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

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a sovereignist, and in the past several days of debate on free trade, I have been hearing many concerns expressed about Canadian sovereignty on trade issues. My colleague talked about it again earlier.

Obviously, when it comes to defending Canadian sovereignty in trade agreements, there is always something called state strategic industries. Energy and aluminum are two examples. Trump used the national security clause, for instance. There needs to be a clear definition of what is sacred and inviolable for the security and prosperity of a typical country. Take, for example, industries like the high-value-added, high-tech aerospace sector.

Is my colleague not concerned about the government's laissez-faire approach to dealing with Washington and other powerful nations in these trade agreements? Is he not concerned about how easily the government gives in and sacrifices certain key sectors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concerns around Canadian sovereignty and national interest projects. We need to look at how to compete as a country on the world stage.

I would also reference supply management. Often when dairy farmers visit me, one of the things they say is if they do not have supply management, we will not have milk production in Canada, and that would be a national security issue. If we were ever at war, we would not have milk production.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, the Liberals promised an entire chapter on gender equality in this trade deal. According to sources, the renegotiated deal originally included provisions for improving conditions for working women, including provisions around workplace harassment, pay equity and gender equality.

However, these provisions disappeared in the scrubbing process. Do the member and his Conservative colleagues wonder what happened to these provisions? Will he be standing up and speaking out about the need for provisions that improve conditions for women in the workplace?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, we called for this deal to be a better deal than the previous deal had been. We said that we needed to have a deal and were adamant about the fact that a deal needed to be signed. What was very interesting though is that as negotiations went along, Canada was more and more cut out of the negotiations and at the 11th hour signed the deal, without being able to see what was in it.

I have stood in this place and advocated for good labour laws around the world to ensure that human trafficking does not happen, and I am happy to stand up to defend the labour laws of Canada to ensure we have comparable labour laws across North America.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate today with mixed feelings. I certainly recognize the need for ratification of this treaty, but I also recognize the need to do the due diligence required to look at a treaty that, by all measures, can be considered as deficient.

We in the official opposition have made clear since the beginning of this debate that Canadian business and industry desperately need the certainty and predictability that ratification of the new NAFTA will provide. Granted, much of the certainty and predictability is that this deficient, retrograde agreement has negative overtones in many ways and many places and it will touch many corners of Canadian society. It will be seen in the dairy and poultry industry, in the aluminum sector and in a number of areas that were not even discussed in the negotiations over the past couple of years by the Liberals and their negotiators, areas such as the softwood lumber problems and of course the American challenges to free trade with regard to the buy America process. These were not even addressed by Canadian negotiators as they were forced to accept an agreement that contains considerably less than the original NAFTA.

I would like to recall the debate that took place in 1988, not in this new House but in the original House of Commons just across the way, when Liberal Party members, led then by John Turner, were vociferously in opposition to the original NAFTA proposal brought in this House by then prime minister Brian Mulroney. John Turner said that he would tear it up if he became prime minister.

The New Democratic Party, in opposition at the time under Ed Broadbent, was also very strongly opposed to the agreement, as it is today, saying that Canada would effectively become the 51st American state of the United States if it was implemented. I regret I have no historic quotes from the Bloc Québécois, because at that time Lucien Bouchard sat in the cabinet of the Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. The Bloc was still at that point only a spark in the back of Mr. Bouchard's mind.

Looking back at 1988 and the final ratification in 1993, I think we can agree that this new NAFTA is nothing like its predecessor, the original North American Free Trade Agreement.

My colleagues have reminded the House on all sides since the beginning of this debate about the imperfect negotiating process that the Liberals pursued, such as sitting at the table, leaving the table, procrastinating, consulting and then rushing back to the table to be the third party and given a “take it or leave it” trade agreement. I remind the House that Canada's Conservatives support today, and have always supported, free trade with the United States. After all, as I have reminded the House, NAFTA was a Conservative legacy.

Members will recall that when this began, the Prime Minister promised his trade negotiators would come back with a deal better than Canada had before. He spoke of a win-win-win outcome for this negotiation. We know it was certainly a huge win for the United States and a big win for Mexico, but this is definitely not anything like a win for Canada.

When the deficiencies of this backsliding new NAFTA agreement were first presented to Canadians, we in the official opposition asked for, and were assured by the Liberals that they would provide us with, impact analyses of the agreement on the various sectors in Canada with which we saw reason for great concern.

Anyone who ever served in government knows that every department touched by this new agreement, this new treaty, has done a cost-benefit analysis. They have measured the impact in the short term and the long term.

The Liberals promised an analysis statement, and we are still waiting. We hope that the government, which proclaims its commitment to transparency, accountability and evidence-based decisions, will provide this impact data in the days ahead when this debate and study go to committee.

We know that in committee we will get some impact statement, if not from the professional and sectoral associations that desperately want certainty and predictability, even in a negative context. This will address the concerns and fears of the workers, the people and the communities that are about to be impacted by the negatives that this agreement would impose on them.

Of the many deficiencies in this agreement, I mentioned a few at the outset. My colleagues have looked across the spectrum of shortcomings, and I would like to address one that is of great concern to many Canadians. That is the impact on Canada's aluminum sector.

Members will recall that at the beginning of December, when details of the agreement were revealed, we found to our dismay that the deal included a last-minute change to the requirement calling for 70% of the steel and aluminum used in auto production to be purchased in North America.

One of the rules for the steel sector was that the steel must be melted and poured in North America. There was no provision for aluminum. The initial response from the president of the Aluminum Association of Canada has changed in the last few weeks. When Jean Simard discovered the fact that there was diminished protection for Canadian aluminum, he said, “They fought, Canada fought, but they lost....At the very end Mexico said, ‘This is my red line. That’s enough.’ ”

That is the reality, although the Aluminum Association today, again desperate for certainty and desperate to cut its losses, said that yes indeed, it is a good deal, a necessary deal.

I would like to sympathize with those in the sector. In the Côte-Nord, the Lac-Saint-Jean area, Sept-Îles, Alma, Bécancour, Baie-Comeau, Deschambault, Laterrière, Grand-Baie, Arvida, Shawinigan Falls and, of course, on the west coast, in Kitimat, I would like to sympathize with the workers and unions that now see this 70% rule.

The Liberals think this is a great new improvement. They boasted that there was no guarantee for the Canadian aluminum sector in the original NAFTA, and they were right. There was no need for the rule in 1988, in 1993 or until the end of the last century, because until the end of the last century, Canada was a very competitive producer of aluminum. China was an up-and-coming, but still limited, threat to the Canadian market and certainly to the North American market. Under NAFTA, under the Auto Pact, Canada effectively had close to 100% of the aluminum content in the auto production industry.

I understand the negative impact this is having on this major sector of the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy as a whole. Of course, Canadian aluminum is the cleanest.

It is the cleanest around the world.

In conclusion, we will support the bill, but we support it with heavy hearts.

[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, over the last couple of years I have heard Conservatives say that we should never have even attempted to reopen the trade agreement. I have heard Conservative MPs say that we need to be able to modernize the trade agreement. The Conservatives have challenged the government, saying that to sign any deal would be good.

Over the last couple of years, we have had stakeholders of all forms, including premiers, non-profit sectors, labour organizations and businesses, come together to create a final product today. This agreement is better than what was there in the past. It provides for things such as culture and the environment and makes guarantees for the aluminum industry. These things were not there in the same fashion.

I am wondering if the member sees all of those as positive. Is there anything specific in the agreement that he believes should not be in the agreement?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and the opportunity he has given me to conclude a couple of thoughts with regard to the deficiency in this agreement, as it applies to the aluminum sector.

We see in this agreement that Canada is protected. There is the 70% rule. However, until recently Mexico did not have an aluminum sector. It did not produce aluminum. China is now by far the largest producer of aluminum in the world. China produces 10 times the Canadian metric tonnage of aluminum every year.

As its economy has slowed in recent years, China has been dumping that aluminum around the world. Much of it has gone to Mexico, where it is then transformed magically into a Mexican product, which is being further dumped in Thailand, Vietnam and India. This will certainly have an impact on the Canadian aluminum sector in the automotive industry.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his speech. That is the first time that I have heard a well-reasoned speech in the House from anyone other than a Bloc Québécois member.

I would simply like to clarify a small point. As you very rightly pointed out, when NAFTA was originally signed, Canada was the major player in the aluminum industry. Now Mexico produces 15 times more aluminum than Canada. I would like to make a minor distinction. You said that all workers would be affected—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he must address his questions to the Chair and not to a specific member.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I got carried away in my enthusiasm.

I would like to point out to my colleague that he was talking about workers in Kitimat, but the agreement will not really change anything for them because their primary market is Asia.

The North American aluminum market is Quebec's domain. I do not know whether my colleague shares my opinion. Quebec is once again the sacrificial lamb in this deal.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am well aware of the threat China poses to Canada's aluminum industry.

Indeed, it is something that the Liberals are trying to pass off by saying that 70% is such a great guarantee. However, 70% is not a great guarantee when it used to be 100% and it was defended by the Government of Canada, the Province of Quebec and the Province of British Columbia, and workers were guaranteed a bright future for what is the cleanest aluminum produced in the world today.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise today on this debate. As an agricultural producer, and someone who had an export business that shipped to the States and to Mexico, the importance of free trade is something I am proud of as a Conservative. It is our legacy as the Conservative Party. It was a former Conservative prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, who negotiated the first NAFTA deal. Before that it was the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

Having that big vision and making sure that we have trade in this country are parts of a core value of being a Conservative and being a member of our party. I am also proud of our record under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Our former trade minister, the member for Abbotsford, did a phenomenal job in negotiating all sorts of free trade deals.

In particular, I look at the over 40 countries that we negotiated deals with, and at the Canada-European Union free trade agreement that is in place, which was negotiated by the member for Abbotsford. I am just glad that the Liberals showed up and actually signed on the bottom line at the end of the day.

We know that the trans-Pacific partnership was negotiated by the agriculture minister at the time, Gerry Ritz, as well as the member for Abbotsford when he was the trade minister. The terminology and articles of the agreement were all done under his leadership. Again, I just appreciate that the Liberals showed up and signed it. We take full credit for those two major agreements and the 40 countries that we now have free trade with.

The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement is another one that we negotiated. Luckily, the Liberals showed up and signed it at the end of the day, so that agreement exists now.

However, I will say this. The first time that the Liberals had a chance to start the ball from a scrimmage and tried to carry it to the goal line, they fumbled over and over again.

When they were dealing with the White House administration and our colleagues down in Mexico and developed a new NAFTA, which a lot of people call NAFTA 0.5, the Liberals fumbled the ball on numerous occasions both by attacking President Trump in various venues and walking away from the table. We had to play catch-up time and time again.

We have some of the best trade negotiators in the world. Steve Verheul is world renowned and very competent, but with weak leadership he was put into a box that was tough for him to get out of. With Mexico and the United States sitting at the table, we took their deal. We did not take Canada's deal. That is what is really concerning. After talking to people in various industries who are getting the short end of the stick with this new NAFTA deal, we might as well call it “shafta”.

As we sit here and look at what has happened, we have softwood lumber mills across this country, particularly in B.C., that are shutting down left, right and centre. Did the Liberals put a softwood lumber agreement in this deal? Not at all, and jobs continue to bleed and communities suffer because of that lack of leadership.

Looking at various sectors, such as auto, dairy and poultry, the Liberals are actually restricting growth or giving away market access. I am going to go into more detail. I look at the aluminum sector, which the member for Thornhill was just speaking about, and how we have gone from having 100% control of the industry within the former NAFTA framework, to now only having 70% control.

This deal allows backdoor access to China through other aggregators who can bring in aluminum nuggets and remanufacture them, which will hurt our aluminum-producing mills, the greenest mills in the world. Again, the Liberals failed to stand up for them.

The biggest private employer in my riding is Gerdau steel. Although we like to talk about steel having control and protection within the framework of the auto industry, we do not talk about how it can get into the buy America protectionist measures.

The Liberals' inability to move on government contracts in the U.S. because of the buy American restrictions could have been negotiated away if we had stronger leadership from them. They failed to have the buy America policy removed in this new NAFTA deal.

I just met with the dairy industry, and farmers in my riding are upset. They understand the need for free trade. My grain and oilseed producers and my cattle and hog producers are all exporters. They know that what we grow leaves the country, and a lot of it goes south of the border.

However, when we start limiting or giving away market access, it hurts farm families. It is removing income potential and growth from those communities, as well as from those farms. Now over 18% of the domestic milk market, in particular, is already supplied by imports, and the Liberals are eroding that market even further.

The most egregious thing the Liberals did, and not just not negotiating in good faith and not consulting with the dairy industry, the chicken industry or our egg producers, is that they are actually allowing the United States to have a say over how much we can export in dairy products globally.

Currently Canada exports over 55,000 tonnes of dairy products around the world. Under the new NAFTA, or “shafta”, deal, exports are now being limited to 35,000 tonnes. The Liberals are giving up market access in Canada to the extent that 3.6% of the market is now accessible to U.S. dairy producers, and now the U.S. says we can only export 35,000 tonnes.

This is supposed to be a free trade deal. We should be able to access more. One would think that we would be able to go into the U.S. and sell more dairy, but no. The sad part is that it is not just that we are going down from 55,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes, a 20,000-tonne reduction, but it is global exports as well.

How can we go out there and sell our fine cheeses, our ice creams, our milk proteins and other products around the world when the Liberals are allowing the United States to say that we cannot export them anymore? That is ridiculous, and it is hurtful. It is something we have to talk about at committee and here in the House.

My colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, has been leading the charge on what is going to happen in the aluminum industry. I know he is extremely upset that the Liberals have failed to protect aluminum production in Quebec, in British Columbia and across this country. The Liberals are failing to recognize how China can use backdoor shell companies to move their cheap and government-controlled aluminum into our markets. They can use that back door through Mexico in particular. That is something we have to be incredibly concerned about.

The other thing we can look at is the auto sector. Free trade is supposed to help make us more prosperous and create more jobs. The Liberals have a terrible record in the auto industry. We have watched plant after plant shut down and production lines move south of the border. The Liberals have also put in place a cap on how much growth we can have in the automobile industry, a cap of 2.6 million cars and $32 billion in auto parts.

If we look at it, we see that it is only about $20 billion and that we are not producing anywhere near the 2.6 million, but where is the incentive for investors or car manufacturers to set up plants to grow their industry when there is a cap in place, especially when we look at the value of $32 billion? Inflationary pressure alone could eat up that cap within a decade.

Again, it is a disincentive to invest and to expand our manufacturing base, especially in southern Ontario but also right across the country. It is a disincentive for attracting that foreign investment. It is a disincentive to expansion and to an increase in high-paying jobs.

I am very disappointed in the way the Liberals have handled the negotiations. I am very disappointed in what they gave up and by the very little that we got. I am very disappointed that today we have to accept a flawed deal.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the comments from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. Coming from Windsor—Tecumseh, which is home to 40,000 manufacturing jobs, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and a Ford engine plant, we appreciate the comments and concerns about the auto industry. However, the perspective from the workers and unions that I have spoken to is that this is a very good deal for the auto sector.

The fact is that under the new rules of origin, car makers would be required to source 75% of their auto content from North America, which is going to translate into more jobs and greater job security. As was mentioned in the House today, certainty is an important aspect, which is exactly what this agreement will provide.

I want to read a quote from the president of the association—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member is running out of time.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, would the member not acknowledge that for workers, for the auto sector, this is a good deal? It would increase production and job security.