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

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we worked for that deal. We worked for the best in these negotiations. Our leaders at the time, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who was leader of the official opposition, paid visits to our partners in Washington, as did the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. It was the same thing with our colleagues for Brantford—Brant, Oshawa and Durham, who went to Washington to work for Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. We did our homework for the goodwill of this country.

Unfortunately, the government failed to recognize what we had done and, more than that, failed to give us documents to study to make our homework better. Also, the government did not consult us during the negotiations. This is why we are very concerned with some issues. I talked about softwood and the Buy American Act, and I also want to talk about dairy farmers.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech, even though it was not entirely accurate.

First, aluminum workers' unions never asked us to support the agreement. Quite the opposite.

Second, it is important to note that a delegation from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean came here but, unfortunately, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord did not participate in the press conference we held with them.

During yesterday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord asked a question that suggested the $6 billion in spinoffs identified in the study might be illusory.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Nobody really knows where the Conservatives stand now. Do they think aluminum is worth fighting for or not?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord participated in the meetings when stakeholders from Chicoutimi and the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region came to Ottawa. He met with them and always works with them. He is in direct and constant contact with them. It is very important to have that type of approach.

I will repeat what I said earlier. I am very proud to see the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord rise in the House and do his job on behalf of his constituents every day. That is why we are here.

We know that Quebec's premier, among others, has said that it is a good agreement and that we must move forward with it. We also know that the aluminum industry believes that we must move forward with this agreement. We know all that, but we have seen that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord works every day on behalf of his constituents and we are very proud of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and say that our Quebec caucus on this side has done a wonderful job on aluminum. It is the greenest aluminum in the world and it should be recognized as part of this trade agreement, but it is not. We are really worried on this side of the House that China is going to bring aluminum in through Mexico and then up, aluminum that is not as clean as Canada's Quebec aluminum. I would like the hon. member to talk about that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, we are now talking about green aluminum. We are now talking about the difference in our aluminum, which is one of the best in the world, if not the best. That is especially the case in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, because as members know, 60% of Canadian aluminum production is in the riding of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

This is why we made the distinction between Canadian green aluminum and the others. This is why, thanks to the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and supported by the Quebec caucus and the Conservative caucus, we raised this issue and moved forward with it, as has been recognized by the international trade minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is of course on the bill to implement the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement, or CUSMA.

Unfortunately, we found that Quebec was pretty much excluded from the discussions. Quebec's priorities were largely excluded. That is why there is a very good chance we will be forced to vote against CUSMA in its current form.

Some of the other parties are making up all kinds of stories about the Bloc Québécois. They want everyone to believe that we oppose free trade agreements, we are against the economy and we want to withdraw into a shell. All the prejudices and all the spin being spewed about us are completely false.

To illustrate that, I want to talk about two important figures in Quebec's independence movement. No one can deny the influence they have had on Quebec and, in a way, on the rest of Canada. I am talking about Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry.

Jacques Parizeau was the finance minister in René Lévesque's government, and was also premier of Quebec. He was a great economist who trained at the London School of Economics and Political Science, an internationally renowned school.

As for Bernard Landry, he was also a finance minister in Quebec and premier of Quebec.

They were two important champions of free trade, including the first free trade agreement, the first NAFTA, signed with the United States and Mexico.

They were among its main proponents. Mr. Landry toured Quebec to talk about how important it is for small nations to do business with other foreign countries and to open new markets.

We do not want to stay locked up inside Canada. We do not want to limit ourselves to doing business with Ontario. I am more than happy to do business with Ontario, the Maritimes and the other provinces, but why should we limit ourselves to this country, which has a somewhat limited population? Why not send our goods, our knowledge and our skills to other places and benefit from what others have to offer us?

We have absolutely nothing against that. On the contrary, it is a real benefit for Quebec to be able to take advantage of those different markets. However, there are some things that we care about. There are some things that we want to maintain. To the extent possible, we want to maintain control over our agriculture because we like being fed by local farmers who produce food that meets the highest health standards. Since we never know what might happen abroad, it would be good to be able to continue feeding ourselves.

The other thing we care about is culture. Quebec is America's Gaulish village. That is something we hear a lot. I think it is important for us to keep our culture strong in Quebec and that we ensure that agreements continue to promote and protect that culture.

This agreement does contain at least some worthwhile aspects with regard to culture. Some progress has been made and we are pleased about that.

Labour is also an important issue to us. A free trade agreement must contain attractive working conditions for workers in each of the countries, whenever possible. It is not about comparing apples and oranges. Attractive working conditions are necessary to ensure that people in other countries are not exploited and to ensure that we do not lose any jobs here. Otherwise, the agreement leads to exploitation in other countries.

I think we must consider these issues when we sign agreements. Once again, I think some progress was made. The agreement is not all bad, but unfortunately there are a number of aspects that bother us. I will explain.

One of the things that bothers us is the Liberals' record when it comes to Quebec. Free trade agreements are useful, but free trade agreements are generally about gaining something. Concessions are made, there is some give and take, and we end up with a deal that benefits all parties. The problem in this case is that the Liberal government tends to sacrifice Quebec when it signs free trade agreements.

The gut reaction always seems to be to sacrifice Quebec a bit more and listen to Quebec a bit less than the provinces or the rest of Canada in its entirety. Finally, the government works for Canada and not Quebec. That is why we want to form an independent country. Then we could negotiate our own agreements, which would benefit us and respect our conditions. We would stop getting the short end of the stick, as is often the case with Canada.

Let's go back in time a bit and look at the Liberals' record of listening to Quebec. They are currently making up all sorts of things and saying that they listened to Quebec. If we go back less than 100 years, to the 1940s, the Liberals promised Quebeckers during the Second World War that there would be no conscription. Indeed, Quebeckers did not forget the conscription imposed by the Conservatives under Borden. However, once in power, the Liberals organized a neat little referendum to be able to go back on their promise and impose conscription on Quebeckers. This is just one example of many.

A little later, there were expropriations in Mirabel for the construction of the airport. Then, in Montreal, there were expropriations in the entire Faubourg à m'lasse neighbourhood, where my grandfather grew up, to build the infamous Radio-Canada tower. This was a tragic event in the lives of a lot of Quebec families. Ottawa, claiming to know what was good for them, told them their homes and neighbourhoods would be torn down. These families lost their livelihood, but the government washed its hands of it. I think it is horrible what the Liberals, who were in power at the time, did. It shows their inability to listen and their insensitivity to Quebec.

I will go back in time again, this time to the 1970s, to the time of the War Measures Act. Yes, some people were causing trouble and doing things that perhaps should have been avoided. Let's agree, however, that the enactment of the War Measures Act was a complete overreaction on the part of the Liberal government. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police used the opportunity to enter the offices of the Parti Québécois and steal its lists. More than 400 people were put in prison. It was a national disgrace because, more than anything else, it was an operation that was designed to humiliate Quebec.

Let's now turn to the 1980 referendum. Once again, the Liberals made great promises. Trudeau senior, whose son is now Prime Minister, told us in the 1980 referendum that voting no meant saying yes to change and that it would make Quebec happier. In the end, he promised us all sorts of things and talked about honour and enthusiasm, a bit like Brian Mulroney did a few years later.

After all these fine promises, a constitution was signed by every province except Quebec. This led to the infamous “night of the long knives”, when the others decided to do without Quebec's support.

There was also the sponsorship scandal, which happened under the Liberals as well.

I remember that throughout their last term, the Liberals vowed over and over to protect supply management. However, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement opened a breach in supply management. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership opened another breach in supply management. The Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement is opening yet another breach in supply management.

In particular, I remember a by-election campaign in Lac-Saint-Jean in 2018. The Bloc ran an excellent candidate, Marc Maltais. The Prime Minister of Canada went to Lac-Saint-Jean to assure farmers that supply management would not be touched. However, a few weeks after the election, a breach was created in supply management. The people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean remembered, because in the 2019 election, they voted in a Bloc member.

That is not the end of the problem. This much-touted agreement gives no consideration to forestry, which is important in Quebec. It has not been included in the agreement. More recently, we have learned that aluminum was being completely abandoned.

It is a real shame that I do not have more time to speak, because I would have had a lot more to say.

The important thing to note is that the Liberals keep saying ad nauseam that 70% of auto parts will have to be made of North American aluminum. That is completely not true. No, 70% is no better than zero, because 70 times zero is zero. The 70% is for manufactured parts, but the aluminum will not necessarily come from here. It could come from China and be processed in Mexico.

At the end of the day, we are losing out and it is really frustrating.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this side, the Liberals will always defend our cultural sovereignty. We have always defended and stood up for cultural communities.

I remember one instance in the previous Parliament when the international trade committee travelled to the United States. A former member of Parliament, Linda Lapointe, was on that committee. She stood up for cultural exemptions when the United States was not that concerned. We made sure that this was protected.

Having this clause and protecting this clause certainly helps Quebec's cultural sovereignty, helps cultural sovereignty across Canada and protects jobs. Would the hon. member agree?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's question, I do think it was important to modernize the agreement and include the cultural exemption. We consider that to be a positive.

However, we are not looking at this agreement through rose-coloured glasses. When the time comes to make a decision, we do not look at one sentence or two lines only, but rather at the entire agreement. We have made proposals to the government to improve the agreement and make it acceptable to the Bloc Québécois and to Quebeckers. Unfortunately, it is not acceptable in its current form.

Our hope is that, when this is all over, we will have an agreement that will hold up and that we can support.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said in his speech around softwood lumber and the protection of aluminum in Canada. I want to mention the aluminum in Kitimat out in western Canada as well.

The member spoke about the sovereignty of provinces. It is very interesting that he would mention he is annoyed with the federal government about that. In Alberta, we are somewhat like that as well. What is really interesting to me is that day after day, his leader stands up and rails against the Teck Resources mine we are trying to get going in Alberta.

Is that stepping out of the lane? If he is so concerned about Quebec sovereignty, maybe he should stay out of Alberta sovereignty.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague's question is particularly relevant to the topic we are currently debating, namely the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico.

However, what bothers us about the Teck Frontier project is that it is using Quebec taxpayers' money to fund oil companies in the rest of Canada, at a time when we are striving to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to do things better. In our view, it is completely counterproductive.

Moreover, as I see it, the fight against climate change has no borders and everyone has to work together. We have a duty to call out actions that harm the planet when we see them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do my best to ask my Bloc Québécois colleague this question in French, although it is hard for me.

Like the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois is speaking out against Teck's oil sands project. However, I have many concerns about the agreement with China, in terms of investment protection. It contains the same thing as chapter 11 of NAFTA, which has been removed from the new NAFTA.

I am worried because we accepted the same type of agreement with China under the former Harper government and because Teck Resources has a lot of investments from China.

I am worried if we say no to Teck, we could have an investor challenge from China against Canada because of the close links between Teck Resources and the People's Republic of China.

My question is, do we have to work towards eliminating all investment agreements?

I would like to know my colleague's opinion.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and for asking it in French. Her French is excellent these days.

In answer to her question, I would point out that we had many concerns and reservations about some aspects of NAFTA chapter 11, which allowed companies to sue governments when laws or regulations did not suit them.

I think it is very important to be vigilant, knowing that such provisions could pop up in other trade agreements. We should try to eliminate them as much as possible, because they undermine state sovereignty and, at the end of the day, it should be the people who decide, not businesses.

The fact that this could indeed apply to Teck's Frontier project really worries me.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to stand up today in the House of Commons and talk about the new NAFTA or the HALFTA, as we like to call it on this side of the House.

Before I get into that, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my friends, relatives and volunteers who helped me get elected. As with all members who come to this place, we do not get here without a vast network of people back home. I want to thank all of those people. It would take too long to name all of them here. I had over 250 volunteers from across northern Alberta. Northern Alberta is a beautiful place. I like to call it the promised land. I had people in every community ready to carry the Conservative banner, help put up lawn signs, knock on doors and all those things.

I want to reference a couple of people who really went above and beyond. Bethany VanderDeen knocked on several thousand doors for me in the election. I want to thank her for all her hard work. My sister is my financial agent, which causes her a lot of stress. I want to thank her as well. My campaign manager, Josh, went above and beyond whenever he was called upon to work. I want to thank him for that.

The new NAFTA, CUSMA, or HALFTA, as we like to call it, is an agreement we called on the government to do. We have been advocating for a free trade deal with the United States. In fact, it was the Conservatives in previous parliaments that brought NAFTA to the world, and we are proud of that record.

We asked for a good deal again when Donald Trump said he was going to renegotiate NAFTA. I do not think he considered Canada was the problem with NAFTA, so it was not necessarily wise for our Prime Minister to volunteer to renegotiate our portion of it. When the Liberals jumped into that, we asked them to come up with a better deal than the current NAFTA and one we would be happy with, but we wanted them to bring some stability to the business markets and a deal we could all be proud of. However, by every measure in the new NAFTA, the HALFTA, we have either stayed the same or gone backward. We have lost some sovereignty in a number of areas. We have lost our ability to produce or export in other areas, so we are not enthusiastic about this current free trade deal, but we will be supporting it.

It is very interesting how things sometimes get taken out of context. There is context to a lot of these things, such as when we talk about supply management, for example. There has been a lot of discussion around supply management when it comes to this trade deal. There has been a reduction in our ability to export. There has been a threat to some of the productivity that can happen here in Canada. I believe the Liberal government has paid out our dairy farmers across Canada recently for losses that have been incurred because of this trade deal.

When we talk about that, often the Liberals say they support supply management, yet a free trade deal is just one aspect of supporting supply management. The other aspects would be through some of the other things they have done. They have changed the Canada food guide, which has not helped supply management at all in Canada. They have changed the front-of-package labelling laws in this country, which is very detrimental to our supply management. It is very interesting that in the trade deal they say they are supportive of supply management and then in other parts they do not seem to understand what the impacts are.

Also, in many cases in this trade deal we would be competing with our major competitors, whether it is with respect to agricultural, forestry or energy products. We have watched the government put in place a free trade deal that would have us compete in the same marketplace as the rest of the North American market. At the same time, it put in big impediments and essentially shackled us here in Canada when trying to compete with our competitor to the south.

One of the things I want to talk about as well is the carbon tax. We see a lot of defence around aluminum right now in the House of Commons. I want to reference western aluminum in Kitimat, northern B.C. I have been there before, it is a beautiful place. One of the things that comes along with defending aluminum is considering the impacts of the carbon tax. No jurisdiction in the rest of North America has the same carbon tax on aluminum production, so that puts us back as well. It is very interesting how we will say one thing in the context of defending a free trade deal, and yet in other areas we do not necessarily see the government having the same defence.

We see the same thing happen in Alberta with the oil patch investment. We hear that the Liberals are going to expand markets for Canadian products, and then they are going to just kneecap one particular industry in Canada and not allow it to get any access to other markets around the world. What I am trying to point out here is that the logic is used in one direction on a certain bill and then in another direction on another issue. On CUSMA or NAFTA or HALFTA, they are saying we need to gain market access and we need to improve our trading relationship and all these things, and we need to do this so we can get Canadian industries competitive around the world. The next time they are saying that we have to keep the oil in the ground, we have to phase out the oil patch. The logic of that does not jive.

The other thing that is concerning to me are the caps on automotive production. I have made no secret of the fact that I have been an automotive mechanic for most of my life. I worked at a Chrysler dealer. I am very passionate about automobiles, and my family heritage has been with Chrysler, so I follow the sales trends and that kind of stuff on a regular basis. I am proud of the Canadian heritage that we have of building some of the most amazing automobiles on the planet. It is frustrating to me to see that Canada might be taken out of the cutting edge of building automobiles in Canada because of the caps that have been imposed. Everyone tells me not to worry about it because the caps are very high compared to where we are right now, so it will not be a big problem. We are currently talking about the caps being high, but 16 years from now we could be dealing with a clause that says we have to renegotiate this. At that point, we might be very close to that cap, and at that time we might already have seen significant investment that could have been made in Canadian auto manufacturing being made south of the border because the industry there is not limited by a cap.

I am concerned about that cap because of patriotic Canadian pride. I would like to see us building the best automobiles in the world, and we have in the past. One of the great ones that I am very proud of right now is the Chrysler Pacifica, which is built here in Canada and is a beautiful vehicle. I am not sure if it is the only vehicle in the world that has this, but it comes with a built-in vacuum cleaner. As a guy with little kids, that is the most amazing idea ever in a minivan. The Cheerios and the little Goldfish can get everywhere, and a built-in vacuum cleaner is what everyone needs in a minivan, I will say that for sure, especially with four kids. That cap is one of the major concerns.

There is also the national sovereignty piece. If we are going to enter into a trade deal with particular countries around the world, we would have to get the Americans to sign off on that trade deal before we enter it. We are a sovereign nation. The Bloc Québécois members always stand up and say that as well about Quebec and I share that sentiment. We are a sovereign nation and we ought to be able to pursue trade deals with anyone in the world, and not to hive that off as well.

With that, we will be supporting bringing this bill to committee. We look forward to hearing what stakeholders around the country have to say on this bill, and we will move forward from there.

[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, I share the passion of the automobile industry with my colleague. I am more of a Ford guy. I like the Rangers and the Mustangs. I give Chrysler full credit on the K-car and the Caravan. My family history also is very much tied to the automobile industry.

Trade agreements go back to the sixties with the Auto Pact. It was led by the automotive industry in many ways. If we look at the trade agreements since the sixties, we see exceptional strength coming from Canada on the automobile side. I believe this agreement is going to add further value and strength overall to an industry that is not only important to myself and the member opposite, but to all Canadians.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the member is more a fan of Lee Iacocca, because the Mustang, the K-car and the minivan were all his ideas. It is great to share a common interest with the member.

I agree that Canada has been a leader, particularly with the North American Big Three, but we also see many of the import brands now building factories here in Canada. I would like to see that continue.

The trouble that we are going to see, if I can be a prophet looking into the future, is that as we approach that cap, that is when we are going to see that investment. If people are going to build an expansion on a plant, everyone is going to be looking at each other and playing a game of chicken. As they approach that cap, they might say we are not sure if they are coming online with their plant first or we are coming online with a plant first, so they will not build in Canada. They will build somewhere else to prevent them from being the company that goes over the cap.