining away their ability to increase dairy exports under the new NAFTA. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement does not just limit the ability of dairy farmers to export to the United States and Mexico; it limits their ability to export to Japan, China, Europe or anywhere in the world.

Yesterday, the international trade committee heard detailed testimony from a panel of government experts on Bill C-4. These experts included Mr. Steve Verheul, Canada's chief negotiator for the new NAFTA, and Mr. Aaron Fowler, chief agriculture negotiator and director general of trade agreements and negotiations from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

At committee, I asked Mr. Fowler to clarify whether the new dairy export tariff that our dairy farmers would soon have to pay included only the United States and Mexico or applied to Canadian exports to the rest of the world as well. Mr. Fowler confirmed that the agreement applies to Canada's exports to the rest of the world.

When I asked Mr. Fowler whether there was a similar provision under the old NAFTA, the trans-Pacific partnership or our trade deal with the European Union, Mr. Fowler said, “I am aware of no similar provision in any of our other trade agreements.”

Then I asked the negotiating team to provide some insight into how the dairy export limit made it into the new NAFTA. Mr. Fowler said that the U.S. was concerned about new innovative Canadian dairy products, and that Canadian exports of these products were displacing American dairy products from markets that they, the Americans, traditionally exported to.

I appreciate the detailed answers that Canada's negotiating team provided to the committee on how truly innovative our Canadian dairy farmers have become in recent years in specialized products that Canadians can export around the globe. However, in the end it was up to this government to negotiate a better free trade agreement, or at least not a worse agreement, with the U.S. and Mexico, and not to impose a new worldwide limit on our dairy exports. This Liberal export limit would cut farm revenue, and farm families need this extra money.

Better margins and increased profitability on each and every dairy farm are more important now than ever because dairy farmers and, in fact, other producers across Canada have to come up with thousands of additional dollars to pay for the Liberals' carbon tax.

It is very troubling that the government can prioritize the expansion of farm exports on one day, only to limit them the next. During negotiations, why did our trade representatives, who were working on a North American trade deal with the U.S. and Mexico, buckle under pressure from the Americans and agree to limit exports to the rest of the world on dairy products?

These dairy products could have been sold to hungry and thirsty Japanese, Chinese and European customers who were not even parties to this trade agreement. Why did no one catch the significance of this concession, the imposition of a limit on our dairy exports, before it was too late?

It was my sad duty to report to the dairy farmers of SaskMilk, who came to Parliament Hill yesterday to brief me and my Conservative colleagues, that their analysis of the Liberals' new NAFTA was, unfortunately, correct. The Liberal government did, in fact, cave to the demands of the Americans at the negotiating table to limit Canada's dairy exports to hungry, thirsty, paying customers around the globe who live in nations that are not even parties to this new NAFTA agreement among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-4, on which we will be voting. Typically, when I stand in Parliament to vote, I am always very comfortable with my vote. Whether it is yes or no, I am proud to stand in my place and vote.

Today we will be voting on this agreement, and it will be with a heavy heart and reluctance that I will stand to support it, knowing not only that there are a lot of problems with it, but if I do not support it, things will take a dramatic and drastic turn. We need to have a free trade agreement with our most important trading partner. It will not be an easy vote when I know it could have and should have been so much better.

I will talk about process, priorities and gaps.

On the process, Canada was left on the sidelines for some of the most important parts of the negotiations. Mexico and the U.S. put a lot of the final details to the agreement and told Canada that it could like it or lump it. What kind of negotiators do we have when they leave us on the sidelines for some of the most critical components of a deal?

The other piece I have trouble with is the lack of engagement. If we look at what happened in the U.S., the Republicans and Democrats worked very closely, made changes and came up with an agreement with which everyone was comfortable. That collaborative process, working together on important priorities, helped make a better agreement in the long run.

In our case, was there engagement with the other parties in the House? Yes, there was a committee, but that committee did not talk to the elected representatives, the elected representatives being the official opposition, the Bloc and the NDP. The negotiators did not benefit from the wisdom of the other parties in the House, which has left us with a lump-it-or-like-it agreement.

Last week, the minister suggested that the opposition parties not hold up the agreement. The Conservatives had suggested the House resume early. The election was in October and the Liberals did not recall the House until early December. We said that we needed to come back to talk about and engage on this agreement. Then we suggested the House resume in early January to debate the agreement, that it was one of the most important trade agreements we would sign and that we needed to give it due diligence and talk about it. Did the government bring us back early? No. Then the Liberals said that they did not want the opposition parties to delay it, yet we had not even seen the legislation. It is a failed and flawed process. They should be very ashamed with how they went about it.

The Liberals took a number of priorities into the negotiations, but what did they omit? They omitted probably the biggest trade irritant between Canada and the U.S. in the last number of decades, softwood lumber. Was softwood lumber made one of their priorities for negotiation? No. The government headed into negotiations on an updated agreement, and the most important trade irritant we had for decades was not a priority.

In 2017, the government said it would get a new softwood agreement. The Prime Minister and President Obama said that they would get it done. Here we are in 2020, and the agreement is not done.

What has been happening with the softwood lumber industry? In my province alone, over 24 mills have closed and 10,000-plus employees have been impacted. The government's lack of doing its job in getting a softwood lumber agreement is hurting Canadians across the country.

I would like to suggest that British Columbia might be the canary in the coal mine on this particular issue, because mills in New Brunswick are suggesting that they are having problems. Quebec has been concerned about it. When 20% is put on as an arbitrary number at the border and we do not have an agreement, our industry is hurting.

Was it a priority for negotiations? No, forestry was neglected. Was it in the Speech from the Throne? It was neglected. Was it in the minister's mandate letter? It was neglected.

I would suggest that the government has failed to do its job. The Prime Minister said one of the most important things he needed to do was protect jobs in this country, but he has been absolutely indifferent to the crisis in forestry across this country. It took the last Conservative government to get the deal done, and it obviously looks as though we need to get back in, because it will take a Conservative government to get it done in the future.

Let me speak to failures. The one failure that stands out in my mind is aluminum. Aluminum has not been afforded the same provisions as steel. Why not?

Let us look at what is happening in the industry. In Canada, aluminum production in 2019 was 2.9 metric tons, and that has diminished from the year prior. It has been going down a bit. What is happening in China with aluminum? In China, aluminum production was 33.8 metric tons and is going up. What has been happening as well is that around the world, the need for aluminum has been going up, but the Liberal government did not feel it was important. Aluminum did not really matter.

One other priority was the environment. What the government failed to recognize is that Canada has the lowest carbon footprint for aluminum production in the world, since we use hydroelectricity, but there is more than that. The Prime Minister was at an announcement in Quebec with Rio Tinto and Elysis. They are looking at a no-carbon-emission process for the production of aluminum. Let us imagine that: We are going to have no-carbon-emission aluminum. I understand that oxygen might even be produced as part of the process.

The government is providing some protection for steel for the car industry, but it is not saying that our aluminum industry matters. Producing environmentally sound aluminum, predominantly in Quebec but also in British Columbia, does matter. The government neglected that, left it out of the agreement, and did not offer the same protections. That is certainly a failure.

There is another area of concern. I have never seen a government give up sovereignty in agreements that it signs with other countries, but now we are going to need permission from the U.S. to enter into an agreement with China. There are also restrictions with respect to our exports to other countries. We are giving away our sovereignty.

These are significant concerns. For the reasons I have identified, we are very reluctant to support this particular agreement as it moves forward.

That said, the United States and Mexico are our largest trading partners. We need to have an agreement. It will take another Conservative government to fix the softwood lumber agreement, to work with the aluminum industry and to make sure that both industries get the same recognition as our steel industry. We are going to have a job to do in trying to fix the agreement, but we cannot go without it in the meantime.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, when no member rises to speak on the motion for the 2nd reading stage of Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, or at 1:59 p.m., whichever comes first, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill shall be deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until immediately after Oral Questions this day.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, is referred to committee, could the government commit to supporting a proposal at committee to have other committees, in addition to the trade committee, study the provisions of Bill C-4 and the impacts within their respective mandates in the same manner that budget bills have been considered at committee in recent years?

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight to talk about Bill C-4, the Canada–United States–Mexico agreement implementation act, better known over here as NAFTA 2.0.

Since tonight is my first time addressing the chamber at length since the October election, I want to take a moment to thank those who have sent me here for my second term as the member of Parliament for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

I thank my volunteers. They made it possible for me to come into the chamber tonight for the 43rd Parliament. As well, I think everyone in the House would agree that our spouses are the most important. In this case, yes, my wife Ann has had to put up with me for 42 years now. It has been a long time, but we have had a great journey, and for the first time, during the election I also had my two children, Courtney and Geoff, door knock in Saskatoon—Grasswood, which is probably another story, but we certainly enjoyed it as a family.

It is my privilege to talk about this bill, because it is the most important bill in the 43rd Parliament. It would affect every territory and province in this great dominion. The relationship between Canada and our neighbour to the south, without question, is our most important relationship. Most of our trade is with our partners in the United States, including 75% of our exports and over 50% of our imports. Between goods and services, our bilateral trade with the United States is almost $900 billion. The original NAFTA deal that was put together by Prime Minister Mulroney and the Conservative government has done this country a great deal of service. We have all enjoyed free trade.

At this time, I would also like to speak of the member for Abbotsford, who spoke earlier on this bill. Without question, he is one of the greatest trade ministers we have ever had in this country. We went from five agreements all the way up to 55. He is known around the world. I went to Taiwan, which had great things to say about the member for Abbotsford and the trade agreement that he brought during the Harper years. It should be recognized in the House that the member is still with us and is a valuable contributor. He spoke the other day on this agreement and had several very good points.

It was kind of a surprise that Mexico is our third-largest trading partner, so NAFTA 2.0 is very much front and centre in this country. The three countries are very close, both economically and politically. As well, at this time of year, many Canadians go to Mexico for weeks or months, and they know how important it is for Mexico, the United States and Canada to get along.

The importance, though, of this trading relationship is felt particularly strongly in my province of Saskatchewan. It is a trading province. It has a population of 1.2 million people, roughly, and exports more than it takes in, which it always has and hopefully always will, from agriculture to energy to manufacturing. Much of the provincial economy, more than 50%, is dependent on trade both within Canada and outside Canada. That is why it is important to recognize that Saskatchewan's premier, Scott Moe, is in Washington today with the Deputy Prime Minister. Trade is foremost in my province of Saskatchewan. We are dependent upon the NAFTA 2.0 agreement. Every community in my province of 1.2 million people depends on the NAFTA 2.0 agreement. Let me get that out into the open.

Conservatives from coast to coast understand exactly how important this trade is. Conservatives negotiated, as I mentioned, the original NAFTA. We did all the heavy lifting of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union and worked with the government of Israel to expand and modernize our agreement with that country. There are dozens of other countries that the Conservatives have negotiated new trade agreements with as well, such as South Korea, Honduras and Panama. The world is ours.

In this country, we produce more than we can use. We have a population of only 37 million, so it is important that we have trade with each and every country in the world if we can do it.

As I have mentioned, perhaps more than any other province or territory in this dominion, Saskatchewan has benefited from the increased trade between Canada and our international partners. The economy in my province of Saskatchewan is growing like it has never grown before. With it, the population is growing, including 80,000 new jobs since 2007, largely due to the increase in trading opportunities created by the previous Conservative government for nine and a half years. Exports from Saskatchewan are up nearly 60% in that same time frame, and now our province ships to over 150 countries around the world.

I was in Regina on Monday for the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association address. Our premier has an ambitious growth program for our province. In 2030, we want to get another 100,000 people in our province and we want to increase our trade by another 50%. We can see that this agreement here is front and foremost in the province of Saskatchewan.

What has this meant? It has meant more for young people now who no longer have to go to Alberta to search for jobs. We have new schools in our province for the first time in a long time. We have young families who can stay home in Saskatchewan and share their families with grandma and grandpa. We have infrastructure, and the province makes investments in services for the people of my province.

It is concerning that the current government has not been able to live up to this record. In fact, it has been hurting our trade relationships. I will give a couple of examples.

Saskatchewan's minister of trade reported that Saskatchewan's exports to India alone plummeted from roughly $2 billion in 2015 when we left government, to only $650 million in 2018. Let us think about that. India was one of our biggest trading partners when the Conservatives left in 2015, and now my province of Saskatchewan is suffering at only $650 million. Our agriculture sector in particular is so tied to trade with India, in chickpeas and so on. We know all about that. I might add that part of the problem has been the Prime Minister's trip to India. It has hurt the provincial economy.

Trade is important in our province. I cannot emphasize that enough. In light of the current government's weakness on this file, to compensate and to further our province's trading relationships around the world, Saskatchewan's provincial government has had to open new international offices in Japan, India and Singapore. I ask members to think about that. Our provincial government has had to go out and seek new trading partners because the federal government has let us down in the province of Saskatchewan. We now have trade offices in India, Singapore and Japan. These kinds of actions are so important because the people of Saskatchewan know how difficult it can be when we are facing uncertainty in our trading relationships.

Saskatchewan caucus has heard over and over again from our producers, our workers and our unions about how the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum hurt Saskatchewan workers and producers.

I want to thank a number of people from our caucus because they have raised some flags in this trade agreement. For the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo there is the softwood lumber issue where we have lost tens of thousands of jobs for B.C. Regarding automotive, our Oshawa MP has certainly stood up in this House and talked about the differences in this trade agreement. On aluminum, there is our member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. We all know that Quebec aluminum is the greenest and best in the world, and yet we are being penalized with NAFTA 2. There appears to be a cap on milk exports that we have talked about before in the House.

In closing, it will be an interesting time. We want to see this bill go to committee. We want to bring in many stakeholders because it is the stakeholders who in the next six years will have the biggest say on this NAFTA.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, as part of my time debating Bill C-4, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, also known as the new NAFTA, I have some questions that my constituents and Canadians deserve answers for.

The Conservative Party has a long trade record and understands the importance of global trade. The previous Conservative government negotiated trade deals with over 40 countries.

In my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, we have many sectors that rely on international trading. We are the largest trading area between Vancouver and Calgary, with now the 10th-busiest airport in Canada.

A report from the Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission laid out a sector overview. Manufacturing in my community includes agri-food and high-tech aerospace, with metal, plastic, wood, concrete and fibreglass products. It anticipates that fabricated metal, non-metallic, mineral and transportation equipment manufacturing, as well as plastics, rubber products and beverages, will lead the way in growth. The cross-section of manufacturers makes it easy for existing and new businesses to find high-quality partners locally.

When China started embargoes on Canadian farming products, local cherry producers in my community were concerned that they would be next and started looking to potentially expand their exports to the United States and other markets. It is therefore very important to farmers and all businesses that we have stable and clearly outlined trading relationships.

NAFTA was not perfect, but it has been good for Canada, with $2 billion in trade crossing the border every day. The United States is our largest trading partner, representing 75% of Canadian exports.

I understand that the majority of major industry associations in Canada and the group, Canada's Premiers, are encouraging us to ratify the CUSMA deal. Canada's Premiers has stated, “Beyond seeking the ratification of CUSMA, Premiers are still prioritizing engagement with the U.S. to deal with other trade issues including Buy American policies and the softwood lumber dispute.”

Why was the buy American policy not addressed in CUSMA? Mexico got a buy America chapter in CUSMA, but Canada did not. There was no procurement chapter.

There has been a lot of uncertainty for four years. We have lost business opportunities and investments are on hold. Many people just want to be able to move forward with clarity. Goldy Hyder from the Business Council of Canada has said that the signed new NAFTA is “good enough” for Canada and “gets us through this administration.”

I will tell members about an industry that thinks the CUSMA agreement is good enough but is no further ahead, like so many other industries we hear about across the country with this deal. This is the wine industry specifically in British Columbia. Ontario also has uncertainty.

Just this past Monday I was speaking with Miles Prodan, executive director of the British Columbia Wine Institute. I have his approval to bring his comments forward in the House today. He stated, “We accept and support moving forward with CUSMA. However, there is nothing better and nothing more advantageous for our wine industry. A status quo was a win for us.” He is referring to the 281 VQA wineries his organization represents in B.C., 32 of which are located in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. “A status quo was a win for us.”

This is at a time when Canada is having a potentially devastating wine excise tax trade dispute with Australia. As I mentioned in the House yesterday, in 2018, following the Liberal government's introduction of an escalator tax for beer, wine and spirits, Australia requested a review from the World Trade Organization of Canada's exemption for 100% Canadian wines. This tax basically means automatic tax increases each and every year.

The draft report of this WTO review is anticipated in April, with a final report coming sometime this summer. A WTO ruling against Canada would be legally binding and could have a catastrophic effect on some 400 Canadian wineries, forcing them to bear the burden of millions of dollars of new taxes and putting this important industry and Canadian jobs on the line. This shows again a lack of clear understanding and thoughtful consideration by the Liberals of the ramifications of their tax policies and decisions.

On January 16, those of us from across the country who have wineries in our communities signed a letter to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade. It was led by our colleague, the member for Prince Albert, the Conservative shadow minister for international trade. It asked the government to engage with Australia to resolve the dispute prior to the WTO ruling. We received a response from the minister on January 31, and in the letter the minister said:

Australia's position on the excise duty exemption has been unwavering and clear. Any negotiated settlement must include the removal of the excise exemption for Canadian wines in its entirety, and this was confirmed to Canadian officials as recently as December 2019.

I bring this up today as this is a trend we are seeing with trade negotiations with the current government, an attitude of, “They drew a line in the sand, so what are you going to do?”

The Australian government could be responding in this way because Australia, like many other countries, was not happy with Canada due to the Prime Minister's no-show for the trans-Pacific partnership. This was a trade deal that the Prime Minister just had to sign. Reports are that TPP's signatories, including Australia, were outraged.

Regarding CUSMA negotiations, the chairman of the U.S. House ways and means committee said that the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister conceded on just about every point they raised for one reason: “enforceability, enforceability, enforceability.” What other concessions did we agree to that prompted such a statement?

If nothing else, the government is consistent. The attitude that we have heard on how Canada negotiated with the U.S. with concession after concession in CUSMA, we see here again on the Australia trade issue. This laissez-faire, “what are you going to do” attitude is not serving Canadians or families well.

Another major sector left out of CUSMA discussions was our softwood lumber industry in British Columbia. We lost thousands of jobs this past year, bringing the total to some 50,000 job losses over the last few years. I have spoken in the House about how this has directly affected my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, where 217 permanent jobs were lost.

The sustainable resource sector has been hit hard and is currently being forced to pay tariffs to the United States. Why was the softwood lumber industry left out of CUSMA? So much for supporting the middle class.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to think deeply and look at legislation closely. These calls by the government to hurry up and move it along are not responsible. These are not just numbers we are talking about. We are talking about lives, families and jobs. With the reckless Liberal “push it through” attitude, I seriously wonder whose jobs the Liberals are more concerned about.

The ratification process is slightly different in each country. In June of last year, this deal was ratified by the Mexican senate. Due to modifications made to the agreement, it was re-ratified in December. In the United States, debate proceeded in the House of Representatives in September 2019. It was passed in the House in December 2019, and the U.S. Senate passed the bill on January 16, 2020.

I can appreciate that we had an election, but we were all elected back in October. After the election, Conservatives were calling on the government to call the House back on November 25 as we needed to roll up our sleeves and get back to work on behalf of Canadians. This fell on deaf ears, and the Prime Minister did not call the House back until December 5.

The CUSMA deal had to be reintroduced after the election, but the government did not table Bill C-4 until January 29. We are now debating it much later than our trading partners, and are being asked to hurry up. It was simply reckless and irresponsible that the government waited so long to reintroduce the legislation. It is important for us to do our proper due diligence, in particular since the government has still not presented us with an economic impact analysis. This is something we, the official opposition, have repeatedly requested for almost two months now and have yet to receive.

We heard that the government had an economic impact analysis, but two days ago here in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said that the government would present it once it is complete.

Was one actually done? Was it done only on certain sectors? Is it incomplete? Is there information that there are industries where the analysis is not positive, and the Liberals do not want the information disclosed yet? These are all questions that we need answered.

Conservatives support and want free trade with the United States. We are the party of trade deals with our closest allies. NAFTA is a legacy from the Conservatives. Our Canadian businesses deserve certainty, and we should not be rushed into this important vote without having answers to the questions we are asking. It is our job as parliamentarians, and we owe that to the communities we serve. I urge everyone to take this information to committee so that we can delve into some of these questions properly.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is a trading nation and the Unites States is by far our largest trading partner. Of our exports, 75% go to the U.S., and 51% of our imports come from the U.S. Mexico is our fifth largest trading partner.

In that context, I am happy to address the House today about the benefits of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement and to encourage all members in the House to support Bill C-4.

Our government spent over a year negotiating a modernized free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. Our goal was to negotiate a deal that was good for Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and communities across the country. We negotiated a deal that would protect Canadian jobs, create more opportunities for Canadian workers and their families and ensure the growth of our economy.

From farmers in Alberta to auto workers in Windsor to entrepreneurs in St. John's and Surrey, the new NAFTA will benefit Canadians in every corner of the country.

The agreement we were able to achieve is particularly impressive, given the challenges we faced at the outset. We made the best of a challenging situation, because no other outcome was acceptable.

Trade between Canada and the U.S. is of vital importance. We were dealing with a U.S. president who said that NAFTA was the worst trade deal in history. He was determined to tear it up. He slapped tariffs on our steel and aluminum. What did we do? We stood up for the Canadian steel and aluminum industries, and in the end we won.

Canadians had every reason to be worried about all this. The fact we have a deal is a testament to Canada's determination and patience.

This will be the third major trade agreement signed by our Liberal government. The Trans-Pacific Partnership and CETA are the other two. The ratification of CUSMA will put trade uncertainty behind us. This is a big win for Canada, such a big win that even the Premier of Ontario is on board. Provincial and territorial leaders have urged all federal parties to ratify CUSMA and have warned against playing political games.

The sad truth is that the Conservatives and the NDP do not bring much to the table except political games.

The Conservatives seem to hate it when Canada does well. They say that Canada is an economic failure. They dismiss any good news. They run Canada down. They dismiss the hard work of Canadians who have created over one million jobs in the last four years.

Instead of celebrating the hard work of Canadians that has made Canada and Canada's economy one of the strongest in the world, what do they do? The Conservatives paint a picture of doom and gloom. I encourage the members opposite to stand up for Canada's future, to be proud of Canada's accomplishments, to celebrate what we have achieved together and to ratify CUSMA.

My colleagues from the NDP have joined forces with the Bloc Québécois to drag out the ratification of this trade deal. I am not sure why they want to drag things out, but I am sure that the deal before us is the deal we have and no stalling tactics or delays will change that. Much like the Conservatives, they dismiss the good things that were achieved in CUSMA.

I would think that the NDP and the Bloc would recognize that this deal is progressive trade in action. It has the strongest labour and environment chapters ever to be included in a trade agreement. It removes the investor-state dispute settlement provisions of NAFTA, a key demand of the NDP. CUSMA also has strong protection for women and indigenous peoples.

I am not sure why the NDP wants to delay the implementation of these progressive reforms. We should work together as colleagues, put Canada and Canadians first and get this important bill passed without delay.

In December, Canada signed an amending protocol that makes significant improvements to CUSMA. It strengthens state-to-state dispute settlement, labour protection, environmental protection, intellectual property and the automotive rules of origin and will help keep the most advanced medications affordable for Canadians. These changes are all in Canada's best interest, and they make CUSMA an even better deal.

For residents of my constituency of Surrey—Newton and all of British Columbia, it means access to the U.S. market and the 20.3 billion dollars' worth of exports that B.C. sends to the U.S. every year. It means stability for B.C. workers in the lumber, oil and processed food sectors. It means B.C.'s agricultural goods continue to benefit from duty-free access for nearly 89% of U.S. agriculture tariff lines and 91% of Mexican tariff lines. The agreement also protects the $2.1 billion in B.C. exports to the U.S. market.

CUSMA preserves NAFTA's chapter 19, which gives Canada access to an independent and impartial process to challenge U.S. or Mexican anti-dumping and countervailing duties. That is good news for British Columbia's softwood lumber industry and its $4.3 billion in U.S. exports.

In the previous Parliament, I had the pleasure of sitting on the international trade committee with former MP Linda Lapointe from Quebec. During a trip to Washington, we met with U.S. negotiators and it was Linda who maintained that the cultural exemption component be kept. At that time, U.S. negotiators were not concerned about this issue. However, this is very important for the French language in Quebec and cultural industries throughout Canada.

CUSMA is the result of a long, difficult and challenging negotiation. We made it through and have a deal before us that will help Canadians build a better Canada. Let us pass it and let them get to work.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in the House on Monday, it is indeed an honour for me to be taking part in my first debate here on the floor of the House of Commons.

In the short time available to me, I would like to resume debate and provide my concluding remarks on Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

As I had indicated previously, Canada's Conservatives support free trade with our North American trading partners. What we do not support is rushing blindly into an agreement to implement a deal whose details have not yet been shared. I am confident when I say that members on this side are prepared to work with our Liberal colleagues to ensure that this agreement is ratified; however, we need them to be open and transparent about what those impacts will be. We know they have done financial modelling and analysis of how this new free trade agreement will affect Canada's economy, both overall and broken down by sector. Will the Liberals commit to showing all the members of this House these financial models?

We already know that dairy concessions in the agreement will negatively impact the industry. By allowing an agreement to be inked that opened our supply management system, the government will now be using taxpayers' dollars to compensate our dairy farmers, because of their loss in market share. We need to know if there are other industries that we will have to compensate with taxpayers' dollars, because these industries are going to be negatively impacted by this new NAFTA.

As it is, the wine industry in my riding of Niagara Falls is facing an uncertain business environment because of Australia's WTO challenge that would change our current federal excise exemption for 100% Canadian-made wines. This is another important sector in my riding that is waiting and wondering what the government is going to do. We are about eight weeks away from the World Trade Organization's interim report on this trade challenge, and the Liberals are missing in action on this important trade file.

Meanwhile, 700 wineries and 9,000 Canadians are wondering about the future of their jobs. That does not include the thousands of other local spinoff jobs supported by the wine industry, including accommodations, dining establishments and tour companies.

These are a few of my concerns that I have about the new NAFTA.

Parliamentarians need to know the details of what has changed from the existing agreement, who will be impacted and what can be done to provide stability to those impacted business sectors. I think it is certainly imperative that the official opposition be allowed to do our job of examining the signed agreement, not just the Liberals' talking points on the agreement.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

To the witnesses, I very much appreciate your appearing on short notice with us today. Welcome.

From Global Affairs Canada, we have Steve Verheul, chief negotiator and assistant deputy minister, trade policy and negotiations; Martin Thornell, senior adviser, tariffs and goods market access; and Stephanie Chandler, senior policy adviser, trade policy and negotiations. From Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we have Aaron Fowler, chief agriculture negotiator and director general. From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have Rina Young, manager, trade and environment, international affairs branch.

Mr. Verheul, I'll turn the floor over to you for your opening comments—

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to take part in my first debate here on the floor of the House of Commons. Before I proceed, I want to take a moment to thank a number of individuals, as well as my constituents, for putting their faith in me. I want to thank the people of Fort Erie, Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake for the trust they have placed in me.

My loving wife Carol and son Daniel, as well as my entire family, have been my strongest supporters and I would not be standing here at this moment without their love and support. I thank them all dearly from the bottom of my heart. My only regret is not having my dad or father-in-law here to see it, but I know they are watching from above, with my son David, his cousin Leo, my cousins Michael and Maria, and my late aunts and uncles. They have all helped shape who I am today.

I thank those who have volunteered their time in my nomination and during my campaign for placing in me their confidence and unwavering support. I thank the hon. Rob Nicholson, my political mentor, for his sound advice, guidance and wisdom. As many members of the House will know, Rob proudly and loyally served his constituents and our country for an incredible 24 years.

There is no greater reward in this profession than being able to help those who need it most. I thank Rob for everything he has done and will continue to do in his well-earned retirement.

When I announced my intentions to run for public office, I stated that I was doing so because I believed in building a better future for our country and for those who are fortunate enough to call Niagara their home. Now that we are here in this place as elected parliamentarians, I am looking forward to working with members of all parties to advance our country's best interests.

It is a great privilege to speak in the House today to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. It is worth noting the Conservative Party of Canada is the party of free trade. I am proud of that. It is a Conservative legacy. The original North American Free Trade Agreement originated from our party's hard work on the free trade file many years ago.

Canada's Conservatives support free trade with our North American trading partners. However, what we do not support is rushing blindly into an agreement to implement a deal, the details of which have not yet been shared.

Over a month ago, our party requested that the Liberals provide us with details of the economic impact studies of this signed agreement. To date, we are still waiting, as are many of the Canadian industries that rely on this deal.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to analyze all legislation that is brought before the House, including this bill. Canadians expect their representatives in this chamber to do this, as they should. Our party is committed to conducting this due diligence on their behalf. Therefore, we once again ask for the background documents and the economic impact studies so we can make an informed decision on this incredibly important free trade agreement.

In the federal riding of Niagara Falls, my constituents want to see us work together to create more opportunities for trade, job creation and investment. Delivering a workable free trade deal that could lead to this opportunity, and provide certainty for our manufacturers in the Golden Horseshoe and beyond, is my goal and, I hope, the goal of all members here.

The highest-valued provincial exporter to the United States is Ontario. However, we must not cheer too quickly, because the value of these exports in 2018 declined over 2017.

The uncertainty caused by the renegotiation of NAFTA and the lack of any detailed information or economic impact studies provided by the current government is worrisome. According to Statistics Canada, there were fewer Ontarians employed in manufacturing in December 2019 compared with December 2018, despite employment growing overall in the province by 3.3%.

Manufacturing had been the historical economic backbone of my riding of Niagara Falls. However, partially because of the economic uncertainty over the past number of years, manufacturing jobs have packed up and left.

We need to create certainty in our business environment. We can do it by working together to study this trade agreement, identify its benefits and its deficiencies and put in place plans to overcome the deficiencies that will negatively impact Canadian industries.

In my riding, there are residents at work in the auto sector in nearby St. Catharines. We used to have three automotive manufacturing plants by General Motors, employing thousands of employees in that city. Today, only one engine plant remains.

We do not want to see this industry get any smaller in our part of the country. These are important jobs that support hard-working families. Any negative impacts on the auto sector from the new NAFTA would cause hardship for these workers, their families and the overall local economy. Without our being supplied economic impact studies, it is very difficult to know what economic impacts there could be and how these may impact our local economies and Canadian industries.

Just going by what we know, the Liberals negotiated changes to the rules of origin for our auto manufacturing industry. Now 70% of the steel used in new vehicles must be melted and poured in North America. That is good protection for our domestic steel industry, and I do not think anyone would argue it is not a positive change.

Unfortunately, the Liberals seem to have dropped the ball during the trade negotiations by accepting concessions on aluminum production. There are no North American content rules governing the melting and pouring of aluminum used in the manufacturing of autos and parts. Does that mean Chinese aluminum could make its way into Mexican-made engines or car components? The engine plant in St. Catharines will have to compete against that.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, as it is my first time rising in the House in debate, I would be remiss if I did not thank the wonderful constituents of the riding of Saint John—Rothesay for re-electing me and sending me back to this beautiful House and this beautiful city to represent them. It was a hard-fought campaign.

I want to thank and congratulate other candidates like Rodney Weston, Armand Cormier and Ann McAlllister for offering spirited debate and great dialogue throughout the campaign. Again, it is an honour to be back here.

I was looking at some records the other day, and I have been in Ottawa almost 600 nights over the last four and a half years. Everybody recognizes the large commitment we all make and the time that we take away from our families. I want to recognize my beautiful wife Denise and my sons Khristian and Konnor for supporting me, putting up with me and standing with me over the last four and a half years.

I want to thank my wonderful campaign team: my co-campaign managers Kevin Collins and Nora Robinson; and last but not least, Jeannette Arsenault and my wonderful office staff for doing great things for the riding, representing my constituents.

It is an honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States and the United Mexican States.

I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for her outstanding work in negotiating the new North American Free Trade Agreement, known as the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, with the United States and Mexico. It is thanks to her hard work, leadership, vision and perseverance that we now have a modernized and improved free trade agreement with our North American partners.

As the member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay, I represent a riding with an economy dependent on international trade and, as a result, thousands of workers in my riding depend on their elected representatives to ensure Canada's trading agreements protect their jobs, rights and environment. This is why I am proud to stand here today to speak in support of legislation that intends to implement a modernized NAFTA, which contains unprecedented measures to protect the well-paying jobs of workers in my riding, whose jobs depend on trade with the United States and Mexico, ensure labour standards are upheld and protect the environment.

Before my previous life in hockey, I was involved for 15 years in international trade and business with an aquaculture company. I travelled the world and extensively throughout the United States. If anybody knows the value of a trade agreement, of lowering barriers, lowering and eliminating tariffs and creating an environment of free and open trade, I certainly do. It produces thousands of jobs in my riding and hundreds of thousands of jobs right across the country.

Saint John is a key node in Canada's global trade network. The port of Saint John is Canada's third-busiest seaport and eastern Canada's largest port by volume. It serves Canada's largest oil refinery, the Irving Oil refinery, and handles a diverse cargo base. It handles an average of 28 million metric tons of cargo annually, including dry and liquid bulks, break bulk and containers originating from and destined to ports all over the world.

My riding is also home to a second world headquarters, Cooke Aquaculture Inc., an international aquaculture firm that employs thousands of people, has sales in the billions of the dollars and was started by the Cooke family. Glenn, Mike and their father Gifford live literally 35 minutes from my office. It is a success story that is an example of leadership.

Our port is also in the midst of a historic expansion. It is currently undertaking a $205-million modernization of its west-side cargo terminal. This transformational trade infrastructure project was made possible by the $68.3-million investment by our federal government. In addition, CP Rail announced in November that it will begin serving the port of Saint John as it has purchased close to 800 kilometres of track which runs from Saint John deep into the state of Maine. This means that the port of Saint John will soon be connected to both of Canada's class I railways.

The new NAFTA, which our government is seeking to implement with the bill before us, would ensure that the port of Saint John is able to fully leverage its expansion and the incredible opportunity by preserving our tariff-free access to the American market and ensuring that the other North American ports it competes with comply with the same rigorous environmental standards as it does when it comes to preventing marine pollution through its enforceable environmental chapter.

I am thrilled to tell members that New Brunswick is on the cusp of becoming an international leader in manufacturing and export of small modular nuclear reactors. In 2018, ARC Nuclear Canada and Moltex Energy established offices in Saint John when the provincial government announced its nuclear innovation cluster funding for which they were both chosen as participants. With this announcement, the province of New Brunswick instantly became a climate change policy leader for Canada with the development of SMRs. Since that time, ARC and Moltex have proceeded with purpose to develop their technologies with the goal of eventually establishing a manufacturing export hub for their technologies in our province by leveraging the port of Saint John.

SMRs can employ thousands of people across New Brunswick. Also, if members want to talk about reducing a carbon footprint, SMRs could be used across the country in every province. The new NAFTA would ensure that our province is able to fully leverage this incredible opportunity to grow our economy and tackle climate change by ensuring that we continue with tariff-free access to the American and Mexican markets. As well, it would ensure that our SMR technology companies do not have to compete against companies in other North American jurisdictions that do not have to comply with rigorous environmental standards for air and marine pollution through its enforceable environmental chapter.

This agreement also includes an unprecedented enforcement provision when it comes to labour standards to address, in a timely manner, labour violations relative to collective bargaining and freedom of association. The agreement also includes innovation mechanisms for rapid response between Canada and Mexico and between the United States and Mexico.

To close, as I mentioned previously, I was in international trade for 15 years and I know what it means to have an agreement that reduces tariffs and barriers and promotes free trade. It is crucial to the success of business. It is crucial to the growth of business. It is crucial to the development of business.

I am proud to stand behind this bill. I am proud to support it. I know first-hand that Canadians appreciate what we have done. I can certainly speak for the world leaders, constituents, unions and businesses in my riding who stand with me in support of this new bill.