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

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government continually goes on and on about how indigenous relations are the most important relationship, that nation-to-nation building. That is admirable, except that there was absolutely no mention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this document.

I am wondering if the member knows if the government intends to get free, prior and informed consent on this agreement before moving forward.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the agreement talks about the indigenous population and how to protect them. That was already included. I mentioned it in my speech.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I want to make it clear that we Conservatives are strongly in favour of free trade. The removal of barriers to trade results in lower costs for consumers and expanded production for our exporters. That is why a Conservative prime minister signed the original NAFTA.

The Liberal government claims that CUSMA is a victory, calling it an updated NAFTA. In effect, what it is doing is attempting to claim victory for striking a deal almost as good as the one that Conservatives struck nearly a quarter-century ago.

Some of the areas in which this agreement falls short of the original include concessions on dairy, the non-market country FTA, which gives the U.S. oversight of Canada's trade negotiations with other countries, and the sunset clause requiring a formal review of the agreement every six years, to name a few.

Dairy Farmers of Ontario stated:

CUSMA will have three main impacts on the Canadian dairy sector:

(1) The United States is given market access through tariff-rate quotas on dairy;

(2) Milk classes 6 and 7 are eliminated;

(3) The setting of global export thresholds for the following three products: milk protein concentrate, infant formula and skim milk powder, above which export charges will be added on any additional exports at the global level.

Dairy Farmers of Ontario awaits ratification of the agreement to know how and when CUSMA will come into force, and the more specific impact it will have on the sector.

Pierre Lampron, president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, said the following:

The signing of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is a sad chapter in Canada’s dairy industry and for Canadian exporters. The access to our country’s dairy market given to the U.S. represents a significant loss, the equivalent of the combined dairy production of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Market access is only the tip of the iceberg. Concessions include an oversight clause that gives the U.S. the ability to intervene in the administration of our domestic system. The concessions also give the U.S. the ability to impose the equivalent of a cap on global dairy exports, which will limit Canada’s ability to export dairy products. Would the U.S. ever accept such terms?

The Liberals failed to work with opposition parties during the negotiation and ratification process and are now rushing to push this deal through the House. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated over and over again in the House that the requirement for North American aluminum in autos will go from zero to 70% under the new NAFTA. Each time she avoids mentioning the fact that Mexico can import aluminum from China, process it and then have it qualify for preferential treatment. This was prevented in the case of steel by requiring it to be melted and poured in North America.

Why has this back door been left open for aluminum? Why did the government fail to include a definition for aluminum rules of origin for autos, requiring it to be poured and melted in North America?

Premier Legault and the Aluminum Association of Canada expressed their disappointment that such a definition is absent from the new NAFTA. What is this government's plan to protect Canada's aluminum workers from this problem?

The government has said it will monitor Mexico's imports of aluminum from China. What will it do if those imports are high? How long will it take for these actions to come into effect? What will be the net result to our aluminum industry? These questions and many more are all left unanswered.

Even under the best-case scenario where Mexico does not import large quantities of aluminum from China, which is wishful thinking to say the least, the failure of this agreement to stipulate it creates uncertainty. Uncertainty, as many know, always discourages investment and inevitably hurts the aluminum industry and negatively affects the lives of individuals who depend on it. As many as 60,000 jobs are at stake. These are not just numbers. They represent real people with families who depend on them.

What about the softwood lumber industry? The new NAFTA neglects communities that depend on this industry as well. The closure and restriction on softwood lumber mills have devastated communities from British Columbia to New Brunswick. The Canadian press went as far as to describe the situation as the “forest industry carnage”. Canada's sustainable forest industry has long been a key component of our economy, contributing over $24 billion to our GDP in 2017 and directly employing over 200,000 people. Roughly 29% of our forest export products are softwood lumber.

Since 2017, Canadian lumber entering the U.S. has been hit with a 20% tariff, whereas European softwood enters the American market tariff-free. Why? The government claims victory on the North American Free Trade Agreement, even with softwood lumber notably absent.

As I stated earlier, our Conservative Party is the party of free trade and there are certainly many aspects of this agreement we agree with. Almost all these provisions were part of the original NAFTA, which the Liberal government was so quick to open up and negotiate. However, they are still important provisions.

Here are some quotes from stakeholders that are particularly insightful.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance said, “We look forward to receiving confirmation that the changes don’t negatively impact our members.”

Goldy Hyder, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, has said the signed new NAFTA is “good enough” for Canada, something that “gets us through this administration.”

It says a lot, however, that the only praise being levied on the new NAFTA is that it has managed to maintain several important parts of the original agreement.

It is the democratic obligation of all members of Parliament to analyze legislation that is brought before the House. This is especially true when it comes to a trade deal with Canada's largest and most important trade partner.

The Liberals have failed to provide documents outlining the impacts of the new trade deal despite numerous attempts from opposition members. It has been 49 days since we asked the government to provide an economic impact assessment on the new agreement. To date, it has not been made available to any members of the House.

Tuesday night I even attended a briefing by Global Affairs Canada in order to get some information on the specifics of this agreement. When questions were asked, the answers we received were very political, such as, “it hasn't really changed that much”, “very similar to the original”, “basically the same”, etc. I left the briefing with more questions than answers. Here we are debating the bill and still waiting for concrete answers.

The Liberals do not yet seem to recognize the realities of the new Parliament and are mistaken if they believe we will rubber-stamp the deal. That is why we need to have this debate, to finally get questions answered.

Let us be thankful that we had a Conservative government to negotiate the original NAFTA. I would hate to have seen what deal the Liberal government would have negotiated if it did not have the original to work from.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, will the Conservatives be voting for or against the revised NAFTA deal?

Also, the Premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta have come out in favour of it. Today, the Premier of Ontario also asked for a speedy approval of CUSMA to bring business certainty to the province of Ontario, where I live and have the privilege of representing one of the ridings.

As we have all the provincial premiers, from the member's vantage point, asking for immediate passage so we can give businesses, the communities, the employees and Canadians from coast to coast certainty, will you be voting yes or no for this deal?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to advise the member that he is to address the question to the Speaker and not to individual members.

The hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is the question at hand. We are here tonight to get some answers to some of the questions I have brought forward.

Everyone knows that we understand it is an important agreement and that we have had free trade with the United States for many years. This is why everyone wants that certainty. We are not necessarily going to vote against it, but we definitely need to question many parts of it.

As for many of the premiers speaking in favour of it, that is simply because we need to get this ratified as soon as possible.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments, and the member can feel free to engage as he sees fit.

First of all, the member mentioned that the opposition parties were not involved. I would like to remind the member that the former interim leader of the Conservative Party was involved the entire time with the deputy prime minister. In fact, she remarked that it was the best deal that could have been made at the time.

The member opposite also talked about the dairy industry. While I appreciate that its market access is unfortunate, he needs to understand that every second word from the President of the United States was about dairy. We fought to maintain that access.

I also want to remind the member opposite, because I believe he is a new member, that it was the Conservatives, under CETA and CPTPP, who negotiated that deal away freely, without the same pressure that was faced by this government.

Finally, as it relates to the text, the agreement is right here. It can be read. All that information is available, so to suggest that somehow this government is hiding the agenda is unfortunate.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on those comments.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will try to address as much as I possibly can.

You are right; I am a new member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address the Speaker and not the individual member.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are several aspects to this; that is correct. However, the TPP, for instance, had more quota reductions than what is being proposed now. This is one area where the Liberals gave up more than what was previously agreed upon. It is one challenge I have with the new agreement.

I forget the other parts of the member's question, but one thing I do know is that we were not as involved as we would have liked. This agreement affects all parties across Canada, and we should have been better addressed throughout the whole process, even in the last 48 days.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to hear his thoughts on the fact that our colleagues opposite are claiming that we absolutely must sign this agreement as quickly as possible, even though when the U.S. Congress was studying the matter, the Democrats changed a number of things pertaining to the steel sector.

What does he think of the political position taken by our colleagues opposite?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe everyone is trying to get through this process as quickly as possible because of the uncertainty that has been going on for so many months already. I know that the election interfered with the process somewhat, but it has still taken quite a lot of time.

Unfortunately, every decision we make is quite political, and that is going to be a challenge in everything we do in the House.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

I listened carefully to the exchanges between my colleagues and the members opposite on this matter. My Liberal colleague mentioned that our interim leader, Rona Ambrose, who was a member of the negotiating team, said that the free trade agreement negotiated was the best possible outcome under the circumstances. I just wanted to mention that our former leader is a very intelligent woman who was able to see the limitations of the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and the former minister of foreign affairs.

If we consider the players in the negotiations, it really is the best agreement that could be reached by the Liberals. That is the reality. Therefore, we must pay attention to the context in which statements were made. When we know the limitations of the team leading the negotiations and its weakness vis-à-vis the U.S. government and we know that we are the last ones to reach an agreement, we can understand that our former leader was right when she said that it was the best agreement under the circumstances.

The legislation to implement the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement builds on the first NAFTA signed by the Conservatives. We on this side of the House like to say that this is free trade agreement 0.5, not free trade agreement 2.0, the new North American Free Trade Agreement or the new Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. It really is a weakened free trade agreement.

Indeed, many sectors were shortchanged because this government is incapable of negotiating correctly and achieving the gains it should have. I am not the one saying so, but rather the chair of the U.S. house ways and means committee. Some of the power of what he said is lost in translation, but in English, he was very clear.

“[The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister] conceded to just about every point that we asked for because of the following: enforceability, enforceability, enforceability.” What concessions did we agree to in order to elicit such a reaction?

What were the concessions that prompted the chairman of the U.S. Congress's most important committee to state that the former foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister conceded to just about every point that was asked for during the negotiations? The answer is simple. It is that their party is not the party of free trade. The party of free trade is the Conservative Party. I would like to congratulate all the former Conservative ministers who negotiated free trade agreements.

All the Liberals did was come close to jeopardizing CETA and the TPP. Members may recall that the Prime Minister did not even show up for a TPP signing ceremony. The leaders of all the other TPP countries were there, but he was not. Where was the Prime Minister? People looked for him, but he was not there. He was absent. An agreement of tremendous importance to the entire Canadian economy almost fell through because the Prime Minister did not show up. Maybe it was because the photo op was not at the right time, or he was not happy with his outfit. I have no idea. It took even more work and more discussion to finalize the agreement.

That is where the problem lies. The Liberals agreed at the last minute. We used to be the United States' main partner. Now it would seem that Mexico has more influence than Canada, even though the Americans have been our neighbours and partners forever. This is due to the fact that the agreement was first reached between the United States and Mexico. Then they told Canada that it would have to hurry up and sign if it wanted to be part of the agreement. That is where the Liberals' ability to reach a consensus and sign good agreements for Canadians gets us. That is the reality.

One of the major concessions has to do with the aluminum industry. In that regard, I really want to mention the excellent work of my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who has repeatedly spoken out against the last-minute concessions that the Liberal government made concerning the aluminum industry.

The members opposite are bragging about how this agreement protects 70% of Quebec's aluminum, Canada's aluminum. They are saying that there was no protection before. This percentage applies only to parts. If parts are cast using aluminum from China or any other country, aluminum that was made using energy from coal or all sorts of things that we no longer want to see here, it would be considered a North American part that meets the 70% requirement. It is an insult to people's intelligence to say that this agreement protects Quebec's industry. That is completely unacceptable.

I know that my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is working very hard with his colleagues from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. I would like them to say that they are working hard with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. Just because he was not at yesterday's meeting with the stakeholders does not mean he is not collaborating. He met with the stakeholders. He met with Ms. Néron, the mayor of Saguenay, Patrick Bérubé, the executive director of Promotion Saguenay, Christian Fillion, the general manager of Aluminium Valley Society, and the union leaders. He met with all of them. He did not meet with all of them at the same time, but that does not matter. The goal is to work together to do something for workers and for Quebec's aluminum industry.

My colleague has some good solutions to propose. He will not oppose the free trade agreement, because we need it. At least 80% of the businesses in my riding deal with the United States every day. That is our country's economy. That is why the Conservatives decided to negotiate a free trade agreement. We knew all the benefits it could have for our country. However, something can be done. The member is opening the door for the government. He has concrete proposals to present, such as an action plan and a timeline for ensuring the traceability of aluminum in North America. We could identify the origin of the aluminum used for the parts that make up the 70% we keep hearing about. If we do not do this, one thing I can guarantee is that, given the current price of aluminum in Canada, more and more Chinese aluminum will be used in our cars.

The hon. member is also proposing that there be more transparency over the assistance that was provided. There were tariffs on aluminum. There is money lying dormant somewhere in the government coffers. We do not know what is being done with that money or what will be done with that money. Can there be more transparency so we can find out what is happening with that money? There could also be a low-carbon footprint procurement policy on steel and aluminum. Why are we unable to agree with the United States and Mexico on having North America use aluminum with a very low-carbon footprint? That would help us get results in lowering our greenhouse gases. It would also help us preserve Quebec's aluminum industry, and that would help thousands of workers in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, Portneuf and every other region with aluminum smelters to keep their jobs. This would help us ensure that Quebec remains a leader in the aluminum industry.

There are solutions. We will vote in favour of the bill. Obviously, we would have preferred not to be in this situation. We hope the government, which has offered to work with us from the start, will listen to the recommendations made by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to protect the aluminum industry.

I used to be the agriculture critic. I will not talk about compensation in the dairy sector. I will not talk about it because there is none. Nothing has been announced. The government made some major concessions affecting the dairy industry. Unfortunately, the Liberals were unable to tell us how much this would cost, what kind of sacrifices they made, why they put a limit on powdered milk exports to other countries and why they gave the United States oversight over how we manage our fee structure. This was part of the last-minute agreement they negotiated. They were unable to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians would benefit.

I will probably support the bill, but I hope that the government, which wants our co-operation, will give us some answers before the final vote.

[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]

Madam Speaker, my friend across the way is attempting to rewrite history. I want to give the former Harper government some credit as it did begin negotiations on a number of agreements. That is a good thing and I recognize that.

We did sign off on the Ukraine trade deal, but we did not have to modify it.

To assume credit for the European Union or the TPP is really stretching it. However, we do not mind sharing some of the glory that both the Conservative and Liberal governments have recognized the true value of trade in the world, particularly trade with the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. is our single greatest trading partner, which emphasizes just how important this agreement is.

I listened to many Conservatives speak, and if I were in opposition, I would probably be saying that we could do better. However, if we look at the agreement itself, from my perspective, it is a good deal. We have provinces of all political stripes recognizing the value of it and wanting to see it passed.

Would my friend not agree that this is a good deal?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that there are only five minutes of questions and comments, and to please put their questions through the Speaker right away so that we can get to other questions and comments from those who also want to participate.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.