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 Implementation Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the disappointing things about the CUSMA is that there is no mention of the Paris agreement.

If stronger enforceable provisions on the environment had been included in this agreement, could they have been used to promote Quebec's aluminum?

I would like my hon. colleague's thoughts on that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question.

I do believe that, if a government decides to commit to meeting the Paris targets, it must take them into account when negotiating economic deals like CUSMA. It must recognize that any agreement it enters into must also work towards achieving those targets.

Of course I completely agree with my colleague. These sorts of provisions could have been included, and aluminum could have been one solution to help reach those targets.

[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, I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleague across the way. One of the concerns across Canada is about when we can anticipate the legislation to pass. There seems to be a wide spectrum of support, including from different provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec.

Does the member feel that there is any opportunity for the Bloc to maybe have discussions with some of the other stakeholders, including the Premier of Quebec, to see if there might be more common ground that would see us all support this agreement?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is a thorough party. For example, one topic we just spoke about was the Paris agreement.

I would like the governing party to share our enthusiasm for meeting the Paris targets by the deadline.

The government seems to be in a hurry with the treaty, yet the same cannot be said for the Paris agreement. I do not understand the double standard here.

As for the reference to Mr. Legault and the comments he made, I think we need to consider the context, since we are a thorough party and I consider myself a thorough person. He said that he is not happy. He is not happy that the government is unwilling to deal with aluminum.

The Premier of Quebec sees that one of Quebec's industries is struggling, and I think he would very much like to find ways to protect aluminum and our workers.

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

Madam Speaker, having had the opportunity to tour an aluminum smelter in my colleague's riding, I can indeed attest to this industry's importance to Quebec.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. I have spoken mainly to the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who is also very concerned about Quebec's aluminum industry. It is a bit rich to say that only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the aluminum industry. I would like my colleague to at least recognize the work done by the other two opposition parties to defend Canada's and especially Quebec's aluminum industry. We produce the best aluminum in the world here in Canada.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This gives me an opportunity to say that I would love to highlight the work that the official opposition is doing with us on the aluminum file. Note my use of the word “would”. The Conservatives voted in favour of the motion, while the Bloc Québécois voted against it. Naturally, there needs to be some consistency between words and actions. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that we have the best aluminum in the world. I urge the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to join us. We keep inviting him to join us every time we speak out, but sadly he declines.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before I recognize the member I want to advise her that unfortunately, I will have to cut off debate because the time will end. However, the member will be able to take it up the next time this matter is before the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-4 today in the House of Commons. The Canada-United States-Mexico trade deal is legislation we are all very proud of. I want to start by complimenting the minister on the tremendous work she has done and for the time, dedication and commitment to Canada in every line and chapter in the agreement.

This is the first occasion I have had since the election for me to thank the people of my riding for supporting me and electing me to the House of Commons to represent them in this mandate. I want to thank them for having confidence in me and for supporting the agenda we have worked on together for the people of Labrador. I certainly want to thank the many volunteers who worked on my campaign and all campaigns. As parliamentarians, we know how important it is to have the support of communities and individuals. Their work is so valuable in getting our messages out during the election.

As most members know, I come from a province that is hugely dependent on oil and gas development. We are very proud of the industry we have built. We know that energy within Canada in itself is an industry that has allowed our country to grow. It is a huge export commodity. It is one of the pieces dealt with throughout the trade agreement with the United States and Mexico.

I represent a riding that is not only one of the largest producers of hydro development power in Canada, but also through our partnerships with Hydro-Québec, we are able to see a lot of that export of power going into the United States as well. My riding is also the largest exporter of iron ore in Canada and one of the largest exporters of nickel. We know how important it is to have good trade agreements. We know how important it is to have strong allies and strong export markets. That translates into jobs at home and a stronger economy. It also helps so many families in many industrial sectors.

This is a remarkable time in Canada as we enter into this Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. I believe the outcomes in this agreement are good for all Canadians in every sector.

I want to talk about the energy sector because it is one of the sectors that is critically important to both the Canadian and North American economies. Our natural resources place Canada among the largest energy producers in the world. I am very happy to represent a riding and province that contribute in a major way to that energy production in the world market.

In 2018, Canada's energy sector directly employed more than 270,000 people. It indirectly supported over 550,000 jobs, which is quite substantial in terms of the employment generated through this particular sector. Including indirect activities, the sector accounts for 11% of the nominal gross domestic product of the country. Therefore, it was important that a key objective in the negotiations was to address the needs of the sector. This had to be a priority.

Provisions that govern trade in energy goods in Canada, as well as in other regions, are found throughout all of the agreement. It is not just in one particular chapter. It is spoken to in various places throughout the agreement.

It speaks to a number of things. One is national treatment and the other is market access, which we have heard a lot about with many other resource sectors. It speaks to the rules of origin for the energy sector, customs and trade facilitation, as well as cross-border trade in both services and investment.

Commitments from the original NAFTA agreement were brought forward to ensure that exports of Canadian energy products would continue to benefit from duty-free treatment in both the United States and Mexico, which was critical to the industry. Likewise, imports of energy products into Canada will continue to be duty free as well, ensuring that importers have access to these products without the extra cost of tariffs. We know how critical that is to the survival and stability of those investors and those resource sectors.

I am not going to expand upon each of those sectors, but I want to expand on the rules of origin, because the CUSMA addresses a long-standing request that had been there from Canadian industry. That was to resolve a very technical issue that was related to the use of diluent, a petroleum-based liquid that is often added to crude oil to ensure that it flows properly through pipelines. The issue had previously added upwards of $60 million a year in duties and other fees to our exporters in Canada, which was a burden. It was felt to be unnecessary, and they lobbied for a long time to have that removed because it was a huge cost to Canadian businesses. Under the new agreement, that particular issue around the rules of origin was dealt with, allowing the energy sector in Canada to gain financially from that change.

In addition to the provisions that govern energy that are found across the agreement, both Canada and the United States also agreed to a bilateral side letter on energy co-operation and transparency. I mention that because the United States, as we have all said and recognized many times, is Canada's most important trading partner when it comes to energy, as it is for many other resource sectors. The U.S. also accounted for 89% of our total energy exports in 2018. That is 89% of our total exports.

Due to the importance and integrated nature of this relationship, the CUSMA includes new provisions on energy regulatory measures and regulatory transparency that are tailored directly to trading needs between Canada and the United States. The side letter that was signed committed to provisions that would help Canadian stakeholders with more assurances and transparency with respect to the authorization process and allow them to participate in the energy sector in the United States.

Both parties have agreed to publish this information now. They have agreed to an application process, have agreed on monetary payments and have agreed on timelines. All of this is providing for stability and certainty in the industry. It is giving investors the opportunity to make important deals in full knowledge of the scope and lay of the land and without being exposed to unexpected changes. This in itself was key for the industry, and it is one of the pieces that they have been very pleased to see negotiated directly between Canada and the United States.

I know I am running out of time and that we have to conclude, but I am happy to resume this debate and talk more about the energy sector and the export sector under this agreement at another time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We are not done at two o'clock. Unfortunately, some people may have thought they were going home early today, but we are done at 2:30 today.

However, the member's time had actually expired, so we will now go to questions and comments. The member will have extra time to elaborate on anything she wanted to say.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to stick to a similar theme of questions asked of a previous Liberal speaker, to which there was no answer. My colleague in the NDP and I asked the same question as to why Canada would cede our sovereignty by allowing the American government to effectively veto Canadian decisions about participating in trade agreements with countries outside of NAFTA.

This is not the kind of giving up of sovereignty that most countries would accept and, from my understanding, the deal does not involve a similar relinquishment of that sovereignty by the United States.

Why does this colleague think that is acceptable? I would be curious to know as well why the deal does not include a similar commitment from the Americans to “consult” Canadians in that context.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that one of the notable differences between the NAFTA agreement and the modernized agreement that we have now is that under this new agreement, the clause that speaks to the proportionality of energy exports is one of the things that was changed.

Basically, up until now, we were obligated to provide the United States with the opportunity to maintain proportionate volumes of Canadian supply, based on recent export levels. While the provision was never invoked, it eliminated a lot of the abilities that Canada had.

The new agreement reaffirms Canada's sovereignty over its energy resources and allows us to do this without consent or needing to seek the permission of the United States.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been following the debate around the sovereignty issue, or the sub-debate on this, with a lot of interest. I have been interested in the Conservative position because I would agree with those who would say that the energy proportionality clause was a significant hit to Canada's sovereignty.

We certainly made that case originally. It is one of the reasons why we were disappointed to hear the Liberals initially say that they did not want to reopen NAFTA. We also never really heard them criticize the proportionality chapter at that time. In both iterations of the deal we have had a serious challenge to Canada's sovereignty, first with the proportionality clause and now with the requirement to consult on China.

I just wonder why, in a trade agreement that should be about tariffs and duties for the most part, we continue to have these extraneous issues that threaten Canadian sovereignty and should not be in a trade deal at all.

Why is it that we keep getting, in agreements that really should have to do with the costs at the border of exchanging goods, provisions that threaten Canadian sovereignty?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I understand the perspective from which the hon. member asked the question.

However, it is important to note that under the old NAFTA agreement one of those provisions was the energy proportionality clause. It was restrictive and it was a concern for Canadians because we were actually obligated to provide the United States with the opportunity to maintain proportionate volumes of Canadian supply based on recent export levels. Not only members in the House, but others in the country in the energy sector, sought to ensure that the clause was changed so that those provisions would no longer exist.

The minister was very effective and very firm in her negotiations, ensuring that the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement would reaffirm Canada's sovereignty over its energy resources and that this particular clause would no longer prevail.

In my opinion it was a huge success in modernizing this agreement and it is a tremendous benefit for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start my remarks today by asserting my strong support for the principles of free trade. The original NAFTA, brought in by a Conservative government, led generations of economic growth between our three countries. This agreement is important, and I support it in principle. However, due to Liberal mismanagement, this deal is not what it could have been. It is fraught with shortcomings that will put many sectors of the Canadian economy at risk, but investment in our country depends on certainty, and this deal provides more certainty than we have now.

Under the current Liberal government, business investment has stalled and been driven south due to aggressive American tax cuts. Canada needs to compete, and it is clear that the government has no interest in competing on taxes after repeatedly raising them. Our economy depends on the certainty that comes with a trade deal. This deal, like all deals, is not perfect, and if the Liberals do think that the Conservatives are simply going to rubber-stamp it, they are sorely mistaken.

Many of my colleagues have been highlighting the deficiencies in this agreement, but I want to look at one that has not been talked about as much but is crucial for the future of Canadian creativity and economic growth: copyright protection. Much of the last year on the industry committee we studied Canada's copyright framework, and what changes could be made to improve it. We tabled that report, and I am very proud of all the hard work that went into it. I hope the government accepts almost all the recommendations. One thing we did not recommend was to extend Canada's general copyright term from the life of the author plus 50 years to life plus 70 years. Canada's copyright term is compliant with the Berne Convention and has served us well. It is my opinion that the exclusive rights to a work being held for 50 years after an author's death is entirely appropriate and sufficient. Extending that term is not.

During the copyright study, we heard from many viewpoints about extending copyright term. Many were in favour and many were opposed. At the same time, we knew that the text of the USMCA required Canada to adopt the longer American copyright term. This was not a surprise, as that was contained in the trans-Pacific partnership prior to the U.S. pulling out from that deal. I thus expected the text of the USMCA- or CUSMA-enabling legislation we are debating today to contain the extension of the general copyright term. Much to my shock and relief, no such extension is in this bill. There are aspects that extend term in some areas such as sound recording and cinematographic works. There is no general extension to life plus 70.

I do not think that this battle is over, as the transitional period means term extension will likely be in the eventual Copyright Act reform that comes from the committee report, but for now the term will be maintained. I hope the government reads the report from the industry committee and seeks to mitigate the damage to Canadian copyright law that comes from the USMCA.

Why is extending the term not the right move? It is because if Canada extends our general term by 20 years, that will create a 20-year black hole in which no works will enter the public domain. For two decades, no work will become open for Canadians to access it in any format they wish without the permission of the rights holder. This will cast a chill on a large amount of innovation and creativity in our country.

The purpose of copyright was to make sure that creators of a work could enjoy the benefits of their hard work and creativity without someone else stealing it. Protecting that work for the creator's entire life, and for 50 additional years so that their descendants could profit off the work, is a good idea. When we are talking about adding 20 more years, we start to blur the purpose of copyright.

No artist is deciding not to create art because only three generations of their descendants, instead of four, may hold the rights to that art. To suggest otherwise is an absurd proposition. Artists create because they love what they do and want to put their art into the world. The only reason to further extend copyright is to ensure rights holders, often large corporations, can continue to profit off that intellectual property for decades.

In the past, I have been tempted to call the government a Mickey Mouse operation, but that would not be fair. Mickey Mouse runs a hyper-efficient and effective operation when it comes to expanding copyright protections. “Efficient and effective” are words that I would never use to describe the government.

Any time the copyright on early Disney cartoons is due to lapse, the U.S. Congress just extends them. It happened in 1976, the year I was born. It happened again in 1998 and will probably happen again in a few years.

Extending the copyright term is not about protecting artists. It is about protecting large companies that own the rights for decades after the artist's death. To see the impact large corporations can have, utilizing intellectual property law, we only need to look to my riding in the Okanagan Valley.

A small, family-run coffee shop that has operated for five years now has to change its name because of a lawsuit from a multi-billion-dollar company. I believe it could win if the shop fought it, but it literally cannot compete with such a giant corporation, as it would be far too expensive for this family. That is the risk in further expanding intellectual property powers for rights holders. They can use them to bludgeon small business and independent creators.

Respected Canadian copyright expert Jeremy de Beer, who presented to the Copyright Act review, stated that the trade agreement's intellectual property chapter was “an American win”. Thankfully, despite Liberal mismanagement of the negotiations, Canada was able to salvage the notice and notice regime and avoid implementing an American-style enforcement mechanism, which should not happen.

Over the coming months and years, we will have to work as a body to try to mitigate the damage from the intellectual property chapter in this agreement to which the Liberals agreed. I can only hope we ensure that Canadian and international content remains open and accessible and that innovation and creativity does not suffer serious hardship.

Canadian copyright law has managed to be distinct from, and I believe in many respects superior to, American law. Unfortunately, with this agreement, that will no longer be the case. This deal contains a forced alignment of our framework to the American one, and the Canadian consumers and creators will be worse off because of it.

Another topic I want to speak about today is one that is incredibly important to my riding, softwood lumber. Earlier this year, we watched over 200 jobs disappear in Kelowna, British Columbia as the decades-old Tolko lumber mill closed. This also hits independent logging contractors and all their suppliers and third-party business owners, and those are small businesses, yet there was not a word from the Liberal government about softwood lumber. There was not a word in the mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources in 2015 nor again in this mandate.

When the Prime Minister recently had a conference call with B.C. Premier John Horgan, guess what subject never came up? Softwood lumber. Why is that? Why is the Liberal government constantly silent on softwood? Let us not forget that with a lack of a deal, we now see Canadian lumber companies setting up shop and investing in the United States. That is jobs and opportunities lost while the Liberal government looks the other way. That is why free trade is important.

If we are not competitive and we get it wrong, it is our trading partners who will benefit at our expense. That is why this deal is flawed. That is why, despite its obvious shortcomings on copyright, on softwood lumber, I will support the bill moving to committee.

[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, there was a time not that long ago when the Conservatives in opposition were saying that the government needed to capitulate and just sign an agreement. That is what they were arguing not that long ago. What has actually changed from then to now—