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

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want the member to try to imagine that he is a Liberal. If he was negotiating this deal, but he knew on the other side that there was a member who had negotiated 51 free trade agreements, would he have involved that person in those trade negotiations that would have made it better?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the best question I have heard in the House today. Our former Conservative government negotiated free trade agreements with 46 different countries. We had five to start with and we ended up with 51. That is a record I am very proud of and I know the member is very proud of. Can I imagine being a Liberal? Never, never in my life.

However, can I imagine a future Conservative government doing much better than the Liberal government especially on the trade file? Absolutely. In fact, I can guarantee it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to a report. I wonder, as there have been many reports done and analysis, if he could refer to any others.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only report the government came up with on the value of this trade agreement was a bogus report. I am glad he asked the question. What the Liberal government did on the last day that the committee was reviewing this agreement, two weeks ago, was table-drop this economic impact assessment. The members of the committee had no ability to review the impact assessment. The committee had officials of the government there, but had no ability to ask them questions about the impact assessment. Then, once we reviewed the impact assessment, we realized that it was bogus anyway because it was comparing the new NAFTA to a world where Canada did not have a NAFTA at all.

That should be an embarrassment to the government. Liberals talk about transparency. The member for Elmwood—Transcona raised that issue of transparency. There was none here. They certainly did not consult with us.

As Conservatives, we take great pride in being the great champions of trade. Do they think they walked across the floor to ask if they should do this or that? No, they just went their merry way and conceded everything. They were snookered by Donald Trump.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.

I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak in support of Bill C-4. It is important to restate that Canada did not choose to renegotiate NAFTA. When confronted with the reality that our major trading partner was intent on replacing NAFTA, our government put in place a negotiating team that positioned Canada well as we began the process toward a modernized free trade agreement that, as my colleagues have stated in the House from time to time, has the overwhelming support of the House of Commons.

I have listened to much debate in the House and have heard various criticisms of parts of the renewed trade agreement, but members have not offered how they would have negotiated differently in those areas. While it is easy to pick apart points and say, “We would do it better”, Canada is a country of some 38 million people and our largest trading partner is a country of well over 300 million people. The official opposition would have Canadians believe that we could have simply gone to Washington and dictated to the U.S. every term we wanted in the agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Ridiculous.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

It is ridiculous. Trade agreements are negotiated between multilateral partners and countries. This particular one was between three countries, obviously: Mexico, Canada and the United States.

Canada, more than most, is dependent on trade. As a country of 38 million people, rich in natural resources, agriproducts and seafood, we depend on selling products worldwide in a competitive marketplace in order for Canada's economy to grow and succeed and to pay for the many programs that we as Canadians take for granted.

In these negotiations, I have to compliment the team that our government put in place to negotiate, at a critical time, a historic new agreement that will put in place, for Canadian businesses, Canadian farmers, Canadian fishers and Canadian workers, a secure framework as we move down the road and continue to grow and expand the economy.

Imagine for a moment standing here today in an environment with no agreement. Where would our industries be positioned? It is important to consider, in any particular trade agreement, which partner has more to lose and which partner has more to gain. For Canada, being a very small country compared to the U.S. in population and market size, it was extremely important that our negotiating team recognized that we had to have an agreement that served Canadians well and served Canada's economy well.

I have no problem going on the record to state that this agreement is a win for Canadians, a win established by a strong negotiating team that understood the dynamics and fundamentals of Canada's economy and ensured that the parts that had to be protected were protected.

I will not go into detail on the economic impact of this particular agreement, because it has been well debated in the House by earlier speakers. However, there is no question that Canada will be better positioned to move forward when the agreement is ratified than it would be if we had no trade agreement at all.

It is important to go back to how we arrived here. It was with a president intent on removing a trade agreement that had worked for a number of years, serving both countries well. That has been documented by speakers on both sides of the House. The agreement has served Canada and the U.S. well over the years.

It was extremely important that our government, being the smaller country population-wise in these trade agreements, secure an agreement that would be beneficial to all those sectors.

A couple of the last speakers basically portrayed the scenario that it was all wins for the U.S. and none for Canada. I believe that most fair-minded analysts would take a look at the agreement and say that Canada won on a lot of points, that Canada's team succeeded in a difficult environment and scored some big wins for us.

One of those wins that has been mentioned time and time again was that, from the outset, this government's line in the sand was always that supply management would remain in place. That was a major win in these trade negotiations, because at the start of this the U.S. administration was intent on seeing Canada's supply-managed system dismantled. That was a position that our government clearly would not waver on. There was room for negotiation, and at the end of the day we still have a sector that enjoys the benefits of operating in a supply market system.

My riding of Egmont is in the province of Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island is to Canada what Canada is to the U.S. Prince Edward Island is a province with a small population, and we depend on trade for our agri-products as well as seafood products. We very much depend on our national government to ensure that we have competitive trade agreements so that our goods move to market in a profitable manner and Prince Edward Island's industries remain protected that require it. Those industries that operate in a free market system do much better under this agreement, as was pointed out with the other agreements we signed with Europe and are now being negotiated with the Pacific Rim.

It is easy for opposition members to say that we should have done better in some areas, and we could have done better in some sectors, without offering what they would have exchanged to get to where their preferred position would have been, yet that is the role of the opposition. The opposition members can pick away at the government without offering up what they would do in our place. However, the government has a responsibility to ensure that at the end of the day Canadian entrepreneurs, farmers and fishers operate in a stable market environment with ensured protections. Some of the key areas that were protected are dispute settlement mechanisms, investor-state dispute resolution and the area of supply management.

As I indicated, Prince Edward Island is very small, and our dairy industry is very competitive. During this process, I met extensively with the dairy farmers in my riding. Let me read into the record a fact. Prince Edward Island has 1.7% of Canada's total dairy quota, and that quota has been growing at 3.5% annually, compared to the rest of Canada's at 2%, because the demand for domestic supply is moving. Over six years, that realized a 21% increase in market demand for Prince Edward Island's milk in a supply market system.

The industry is still growing and expanding. I recently had the honour of sitting down with some of the dairy farmers, the largest processors in my riding and the Minister of Agriculture and discussing what areas we had to continue to improve on to ensure that this industry remains competitive and small, medium-sized and large processors are competitive on an international market place.

I am pleased with this agreement. I certainly will be supporting it. I look forward to when this very important deal, which trumpets the accomplishments of this country, will be ratified in this House.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the floor asked what Conservatives would have done differently. There are far too many things to list in a question, but certainly one of the things that should have been done was to treat our negotiating partners with respect. There are a number of examples, whether it was the Prime Minister in a press conference or the then foreign affairs minister attending an event, that seemed to draw the ire of the people they were sitting down at the negotiating table with.

To answer his question, that is one thing that would be done differently, among a whole host of other things. How does the member think it was appropriate to basically insult the people our negotiators had to sit across the table from and try to get an agreement done? In some cases, insults had been flying hours before.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, very simply, who was complimented in the final agreement? It was our lead negotiator, the then minister of foreign affairs. She was complimented by her trade counterpart from the U.S. and by the President of the United States. That answers the question of our position on how our trade people were treated in the U.S. Likewise, the end result of a successful agreement addresses that particular issue.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the dynamics of the discussions on this agreement are quite interesting. There is a rare unanimity among opposition parties, all of which concur that this agreement is far from perfect. In fact, it is supremely imperfect, but it seems that we are stuck with it.

I somewhat agree with my Conservative colleague. I felt compelled to speak when our colleague opposite said that no member had explained how things would have been done differently if others had conducted the negotiations instead of the government. First, we would not have touched supply management as they did. We would not have sacrificed the security of our farmers and dairy producers. We would definitely not have allowed the U.S. government to impose export tariffs on our dairy producers for goods exported to countries that are not even party to the agreement, nor would we have forgotten to provide the same protections to the aluminum sector as were provided to the steel sector. It took weeks of Bloc Québécois questions to the Liberal Party to finally have a semblance of agreement. It took a long time. I admit that it was a great achievement and that is why the Bloc Québécois will finally support the agreement.

In what way does my colleague opposite consider the points I have just made to be a good thing for the sectors we are discussing, namely, aluminum and dairy?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if we checked the records of debates on this topic in the Mexican assembly and the U.S. Congress there would be opposing politicians criticizing their governments for not doing enough in their various jurisdictions. We had the same comments in the three countries that we positively did not go far enough in one area or the other. The fact is that this agreement did protect Canada's supply market system and did protect those farmers who participate in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with my colleague, and I know he cares as much about shipping lobster as I do about shipping salmon and the other species where I live.

The member talked about governments doing things differently. Clearly, we are happy to see the government adopt our policy to change the policy on tabling treaties here in Parliament.

The Canadian government must act now. I really want to give a huge shout-out to my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for working with the government and bringing this forward.

However, to give 90 days' notice of Canada's intent to negotiate a trade deal, to table negotiation objectives 30 days before negotiations commence and to provide an economic impact assessment along with ratifying legislation are basics for openness and transparency. Does my colleague agree that for transparency and openness in this deal, these should have been done in the first place?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, let us cut right to the end of the discussion. The proof is in the final document. We have strong unanimity in this House for supporting this agreement, so obviously we arrived there in a transparent and open process.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, because I do not have enough time, I will not give my speech on all of the benefits. We have heard from all parties today the many benefits of this agreement. Instead, I will comment on some of the points that have been made about the agreement.

One was related to reports. There are many reports that talk about the benefits of this agreement. A couple of the parties mentioned one report, but there have been many, and I will talk about a couple. RBC said, without disagreement, that the GDP would have gone down a huge amount, 1%, and affected 500,000 workers. Scotiabank said the Canadian economy would stand a strong chance of falling into a recession, without disagreement.

Another item that came up was the ability to export formula and skim milk type powders, saying they were cut off and we could not trade them anymore. That is not true. At a certain quota level, there will be a tariff, an increased charge, but we do not even export that much right now, so it will not have any immediate effect.

Something else that was said during the debate is that aluminum could be dumped into Mexico because of this agreement. There is nothing in the agreement that allows that. It has always been a concern of ours. We have always worked against that. In fact, thanks to the Bloc, we have strengthened the agreement in that respect.

There was the issue of government procurement. As members know, we have deferred government procurement to the WTO. Before we only had access to federal procurement through the WTO provisions and now we have access to 37 states, so that is a great improvement. Members talked about the announced intention of the United States to withdraw from that. That has been a rumour for years, but, as far as I know, there has been no official announcement related to that.

The Conservatives mentioned the benefit that we have increased the amount that can be brought across the border without taxes or duties, but we also protected business by having much lower amounts than the United States has.

We have to remember where we started in this agreement. The fact was that the United States wanted no agreement at all and the business community and most Canadians realized how devastating that would be for the country, so it is a great win that we have gotten this far. Some people have suggested that Trump could not tear up the agreement, but Mr. Trump achieved a lot of things that people did not think he would be able to achieve through the U.S. system.

Another item related to data for the large interactive computer providers, such as Facebook. Canada has its own laws about what is permissible and what can be watched. The safe harbour part of the agreement for these companies is only related to civil liability. If someone posts something, it is user-generated data only that companies are protected from. If it is not appropriate and not right, they would have to take it down. CUSMA will not prevent Canada from regulating online platforms or the use of administrative penalties. Canada can continue to regulate illegal content, including hate speech, and enforce criminal law.

Another point that was mentioned was the number of trade agreements this government has entered into. I would like to put on the record that in 2018, we approved the CPTPP, involving 11 countries; in 2016, we entered into the CETA with 27 countries; in 2016, we signed the agreement with Ukraine; and now we have this agreement. We are now the only G7 country with trade agreements with all of the other G7 countries, which is tremendous for our economy.

I was here for most of the debate today and those issues were raised as concerns.

The last one would be the auto industry. Today, I mentioned all the provisions that would help the auto parts providers, and they are very happy about that. When we increase Canadian auto parts businesses and the number of workers so more has to be made in Canada, the price of the vehicles go up. There was some lessening of the total sales, but the manufacturers of auto parts in Canada are much better off as is the industry because of this agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development will have four minutes remaining in his time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.