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

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

moved that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I am truly honoured to speak here today in support of Bill C-4, an act to implement the new NAFTA. Canadians have come a long way since 2017, when Canada's most important trading relationship, indeed our national prosperity itself, was put at serious risk. The years that followed were among the more turbulent in our history. We have emerged not only with the essential elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement intact, but with a better, more effective and fairer agreement than before.

This agreement is better for steel and aluminum workers, better for auto manufacturers and factory workers, better for farmers, forestry workers and energy workers. This agreement is better for the thousands of people working hard in our service industries. It is better for Canadian artists, singer-songwriters and filmmakers and better for the companies that hire them.

Canada has always been a trading nation. We have trade agreements with Europe and the Pacific in place, and we are about to have a modernized NAFTA. That means free trade with 1.5 billion people around the world and makes us one of the world's greatest trading nations.

That we achieved this at a time of considerable uncertainty in global trade, with the rules-based international order itself under strain, is something of which all Canadians can be rightly proud. It is a testament to the unrelenting work of thousands of patriotic Canadians from all walks of life, representing every political view from all orders of government and from all regions of our great country. This truly has been team Canada at work.

A little more than 25 years ago, the North American Free Trade Agreement created the world's largest economic trading zone, but let us remember that it did not come about easily or without controversy. In fact, a federal election was fought over free trade in 1988, and my own mother ran against NAFTA for the New Democrats in the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. These were intense debates as many in the House will remember, yet today the Canadian consensus for free trade is overwhelming.

That consensus is a testament to NAFTA's long-term effectiveness as a vehicle for economic growth. More broadly speaking, it is also a testament to the fact that rules-based trade advances personal freedom, fosters entrepreneurial spirit and generates prosperity.

Today, Canada, the United States and Mexico account for nearly one-third of global GDP despite having just 7% of the global population. Every day, transactions worth about $2 billion Canadian and 400,000 people cross the Canada-U.S. border. Those are impressive numbers.

When we were first asked to renegotiate NAFTA, we were determined to improve the agreement, update it, refine it and modernize it for the 21st century. That is exactly what we did.

I would like to stress two points. Under the new NAFTA, 99.9% of our exports to the United States can be exported tariff-free, and when it comes into force, this agreement will be the most progressive trade deal our country has ever negotiated. Indeed, I believe it will be the most progressive trade deal in the world.

“Growth that works for everyone” is not just a slogan. It has been the animating, driving idea in our negotiations from the start.

Let us be honest: The negotiations that got us here were not always easy. There were some twists and turns along the way. There were, as I predicted at the outset, moments of drama. There were times when the prospect of success seemed distant, but we hung in there. Faced with a series of unconventional negotiating positions from the United States, a protectionist flurry unlike any this country has encountered before, we did not escalate and we also did not back down. We stayed focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, economic growth, security and opportunity. That is how we stayed the course.

It was clear from the start that, in order to be successful, Canada as a whole had to come together and work as a team.

We began by consulting stakeholders across the country. We heard from Canadians in industry, agriculture, the service sector and labour. We sought and received advice and insight from across party lines. We reached out to current and former politicians, including provincial and territorial premiers, mayors, community leaders and indigenous leaders. We asked Canadians for their input and gathered over 400,000 submissions on the modernization of NAFTA.

We established the NAFTA council with people from different political parties, as well as business, labour and indigenous leaders.

I would like to thank every member of the NAFTA council for their wisdom, hard work and collegiality. Their insight helped guide our way forward at every step of the way, right up to the present moment.

I would also like to thank current and past members of the House for their contributions. With politics, there is always partisanship, but there can also be collaboration in the national interest. I know, from the many conversations I have had with colleagues across the aisle and across Canada, that every single one of us here shares the goal of working for Canada and Canadians. This negotiation has not been a political project. It has been a national one.

There have been many hurdles. During the negotiations, we were hit with unfair and arbitrary tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. We defended ourselves without rancour, but with firmness, imposing perfectly reciprocal, dollar-for-dollar tariffs on the United States even as team Canada fanned out across the U.S., reminding our friends, allies and neighbours that they rely on us for trade, too.

We were consistent. We were persistent. We never gave up. We just kept digging in the corners, if I may be allowed one NAFTA hockey metaphor.

The new NAFTA is a great agreement for Canada because we acted with resolve at the negotiating table to uphold the interests and values of Canadians. Our professional trade negotiators are, without exaggeration, the very best in the world. They are a group of true hard-working patriots, led by the inimitable Steve Verheul. I would like to thank them on behalf of all Canadians.

I would also like to thank Ambassador Bob Lighthizer. I found him to be a reliable and trustworthy counterpart, even though there were many times when we did not agree. He is someone who has become a friend. I would like to acknowledge his hard work, his professionalism and his willingness to find win-win compromises for our great continent. That made this agreement possible.

I would also like to recognize the efforts of my Mexican counterparts, who showed tremendous commitment, through a change in government, in renewing our trilateral relationship and in reaching a progressive outcome that raises working standards for workers across our shared continent.

Muchas gracias, amigos.

The benefits of this agreement for Canadians are concrete and considerable. The new NAFTA preserves Canada's tariff-free access to our most important market: 99.9% of our exports to the U.S. will be tariff-free. The agreement preserves the dispute settlement mechanism known as the famous chapter 19 in the original NAFTA, which provides an independent and impartial process for challenging anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

Critically, this mechanism is how we Canadians ensure a level playing field with a much larger trading partner. This mechanism is more valuable today than ever, with the WTO effectively paralyzed.

The new NAFTA preserves the general exception for cultural industries, which employ some 650,000 people across the country. These industries are an integral part of Canada's bilingual nature and our linguistic and cultural identity. This was a crucial factor, because those industries ensure that we can tell our own stories, as Canadians, in both official languages.

Our farmers are more crucial than ever to our collective prosperity. Canada and the United States have the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world in the area of agriculture, which is worth about $48 billon annually.

At one point in the negotiations, the United States demanded that we abolish supply management. We refused that demand. This agreement secures the future of Canada's supply management system for this generation and generations to come.

The new agreement strengthens labour standards and working conditions in all three countries. This is a historic milestone with, for the first time, truly muscular and enforceable labour standards. This agreement, for the first time, levels the playing field in North America for Canadian workers.

It supports the advancement of fair and inclusive trade. It addresses issues related to migrant workers, forced or compulsory labour, and violence against union members, including gender violence. It enshrines obligations related to discrimination, including discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.

This agreement modernizes our trade for the 21st century. Critically, it reduces cross-border red tape and simplifies procedures for Canadian exporters. It promotes increased trade and investment through new chapters dedicated to small and medium-sized businesses.

As well, the agreement preserves the provisions on temporary entry for business people. These provisions are essential to supporting cross-border trade and investments. Temporary entry ensures that investors can see their investments first-hand, and that service suppliers can enter the market to fulfill their contracts on-site.

At a time when walls are being built, temporary entry is a critical advantage for Canadians.

Crucially, the new NAFTA also shields Canada from arbitrary and unfair trade actions. For instance, our auto sector employs 125,000 people directly and another 400,000 indirectly through a network of dealers and after-market services. The side letter we signed with the new NAFTA protects this vital industry from any potential U.S. tariffs on automobile and auto parts.

The new NAFTA is great for Canadian auto workers. We see this in new, higher requirements for levels of North American content in the production of cars and trucks. We see it in the labour chapter, which includes key provisions to strengthen and improve labour standards in the NAFTA space.

One of our government's main objectives is to ensure that women have the opportunity to participate fully and equitably in the Canadian economy. The new NAFTA is no exception. The labour chapter includes a non-discrimination clause and addresses obstacles to the full participation of women.

Environmental stewardship is essential to our collective future. The new NAFTA includes a chapter on the environment that will help ensure that our trade partners do not receive unfair economic advantages because they failed to respect the environment.

The environment chapter requires that all the NAFTA partners maintain strong environmental protection and robust environmental governance. It introduces new commitments to address challenges like illegal wildlife trade, illegal fishing and the depletion of fish stocks, species at risk, conservation of biodiversity, ozone-depleting substances and marine pollution.

It also recognizes the unique role of indigenous peoples in the conservation of our shared biodiversity and in sustainable fisheries and forest management. This is a first. For the first time in a Canadian trade agreement, the new NAFTA confirms that the government can adopt or maintain measures it deems necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to indigenous peoples.

We should note that the obligations on labour and environment in the new NAFTA are subject to dispute settlement. This is a major accomplishment. This means any laggard can be held accountable.

In his speech to the U.S. National Governors Association in 2017, the Prime Minister referred to his father's famous metaphor about Canada, of our experience of sleeping next to an elephant. He said that, contrary to his father's phrase, Canada today is no mouse, more like a moose. This negotiation and its conclusion have shown how right he was.

Throughout the formal negotiations and in the months that followed, the Government of Canada has been intent on upholding the national interest. This work continued last year, culminating in a protocol of amendments signed by Canada, the United States and Mexico that strengthen state-to-state dispute settlements, labour protection, environmental protection and rules of origin.

Our government is committed to ensuring that the benefits of trade are widely and fairly shared.

The new NAFTA helps us accomplish that. It promotes progressive, free and fair economic growth. More generally, it strengthens rules-based trade at a time when those rules are in great need of strengthening. It brings back stability to the trade relationship between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Above all, this agreement provides stability and predictability for companies that employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Our focus in bringing the new NAFTA to Parliament has always been on preserving and fostering opportunity for Canadian workers, businesses, families and communities across the country. That is what we achieved, and this is what all Canadians have achieved together. It is something that all Canadians and every member of the House can be proud of. We are all here to serve Canadians.

I encourage all members in the House and Senate to work co-operatively with us to swiftly pass this legislation.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows in the House, we in the Conservative Party are the party of free trade. I know business is really welcoming the certainty of this agreement. We just want to get that message out to Canadians that we will do our due diligence. We are still awaiting the answers from the government for the seven questions we asked back in December. It is important in these negotiations how we behave and how professional we are.

Could the minister comment on the conduct and comments of the Prime Minister during these negotiations, such as the personal attacks on the President, the irresponsible comments and being unprofessional when dealing with the American president?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the member for Oshawa for his personal commitment to Canadian workers and for the work he has done personally on this agreement. We have had a lot of conversations and I appreciate that.

I would also like to thank the member opposite and his party for their vote yesterday supporting the agreement and the recognition we just heard of the need for all of us to work together to bring certainty to the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.

When it comes to due diligence, I would expect nothing less from all the members of the House. Let us keep talking. As I said, the inimitable Steve Verheul is at the disposal of everyone here. He has worked with governments of various political stripes and I know all of us trust him very much.

When it comes to the conduct of the Prime Minister in this negotiation and in our relationship with the United States, here, respectfully, I must very strongly disagree with the member opposite. Our Prime Minister has been an exemplary leader for Canada in this often difficult negotiation.

The Prime Minister has, as I described the Canadian approach overall, pursued a course of neither escalating nor backing down. He has not been afraid to stand up for Canada and the national interest, and he has been successful at building and leading an effective working relationship.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister. Her speech was very interesting.

The Bloc Québécois is not particularly opposed to the agreement. There is only one provision that bothers us, and that is the one affecting the aluminum industry.

Can the minister explain why the aluminum industry did not get the same treatment as the steel industry in this agreement?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

I think it is essential to explain clearly to Canadians, as I did yesterday with my colleague for the people from Saguenay who were here, that our government is committed to defending the aluminum sector and its workers. I can give you a very clear example of that commitment. We fought to have the U.S. tariffs on aluminum fully lifted. It is important to note that out of all the aluminum producing countries, Canada is the only one that managed to have the tariffs fully lifted, without quotas. That is a tremendous advantage for Canada, the aluminum sector and its workers.

I also want to note that the new NAFTA will guarantee that 70% of the aluminum to be used in cars built in the area covered by NAFTA will come from North America. Currently that percentage is 0%. That seems like a big win to me, since 70% is much better than 0%.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of topics I would not mind hearing the minister's reflections on. The first is this.

Three agreements have been signed by this government: CETA, CPTPP and now CUSMA. In each case, there has been a bit of a different process, certainly with respect to the engagement of Parliament on those deals, and in some cases the engagement of the public and stakeholders as well.

I wonder if the minister can share some of the lessons she has learned in those different processes and give us some sense of whether she feels there may be a way to codify some of those lessons and establish a better trade process overall for Canada going forward.

I also want to know if there is a solid plan to help dairy producers and aluminum industry workers in Quebec and British Columbia. Considering the adverse effects this agreement will have for them, what is the government's plan and what steps will it take in future to ensure that these workers and industries are not overly penalized by the provisions of this new agreement?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the member for Elmwood—Transcona for those thoughtful questions and for the work he has been doing on this agreement. We have had some very constructive conversations. I appreciate that very much.

Also, as someone who personally lived through some of the NDP's struggles with NAFTA, I very much appreciated the vote yesterday by the NDP. I think that is an important sign of the NDP's commitment to Canadian workers, a commitment we share.

When it comes to the specific questions the member asked, he spoke about consultation with stakeholders and Canadians and about our experience during CETA, the TPP and the new NAFTA. What I have personally learned during that experience is the value of consultation and the value of continued, and I would even say continuous, dialogue with key stakeholders. I think we are seeing some of the results of that in the fact the premiers and the heads of municipalities have come out and spoken in favour of the new NAFTA, and in the fact that we see labour, business and indigenous leaders doing so as well. That is because we have all been talking.

Therefore, in conclusion, I would say to the hon. member that I think an important lesson of this process is that working closely with stakeholders and having a process that involves Canadians is a help and not a hindrance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague the Deputy Prime Minister for her great speech and her great work on this file.

Kings—Hants has the largest concentration of agricultural producers east of Montreal, including many dairy farmers and poultry farmers. The entire House needs to remember that the United States wanted a provision included that would give it more access to these areas.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House about the work that has been done to preserve the supply management system, the work that has been done to ensure that farmers are compensated, and the work that our government is doing to make sure that farmers are successful in the days ahead?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member for Kings—Hants to the House and thank him for his thoughtful question.

Canadians remember clearly that one of the key, explicit negotiating objectives of our American counterparts was the complete abolition of our supply management system. It is no secret to Canadians that this has been an objective of long standing. In the face of that American objective, Canada stood firm. We preserved the supply management system for today and for generations to come.

My hon. colleague also asked an important question about compensation for farmers in the supply management sector. We have been very clear that just and equitable compensation is essential.

We are a trading nation and we need to do trade deals. In order to have popular support for those trade deals, we need to be fair to all Canadians as trade deals are concluded. That is what we are absolutely committed to doing. As farmers in the supply management sector know, we have already been working in detail with them for some time to put together the details of what is inevitably a complex program.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something a little unusual here this morning. It is something all parties have already been briefed on.

The government would like to see this legislation moved rather rapidly through the House and I know that a lot of businesses and the premiers are asking us to do this as quickly as possible, so I would like to ask for unanimous consent to allow my time to be dropped to 10 minutes to allow another member to have an opportunity to speak to this issue. If it would be the will of the House for me to have unanimous consent, that is what I would like to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Prince Albert have the unanimous consent of the House to divide his time in this first round?

[Some. hon. members]

Agreed.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to start off this debate with the co-operation of all parties, which we are going to need as we proceed down this road.

I will be splitting my time with the new member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, whose riding happens to be right next to mine. I think this chamber will come to enjoy working with him, seeing his positive contribution to the House and watching him in action with his speech.

I want to thank the minister; the team; the negotiator, Steve Verheul; and the guys in the background, such as Andrew Leslie, the member for Malpeque, Mark Eyking and the other members of the trade committee. There are all these people, such as the member for Oshawa, who is sitting right next to me. There was a tremendous effort put forward to make sure that there was a team Canada approach so that everybody understood how important this deal was, not only here in Canada but also in the U.S.

I know that those on the team tried their best and did their best. That said, there are some shortfalls and problems, which is why we need to do our due diligence and go through it. Where there are problems and shortfalls, we will do things like we did with the briefing here this week. There the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said that we have the greenest aluminum in the world, which comes out of his riding, and made the point to Steve Verheul, the negotiator, that we could sell it under the environmental chapter, so why not put that into the implementation side of things? We could see that the negotiator was thinking that he had not thought of that, but it was a good idea.

These are the types of things we can do if we work together and if we have proper briefings and documents to solve or mitigate some of the issues or missed opportunities in this agreement.

Today we begin debate on Bill C-4, the implementation of the legislation for the new NAFTA. This deal, as described by President Trump, is something negotiated totally on his own terms, which I think is right. It is sad, but I think that is what has happened here. I think that the reality is that President Trump sat down with Mexico, and they did a deal and told Canada to take it or leave it, which is disappointing. It did not have to be that way.

The good news is that after rigorous debate in Parliament and in committee, Canada will continue to have a trade agreement with our largest trading partner. The bad news is that it was negotiated by the Liberal government, which made concession after concession to the United States and Mexico. The good news is that we have an agreement, but the bad news is that it could have been better.

This agreement, if we had done it right, would have set North America up for the next 50 years to become the most competitive sector in the world. With companies in the U.S., Canada and Mexico using our strengths and working together as we have in the past, we could have been so competitive that we could compete with anybody around the world. However, we did not get that in this agreement. In fact, if anything, we got more barriers, more red tape and more hassles for our businesses. It is disappointing.

Unfortunately, the mismanagement of the deal by the Liberal government is going to cost taxpayers money, because the reality is that we will have to have a plan for the sectors and industries that have been left out. During the election we heard quite clearly President Trump talking in the Rust Belt states about people who supposedly lost their jobs because of previous trade deals. There were other things in play, such as modernization and robotics and things like that, which never got talked about, but there was this idea that people were left behind. We cannot do that. In a new trade deal in this day and age, we cannot leave sectors behind, which is why, again, we need to have the proper documents and processes in order to go through the deal, do what we can to mitigate it and create a plan for those people who may have been negatively impacted by it.

However, I want to make it clear that our party supports and wants the free trade deal with the Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Some things are just too big to play politics with.

The United States is our largest trading partner, and NAFTA has been good for Canada, with $2 billion a day in trade crossing our border, which represents 75% of all Canadian exports. U.S. direct investment in Canada in 2018 was over $400 billion, which is huge. Since NAFTA was first implemented, over 5 million jobs have been created, and total trilateral trade has quadrupled to $1.2 trillion. Who says trade does not work? This is proof that trade does work.

The majority of major industry associations in Canada want us to ratify this deal. The Canadian premiers put out a joint statement urging us to ratify it quickly, but it is our democratic obligation to analyze this legislation, and we have to do our due diligence. It is even more important for us to do our due diligence since the government is still refusing, 50 days now since we made the request, to release the economic impact analysis that it has on this new NAFTA.

It looks like the government has something to hide, which is probably true because even though the majority of industries support the deal, many of them have expressed concerns and are looking for clarification on how this deal is actually going to affect them.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce wants further details, especially with respect to the intellectual property provisions. CAFTA wants to confirm that any changes would not negatively impact their producers. The CME wants to know what steps the government has taken to ensure that Canadian productivity levels are equal to those of other OECD countries, to maintain competitiveness here in North America. They also want to know what the impacts of the concessions will be to our aluminum industry.

The shortcomings and missed opportunities of the deal are clear.

First, the Canadian dairy industry is possibly the biggest loser in this deal, as 3.6% of the Canadian market is now opened up to imports. Milk classes 6 and 7 have been eliminated. That is a big deal. That is very important to dairy producers. That was a way for them to get extra value from some of the dairy products that they produce and they now have lost that opportunity.

The deal dictates specific thresholds for Canadian exports to anywhere in the world on milk protein concentrates, skim milk powder and infant formula. As the industry grows and wants to export more, or if the industry should have a surplus in these products to export abroad, it is limited to quotas. If the industry actually does exceed the thresholds, Canada adds duties to the exports in excess. That makes them more expensive, so it makes them uncompetitive to export. That is something Canada has never agreed to before. We really need to see the ramifications. It also sets a precedent for future trade deals.

We have relinquished some of our sovereignty. If we want to do a deal with a non-market country, for example, China, we have to actually go to Big Brother, the United States, and get permission. That does not make sense to me. That is a growing market. It is a market that we have to trade into. We have to find a path forward to have a proper relationship with China. However, we should not be worrying about the U.S. and its issues with China. We should not be drawn into those issues. We should have our own relationship with China and this could impact our ability to do that.

Second, the missed opportunities in this deal make up a long list. Aluminum is not afforded the same provisions as steel. To be defined as North American, it would have to be smelted and poured in one of these three countries. We do not know why aluminum was left out. Why did it not get the same treatment as steel, other than maybe something was going on in the U.S. and China that they wanted aluminum to come through Mexico and go down that path?

On temporary entry for business persons, the list of professionals in chapter 16 was not expanded to include professions that exist in the 21st century. Why did we not modernize that list? We could have added a whole pile of new jobs that have been created in the high-tech sector and the service sector. That was not done.

Buy American was not addressed. Mexico got a chapter on Buy American; we did not.

Our forestry workers are hurting. They are going through some tough times. This should have been talked about in the deal. I understand we had a claim in front of the WTO. I also understand that the WTO appellate body is in trouble right now because of the U.S. not appointing judges. Who is paying for that? That would be the guys who were laid off in British Columbia and the folks who were laid off in New Brunswick in the forestry sector because that market has turned down due to the unfair, illegal tariffs of the U.S. government.

Third, the Liberal government made concessions that will result in continued business uncertainty to a certain extent. The ISDS chapter was removed, with no more protections from politics in the U.S. and Mexico. A sunset clause sets out a formal review of the agreement every six years. The agreement will terminate in 16 years unless it is renegotiated. Again, when someone is looking at their business and trying to plan things, it makes it really tough to work in those types of cycles because it does create some instability.

There are more things in this deal I could talk about, but I understand I am down to the last minute and I will use my time at committee to do that.

However, I want to say one thing. We are plugging our noses because the industries and communities say we need to get that bankability, that stability of a trade deal with the U.S., and we are going to provide that. This deal will go through, but we really need to look at who is impacted negatively by this deal. The government really needs to come up with a serious plan, whether it is compensation, finding new markets, training or reallocation. I am not sure what those are. Every sector might have a different solution, but they need to have a plan.

I look forward to working in the committee to identify those sectors, giving them a chance to speak on how this is going to impact them and also trying to find solutions so that we can move forward. In the end, Canadian businesses will win from this deal, but it could have been better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his vote yesterday and signifying that the Conservative Party will support this moving forward.

Part of his speech talked about the suggestion that this government has somehow hidden the agenda, and I take great exception to that. The Deputy Prime Minister made her remarks earlier this morning. She talked about the fact that there was a NAFTA council in place, and I know that there has been an inner partisan working group on this issue. I want to relay that to my colleague across the way.

The former interim leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose, had said that this was the best deal that could be struck. Now this member suggests that this deal could have been better. Is he suggesting that Rona Ambrose does not know what she is talking about?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for Rona Ambrose; she is a very wise person. This is being taken out of context. In light of who we had negotiating the deal here in Canada, it was the best that they could do. If we had had a Conservative prime minister, a Conservative finance minister and a Conservative trade minister, it would have been a better deal, no doubt about it.

I have been to Kings—Hants and I have talked to dairy producers there. I know they are very concerned about what they have given up in market access and their inability to take advantage of possible opportunities in the future to sell infant formula and powdered milk. That was taken away from them. Why would the member say that is a good deal? It is not a good deal. The disappointing part of this deal is there were so many things that should have been done to position our country in North America going into the future. It did not happen, and it could have.

It would have been different if we had a prime minister who was not insulting the President every third day. The reality is that when we started these negotiations, Canada was not the target, it was Mexico. It ended up that the U.S. and Mexico did the deal and Canada got the leftovers.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, my colleague from Jonquière asked the hon. minister if she could explain why aluminum did not get the same treatment as steel under the new NAFTA.

She answered indirectly by saying that 70% of aluminum is protected. Unfortunately, that is not true. It is actually 70% of parts made from aluminum that are protected. This means that parts manufacturers can source their aluminum from anywhere in the world, including China, which produces the dirtiest aluminum, whereas Quebec makes the greenest aluminum in the world.

I was a little disappointed that the question was not answered directly, so I will put it to my hon. colleague. Why does he think steel got better treatment than aluminum in the new NAFTA?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one could speculate about all sorts of reasons why it was not given the same consideration. Maybe the U.S. just felt that it would rather have the ability to use Mexico as a place to bring in Chinese steel that is dumped into Mexico. Maybe the U.S. does not have a big enough aluminum industry to worry about. One could speculate on a variety of things.

However, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord made some good suggestions for the workers in his riding. He talked about green aluminum. I think the member would also agree that green aluminum should have been focused on. That could have been our angle going in. We could have said that this is why Canadian aluminum should be bought and why that dirt cheap aluminum from China should not be bought. The good quality stuff from Quebec here in Canada should be bought.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I am somewhat confused by the comments of the member for Prince Albert. I remember six or seven months ago, when we had a very similar deal with respect to the dairy sector and the requirement to consult the U.S. on a new trade agreement with China, the Conservatives said that the only problem with the Liberals was that they were not ratifying the deal quickly enough. Then some changes were made and we have gotten rid of requirements that would raise the price of prescription drugs and there are more protections for workers in Mexico, and now the Conservatives are saying that this is a terrible deal.

I am just trying to understand what changed between the first iteration of the deal and this iteration of the deal, such that we have gone from saying that we need to ratify this as quickly as possible to saying this is a really bad deal, we need to study it and we are not sure we should have it at all.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member's comments on that. If he goes back to the last election, the Conservative Party leader was saying this is not a great deal and a Conservative government would make it a better deal. It was part of his election platform, so I am not sure why the member thinks Conservatives were so quick to say this is such a good deal.

The reality on this piece of legislation is that the premiers, the aluminum associations and the dairy associations are kind of saying they are going to pay for it, but they understand they have to give something up. There are a lot of people saying that overall, they have to let this happen. Do they like it? No. Anyone who speaks to the members individually knows they are not happy. A lot of them would like to just stay with what they have. The reality is that is not an option either, so what do they do? They want bankability, stability, to make sure the economy keeps growing and to maintain partnerships with the U.S. and Mexico. Yes, there are some flaws for sure, but when a Conservative government is elected next time around, it can maybe start addressing those flaws one by one, pick away at them and make sure they are better for producers, consumers and manufacturers.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Prince Albert, who has done a great amount of work on this file on behalf of our party. Also, as he has mentioned, he is the member for my neighbouring riding and he has been a tremendous source of encouragement and support for me as I have gone on this journey. I want to thank him for that.

It is indeed a privilege and an honour this morning to stand in the House for my first speech representing the people of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I am very grateful for the trust the people have shown in me and I commit to do my very best to represent each and every person for every moment of time they see fit to grant me the opportunity to be here and to serve them in this place.

From my nomination in December 2018 until the election on October 21, our campaign was a fabulous opportunity to get to know many people in this vast riding, and I will cherish that experience forever. My wife Lori and I continue to be thankful to the many people, some who worked tirelessly during the campaign, to provide me the opportunity to serve in the House. I would be foolish to begin mentioning names, as I am sure I would inadvertently exclude someone, but I know that each of them know who he or she is, and I thank each of them.

I will be forever grateful for the support that Lori and my entire family have been to me on this journey. I thank Kent and Rebekah, Mac and Hannah, Nicole and Washington, and Alex for their constant support and encouragement. Lori's commitment and sacrifice may go unnoticed by many, but it will never go unnoticed by me. I honestly do not know how anyone could serve in this place without the unwavering support of their family.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the highlight of the campaign for me was becoming a grandparent for the first time on October 8.

For those who are not aware, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is basically the north half of Saskatchewan. In fact, it is 52% of Saskatchewan geographically. It is the second-largest riding in the 10 provinces, and its approximately 70,000 residents are spread over 342,000 square kilometres. Just for reference, the country of Germany has nearly 83 million people spread over a slightly larger 357,000 square kilometres.

As my team and I travelled over 25,000 kilometres during the campaign, speaking to people, one of the common messages I heard was the need for Canada to get our fiscal house in order. I believe that because of my experience as a partner in an accounting firm for nearly 30 years and my service as mayor of the City of Meadow Lake for nearly eight years, voters sent me to this place to be their voice and to hold the government accountable for its wasteful spending.

I feel very fortunate to have built a great team of people, both here and in Meadow Lake, my home community. These people are credible, capable, competent and they are committed to working hard to represent the interests and to bring forward the concerns of all the people of northern Saskatchewan. We know we have much to learn, but we are prepared for that challenge.

Being appointed the shadow minister for indigenous services in November was a tremendous honour. It is a welcome opportunity to be part of an incredible team of people working on behalf of all indigenous Canadians in addition to those I serve in northern Saskatchewan.

My years of coaching minor hockey and my time as mayor, working with my immediate neighbours from Flying Dust First Nation, have taught me how first nations and non-first nations communities, which have relationships built on trust, can work together to find solutions that benefit everyone. I am proud to say that when I set out to seek the nomination for my party, one of my first endorsements was from Chief Jeremy Norman of Flying Dust First Nation. I believe that is a testament to the positive relationship we have built over many years.

I am personally excited in my role as shadow minister to have the opportunity to continue building relationships with indigenous communities across Canada and to continue working to understand the challenges faced by these communities.

However, we are here today to talk about a trade agreement.

The Conservative Party of Canada is the party of free trade. It was under former prime minister Stephen Harper that Canada signed a record number of trade agreements, providing our Canadian businesses with unprecedented access to markets around the world. We have long supported free trade and will continue to support a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico.

However, we cannot blindly support a free trade deal for the sake of supporting a trade deal. We need to take time to ensure it is a good deal for Canadian businesses. We must do our due diligence and examine all aspects of this deal. After all, this is a deal with Canada's largest and most important trading partner. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned earlier already, the government has withheld some important information from us, like the economic impact analysis, and this has hindered us from adequately scrutinizing the deal to this point.

It seems to me that Canadians have every reason to be a bit leery of this new NAFTA. We only need to look at how the government has mishandled very important trade issues for the farmers in my riding.

Throughout the campaign, I heard from canola and pulse crop producers who, over the past couple of years, have had to deal with the failures of the government on the international scene. I think specifically of pulse crop exports to India and canola exports to China. These are real issues and challenges for the farmers in my riding.

As we consider the legislation before us today, I would also like to highlight something that is missing from this agreement.

I am not aware of any agreement on softwood lumber being included in the new NAFTA. This is a significant issue for our forestry sector. I know we often think of B.C. and the workers who are suffering extreme hardships there due to the current government's failure on this file. My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, spoke very capably on this issue in the House on Tuesday afternoon when she pointed out that over two dozen mills had closed in British Columbia, while the government had focused western diversification funds predominantly to the major urban centres of Victoria and Vancouver.

Let me share a story from my own riding on this.

My riding in Saskatchewan also has a very significant forest industry. There are two lumber mills, an oriented strand board mill and a pulp mill, all within a few miles of my small community. I am sure members can appreciate the number of direct and indirect jobs and the economic spinoff this creates in a number of small communities in that area.

In question period in December, I highlighted one of these companies, NorSask Forest Products. This is a sawmill that supports over 400 direct jobs in the Saskatchewan forestry sector. It also has the highest proportion of indigenous forest employment in Canada.

NorSask is a 100% first nations-owned company, whose profits are directed to the nine bands that make up the Meadow Lake Tribal Council. The profits from NorSask Forest Products are funds that are used for core programs like housing, education and health care. This would also include suicide prevention programs, which unfortunately is a very significant challenge in these same ownership communities of which I speak.

As I pointed out in December, since 2017, NorSask has paid over $10 million in softwood lumber tariffs. That is $10 million of lost dividends that could have been paid to the ownership first nations. Imagine the services that could have been provided to the people of these nine small communities with $10 million.

Many stakeholders are affected by this agreement. They are looking for the certainty that comes with knowing they are getting a fair deal, so they can make good business and good investment decisions. That is why I personally look forward to reviewing this deal in detail and contacting many of the businesses in my riding to ensure their success will not be impeded as a result of this trade agreement.

I consider it an incredible honour to serve as a member of Parliament and I will never take that privilege for granted. I again thank all the people of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for putting their trust in me.

[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 want to acknowledge and express appreciation for the amount of support that has been given to the agreement. Yesterday, for example, the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Greens recognized the importance of this agreement to all Canadians, and that was encouraging.

I listened to my colleague's comments on the indigenous community. One of the things we really underestimate is the potential of indigenous entrepreneurs. This trade agreement will help those entrepreneurs who are looking to exporting into the future and getting these secured markets. Those entrepreneurs are one of the faster-growing communities across our country. The agreement will do a great deal in benefiting entrepreneurs in general.

Could the member provide his thoughts on secure markets and the benefits of today's and tomorrow's entrepreneurs, going forward?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is no secure market for the forestry industry in the United States at this time.

During my campaign, I talked a lot about opportunity for all in the indigenous communities in my riding. What I mean is that the creation of great jobs is one of the very significant solutions we have for many of the challenges facing northern Saskatchewan, in my riding in particular. If we could provide people the opportunity to have a great job, we could give them some economic stability, self-worth and the fulfillment that comes with having a good job.

However, what we also provide in northern Saskatchewan with good jobs is hope. What is lacking in northern Saskatchewan is the hope that comes with having opportunity.

I have spoken many times about how the suicide crisis in northern Saskatchewan is because of a lack of hope. If young people in northern Saskatchewan could look to the people they look up to, their parents, big brothers and sisters, and if they could look to the people they respect and see them succeed by being part of the industry in northern Saskatchewan, they would have hope. With that hope, they would not have to consider suicide as an outcome.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

In the negotiations for the past few multilateral agreements, Quebec always seems to end up as a bargaining chip. It happened with softwood lumber, which still has no protection, it happened with the many breaches in supply management, and it is happening today with aluminum.

I wonder if my colleague has any thoughts on this. Why does Quebec always end up as a pawn in bilateral negotiations between this government and other countries?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it was just Quebec that was a pawn in the negotiations for some of these deals. Many industries and individual players in Canada have maybe been used as pawns in this agreement.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of things I am very pleased about with this new trade agreement is that it has eliminated the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the trade agreement, which give corporations extraordinary rights and powers to challenge our laws and policies that are put in place to protect citizens, our environment and workers.

Would the member opposite like to see investor-state dispute settlement removed from the other trade agreements we have signed, historically, and would he like to see Canada renegotiate some of these trade agreements to get rid of this anti-democratic measure that was in NAFTA, which will be removed in the CUSMA?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that all Canadian businesses have the ability to prosper.

With the indigenous services file, one of the things we are looking for is partnerships between indigenous communities and industry, allowing indigenous people to be part of the private sector, to be part of the market so they create economic activity that will help them take care of the very demanding needs in their first nations communities.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before I go to resuming debate, I have a comment for hon. members. I see many members standing up to participate in the time for questions and comments. I encourage hon. members to continue doing that and eventually we will get to them. We will do our best to apportion the opportunities to speak in this regard.

I invite members who would like to participate in questions and comments to continue to stand up. They will eventually be given the floor.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we saw yesterday, the first bill was passed with the support of all parties in the House except for the Bloc Québécois. That does not mean that we are against free trade and openness to trade, far from it.

In fact, if we look at Quebec's history, the separatist movement has nothing to prove in that regard. The great economists, who were also some of the greatest statesmen of modern Quebec, such as Bernard Landry and Jacques Parizeau, were the fathers of free trade in Quebec. We need not be lectured about that. It would be in extreme bad faith to accuse us of being opposed to trade with other countries.

Nevertheless, that did not prevent Jacques Parizeau from opposing certain agreements. We had to vote against the agreement as presented yesterday for somewhat similar reasons. There seemed to be more arguments against than for. This is politics, not religion. Just because this agreement has a free trade label on it does not necessarily mean that it will get our vote, if it has negative impacts.

Sure, the agreement has some positives and we wish we could have supported it. Some real progress has been made, compared to the old NAFTA. However—and I think that the outcome and the policy positions show exactly why the Bloc is necessary—we represent Quebec, and Quebec is getting the short end of the stick with this agreement in many respects.

Some significant concessions were made, and this came up earlier in some of the questions that were asked. Quebec is bearing the brunt of these concessions, as usual. This agreement contains two deal breakers in particular. First, it undermines our agricultural model, which relies heavily on supply management. Once again, the dairy industry is an example of that. Second, it significantly hinders our aluminum industry's future prospects. This industry is Quebec's second-largest exporter and is a jewel in the crown of our economy.

Our aluminum industry shines for its small carbon footprint. Some even call it carbon neutral, and my colleagues from Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean would know about that. This agreement benefits Chinese aluminum, which would literally flood the North American market through Mexico. A great deal of carbon pollution is created in manufacturing this aluminum.

We are working very hard to force the government to take into account Quebec's interests, which it bargained away during the negotiations. That is our job as parliamentarians and our mission for the immediate future. We are reaching out to the government so that it will work with us to find ways to limit the harm it is causing to the aluminum industry and dairy farmers. As members know, we proposed a way to improve the agreement without having to open it completely. That does not mean that we will not do our job in committee by asking questions and trying to take the agreement in a better direction. Nevertheless, we suggested an approach that would not require opening the agreement.

If the government finds a way to limit the harm that the agreement will cause our dairy industry and to protect our aluminum smelters, particularly against Chinese dumping, then we will be pleased to support the next steps. That is what we want for Quebec.

The government started speaking about openness the very evening it was elected. We have also heard about openness in this debate. However, openness goes both ways. We are willing to negotiate and discuss, but we will not compromise our principles.

Let's talk first about the key sectors of the Quebec economy that are threatened by this agreement. We believe that supply-managed products are a non-negotiable item, yet the government undermined protections for these products when it gave the Americans oversight over our trade practices.

We also believe that the aluminum industry is a non-negotiable item, yet the government agreed to allow Chinese aluminum to flood the North American market by going through Mexico.

Obviously, the government did not stand up for Quebec with the same vigour as it did for Ontario and western Canada. We cannot support the bill to ratify the CUSMA as it stands.

That is why we want the government to co-operate with us and take Quebec's needs into account.

Let's start with aluminum. Canadian and U.S. courts determined that Chinese aluminum was being dumped. That is not our allegation; it is the courts' finding. Unfortunately, as we all know, dumping is common, unfair and illegal. Canada and the United States both impose anti-dumping tariffs. Mexico, however, has no aluminum smelters, so it does not impose anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese aluminum.

As written, the agreement makes it possible for Chinese aluminum to flood the North American market, even though Canada and the United States have protective anti-dumping tariffs. Chinese aluminum is simply processed in Mexico, circumventing the protections we put in place. For free trade to be truly free and profitable for all, it must make unfair trade practices such as dumping impossible.

We also want to minimize our dairy producers' losses. In addition to opening up 3% of the Canadian market to American producers, CUSMA will make it harder for our producers to sell their milk protein to processors. As a result, American diafiltered milk imports could skyrocket, which is an ongoing issue we have been talking about for years.

As drafted, the agreement gives the Americans oversight into all our milk protein exports outside North America. Having a provision like this in a trade agreement is unheard of and it has the potential to completely destroy the dairy industry. We are trying to raise the main concerns with that aspect of the agreement.

I want to come back to aluminum to recap. Under NAFTA, automobile and truck manufacturers are under no obligation to buy North American steel and aluminum. Under the terms of the new CUSMA, 70% of the aluminum and steel bought by car and truck manufacturers has to originate from North America. To qualify as originating from North America, the steel and aluminum will have to undergo significant processing in North America.

On December 10, 2019, the three negotiating parties of the agreement signed a protocol of amendment to CUSMA. The protocol states that seven years after entry into force, steel purchased by manufacturers will have to be refined and cast in North America. That is the rub. There is no such provision for Quebec's aluminum. The amendment also states that 10 years after entry into force of this agreement, the parties will review the appropriate requirements in the interest of the parties so that aluminum can be considered as originating from North America.

Groupe Performance Stratégique, or GPS, examined the absence of a definition for aluminum similar to the definition included for steel in the protocol of amendment, and the economic impact this will have on Quebec between 2020 and 2029. According to GPS, the absence of this definition will jeopardize six major projects on the North Shore and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, in other words, the heart of Quebec's aluminum sector. The authors explained that Mexico can continue to transform primary aluminum purchased at a very low price from China or elsewhere and export it to the United States.

I am pleased that my colleagues from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are here for the debate, because those six projects involve construction investments worth about $6.2 billion. I am sure everyone would agree that this is a lot of money. Between 2020 and 2029, if you add up the combined economic impact of the development and construction phases of the six projects, we are talking about investments worth $12.2 billion and 60,000 jobs created, at an average salary of $59,775.

These projects would generate revenues of more than $900 million for the Government of Quebec and almost $325 million for the Government of Canada. These projects would also produce 829,000 new tons of the greenest aluminum on the planet.

As we have been told repeatedly by the government, nothing in the former NAFTA protected the aluminum sector. We agree. This addition may look like progress, yet that is exactly where the problem lies. They are mixing up aluminum parts and aluminum. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean just talked about that. Why is aluminum, a Quebec product, not being offered the same protection as steel, which is a product of other provinces? That is where the problem lies and I will say that we are going to stand firm on this issue.

The definition of steel is clear. It includes the entire process, from melting, to mixing to coating. This will come into effect in seven years. Auto and parts manufacturers will have time to switch suppliers and to start purchasing North American steel. That is all very well and good. We have no problems with that at all.

However, a definition for “originating good” was not adopted for aluminum. Back in 2018, since there was no definition, the agreement was nothing more than a statement of intent that essentially allows automobile and parts manufacturers to get their primary aluminum wherever they want.

I should point out that Canada is the only of the three signatory countries for which protection against Chinese dumping is a real issue. In Quebec, it is imperative. For parts manufacturers in Ontario, this will be more of a long-term issue, which may explain why the government is so reluctant to deal with it.

Now, I want to talk about dairy farmers. Quebec needs a strong voice standing up for it, and we hope to be that strong voice. As members know, supply management is extremely important in Quebec, but less so in the rest of Canada. This is what makes us different as a people, as a nation. This is why we will not compromise on this.

Since 2001, which, coincidentally is the same time when the Bloc lost its recognized party status, there have been three breaches in supply management. When the Bloc had power, there were no breaches in supply management. Once again, this very fact demonstrates why we need to be here.

The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, opens up a new breach in supply management that will take away more than 3% of our dairy market, which amounts to a loss of about $150 million a year, every year. The government announced that there would be full compensation. Let us be clear about the nature of that compensation. It is out of the question for this support to come in the form of a modernization program, like the fiasco that happened in 2018 with the European agreement. We are demanding a direct support program, starting with the next budget. That is what farmers are calling for. We will not budge on this either.

One issue that is not getting much attention, but that has the potential to destabilize the industry, is milk protein. Consumers in both Canada and the United States are drinking less milk but eating more butter, cream, cheese and ice cream. This leaves dairy farmers with surplus protein to dispose of. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal ruled in 2006 that above a certain concentration, these proteins became so denatured that they could no longer be considered dairy products and were therefore no longer subject to supply management, the existing laws that prohibit cross-border imports. The American agrochemical industry has developed milk protein concentrates designed specifically to circumvent supply management and enable U.S. farmers to dump their surplus into the Canadian market at lower prices than our farmers can afford to sell for. In Canada, the price paid to farmers is regulated by the Canadian Dairy Commission, as we know. However, imports of diafiltered milk, which does not even deserve to be called milk, have simply skyrocketed.

From zero in 2008, they shot up to 20,000 kilograms in 2014 and 33,000 kilograms in 2015, and they probably would have kept rising.

To solve the problem, farmers came to an agreement with processors on a price that would enable them to switch from American diafiltered milk to our domestic surplus protein. Their agreement was endorsed by Ottawa, the Canadian Dairy Commission, the provinces and the marketing boards.

Canada created a new class of dairy products, surplus protein, that could be sold at a low price. It was commonly known as class 7. Imports of diafiltered milk collapsed, prompting a flurry of irate tweets from U.S. President Trump, who promised to solve the problem during the renegotiation of NAFTA, as members may recall.

In CUSMA, the Americans insisted on spelling out in black and white that Canada would abolish class 7, and Ottawa agreed. To make sure that the class was not revived under a different name, they demanded that they get a say in Canada's protein trade. This whole section of the agreement is deeply disappointing to farmers, but sadly, with a certain sense of resignation, they are giving up the fight. They are not asking the government to push back on this. What they are asking for is a little time to adjust, as much time as is necessary and reasonable.

The government's eagerness to hastily ratify this agreement could cause a lot of harm. Let us take our time on a debate like this one. Let us not rush through this or there will be collateral victims.

Right now, our dairy farmers are selling some of their surplus milk protein concentrates on international markets, for example, in Asia and the Middle East.

The wording of CUSMA regarding the trade of protein concentrates seems to give the United States a say in all of our exports. Washington could decide to limit the quantity of protein concentrates that our farmers can sell to third country markets. Depending on how this CUSMA provision is interpreted, Washington could limit the quantity of protein concentrates that our farmers have the right to sell to the rest of the world. This would enable the Americans to get rid of a competitor on global markets at very little cost. It is a first in the history of international trade to give a foreign country oversight over our trade with the rest of the world. It basically hands over a part of Canada's sovereignty to Washington.

Our producers are likely to end up with huge surpluses of milk solids they cannot sell, which would totally destabilize the system. As written, CUSMA makes that catastrophic scenario a possibility, but the wording is unclear. We need clarity about things like that before we can support the agreement.

Fortunately, there will be a process to debate it. We are perfectly willing to do our job as parliamentarians with the government and the other opposition parties, but let me make it clear that some things are off the table. We are willing to compromise, but not to be compromised.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments and ideas.

I think this version of NAFTA is a major win for Quebec's aluminum workers. We fought to get rid of U.S. tariffs. We are the only major aluminum producer not subject to U.S. tariffs. The new agreement guarantees that 70% of the aluminum used in cars will be North American. Currently, there are no such guarantees.

Is it not true that this agreement will make things better for aluminum producers and workers? Is it not true that the Government of Quebec supports this agreement?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, aluminum workers have expressed their fears. The best way to discuss what is right for them is to ask them directly. A full delegation from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean actually came here yesterday to make their voices heard. It was made up of local elected officials, union leaders and representatives from the economic sector, and its message was not that this agreement would be good for aluminum workers. It is easy to assume all kinds of things and say that it is a better agreement, but at the end of the day, when we ask those people, the answer is clear.

As for whether this constitutes progress compared to NAFTA, the use of the word “parts” basically waters down any potential benefit that might have come from such protection. This is a problem. When we talk about parts rather than molten aluminum, that changes everything—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We are currently at questions and comments.

I would like to remind hon. members that, during questions and comments, it is important to glance at the Speaker every so often, to have an idea of how much time remains.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to my colleague from the Bloc. I look forward to working with him on the international trade committee to find some solutions to the problems the Liberals have created.

In fact, there are solutions. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord brought forward the solution of green aluminum that uses Quebec aluminum, which is the most environmentally friendly aluminum in the world. It is another example of why Canadian technology should be exported around the world. Instead, in this scenario, Chinese aluminum will be dumped into Mexico and it will end up in our cars.

Does the member not think there are some good ideas to find at committee? I do not mean by bringing in the associations, because they do not necessarily represent the members, the plants, the facilities or the unions. Does he not agree we should bring in these people, listen to them and take their ideas, like that of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on green aluminum, and look for solutions for those folks?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Indeed, we have always said that we are open to good ideas, and I thank the member for pointing that out. In fact, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is already working closely on this issue with my colleagues from neighbouring ridings.

We are certainly in favour of green aluminum. It is already green, and it is set to become even greener. The problem with the provisions in the current agreement is that this green aluminum, which has the potential to be a real ecological and economic success, is in jeopardy. The study I cited earlier is about projects that are truly at risk if the agreement remains unchanged.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I remember the fine work that former MPs Ruth Ellen Brosseau and Tracey Ramsey did on behalf of dairy farmers. We share the concerns of the workers and producers in this sector and in the aluminum sector.

The NDP always likes to be constructive where possible. Given that it is highly unlikely that we will manage to change the agreement, I ask my colleague what constructive steps could be taken to help dairy farmers and workers in the aluminum sector.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to aluminum, our party has submitted a proposal to the government. Discussions and negotiations are under way, but we cannot talk about them yet. Let's see what happens next, and we can discuss it in due course in the House or elsewhere.

As for supply management, we have clearly stated that we hope to table a bill during this parliamentary session that would prohibit any further breaches in supply management. We are also thinking of the future. We are tired of these secret negotiations at the expense of our farmers, and we are tired of being told, when the terms are made public, that it is just a small breach. In fact, all these little breaches add up to a huge hole. I hope that all parties will support us. It is good that they are promising not to touch the dairy sector. However, in my opinion, supporting a bill that would make such breaches legally impossible would remedy the situation once and for all.

Right now, however, we need to address the issue of the compensation that is required because of the agreement. It is paltry compensation, but we will have to wage that battle.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an incredible speech from my colleague. He eloquently articulated the difference between protections for steel and protections for aluminum. I think my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House will now understand the difference. I explained it to my eight-year-old daughter yesterday, and she understood. With all due respect, I think they should also be able to understand the difference between the two.

Could my hon. colleague tell me why it was Quebec that kept getting used as a bargaining chip in the last few treaties, not the rest of Canada? Take, for example, supply management, aluminum today and softwood lumber, which has no protection.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say, but I just have a minute.

He explained the difference to his eight-year-old daughter, but to be fair, my colleague comes from a politically active family. She already had it in her to understand.

Of course, in politics, everything comes down to the balance of power. When the Bloc Québécois had recognized party status in the House, there were no breaches in supply management. After the Bloc Québécois lost that status, there were three breaches in supply management. We are here, and we will be keeping watch. We will speak up.

Generally speaking, the absent are always in the wrong. For the agreement with Europe, the Quebec negotiator had already stated that he was happy to let the delegation take over. In other words, he was not at the bargaining table. The absent are always in the wrong. There is one solution that would give Quebec a voice, and that is for Quebec to become independent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the new member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. This is my first time asking him a question, and I want to take this opportunity to say welcome.

My question is about aluminum and the massive subsidies that the Liberal government has granted to a project in British Columbia, the LNG Canada project in Kitimat. This is a shale gas development project that will be built with aluminum from China. A huge subsidy has been granted to build this project in China.

Why is this project not required to use aluminum from Quebec?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I think the member raises a great point that is worth examining. We would be delighted to work with the member and monitor this file very closely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to share some reflections on behalf of the NDP with respect to the final version of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, as it is formally known, or as it is known by many, simply the new NAFTA. Before delving into the details of the agreement, I want to give some context to Canadians who may be listening at home.

Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in 2016, claiming that “NAFTA was the worst deal ever”. While no one in Canada would question the significance of our trading relationship with the United States to the Canadian economy, there are many Canadians who would rightly question who the big winners under NAFTA have been.

The original NAFTA was negotiated by Conservatives and signed by Liberals in 1994. People were promised jobs, rising productivity and secure access to the largest market in the world. However, during the years since NAFTA was signed, Canada lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs and its textile industry was devastated. While automation has played a role in those job losses, there is no question that many of those jobs moved to Mexico because it was a low-wage economy that could sell finished products back into Canada and the U.S. without penalty.

We can ask auto workers from southern Ontario. Half of Canada's current manufacturing trade balance with Mexico is made up of cars and parts. The overall automotive trade deficit between Mexico and Canada has gone from $1.6 billion to $8.7 billion under NAFTA.

In addition, Canada has paid millions of dollars in court fees and penalties when sued by corporations under investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms. Perhaps most memorably, the Canadian government was successfully sued by a U.S. chemical company, Ethyl Corporation, in 1997 for having dared to try to ban the import and interprovincial trade of the gasoline additive known as MMT.

MMT is a suspected neurotoxin that automakers also claim interferes with automobile on-board diagnostic systems. Under NAFTA, Ethyl won a settlement with damages totalling $19.5 million, but that was not it. The Canadian government was also forced to overturn the regulatory ban and issue a formal apology to the corporation.

It was a stark example of how international trade agreements could override the authority of democratically elected governments to make rules in the public interest. In this case, rules meant to protect human health and the environment.

Canada has been challenged more than any other country under NAFTA chapter 11. Other cases against Canada include challenges to wildlife conservation measures, provincial water and timber protection policies, fracking in the St. Lawrence River basin and the sale and use of pesticides.

The proportionality clause in the original NAFTA also challenged Canada's energy sovereignty, allowing the United States to require a significant share of Canada's oil and gas production be sold to our southern neighbours, whether it was in Canada's national interest or not.

Over the decades under NAFTA, Canada's GDP and cross-border trade no doubt grew, but wealth inequality also grew. Today, Canadians are finding it harder to make ends meet. Each month, 48% of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills or defaulting on their debt.

Liberals and Conservatives are far too quick to gloss over, far too often, that it has not been all sunshine and roses under NAFTA. While the rich were getting richer, far too many Canadians were left to fall behind.

Governments and trade tribunals were, and are, quick to defend corporate rights and to bail out big companies when the risks do not pay off. However, when things go wrong for workers, they are offered simple condolences. Maybe they are told they need to accept that this is how the market works, or that they are the victims of downsizing or global restructuring. It is as if these things were natural events, like earthquakes or snowstorms, and not the result of calculated human decisions designed to maximize shareholder profit at the expense of everything else.

In other words, Canadian workers have a lot to be upset about when it comes to trade deals and the global corporate agenda that drives them. That is also why there is a growing political backlash across the western world directed at these kinds of agreements.

Nevertheless, 25 years under NAFTA has led to an integrated North American supply chain for many businesses, and has created confidence for many entrepreneurs that they can invest in cross-border commerce without fear of the kind of arbitrary reprisal we have seen from time to time for certain industries, including softwood lumber, the cattle industry and most recently steel and aluminum.

The understandable desire to maintain that confidence, coupled with an economic interdependence that grew under NAFTA, explains why so many Canadians were concerned when Donald Trump moved to renegotiate the deal. The President's own personality compounded that concern. To say the least, he is a known bully who is quick to throw even his closest allies under the bus when it suits his short-term political needs.

Instead of leaning into the possibility of renegotiating and improving the deal, the Liberals' first instinct was to say that the original NAFTA was the best deal that Canada could get.

They were not the ones to propose the elimination of the chapter 11 investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that gave Ethyl Corporation its win over Canadians' health and the environment. In fact, they initially said they would fight to keep it.

It was only once the U.S. made it clear that it would insist on renegotiation that we really started to hear the government admit that the deal was not perfect and that it could in fact be improved. Suddenly, better was possible after all.

To hear that NAFTA had flaws was no surprise to New Democrats, but to hear that from the mouths of Liberals who had spent years mocking New Democrats for saying as much certainly was a bit of a shock.

As usual, just like Liberals and Conservatives before them, the present Liberal government engaged in a highly secretive negotiation process. While a broader range of stakeholders may have been consulted, there was no information made available to the public or to Parliament. In fact, we are still waiting for some basic economic analysis of the agreement from the Liberal government, something a number of our trading partners not only make available, but make available early on in the process, and I will have more to say on that later.

At the end of the first round of bargaining, the Liberals declared once again that we had the best deal that Canada could get. What New Democrats saw was an agreement that hammered the supply-managed dairy sector, increased the price of already high-cost prescription drugs, and continued to put the rights of corporations on a pedestal without offering real protection for the rights of workers and the planet.

Thankfully, even though the government was eager to pack it in, Democrats in the United States shared some of those concerns and signalled their intention to fight for a better deal. In spite of the promise of a better deal, Liberals in Canada were rushing to ratify it, and the only real criticism they were getting from Conservatives at that time, a short six or seven months ago, was that they were not ratifying it quickly enough.

When the NDP called on the government to delay ratification until the Democrats' campaign to improve the agreement had run its course and to seize the opportunity to push for something better, we were met with a combination of outrage and scorn.

For example, the Deputy Prime Minister told us in May 2019:

Mr. Speaker, what the NDP needs to understand is that reopening this agreement would be like opening Pandora's box. Why is the NDP prepared to risk our economic stability? It would be naive for the NDP to believe that Canadians would benefit from reopening this agreement. The NDP is playing a very dangerous game.

In June, the minister continued along the same vein, saying:

...we do not want and we do not need a new NAFTA negotiation. Canada has done its work. We have our deal. We are not going to create an opportunity to have this hard-won agreement...put in jeopardy.

There are more examples but I do not wish to belabour the point. I simply want to point out that happily the Liberals were not able to ratify the first version of CUSMA before last year's election. The Democrats continued their work and they made some meaningful improvements to the agreement.

It turns out the game the NDP was playing was the one that would allow for the elimination of measures that otherwise would have raised the cost of prescription drugs. It turns out we were playing the game that allowed for the establishment of first-of-their-kind provisions for binding, enforceable and internationally monitored labour standards in Mexico.

That may have been a dangerous game for pharmaceutical companies looking to maximize their profits on the backs of the sick. It may have been a dangerous game for companies looking to drive out competition by moving their manufacturing to a low-wage economy like Mexico. However, I do not think we can say it was a dangerous game for everyday Canadians trying to pay for prescription drugs or worried about their jobs moving south.

There are still real concerns for many Canadians, and I suspect big pharma and the big three will still find a way to make money, although maybe not quite as much.

The problems have not all been fixed, but Canadians will be a little better off than they otherwise would have been thanks to the hard work, not of this government that wanted to rush ratification, but of U.S. Democrats who were not willing to throw in the towel so easily.

Canadians should not have to depend on politicians in foreign countries to get a better deal at the bargaining table. They should be able to have confidence that their government is at the table fighting for them instead of acting at the behest of corporate lobbyists.

We can give Canadians that reassurance by making our trade process more open and transparent and by involving Parliament at the outset. We can build confidence in the process by formalizing the consultation process so that Canadians know when, where and how they will be able to express their hopes and concerns with respect to a prospective trade agreement, and by ensuring that all the right people, organizations and institutions are consulted.

We can build confidence by having the government clearly and formally state its objectives for the negotiation, by having a debate and vote in Parliament on those objectives before formal negotiations begin and by requiring the government to prepare and publish economic data and analysis on the likely impact of a deal. These are things that to many would seem to be simple common sense.

Why should Canadians not have a right to know how they will be consulted on trade issues instead of having a different process every time? Why should Canadians feel confident their government is fighting for them, if it will not be transparent about its goals?

How can Parliament play a truly meaningful role in setting Canada's trade policy if it can only debate and vote on the merit of trade with a country once a deal has already been signed? How can Canadians and their elected representatives be truly expected to judge the value of an agreement with no economic data or analysis? This is the very situation that we find ourselves in.

Before my colleagues and other parties begin dusting off their straw men to say things like, “You're talking about negotiating in public. You can't do that. You don't understand trade”, let us consider this, because we have heard that many times before in this place.

The executive in the United States is required to give at least 90 days' notice to Congress of its intent to enter trade discussions with another country. Congress is able to define trade policy priorities and specify negotiation objectives. The executive is expected to honour those objectives in its negotiations, and Congress can set out consultation and notification requirements so that it is satisfied the executive is actually following it through.

In other words, legislators in the United States have far more authority and involvement in the trade process, yet they were still able to conclude a deal. It did not mean they could not get a deal done. The sky did not fall. Americans had more information about what their government was trying to do at the bargaining table, but it did not impede them from getting a deal.

In the European Union, the very first step in the trade process is for its executive to prepare an assessment of the likely economic impact of a proposed deal. The EU publishes its negotiating directives online before negotiations even begin. The executive publishes online a report of each negotiating round and its initial negotiating proposals.

The commission also informs the European Parliament at every stage of the talks, about the latest developments. When the EU is close to finalizing the text of a deal, the commission tells Parliament and informally sends the final text to EU member states and the Parliament.

That is only a summary of some of the highlights of the EU trade process. It may be that some members found that tedious but, if so, they should reflect on the fact that despite all that consultation, all those steps and all that sharing of information, the EU has been quite capable of negotiating trade agreements, including the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement it recently signed with Canada.

In Canada, we have no formal process at all. The government is free to go to any country in the world and negotiate and sign any deal it wants. It does not have to tell anyone. It does not need any parliamentary approval. In fact, the only reason Parliament is studying the deal at all is that the implementation requires changes to the law. However, by the time we get to that stage, the deal itself is already signed and negotiations are already concluded.

I want Canadians to know that we do not have to do it that way. Adopting some of the practices of our trading partners could make for a more open, democratic, transparent and accountable trade process in Canada. It could do that without jeopardizing our ability to get a deal. That is a false argument. We know, because we have deals with places that do those very things.

The time to set up that kind of process is right now. It is while we are talking about this deal. It is while we are concluding this deal. It is while it is in the media. It is while people are paying attention. If we wait, the issue may not draw public attention again, and I worry it may not draw the attention of the government either until the next negotiation, say between Canada and the United Kingdom, which may not be that far away. Once that process is already started and is in the news, it will be too late to do it right, which is why we should set it up now.

That is why the NDP has called on the government to move quickly on the institution of a proper trade process for Canada. We look forward to a substantive discussion about how best to move forward on that in this Parliament.

To conclude, I want to come back to the substance of the agreement. I mentioned already that the NDP looks favourably on the elimination of chapter 11 and the proportionality clause. We are, however, concerned about the so-called good regulatory practices chapter and whether it will continue to put downward pressure on public interest regulation, making it harder to create and maintain regulations for the public good.

We are concerned about the requirement that Canada consult the United States before entering into negotiations with any non-market economy. Unless we bring in a meaningful domestic trade process, this means that the U.S. government will have more right to know about Canada's trade intentions than our own Parliament will, which makes no sense to me at all.

We are encouraged by the new provisions enabling monitoring and enforcement of labour standards in Mexico, but we want to better understand how exactly those are meant to work. Study at committee will be a good opportunity to do that.

We have heard concerns about the chapter on e-commerce, and we would like to hear what the experts have to say about the implications for Canada's digital economy.

We also share the concerns of dairy farmers and aluminum workers, and we want the government to tell us what concrete measures it plans to take to help workers and farmers in those sectors after CUSMA is ratified.

These are the concerns we hope our study of the bill will address. That is why we voted to let the government table the bill yesterday. There is no such thing as a perfect agreement, but we will keep an open mind while asking certain questions.

Does this version of the agreement place Canadians in a better position than the existing agreement? We want an answer to that question.

Could the ratification process for this bill lead to a trade process that offers Canadians more transparency, more consultation and more accountability?

Those are our thoughts so far. We are anxious to delve deeper into these matters in the coming weeks.

[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 believe the minister, on behalf of the government, working with the negotiators and the many different stakeholders achieved the optimum agreement given all the circumstances over the last number of years.

I also get it. The Conservatives believe that if they were in government, they could have negotiated a better agreement. The NDP believes that if it was in government, it could have negotiated a better agreement. The Green Party believes that if it was in government, it could have negotiated a better agreement.

What is encouraging is that we have seen those parties, along with the government, support the principle of the fact that this is a better deal than the previous agreement. We saw that in terms of the vote that took place yesterday. Having that agreement passed provides additional support for the Canadian economy and all Canadians benefit.

I am actually very encouraged in regard to the trade file, the positioning and the speech by the member across the way this afternoon. Is there something very specific that comes to the member's mind in regard to the old agreement? Is there anything within the old agreement that he believes has been lost in a negative way with respect to the new agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if there was a double negative there.

As I said in my remarks, some of the things that are out of the agreement that were there before that we think constitute an improvement are the elimination of chapter 11 and the proportionality clause.

I take the hon. member's point that it is often the case in partisan politics that parties tend to have a lot of confidence in their own ability to secure better agreements than their opponents. However, the point for us is that Canadians should be able to judge that by having a uniform and formalized process where the government is required to disclose its objectives in a way that allows Parliament to debate and comment on them, that allows Parliament to have a vote before the negotiations begin and that provides adequate economic data and analysis to be able to assess the impact of a deal.

We should be moving in that direction so that it is not up to Canadians to simply decide who they are going to trust when we all say we could get a better deal. They should have the facts they need to make an assessment about who really could make that better deal and what the government is actually doing at the negotiating table and what it intends to get for Canadians.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague from the NDP to the Standing Committee on International Trade. I am really looking forward to his enthusiasm and commitment to making sure this is a good deal. He mentioned issues that we share in common, such as the issue of sovereignty and our responsibility as opposition to do our due diligence.

In December we asked the government seven questions. One of them was to look at the economic impact. I think the member shares our concern that the government would like us to rubber-stamp this without even having proper economic impact studies. One of the issues that is really important for Ontario and particularly my community is the effect of this deal on auto workers and the auto sector.

I was wondering if he could take a few moments to talk about the importance of this deal and the part that benefits auto workers.

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

Madam Speaker, the North American content requirements are good for auto workers. Having 75% of the vehicle made here in North America is a good thing. Some of the guarantees around steel and aluminum content are good things, although there is more work to do on the aluminum side to make sure that the primary level production is also happening within North America in order to support aluminum workers in Quebec and also in British Columbia where there is aluminum production happening as well. Those are definitely good things and steps in the right direction.

One of the questions I would want answered in an economic impact analysis, and we have not heard these figures from the government, is about the 70% steel and aluminum guarantee we have on paper but nobody has actually said what the current percentage is. If we take the North American rules of origin in the new agreement and apply them to the current economic scenario, right now is it 40% North American steel and aluminum in cars, or 80%, or 90% or 10%? We do not actually know and we have not heard from the government.

If we had a proper economic impact analysis, those are some of the facts and figures we would expect to see so we could judge what this actually means. If we are already at 80%, then having a 70% guarantee is not that impressive. If we are at 40%, it is certainly a lot better.

That is why we think that information is crucial to get as we study this deal.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my esteemed colleague's speech. He talked about how the negotiation process was not transparent enough, and I agree with him.

I think there should be a mechanism that gives the provinces a say in multilateral agreements like NAFTA. Would he agree? Such a mechanism might ensure that governments stop thinking of Canada's economy solely in terms of Alberta's oil and Ontario's auto industry.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that free trade agreements have an impact on provincial interests. It makes perfect sense that the provinces should be consulted, as they were to a certain extent for CETA. I think the real problem is that there is no formal process, which means that even if there are good consultations with the provinces about one agreement, there is no guarantee that will be the case for another. It is time to establish a substantive, formal process that gives Canadians and all levels of government the right to be heard.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the hon. member a question that my colleague tried to ask a little earlier, just to make sure we are clear on the nature of that question. Was there anything in the old agreement, the one currently in force, that we lost that we should have tried to preserve?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know how long the hon. member has been following the trade file in Canada, but if he had been following the debate at the time of the original NAFTA, I think he would find that on the New Democratic bench we were more concerned about what was in there that needed to be taken out than what was in there that needed to be preserved.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Quebec mentioned the issue of aluminum and that the government put forth a very green agenda in its trade missions. I think that all of us in the House can be very proud that the aluminum produced in Quebec is the greenest aluminum in the entire world.

It seems there is still some skepticism and concern about how aluminum is being treated. I would specifically like to talk to my colleague about the concern that has been brought forward in the media that perhaps there has been stockpiling of aluminum in Mexico which may be there from China, and that there could be a route coming around the back end. The issue is the quality of the aluminum, the fact that it is not produced in North America and there could be a back door.

Could my colleague please address this issue? Why was it an opportunity lost that we did not negotiate a better deal for our aluminum manufacturers considering we have the greenest aluminum in the entire world?

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

Madam Speaker, first, it absolutely has to be the priority of the Canadian government to protect the interests of Canadian producers and make sure that to the maximum degree possible Canadians are being hired to produce materials like that. Second, we need enforceable environmental provisions where we get our trade partners on board with reducing their emissions as well as our emissions so that things like green aluminum can be fought for under a trade agreement. I would love to see co-operation from my Conservative colleagues on that in the future.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

This is a great opportunity to stand before the House to speak to the trade deal CUSMA. As members know, I am from Nova Scotia and my riding is Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. It is a riding on the outskirts of the cities of Halifax and Dartmouth. There are many companies in my riding, and throughout last summer and during the campaign, I had an opportunity to speak with many in the business community. They were quick to tell me how important trade deals are for Canadians, all trade deals, and they zeroed in on some of the key trade deals we signed in the last four years, in the last mandate.

I will touch on three of them, because they are extremely important to Canadians. I am talking, of course, about the final piece of CUSMA that we have before us, CETA and the CPTPP. Those were big deals because they represent 1.5 billion people. Let us think about that for a second: 1.5 billion people. These are major trade deals. I can say as a member of Parliament that there are very important conversations we should be having with our constituents right across the country, in all 338 constituencies.

When we talk about trade deals, we have to talk about the Canadian economy. In the last four years, we have seen a drastic improvement in the Canadian economy. We had over 10 years of austerity and cuts by the Conservative government. It was time to invest in Canadians, and that is exactly what we did.

By investing in Canadians, we were successful in increasing the number of jobs. There were one million more high-quality jobs, believe it or not, over a four-year period. That is extremely important. The second thing we saw was the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. Those are big numbers.

Along with that, 800,000 Canadians were lifted out of poverty, 300,000 of them children. We lifted 20% of Canadians out of poverty. That is a good example of what we see when an economy is strong and things are moving. Canadians in all walks of life increase their opportunities to be successful when we lift 20% of them out of poverty.

Trade deals are very important because they level the playing field for those who are part of a deal. I can say with confidence, no question about it, that the business community in Canada can compete with the world when the playing field is fair. That is exactly what we have in this deal. I challenge all members of Parliament to continue to dialogue and consult with the business community and let businesses know that these important deals are now ready to go and they can take advantage of the opportunities. Our government has invested in the business community so that businesses can expand, grow, prosper and trade globally. Those things are all part and parcel of this. It is a general approach right across the board.

Now let us talk about the CETA deal. Because of the CETA deal, tariffs have been removed from 98% of all products, up from 25%. Let us think about that. Only 25% of our products were being exported with no tariffs and now we are at 98%. That is exceptional. That is why we will see more and more trade between our country and the European Union.

With the new CPTPP deal, half a billion people more are trading with us. Most of the tariffs have been removed by the CPTPP and 100% of the tariffs on seafood have been removed. That is very important for Canadians, especially those in Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia. Some of those tariffs varied from 10% to 22%, so just imagine the investment potential now of the industry in Atlantic Canada and across Canada. That is extremely powerful.

The new CUSMA is so important. It is nice to say we could have had this or that, but it is a trade deal that represents $2 billion per day. That is $2 billion yesterday, $2 billion today, $2 billion tomorrow and so forth. That is big.

Some 68% of all products from Nova Scotia are traded with the Americans. That represents $3.7 billion U.S. per year. It also represents 18,000 new direct jobs and 7,000 indirect jobs. Is Nova Scotia happy with the trade deal with the Americans? Absolutely. As the Premier of Nova Scotia said, “Our message to them, really, is that Canada and Nova Scotia is open for business.” That is what Premier McNeil of Nova Scotia shared with Nova Scotians and Canadians.

With the new CUSMA deal, we have seen, in a new piece since June, some very big improvements in certain areas. The first one is labour. Labour is extremely important for levelling the playing field. We have seen a strengthening of the standards and the enforcement. It is one thing to set standards, but do we have any enforcement? Are we going to follow through on that? Through inspections and various approaches and strategies, we are going to make sure that wages are acceptable within the fair playing field. If we trade product and someone is paying $1, then it is much different.

There is also the new obligations for the environment. We all know that the environment is a very important aspect for all Canadians. It is a big challenge, the biggest challenge of our time, I would say. The new dispute resolution process in Chapter 20 will be powerful once again because no country will be able to block it.

I know my time is running short, but I have to share what Mr. Trump said. We have to look back to when Trump said to throw out NAFTA. When he was tweeting at three o'clock in the morning, he said that the U.S. had to do three things for sure or he would not sign anything and that there had to be a sunset clause of five years. Then he said it would be dead if it was not renegotiated. We said no. It is not in there.

On supply management, he said there would be no supply management in any NAFTA deal. Is supply management there? Yes, because we as a government made sure that it had to be there.

The third thing he said, again as he was tweeting at three or four o'clock in the morning, was about dispute resolution. He said it had to be an American tribunal, not an independent tribunal. Is it an American tribunal? No. Did he win? No. That is a good example of how our deal was negotiated.

I want to finish with a quote from the Business Council of Canada: “We applaud your government's success in negotiating a comprehensive and high-standard agreement on North American trade. That is pretty clear.”

We have to understand that a negotiation is a negotiation. We are not going to win every point, but right across this country we now have a deal that will allow us to continue to grow economically.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed and energetic colleague for his stirring speech.

He spoke about job creation and the drop in the unemployment rate. That is all well and good, but I would like to point out to my esteemed colleague that a delegation from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean came here yesterday to stand up for aluminum. They came armed with an exhaustive study and flawless methodology to explain that the aluminum provision in the new free trade agreement will jeopardize six big projects.

We are talking about huge numbers. There are 60,000 jobs at stake, with an average salary of $60,000 a year. Those are good jobs. A total of $6.2 billion in investments are in jeopardy because the government was unable to get the same deal for aluminum as it did for steel in the new CUSMA.

What does my colleague think of the fact that $6.2 billion and 60,000 jobs are in jeopardy in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and on the North Shore?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and the point that he raised.

My colleague needs to recognize that, before the agreement, there was no protection for steel or aluminum. With this agreement, 70% of aluminum will come from North America. I know there is the issue of parts, but with all due respect, the group of people who came to Ottawa yesterday certainly did not stop in Quebec City. If they had, they would have heard what the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, had to say. He said:

“I think that the Bloc must defend the interests of Quebeckers, and it is in the interests of Quebeckers that this agreement be adopted and ratified.”

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his very spirited speech. Members of the House will see that this is just the beginning.

A significant portion of that $2 billion in trade between the United States and Canada occurs at the Lacolle border in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether the agreement contains measures to facilitate trade. People often talk to me about problems at the border that delay the movement of goods.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

As we know, the border has always been problematic. People who are travelling and who cross the border in their cars can be asked all kinds of questions. If someone is buying a vehicle or something, there are all kinds of criteria and rules in place.

On the other hand, if I understand correctly, when free trade exists between companies, business owners have very different systems for trading with one another. Checks still get done, as there can always be products and issues, but basically, there is a system in place that allows them to trade goods quickly.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on the importance of trade.

He talked about the new CPTPP. If it were that important, he would remember that two weeks after the Prime Minister was elected in 2015, his first international trip was to the APEC summit. Mr. Obama, who was the most progressive president in the history of the United States, brought his deal, the TPP, there to be ratified and signed. At that time, the Prime Minister decided it was not progressive enough so he did not sign the agreement. Our allies that were there, New Zealand, Australia and Japan, were extremely upset. Eventually the government came around and signed the TPP, so obviously it thought it was a good agreement, although it was a couple of years late and included two sidebars.

It has been five years now, and the original TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA. Could my colleague comment on what benefit there has been for the Canadian economy to have this amount of uncertainty over four years when the agreement could have been signed exactly 14 months before Mr. Trump was even elected, two years before this became a big issue? It would have been a great template for this new North American free trade agreement. Why did the Liberals not sign it in the first place?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, even though the trade deal is not signed today, already there are trade deals happening on the ground. It is not as if everything stops. That is what is important.

However, I want to finish with a tweet about CUSMA by Conservative Jason Kenney from Alberta:

Relieved that a renewed North American Trade Agreement has been concluded.

He is relieved. I think that is pretty powerful. He is happy.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

CUSMA, as it is commonly known, reminds me of a song by the Village People from my time working and living in New York City. It reflects over two years of negotiations by our Canadian, American and Mexican trade officials.

I first wish to commend and congratulate Canada's negotiating team and our lead trade negotiator Steve Verheul, along with our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and member of Parliament for University—Rosedale, who reached an agreement that modernizes the original NAFTA that came into effect on January 1, 1994.

I also wish to congratulate the Government of Mexico as well as the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives on ratifying the trade deal. This is an instance in the United States of bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans.

I have the privilege of representing a dynamic and entrepreneurial riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge. Businesses and their employees in my riding depend on trade certainty with the United States and Mexico, full stop.

My riding is home to CP Rail's busiest intermodal facility in our country, with logistics hubs for Home Depot, Costco, Sobeys, FedEx facilities, Saputo and leading exporters of products, including Martinrea's flagship auto parts facility, which supplies parts for the GM Equinox and Terrain; Vision Plastics, employing thousands in the York region and exporting over 75% of its products to the United States; and Extrudex Aluminum, with headquarters in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and facilities in Ohio and Saint-Nicolas, Quebec, manufacturing high-quality aluminum extrusions for usage across North America.

This trade deal brings certainty to Canadian businesses and obviously to Canadian employees across Canada and our communities. It is very important that we move ahead with multipartisan support from all parties here in the House.

As vice-chair of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary association, I had the opportunity to visit the United States' capital and speak with many congressmen, congresswomen and senators on trade. During those conversations, it was evident that all parties and all political representatives wanted to come to an agreement to provide certainty in trade among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

As we look at how we are doing in terms of inclusive growth and growth for all citizens in society, it is very important to ensure that the trade deal is a win-win-win situation for all involved and that we stop and think about how this trade deal prevents what is called the race to the lowest common denominator. In this regard, we can be very proud that this trade deal has provisions on labour and the environment and that it maintains the cultural exemption, which I know is so important for La Belle Province, Quebec.

We know that a race to the bottom creates inequality. We know that it can create resentment and create losers. We do not want that. We want to make sure that workers in North America benefit from trade deals. We want to make sure that those workers have bright futures, that middle-class families across North America and working-class families across North America and all employees benefit from trade. We want to make sure that trade lifts all boats.

We know that since NAFTA came into effect in 1994, trade between Canada and the United States and Mexico has exponentially grown. It has grown ninefold between Canada and Mexico and more than doubled between Canada and the U.S.

The companies in my riding that I referred to have a few things in common. They continue to invest in Canada and in Canadians, which is helping to grow our economy. They need certainty in the markets they serve and they need trade certainty, and CUSMA delivers that.

I ask my colleagues across the aisle to support this deal, to come together and do what is in the best interests of all Canadians, including businesses, employees and communities.

We know that increased trade means jobs for Canadians. Since 1994, when NAFTA came into effect, it has generated economic growth and rising standards of living for the people of all three member states. In fact, total merchandise trade between Canada and the U.S. has more than doubled since 1993, as I stated earlier, and grown ninefold between Canada and Mexico.

Since our government was elected, we have pursed an aggressive trade agenda. The signing of CUSMA has followed both the completion of the Canada-Europe free trade agreement and the CPTPP. Canada is the only G7 country that has trade agreements with all other G7 countries, enjoying free trade with nearly 1.5 billion people. This gives Canadian companies unprecedented access to markets and allows for the creation of good jobs in all markets.

The world is much more connected and interconnected today than at any point in history. Canada is leading the way, and our government, which I am proud to be a part of, is leading the way with policies on trade, infrastructure investment and immigration to attract the best and the brightest to Canada and allow trade-oriented firms to establish themselves and continue to invest in Canada to create those jobs and, most importantly, to ensure a high standard of living for today's generations and future generations, including my children. I want to ensure that they inherit a strong economy and a strong environment that are both filled with opportunity.

The 20-year-old agreement was in need of modernization. The world has changed significantly over the last two decades, and many clarifications and technical improvements need to be made to the original NAFTA in the areas of labour, the environment, culture and many other sectors.

Our government's objectives in reaching a new revised free trade deal centred upon three objectives: defend the national interest, which we did; preserve and create jobs, which we have done; and foster economic growth. Canadians can rest assured that the government and the negotiating team were on their side from day one.

I would like to take a step back to understand how important our trading relationship is with our southern neighbours. Let us examine a few statistics.

Realistically, over two million jobs in Canada are trade-dependent on Canadian exports to the United States. Nearly nine million jobs in the United States are connected to trade with Canada. Over 400,000 individuals cross the border back and forth every day, and nearly $2.5 billion worth of goods and services cross the border between our two countries every day. Trilateral trade among the three countries, measured by imports among the member states, totalled $1.1 trillion, while two-way trading of goods and services between Canada and the U.S. in 2017 totalled over $900 billion.

Those are big numbers, but behind those numbers are individuals getting up in the morning, going to work, saving for a better future and creating a better future for their families in our communities from coast to coast to coast. That is what it is about. This trade deal is about people in Canada, the United States and Mexico creating a better future for themselves and their families and ensuring a brighter future for their children.

The importance of this agreement cannot be understated. Trade certainty provides a path forward for businesses to invest in Canada. It allows businesses to remain focused on ensuring Canadians have the right skills to succeed in today's globally competitive economy and ensures that they can undertake investment decisions here in Canada and invest in Canada and Canadians to continue to grow our economy. We know growth continues in Canada. We know we have put in place the right policies. Since the deal came into effect in 1993, Canadians have created over six million new jobs.

I will focus the rest of my time on the auto sector.

CUSMA provides for revised automotive rules of origin. These rules will require higher levels of North American content in order to incentivize production and sourcing here in North America. These were ideas put forward by our Canadian team, and we will see the robust rules of origin for the auto sector keep the benefits of the agreement in North America and encourage both sourcing and resourcing here in North America.

The new agreement includes the following: an increase in the regional value content threshold for cars from 62.5% to 75%; stronger regional value content requirements for core car parts, such as engines and transmissions; a requirement for 70% North American steel and aluminum; and a new labour value content provision requiring that 40% of the value of a passenger car and 45% of the value of light trucks, including final assembly, be made up of materials, parts and labour produced or carried out by workers in plants averaging an hourly wage of $16. This is what I refer to as “lifting all boats”. We will not be going to the lowest common denominator for employees but allowing employees across North America to have a better future for themselves and their families.

We were adamant about getting a good deal for our Canadian workers. We got the deal done with help from former members of the prior government, who approved of this deal.

It is interesting and really nice to see the premiers in western Canada saying that they need this deal signed, and I encourage them to continue adding their voices to this debate.

The enforceable provisions that protect labour are the strongest in any Canadian trade agreement to date. With the labour chapter being further strengthened by establishing a new bilateral mechanism with Mexico, Canadians can be assured that state-to-state dispute settlements and facility-specific rapid response labour mechanisms are in place to ensure that we can keep tabs on facilities to make sure that labour regulations are followed.

I look forward to questions and comments from my hon. colleagues.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague opposite for his speech.

Many businesses in my riding are feeling the effects of the new agreement. The agricultural sector is one of those hardest hit. Supply-managed producers, including dairy farmers, will see their market shrink by 3.6%. How will they be compensated for those losses?

We know that, in addition to this reduction for dairy farmers, another very important aspect is the need for approval from the agreement partners before new markets can be developed, following the loss of classes 6 and 7. Where is our sovereignty in this very important economic sector?

How can the government claim to have made gains for that sector?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Quebec for his question.

Our government, since its inception, has been a staunch defender of supply management. In the trade deals that have been signed, including the CPTPP, the CETA and now the CUSMA, on anything to do with our agricultural sector, we are obviously there to defend farmers' interests here in Canada, whether they are egg farmers or chicken farmers, and we will ensure that they receive the appropriate compensation.

However, we will also ensure that they have access to new export markets. That is what we have tried to do with these trade deals.

I look forward to learning more about the agricultural sector. I have milk processors in my riding and I have visited farms in Canada. I look forward to continuing to defend supply management from coast to coast to coast to ensure that a bright future continues for farmers and their families.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, under the current occupant of the White House in Washington, trade deals are becoming increasingly protectionist. When negotiating agreements, the U.S. always cites the national security provision. Whether it is about steel or aluminum, the Americans freely invoke it in all their negotiations.

Given that Canada also has a strong presence, particularly with the Quebec aluminum industry, why does it not invoke national security when negotiating its agreements, to protect a good part of its industry from U.S. protectionism?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The steel and aluminum sectors here in Canada are very integrated between ourselves and the United States. The steel that is produced here in Ontario, for example, goes into vehicles in the United States. It goes into American military equipment as well. We are a key supplier of steel to the United States.

On aluminum, many years ago I visited the smelter in Alma in the Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec. In my riding, I have Extrudex Aluminum, which produces and exports extrusions to the United States.

We are dependent on trade between ourselves and the United States. It creates jobs. We want to make sure we take into account our national interests, our economic interests and our security interests, and we have done so, whether it has been our government or prior governments, and we will continue to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to put a question for a government member. I had hoped to put one for the minister this morning.

As was clear from our vote yesterday and a scrum we held, the three Green MPs are voting for ratification of the CUSMA. We think it is a massive improvement to get rid of chapter 11, the investor-state provisions, as well as the energy chapter, and there are a number of other items, although there are minuses. It is a trade agreement; we are not wild for any NAFTA, but between the old NAFTA and the new one, this is a vast improvement.

I want to ask the hon. member whether the government would consider reviewing other trade agreements to review these perverse anti-democratic investor-state provisions, which give foreign corporations power superior to domestic ones.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question.

I would say that it is very important that governments around the world work in a rules-based trade system, and we know that when decisions are made by governments our international interests are taken seriously and are put at the forefront. We want to make sure we are doing right for Canadians and we want to make sure we are doing right for workers.

In terms of the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism, the mechanism that is in the agreement, from my understanding, is a vast improvement. It is a bilateral mechanism, and if I am incorrect I will correct myself afterward, and it is a vast improvement. I agree with the member that the trade deal is a very good deal and I hope all parties join—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

Here we are, debating the new NAFTA, which is sometimes called the USMCA. I know the government is calling it CUSMA. Others call it NAFTA 2.0. Others call it NAFTA 0.5. We are going to call it the new NAFTA. It does not matter what name we want to call it. A rose by any other name is still a rose, except that with this rose the bloom went off it a long time ago. This is a deeply flawed agreement that could have been so much better.

While I will be supporting this bill going forward to committee for review, this is really a story of a squandered opportunity, and I will explain that in a minute.

By the way, I have listened with amusement to my colleagues on the Liberal side claiming to now be the champions of trade. I harken back to when the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was being negotiated by Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. That agreement eventually morphed to NAFTA. During an election, the Liberals actually said they were going to vote against it. They were not going to approve this massive trade agreement between Canada and the United States. Of course, as soon as they were elected they affirmed the agreement.

That is how Liberals do it. They try to take credit for the work of others and score political points. We will not take any lessons from the Liberals on trade.

In fact, I want to highlight that basically 95% of the value of all trade agreements that Canada has signed has been negotiated under a Conservative government, starting with the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, going all the way through to the Canada-EU trade agreement and the original TPP. Those are all Conservative accomplishments.

The reason this new NAFTA is so important is that the United States is by far the largest trading partner for Canada with $900 billion a year of bilateral trade. Every single day there is over two billion dollars' worth of trade in goods and services that cross our common border with the United States. That is why it is important that we get this right.

Our trade levels with the United States are somewhere in the order of nine times more than our next-largest trade partner, which is China. Let us think about that. A lot of people are saying we need to diversify and we need to focus on China. I would say to them to keep their eyes on the ball. The United States will always be our largest trading partner and we had better get that relationship right before we look to diversify elsewhere in the world.

Why is this revised trade deal, the new NAFTA, a squandered opportunity? The Liberal government got completely outplayed and outfoxed by Donald Trump.

First, let us ask ourselves what standard we should use to measure this new NAFTA. What measure should determine whether this agreement is good for Canada and one that we should be supporting? Perhaps it is by the standard set by the Prime Minister himself, who said he was going to come back with a better deal than we had before. By all measures the Prime Minister failed on that account.

We remember he said he was going to deliver a win-win-win, so there would be a win for us, a win for the United States and a win for Mexico. That implies there would be a net gain for each of those parties. In fact, this agreement is all about Canada conceding to the United States with virtually no concessions in return. Let us talk about that. We know that Donald Trump is the master of the quid pro quo, so we expect that he would be involved in a back-and-forth: “You give me a concession; I will give you a concession.” That is the way trade agreements are normally negotiated, except for this time.

The Prime Minister did not deliver an agreement that was better than the one we had before. We just conceded and conceded and conceded. Why on earth would the Prime Minister have embraced a negotiation with Donald Trump? He proactively reached out to Donald Trump and said he would be glad to negotiate an agreement. Why on earth would anyone volunteer to renegotiate a trade deal on preconditions set by Donald Trump?

John Ivison of the National Post said:

Politicians, like gamblers, need to know when to hold ’em and when to fold ’em. [The Prime Minister’s] pre-emptive decision to tell one of the planet’s most voracious deal-makers that Canada was willing to renegotiate NAFTA, without even being asked, was naïve.

Our national media is saying that the Prime Minister was naive to proactively want to negotiate a new NAFTA, because at the end of the day, what we see is that we got a lesser deal than we had before. What is worse is that this is effectively an asymmetrical trade deal. Most of the benefits of this negotiation are going to the United States. Very few, if any, concessions are given by the United States to Canada.

Let us quickly look at what Canada gave up or failed to achieve. One of the major failings, of course, is that the new NAFTA does nothing to address the long-standing softwood lumber dispute. Canada's forest industry, especially in my home province of B.C., is in crisis mode, because the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his promise to resolve this dispute.

Members may remember that back in March 2016 in the White House rose garden our Prime Minister and President Obama promised to resolve this dispute. Here is exactly what our Prime Minister said on that day, “I’m confident that we are on a track towards resolving this irritant in the coming weeks and months.”

Here we are, almost four years later, and there is no softwood lumber resolution in sight. By all accounts that is a failure that lies at the feet of this Liberal government. The NAFTA renegotiation was a perfect opportunity to resolve this dispute, but it did not get done.

Then there are the buy America provisions. The United States has effectively said that in many of the states, if large projects and large procurement contracts are tendered, only American companies can compete or participate. Canadian companies are shut out. Those are called buy America provisions.

This trade negotiation, the new NAFTA, was a perfect opportunity to resolve that dispute. It did not get done, which is another lost opportunity, another failure.

Our Liberal friends also agreed to give major concessions on dairy, eggs and poultry, without any American concessions in return. Those concessions were big enough that, as my colleague who spoke just before me mentioned, the government had to come up with compensation to cover for those concessions. Guess who pays for that compensation. Canadian taxpayers pay for that. The Prime Minister has actually cost us money as taxpayers as a result of this negotiation.

What is worse is that, after making those concessions, the Prime Minister also agreed that he would limit the exports of value-added dairy products, like powdered milk and diafiltered milk products.

It gets worse. To add insult to injury, our fearless Liberal negotiators even agreed that if Canada ever wants to change its milk pricing and classing regime, we have to go begging, cap in hand, to the United States to ask for permission. We have effectively given away a piece of our sovereignty. Shame on the government.

There is another concession the Prime Minister made. He gave up the right to an investor-state dispute settlement, which protects Canadian companies and allows them to sue the American government if it acts discriminatingly against them. Now the remedy is they have to go to the American courts.

Another thing the Prime Minister gave away is a veto to the United States on any trade negotiation with a non-market economy. In other words, the President of the United States can veto our ability to actually negotiate an agreement with any country that does not have a free market economy based on free market principles, like China. However, the United States itself has already negotiated a deal, placing us at a competitive disadvantage. It goes on and on and on.

This is a failed deal, yet we are going to support it because this relationship with the United States is so critical. We want the assurance for our Canadian businesses that they can continue to do business with the United States and with our other NAFTA partner, Mexico.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the way and who knows what the answer will be.

He knows very well the difficulties and challenges of negotiating trade agreements. He was certainly engaged in CETA. I am not sure if the CPTPP was an issue when he was trade minister. Nonetheless, we noted with great interest that former prime minister Stephen Harper's advice to Canada on these negotiations was to give the Americans what they want because the trade relationship with the United States is prime and so key that we cannot afford to annoy them. In fact, that is not the advice we took. Canadians understand it was the Liberal government who brought CETA, the CPTPP and this trade agreement across the finish line.

I am wondering if the former prime minister's advice to just give whatever the other side wants was something that shaped the member's negotiations when he was negotiating those trade agreements.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the results of the Conservative Party's negotiations over 10 years were that we negotiated free trade agreements with an additional 46 countries around the world. That reflects very clearly that we only negotiate in Canada's interest.

When we look at the new NAFTA, it is very clear that the advice to the Prime Minister and his negotiators was to just sign any deal and make sure the relationship stays intact. That is not the way we negotiated when we were in government.

I was the trade minister for four and a half years and I can say that we negotiated in a way that led other countries around the world to respect us. We had some of the toughest negotiators for our deals.

Now I compare the outcomes under the original TPP with the overall outcome of the deal the Liberals negotiated on TPP and the new NAFTA. The concessions they made are way greater than any we settled upon. The evidence and the records speak for themselves.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that prior to the election we heard the Conservatives tell the government to hurry up and sign the deal. Now it sounds like they are not that supportive of the deal, even though they will vote for it.

That said, there are a couple of provisions which New Democrats support. Of course, the chapter 11 changes are good changes that we see. Particularly the changes for drug patents, something that has not been talked about in this debate, we see as positive. It sounds like the Conservatives may disagree with me on that.

Our critic had actually offered some suggestions to the government on how to improve the process for future trade deals, ensuring Canadians would have a say, and that there would be openness and transparency in terms of the process, much like in the U.K. and other jurisdictions. The New Democrats urged the Liberal government to bring forward the changes at the negotiating table, but they did not deliver.

Would the member for Abbotsford support changes to the negotiating process with the involvement and transparency that should be available for Canadians for other trade deals?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver East speaks of transparency in our trade negotiations. It is absolutely critical. We are presuming to negotiate on behalf of all the key industries across Canada, millions of companies across Canada, including small and medium-sized enterprises. It is important that we receive the input required to negotiate a really good deal.

There are elements within a trade negotiation that have to remain confidential. We are not going to spill all of our trade secrets. Of course we are not going to spill our strategy so our adversaries can see what we are doing. The NDP would not understand that because it has never been in a position to negotiate these agreements. On top of that, if we reflect back on the history of free trade negotiations in Canada, the NDP has almost consistently voted against Canada's free trade agreements.

If the member for Vancouver East is suggesting she will support the new NAFTA, that is a change of heart, and I welcome that change of heart.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the two parties, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, are bickering over who is better at negotiating free trade agreements. There have been many expectations right from the start of this NAFTA renegotiation process. The Bloc Québécois and Canadians have always been critical of the secrecy surrounding these agreements.

Since yesterday, the parties have been saying that this is a fundamentally bad agreement and that we knuckled under. To the Bloc Québécois, the aluminum loophole is unacceptable because it affects good jobs and workers, not to mention the green economy. There could have been a lot more transparency on this front. All the parties could have opposed the ways and means motion so that we could study this gap in committee, but they did not.

What proposals do you have for improving NAFTA? Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois made some suggestions. Are the parties open to improving the provisions concerning the aluminum sector for the workers, the good jobs—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that she is to address the Chair.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is one redeeming factor in this agreement, which is that it provides certainty for our business community. It is a worse deal than we had before, by any measure, but it does provide certainty in our relationship with the United States. I would like to highlight that. That is why Conservatives are in favour of sending this to committee for the thorough review it deserves.

The member asked what the improvements are. That is why we want to get it to committee, where we can dig down deep into this agreement and see what can be improved, as well as see the willingness of the Liberal government to make those improvements, including the improvements that the member suggested put Quebec at a real disadvantage when it comes to the aluminum industry.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, this situation reminds me of a story of when I was young. It was my parents' anniversary. My father came home and my little sister looked at my father and yelled, “Roses, roses.”

My mother was behind me modestly smiling and my father presented my mother with a beautiful bouquet of tulips. My mother was a little disappointed as she had wanted roses, but instead received tulips. In this moment, she decided, similar to this agreement, that it was good enough.

There has been a big debate within the Conservative caucus that this is not a great deal, as the previous speaker indicated. We have lost a lot. Why is that? Let us look at it for a moment.

There was a memo written by a prime minister, as published in the National Post, which indicated three reasons. The first is the inconsistency we have seen within negotiations and taking strong stances without thinking that the President of the United States might cancel NAFTA, which certainly the opposition felt was a very real possibility, as well as all Canadians.

It was the government's decision to work almost overwhelmingly agreeably in the beginning with Mexico. I joked, desearía estar Obrador. I would love to be Obrador in this moment with Canada wanting to work so closely. In fact, it was quoted as, “the U.S. is both irked and mystified by the Liberals’ unwavering devotion to Mexico”, rather than Canada and Canadians. That is the second part.

The third, of course, is that it was a criticism of the Liberals for pursuing their progressive trade policies in these talks. Did they really think that somehow they would force the Trump administration into enacting their entire agenda on union power, climate change, aboriginal claims and gender issues? While the Canadian government was doing that, the Americans were laying down their real demands, and we got outmanoeuvred and out-negotiated, as my previous colleague mentioned.

Let us look at the things we lost. My colleague also touched upon that, but I will remind members again that on aluminum, we were not afforded the same provisions as steel. On dairy, 3.6% of the Canadian market opened up to imports. The accord now dictates specific thresholds for Canadian exports of milk protein concentrates, skim milk powder and infant formula. If the export threshold is exceeded, Canada adds duties to the exports in excess to make them even more expensive. Also, within dairy, we have seen milk classes 6 and 7 eliminated.

As well, the temporary entry for business persons has not been updated to reflect the new economy. As someone who studied in the States, I certainly have an appreciation for the J-1 visa. Then, of course, there is the H-1B visa. As my colleague recognized, buy America was absolutely not addressed, another way we were outmanoeuvred.

Finally, auto rules of origin were ignored, and I will add that forestry was as well, which my colleague expanded on quite significantly. The softwood lumber dispute was not even addressed during the negotiations. The following quote says it very well, “The United States is measuring this deal by what they gained.” Our Deputy Prime Minister “is measuring it by what [s]he didn't give up.” That is not good enough at all.

Conservatives feel we have a duty to support this bill at second reading on behalf of Canadians. Canadians would certainly be better with it than without it, but even the commentary around it is very lukewarm. If we look at the commentary from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, it states, “The CUSMA...was an imperfect but necessary agreement to provide greater predictability in our relations with Canada’s largest trading partner.” That is not very enthusiastic.

In addition, my good friend and colleague Goldy Hyder with the Business Council of Canada said that the new NAFTA is, as my mother thought the tulips were, “good enough” for Canada, something that “gets us through this administration.”

I will now refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's letter to Canadians. It states, “We faced a series of unprecedented trade actions from the United States. It was a protectionist barrage unlike any Canada has faced before.” I wonder why that is. “This national consensus is remarkable.” Yes, that this deal is okay. “That said, there is a reason why more than 75 per cent of Canadians support ratification of this agreement.” I would argue that it is fear and resignation.

Who are the winners? As my previous colleague mentioned, President Trump. This is clearly one for the president.

He got a legit, comprehensive deal done with two foreign countries and Democrats, who are currently trying to impeach him. He can also say he delivered on a key campaign promise: to renegotiate or “terminate” NAFTA. The deal should be a positive for the U.S. economy, another boost in an already improving economic picture for 2020. It also gives him confidence and momentum in his trade battle with China.

This, of course, is the reason we have the special committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi played this right. She made the decision to focus on the one issue of labour rights rather than asking for an overwhelming barrage of a number of interests. We were really outplayed there, without question.

It is said in this Washington Post article that USMCA will “create 176,000 new jobs in the United States”. Congratulations to the U.S. I wish we could say the same.

What did it say about Canada? It said, “The Canadians managed not to cave too much to Trump.” That is pretty sad. That is hardly good enough. The paper went on to explain all of the things that we lost, which is very unfortunate, because there are a lot.

Why are we pushed into a corner on deals such as this? It is because the Liberal government has no clear foreign policy strategy based on consistent values like the previous Conservative government had, and we have absolutely seen this consistently.

In 2017, the Prime Minister promised to lead Canada into a new era of international engagement. He said his foreign policies would focus on improving Canada's commitments to multilateralism, human rights, the rule of law and effective diplomacy, but when it comes to foreign policy, the Liberal government has fumbled every single step of the way. It has conducted its foreign affairs, including this trade agreement, with style over substance.

We could go on and on: the Prime Minister's disastrous trip to India, the concessions he made here and his government's inability to bring home two Canadians arbitrarily detained in China. All of this has done everything to damage Canada's reputation on the world stage and our relationship with trade partners.

Rather than following proven approaches to diplomacy, the Prime Minister has chosen to rely on social media, and this has absolutely hurt Canada.

The Deputy Prime Minister has also done this. She irresponsibly tweeted about civil society and the imprisonment of women's rights activists in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia responded by freezing all of its investments in Canada and expelling our ambassador. As a result, Canada was left with zero ability to influence Saudi Arabia on human rights.

The Prime Minister has failed to deliver the new era in Canadian international engagement that he promised. Canada's inaction and lack of strategy when it comes to major players have allowed these countries to expand their spheres of influence around the globe. Make no mistake, others are watching, including Donald Trump. Being a good ally and contributor on the world stage requires more than just talk. Strength and confidence are respected.

It is time to renew Canada's reputation globally, promote the values that we stand for and assert our sovereignty as a nation once more, which we did not do in the negotiation of this agreement.

Canadians deserve better than “good enough”. Would we have surgery by a doctor who is “good enough”? Would we fly on a plane with a pilot who is “good enough”? Canadians deserve a principled, well-thought-out foreign policy, but the Liberal government is not delivering it. We care about the Canadian people, the dairy worker, the auto worker, the rig worker and their families. That is why we are supporting this at second reading to send it to committee. Canadians deserve better than “good enough”.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite keyed in on two things toward the end of her speech, supply management and the dairy worker. I find it very rich that members of the opposition benches talk about how important supply management is when the member for Abbotsford, who previously spoke, was the minister responsible for negotiating away major parts of our dairy sector under CETA and CPTPP.

I was at the Dairy Farmers of Nova Scotia AGM last week. I reminded farmers that it was the United States that was pushing the fact it wanted to get rid of supply management and it was the Conservatives who simply gave it away under CETA and CPTPP.

Will the member opposite recognize or perhaps enlighten the House on that inconsistency, where we fought to maintain the system and the Conservatives got rid of it under no pressure?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think we are coming up on three years ago this May when we made a clear decision as a party to support the dairy sector. We have supported the sector in policy. I take offence to the member trying to pass the responsibilities, the negative effects in fact of his government's work on to us. This accord was negotiated by the Liberals, not by us.

We have been consistent in our principles and policies. We did not have a chance to act. Dairy farmers were counting on the Liberal government to effectively negotiate this part, in addition to the whole NAFTA agreement, and it failed.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank our colleague from Calgary Midnapore for talking about the issues that Canadians from coast to coast are concerned about with respect to this trade agreement. She gave an elegant speech on softwood lumber, for which we have seen major concerns in western Canada, particularly in B.C., along with aluminum and milk.

My concern is this. We have lost our sovereignty. When we want to trade with non-market economies like China, we have to get approval from big brother, the United States. Why did this happen? Why did the government agree to this?

I would like the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore to comment on that situation.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is such a good point that it speaks to a bigger problem, one which I tried to address within my speech. That is the complete lack of a strategic, coherent, foreign policy by the government, including a great power strategy, which was evidenced by our discussions today at the Canada-China committee.

Sadly, I think what my colleague is referring to is a symptom of the greater problem that exists, which is an overabundance of selfies and costumes and not enough strategic, coherent policy.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, auto rules of origin were avoided in her speech. I would like to remind her that I have Toyota Motor Manufacturing in my riding. When I spoke with the organization, it mentioned this was a great deal for Canada. Many of its Toyota vehicles are exported to the United States, and we wanted to ensure we had a great deal.

With respect to exports, one of the things the United States administration was very focused on was that 50% would be U.S. content. We fought vigorously and said that at no cost would we have this and we strictly opposed the United States for it.

Also, originating content was at 62%. We bumped that up to 75%. Now auto workers, particularly in Mexico, have to make over $16 an hour. Therefore, could she comment on how the auto rules of origin were avoided?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will just say that when you lose, you lose. I think of a great commercial I saw last Friday in the United States. It said, “stay home, save 100%”. This would apply in this situation. It is fine to look for little gains. I mentioned that this was good enough. Ultimately, it will probably raise prices for Canadian consumers for automobiles. However, again, a loss is a loss.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, for over a year, Canada has been negotiating very hard for a modernized free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, now called CUSMA or the new NAFTA. We knew how important it was to get it right and to get a fair deal that was good for Canadian workers and good for Canadian businesses and communities. We did everything in our power to protect jobs, create more opportunity for Canadian workers and their families and to ensure the growth of our economy. I believe it has paid off.

The new NAFTA will benefit Canadians from every corner of the country and will reinforce the strong economic ties between our three countries. I hope to see support from all colleagues in the House to get the job done.

The new NAFTA also maintains our country's preferential access to the United States and Mexico, which are Canada's largest and third-largest trading partners respectively, while modernizing long-outdated elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement. This includes labour obligations regarding the elimination of employment discrimination based on gender.

This new NAFTA is the very first international trade deal that recognizes gender identity and sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination in its labour chapter. That is very worthy of our support. This includes our obligations regarding the elimination of discrimination based on gender. That is huge.

When it comes to supply management, the U.S. starting position was to completely dismantle Canada's supply management. The U.S. summary of objectives for NAFTA renegotiation was to eliminate the remaining Canadian tariffs on imports of U.S. dairy, poultry and egg products. Our government has defended our supply management system. This agreement will provide some market access, but most important, the future of supply management is now not in question. This is very good for our dairy farmers and for many of the farming sectors.

Our farmers and our dairy producers will be compensated and dairy farmers can start receiving their first cheques this month. In Nova Scotia, we are very pleased about that.

I forgot to say, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

Another aspect of the trade agreement, which is important to Nova Scotia, is agriculture and seafood as well. Our government has worked extremely hard to negotiate and to defend these interests of Canadians. We protected the North American agriculture and agrifood trade. We have protected the Canada-U.S. bilateral agriculture trade of $63 billion; the Canada-Mexico bilateral agricultural trade of $4.6 billion; and through the new NAFTA, we have also made gains for farmers. Through CETA, the CPTPP and the renegotiation of NAFTA, the biggest free trade deals in Canada's history, we have been able to preserve, protect and defend this supply management system.

When it comes to forestry, we feel that Canada's forestry industry supports really good jobs across the country, especially in Nova Scotia, which is important to me. However, we feel the U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber are unfair and unwanted. Work remains of this.

Nova Scotia remains Canada's number one leader in seafood exports, with more than $2 billion in exports or 29% of Canada's total seafood exports. The U.S. remains our closest and largest market, but China is now second, with an increase of 36% of our seafood in the last few years. We hope the new virus does not affect us too much. We have seen some effects momentarily, but we hope that it does not last.

Finally, our government will always stand up for our cultural industry, because it means protecting a $53.8 billion industry, representing over 650,000 quality jobs for Canadians. That is 75,000 jobs in Quebec alone.

The new NAFTA has important benefits for Quebec, including preserving the cultural exemption. It gives Canada flexibility to adopt and maintain programs and policies that support the creation, distribution and development of Canadian artistic expression or content, including in the digital environment. This is very important to creative industries. As a former actor, writer, producer, I for one know how important that is to our bottom line.

That is why Canada stood firm to protect the cultural exemption and our economic interests during the renegotiation of the new NAFTA. We will always defend our cultural sovereignty, because that is the right thing to do for Canada.

When it comes to the environment, the new NAFTA has a new enforceable environmental chapter. This replaces the separate side agreement of before. It upholds air quality and fights marine pollution. We believe that commitments to high levels of environmental protection are an important part of trade agreements. After all, without the environment, we do not have an economy. These protect our workers and they protect our planet.

When it comes to drug prices, our government knows how proud Canadians are of our public health care system. As Canadians, this is part of our identity. We do not have to sit here arguing whether universal medicare is good; we know it is. We also know that the affordability of and access to prescription drugs remains an important issue for so many Canadians, especially our seniors.

That is why budget 2019 takes bold, concrete steps to lay the foundation for national pharmacare, like the creation of a new Canadian drug agency. This is an important issue for our government. Our government will always stand up for our public health care system, and the changes to data protection for biologic drugs may have an impact on costs. I can assure the people that we will work with the provinces and the territories on the potential impact of these changes.

We have worked hard to achieve a very good deal that will benefit all Canadians. The enforceable provisions that protect women's rights, minority rights, indigenous rights and environmental protections are the strongest in any Canadian trade agreement to date. Of that, I believe we can all be very proud.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague from Nova Scotia. I noticed that she reacted quite favourably to the idea of farmers getting cheques.

In my riding, that also means that these farmers are now dependent on subsidies. If there was one thing our farmers could say they were proud of, it was their ability to contribute to Canada's economy without relying on handouts from the government. The consequence of signing three consecutive free trade agreements with concessions is that it affects close to 10% of quotas, and therefore hinders their ability to generate income.

Is the member really happy to compensate farmers instead of ensuring they can generate their own income?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I feel it is a lot better than it was, especially when we start at the beginning, when the Americans did not want to allow any subsidies whatsoever. As I stated in my speech, they were dead set to try to get rid of the things we had in Canada which they did not have in America. They wanted to get rid of supply management.

When I was running in the last election as a newcomer, I definitely supported supply management. It is so important. I know it is important for the dairy farmers in Quebec. The member has many different industries in Quebec for which this is very important.

Although I always believe we can do better, this was very good negotiations on our part with America at this time.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the frustrations on this side of the House is that we will support the deal at the end of the day. We understand that the Canadian economy wants bankability and stability. We get it. However, people are not happy. They are plugging their noses, saying let us get bankability and stability, but it is not as good as what they had before in a lot of ways.

There are simple examples of things that could have done in this deal that would have made things more progressive right across North America, and one is the labour mobility. Why did the government not modernize that area? Why did it not take the companies from 1994 and modernize that part of the chapter to 2020? There are all the high-tech sectors and the biotech sectors. There are all these professionals in new technologies that cannot travel back and forth under that labour mobility chapter.

Why would the government not, if it were looking forward, have modernized that part of the chapter?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I hear the member opposite, but when it comes to the 21st century and tech jobs and also IT, one can do that from anywhere. It is not necessary to be in one country or another. Many countries are working together on these types of jobs, and one can do them from a small place in Yarmouth and be in touch with somebody in the Carolinas. I think movement is a rather old-fashioned idea now. We can do things on screens. We can be talking to somebody from across the world on a screen and still be working together.

I think that, as I said, things can always be better, but given the circumstances we have now and with our trading partner to the south, we are doing extremely well. I am really pleased that we got the deal that we did.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about drug prices and about fundamentally being on Canadians' side. However, when it comes to pharmaceutical prices and transparency in trade deals, the Liberals have consistently shown that they are on the side of big corporations.

The Liberals promised an entire chapter to promote gender equality, but where is that? We see only superficial language on gender equality. They promised an entire chapter to promote indigenous rights, yet there is no mention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

New Democrats believe in strong environmental provisions that can be fully enforceable, and in making sure that we are in line with our obligations in the Paris Agreement. We only got rid of chapter 11 investor-state provisions because of the work of Democrats in the U.S.

Why do Canadians need to rely on U.S. Democrats to stand up for them?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, again, this is the first time we have ever had women's and gender rights expressed in a free trade deal of this sort. I think that is a huge step forward.

Personally, having lived and worked in the United States as an actor, I came home to Canada and Nova Scotia because this is a much better country to live in. I will fight for Canada. I will stand up for Canada. I feel we are much better off here. We will always fight for our rights, for indigenous rights, for first nations, for women's rights and for multicultural rights because that is just the right thing to do, and we are Canadians.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, as members well know, since August 2017 when we were told that NAFTA was going to go by the board and we would have to start thinking about how we would renegotiate, a lot of things were put out there as, “this is not going to happen anymore”. Therefore, since August 2017 and until we were able to ratify this and sign on to the new CUSMA, we have done a great deal of work, and Canada did that work.

One of the things we need to talk about, because anyone could find loopholes in this deal, is that any deal or negotiation means that no one side is going to get everything it wants. There is a bit of give-and-take here in order to get this and keep this.

We had a very strong set of negotiators. I want to point out that our negotiators were not just our Minister of Foreign Affairs, our Prime Minister and our bureaucrats. We brought labour and industries to the table. We brought Canadians and farmers and people who had a vested interest in this to our table. We all began to talk about what the most important things were for us to get when we were at the table.

Having negotiated for the doctors in British Columbia on occasion, I can tell you that we have to go in and say, “We are not going to budge on this.” We knew what we wanted, and we dug our heels in, and that was decided on by the team of people who were negotiating with us. We all realized what we had to give up, and we all decided what was strong.

This deal is better in many ways than the old NAFTA. That is because the team decided on what was most important. We must not forget that we have maintained privileged access to the U.S., which is our largest trading partner. We do 76% of our trade with the United States, so that was an important thing.

We have heard people talk about sovereignty. It is said that Canada's sovereignty went by the board. One of the things that is very clear, and what we dug our heels on and retained, is what is indeed sovereignty for Canada.

We managed to keep control over our key cultural sector. Canada is different culturally from the United States, and we know that. We see a huge $54-billion cultural industry in Canada, which has created about 650,000 jobs across this country, with 75,000 of those being in Quebec alone. Because Quebec is distinct in language and culture, we have been able to maintain sovereign control over that part of who we are as Canadians, and that is important to remember.

We also kept true to some of the more important things: our values, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our values are very clear in terms of what we stand for as Canadians. Gender equality, LGBTQ rights and minority rights were negotiated and kept strong. We have strong and enforceable language on all of those things, which we did not have in the old NAFTA.

When people say we gave up our cultural sovereignty, etc., we did not. We kept the things that were vital to us. I want to remind everybody that those decisions were not just made by the government. They were made by a team of everyone coming together who decided that these are the things we are going to fight for and we are not going to give up on. We got most of those things.

We have heard about the cultural sector that we have protected. In my province of British Columbia, the film industry is massive. In fact, the number one special effects globally come out of British Columbia. We were able to keep that moving and growing. This is important when we talk about jobs and the people who are benefiting.

Looking at British Columbia, we have heard a lot of talk about softwood lumber and the forestry sector, but we did something very important. We managed to keep a very strong and enforceable dispute resolution mechanism when it comes to looking at things like softwood lumber.

Supply management was something that we were promised by the United States. The U.S. said it was going to take it away from us. We have kept it, so supply management is no longer on the table for debate. How we get better deals for all our dairy products, etc., is an ongoing negotiation and we need to look at how we move forward.

In British Columbia, where 77% of our agricultural exports go to the United States, we have managed to keep that. We have managed also to allow our farmers access to Mexico, which we did not have extremely good access to. Now we have broadened our market within Canada.

Again, for those of you who have long memories, we used to have to go to the WTO on softwood lumber every time. We struggled for years debating it and going to the WTO, and the United States ignored us. Now, we have enforceable and strong dispute resolution mechanisms, so we do not have to spend a lot of time dealing with what we know is going to come up. Everyone is still going to try to deal with protectionism, but we have ways now of fighting that very clearly.

For me, there are a lot of important things in this agreement. One of the things that is key to being Canadian is medicare, our public health care system, which has not been touched. Our ability to maintain, change and deal with our public health care system in the way we have always done is sacrosanct, and it is still there. When we talk about sovereignty, we talk about that as being sovereign. We are bringing in pharmacare. Our government is working on this.

The ability to bring down, from 10 years to eight years, our biologics information and data and put that out for generics means we are going to get cheaper drugs, especially for expensive drugs like biologics.

There are some really important things that do not have to do only with trade but with maintaining who we are as Canadians, what we stand for and what we think is important. This agreement would enhance our ability to continue our health care, especially when health care and Obamacare have been under great threat by the United States. We know that we can keep what we have, and we see how important that is.

Again, we have enforcement language on environmental standards in forestry and our agricultural sector. We have also maintained our plastics ban and all those kinds of environmental issues that Canada has acted on. We are talking with a country that does not believe in global warming, but we have still managed to keep intact our own ability to deal with it.

Our oceans protection plan, which protects species at risk in our oceans and which our government brought forward with $1.5 billion, remains intact. We have an agreement to help to look at how our whales and turtles are under threat, and how we need to maintain and sustain those threatened species.

Also, we would look at fishing and compare stocks to see if overfishing is harming our ability in British Columbia to maintain ordinary stocks of fish, such as salmon. Therefore, while we have endangered species, we also have ordinary fishing species to look at and how overfishing would impact maintaining some of those stocks, which is extremely important.

When we look at labour, we have the ability to enforce the fact that there are going to be strong standards around labour. For instance, in the United States, discrimination based on sexual orientation is no longer there. In Mexico, we had seen a strong push-back against unions and labour rights. We have that in there. It is there and it is enforceable. We also have very strong dispute resolution mechanisms to deal with a country that would deny these labour rights. We have moved forward on a whole lot of things that we did not have before.

One of the important things to remember is that this agreement is very good for my province in terms of the fact that 50% of all the lumber that goes to the United States comes out of British Columbia. It is important for us, and these clear dispute resolution mechanisms are going to stop us from running back and forth as we did in the old days with the WTO.

In closing, I am sure that every one of us in the House, including me, could pick holes in this agreement. Of course there are going to be things we wish we could have had, such as everything we wanted when we went to the table. However, if members have ever negotiated before, they would know that when we go to the table, we go with 100 items, but will go to bat and dig our heels in on 50 of them, because we have to give some up to get some. This is what happened.

This is a great deal. It is a better deal than we ever had. I hope all members in the House will recognize it and think of Canadians, our economy and the jobs that will come out of it, and ratify this agreement.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned British Columbia and the effect of the softwood lumber disagreement. I was wondering if she could clarify her comments. I was not quite sure what she said in regard to this agreement and the softwood lumber dispute mechanism. I was wondering if she could clarify for all the people who depend on the softwood lumber industry for their jobs and the economy in British Columbia.

Is the member saying that this agreement kind of gets rid of that dispute?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, no, it does not. We are always going to have a dispute over softwood lumber with the United States because it has softwood lumber producers as well. In British Columbia this is important to all of us, with 145,000 jobs coming out of the softwood lumber sector.

The important thing is that we are not going to have to go to the WTO every five or six years only to have the United States ignore the WTO ruling. We have won on every one of the rulings. However, if we now have a clear process, a clear dispute resolution mechanism, then as we win those they will be enforceable. We will not be tracking around for seven to 10 years trying to negotiate softwood lumber. That is important.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that the American cultural industries are the most powerful and largest in the world. Their product covers the globe and they are always aggressively looking for new markets. Despite their power within the United States, as a stakeholder, we were able to achieve an agreement that has a carve-out for cultural industries.

I would like the member to speak to that in the context of the way Canada stood firm and negotiated smartly and strategically vis-à-vis the United States on this issue.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a really key part when we talk about sovereignty. This is a key part of who Canada is, our identity, our sovereignty. We have strong cultural institutions that are very different from those in the United States.

The member is absolutely right. I remember in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Hollywood used to push back against any kind of filmmaking here, and yet everybody wanted to come here because there were excellent opportunities to have good locations that could pass for any forest, any mountain, anywhere in the world. At the same time, we had very good camera people, producers, directors and writers. That was a very important fight we took up in late 1998 that would have allowed us to get there. We had to do that while constantly facing pressure.

To put this into our negotiations on CUSMA and to know that we can keep this strong sense of Canadian identity is very important. Canadian cultural industries, as I said before, represent a $57-billion industry in this country, and that does not even count film. I am proud that we were able to achieve that, especially because B.C. is ground zero for all the best things that are being done in film.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about how proud she was to have done her duty and protected supply management with this agreement. Her colleague said that cheques have already started going out to farmers. There are three problems, however.

The first is that we know that these cheques are not sent out automatically. Farmers need to apply for them, and farmers back home are starting to worry that some of them may not apply and may miss out on the compensation they might be entitled to.

The second problem is that we know full well that the duration of this program is uncertain. There are cheques for now, but what will happen later? The future is very uncertain, so much so that it raises a third problem: What if this turns into grants for modernizing farming operations? That would be terrible.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this subject.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the important thing is that this is the first cheque. Many farmers are having trouble filling out the forms and getting access. I thank the member for bringing that to our attention. We will be able to look at how we could make that process easier and how we could modify the process to make it very user friendly for farmers.

This is not one cheque and then farmers are going to be dropped into a hole in the ground. We are going to continue to reimburse our farmers and help them to sustain themselves because we have had to give up some things in the dairy sector.

Supply management per se—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

It is always a great day when I get to rise in this place and defend the interests of the wonderful residents of my riding of Dufferin—Caledon.

I want to start off by saying that members on this side of the House support this agreement. It is good for business. It is good to have certainty. Those are some of the benefits of having this trade agreement resolved.

However, Conservatives have been asking for information from the government on a number of issues. In fact, we have been asking for some information not for one or two weeks, but for several months and we are not getting that information. Specifically, we have been asking when the government will release the economic impact of this agreement. I would think that is something the Liberals would have and would be willing to share.

Members on this side of the House would like to be informed before deciding how to vote on this issue. Instead of releasing this information to us and all Canadians, we get no information. In fact, what we do get is a request to please approve this agreement as quickly as possible. If we want someone to dance with us, we actually have to ask them to dance. We do not just grab them and pull them out onto the dance floor and start swinging them around. That is not the proper way to do it.

This is a very clear request that we have made, and to date, we have had no response. Effectively, we are being asked to vote in favour of a trade agreement without knowing what the economic impacts are going to be not only in our own ridings, but all across the country. Quite frankly, I think the government's request is inappropriate. The Liberals should be giving us the information that we are demanding.

My friends on the other side of the House will say that they have offered us a briefing. A briefing is not an economic impact analysis. I am wondering when the government is going to raise the curtains and give not only parliamentarians but all Canadians the economic impact of this agreement so we can all make an informed decision.

It is bad enough that we are not getting the economic impact, but what I find far more insidious and odious is the fact that there is a report on the economic impact on dairy and SM-4, and guess what: It has been kept confidential by the government.

Why would the Liberals keep an economic impact analysis on important agricultural sectors confidential? Why is it not being released? As parliamentarians, we are being asked to vote on something without information. Some information the Liberals clearly do not have. They do not have an economic impact analysis, despite years of negotiations. However, they do have a very specific economic analysis that is very important to the constituents of my riding of Dufferin—Caledon.

In Dufferin, the number one economic driver is agriculture. In agriculture, we of course have dairy and other supply-managed industries. They are nervous because they know there will be economic impacts, but the Liberals are choosing not to release that information. Therefore, people do not know the extent of the impact.

I met with dairy farmers in my riding two weeks ago. They are concerned about the agreement itself, without still knowing the economic impacts. One of the things they are concerned about is that dairy products coming in from the United States are not going to be subject to the exact same standards as Canadian dairy products are subjected to. There are hormones used in dairy production in the United States that will allow for greater production at lower cost, but they are not allowed to be used in Canada.

Not only have they negotiated a deal for further access to the supply-managed dairy market in Canada, but they have also not levelled the playing field. It is a double hit on our dairy sector. Producers do not know the economic impact and they do not know what the compensation will be.

We ask repeatedly what the compensation is going to be for sectors that are adversely affected. Again, like so many things we get from the Liberal government, there is no transparency; we get no answer. A great example of the lack of transparency exhibited by the government was how they opposed the Parliamentary Budget Officer looking into their infrastructure spending. This is a government that said it was transparent and “open by default”. That is not what is happening specifically with that vote; it is certainly not what is happening with this trade agreement.

All we are asking for is information. It seems like a very simple and basic request. The Liberals are saying to us that they need a partner in this chamber to pass this trade agreement, but they are not going to give us any of the information that we need in order to make a really informed decision. It is especially needed for the residents of my riding, who are going to be affected by the changes to the dairy industry.

What did the government get in return for negotiating away milk classes 6 and 7? We have asked this question; again, we do not have an answer.

What did we get in exchange for effectively giving a tariff on exports in the dairy market that go above a certain threshold? What did we get in exchange for that?

What did we get in return for negotiating away our sovereignty over exports of milk protein concentrates, skim milk powder and infant formula?

These are legitimate questions that we are not getting answers to. This is becoming a pattern with this government. The Liberals do not want to answer the tough questions. I sit here like all of us during question period, when there are lots of great questions that are asked, very specific questions that can have very specific answers. Of course, we do not get very specific answers, do we? On this side of the House we know the answers are the old “Ottawa spin and twist”: spin the question around, do not really say anything and then time is up. That is what we are getting on this trade agreement. We are getting no answers. I know my friends are going to say that we were given opportunities for briefings, but that is not sufficient.

I have two final points to raise on this. Why has softwood lumber not been included in this trade agreement? We know that this is a very serious issue, not in my riding, but in ridings all across the country. Why was “Buy American” not addressed? This is a major impediment for Canadian companies that are trying to do business in the United States.

These are simple, basic questions. All it would take is someone on the other side of the House to take the time to actually answer a straight question. To date, they are not doing it. I am losing faith that it will happen. We want to approve this trade agreement. We want to vote in favour of it, because Canadian businesses and industries need certainty. We need the information. My request is that the Liberal government start providing us some answers instead of pulling down the curtains and saying to vote blind on this issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The member will have five minutes for questions and comments after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon has five minutes remaining in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[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, it has been a good day thus far. The minister brought forward a substantial piece of legislation, which is good news for all Canadians in all regions of our country, as it is an agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

What is really encouraging is that we are seeing cross-party support. We are getting support for the legislation. That really speaks volumes for the negotiators, whether it is the minister or, most importantly, the Canadian team of negotiators who have done a phenomenal job representing Canada's interests. They have demonstrated that ability not only with this agreement but with previous agreements. They have demonstrated that they can actually work with different ministries, different political parties to ensure that Canada gets the best deal possible.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that Canadian team of diplomats and civil servants who made this deal possible?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am flattered that I was confused with the eloquent and debonair member for Edmonton West. I thank my Bloc colleague for that confusion. It is quite a compliment.

With respect to the trade agreement, I know that we have a fantastic group of people who worked very hard on this agreement. I am still waiting for answers and I am becoming increasingly despondent that there will not be answers to the specific questions that I raised in my speech.

These are questions that not only people in my riding are asking me, but Canadians from coast to coast to coast are asking as well. What are the economic impacts of this agreement? We have been asking for two months. I met with dairy producers in my riding. They know there has actually been a report prepared about economic impacts on the supply management sector, and the Liberals have kept it confidential.

Why will the Liberals not produce the report? What are they hiding?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague about the timing.

He is well aware that the original trans-Pacific partnership was the renegotiation of NAFTA. It was ready to be signed back in 2015, two weeks after the Prime Minister took office. It was Mr. Obama's deal, the most progressive president in the history of the United States, and our Prime Minister decided that it was not progressive enough for him. Instead, he delayed the signing of the trans-Pacific partnership.

Obviously, the Liberals did not have any problems with it because they did eventually sign it. However, there was four years of uncertainty on the NAFTA, and of course we ended up with a worse agreement.

Would the member please comment on what these four years of uncertainty have done to the business sector in Canada, and that investment that could have been brought to our country that was not available at the time because of the uncertainty of the trade agreement?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Uncertainty is, of course, the antithesis of good business practices. With uncertainty, businesses do not know how to plan and budget to expand.

These delays and the amount of time it has taken has caused all kinds of damage within our business sectors. Not knowing what is going on with the economic analysis of this new trade agreement is creating further uncertainty. It is creating incredible anxiety and uncertainty in the dairy sector and other supply-managed sectors, because they do not know what the impacts of this agreement are going to be.

I do not want to continue to repeat myself, but we have been asking for these documents for over two months. I do not understand why these documents are not being produced, and why we are not being given the understanding of what the economic impacts are going to be. Effectively, what we are being asked to do is support a trade agreement without knowing the implications of the trade agreement. Quite frankly, that is wrong.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give my first speech, to address the 43rd Parliament on a very important agreement that would impact many Canadians not only in my riding but throughout this nation.

First, I would like to thank the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. It is an honour and a privilege to represent them each and every day.

In addition, I would like to recognize and thank my lovely wife Leigh and our children Hannah and Michael. Without them, standing in this House today would not be possible.

Before I begin my comments on the new NAFTA, it is important to take this opportunity to describe my constituency to the House in order to properly reflect its priorities in response to such a significant piece of legislation and its impact on Canada's international trade. Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is a constituency slightly larger than the province of Nova Scotia. It is a region that is deeply rooted in riches of a social and natural heritage which holds a significant place in our country's history. That history is tied to the physical environment, which is defined by its majestic hills, rivers and plains.

Its bounty has been the lifeblood of our region for thousands of years, beginning with our indigenous ancestors and later the eastern European homesteaders of the early 20th century. More recently, our constituency has welcomed many newcomers from across the world, most prominently from the Philippines. Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has become a diverse constituency made strong by the contributions of the land and its peoples. Those traditions, that history and that work ethic are what drive me as the people's representative each and every day.

As a region our economic wealth is derived from our abundant natural resources and agriculture strengths. More important, our economic wealth has been derived from our ability to export our excess production. Therefore, it is without question that my constituents would expect me to rise and address this important piece of legislation.

Let us be clear. Our party strongly supports free trade initiatives that will generate increased economic activity and job growth. After all, it was our party that negotiated the original NAFTA. With that said, it is our democratic obligation to analyze this legislation that is brought before this House, especially when that legislation is a free trade agreement with our neighbour, a neighbour with whom we hold our most important trading relationship. Furthermore, it is my democratic responsibility to analyze this agreement, to ask the questions and to raise the concerns so we can ensure that the people of my riding are not forgotten again by the Liberal government. Our party and I will fulfill that democratic obligation.

What are the facts of the new NAFTA? First, the Liberals failed to work with the opposition parties during the negotiation and ratification process, and now we are rushing to get this deal done without proper consultation. Second, the Liberals have failed to provide documents outlining the impacts of a new trade deal, despite numerous requests from opposition members. As a farmer, as a steward of the environment and as a former representative of a farm organization, these failures were evident each and every day during the negotiation process, specifically in our dairy sector.

The agriculture and agri-food processing sectors are key drivers in my riding, providing economic growth, good jobs and social stability, linking rural and urban businesses together and supporting other sectors of our economy. The agriculture industry is the bedrock not only of my riding but also of this nation.

In my province of Manitoba, the dairy industry plays a key economic role, generating over $250 million in farm gate revenues every year. It is a Canadian industry that proudly produces the highest quality of dairy products in the world. Our party recognizes the contribution that the dairy industry makes to family farms, allowing them to be profitable, to be financially stable and to be able to give back to their communities. This, in turn, grows and connects our rural and urban economies, yet our farm families and rural communities will bear the brunt of these changes.

Now let us examine a few of these impacts. First, an additional 3.6% of the Canadian dairy market has been opened up to import. Second, the new NAFTA dictates specific limits for Canadian exports of milk proteins, skim milk powder and infant formula. If the export limits are exceeded, Canada will add duties to additional exports. This will make them more expensive in countries that trade with the U.S. and limit us in helping to nourish developing nations. As a result of these changes, current and potential future investments in food processing are increasingly threatened in Manitoba and across Canada.

We have heard the concerns from across the industry. David Wiens, the chairman of the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba and vice-president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, noted that Canada's dairy farms are losing 20% of their market share. He said locally produced milk from Canadian dairy farms is going to be pushed off the shelves to bring in dairy products from the U.S.

The more dangerous precedent in this agreement for Canadian dairy farmers is that the new NAFTA puts limitations, through tariffs, on Canada's ability to enter foreign markets or operate in a foreign dairy market that the U.S. is already in. Mr. Wiens also said it will further limit our ability to export dairy products, noting that Canada's largest exports are products such as milk proteins and baby formula. He added, “With that tax it will be very difficult for us to compete against the U.S. dairy industry in any [foreign] market they are in”.

Here we are with a new NAFTA that is threatening our domestic food supply, and the Liberal government should be informing Canadians of how they will be impacted. It is the Liberals' duty to be transparent and accountable, something I hope they learn during this Parliament. Dairy farmers and Canadians have been betrayed by the Liberal government by not providing the complete details of this new NAFTA and the real impacts it has on their livelihoods, their families and their communities.

The members opposite do not seem to recognize the realities of this new minority Parliament. They do not seem to recognize that they will be held accountable at every step of the legislative process, to ensure my constituents, Manitobans and Canadians understand the full impacts of this agreement and what it means to them.

[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, Canadians understand the importance of trade agreements. With this administration we have seen many trade agreements signed off. What makes this one more significant than the previous 30 trade agreements is that this one is with our greatest trading partner.

We are very much dependent on trade. There is no country more than the U.S. with which we need to get a deal finalized. It is really encouraging to see the type of support that we are getting. Yesterday when we had votes, we had the New Democrats and even the Green Party recognizing the value of this agreement.

Is there anything in the old agreement that the member across the way believes was lost by not being incorporated into the new agreement? Would he not agree that this is indeed a better agreement than the previous one?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this agreement is that there are still more unknowns, especially on the standards. The types of things that we are going to be importing into Canada now, because of the new agreement, still require some standards to be figured out.

In my previous life as a farm leader, I sat on the board of the Canadian Standards Association. There, on the ag-technical committee, we looked at different standards that were required for couplings for hydraulics, but also roll bars for tractors, and the metallurgy required for a manufacturer to import those into Canada.

Interestingly enough, if a manufacturer in a warm climate manufactures a tractor and tries to import it into Canada, there are certain standards that have to be met in Canada before they can import it, or it is considered a grey market tractor. If such a tractor is unknowingly brought into Canada, it becomes the Canadian owner's responsibility and a liability to that farm worker. It is totally unacceptable for the Canadian government to be standing to the side and letting that happen every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was not this government but, I guess, the United States Democrats who pulled out the chapter 11 clause in the previous NAFTA from this new agreement, which is something we have been very happy to see happen. The investor-state provisions threatened our sovereignty. It is something we saw the U.S. Democrats lead on. We hope that in future trade deals the Liberal government will also make sure that the investor-state provisions are no longer something it would support.

Does my colleague support the decision, which the Liberal government is now supporting because the United States is leading on it, and would he also like to see this provision and clause be removed from future trade deals to protect Canadian sovereignty and the environment?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see something, plain and simple. We have not seen enough details on many impacts. As the member can imagine, these agreements are very complex, and one decision impacts another. Therefore, without seeing the documents, I cannot honestly answer that question.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opinion of my colleague from Manitoba, with his experience in agriculture, on the impact that this agreement will have on agriculture.

Does my colleague know of another trade deal that a Canadian government has ever signed that puts a cap on an agricultural commodity and would stifle future growth for that commodity?

This has happened in the dairy sector through the new NAFTA, which puts a cap on Canadian dairy farmers and processors to be able to expand their market when it comes to certain types of protein and skim milk powder.

Can my colleague name any other trade agreement that a Canadian government has signed that has put a cap on future growth in a Canadian agricultural commodity?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, not offhand, and I think that is the game-changer in all of this. It limits our ability to go out and develop our good quality food products to other nations. Wherever the U.S. is, we cannot go, and that is the biggest problem with this agreement.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

I represent Surrey, and Surrey Centre in particular. It is a port city and major logistics centre for goods, particularly trade, and home to some of the most amazing produce, berries, dairy and poultry in the country. I am pleased to stand today to talk about the Government of Canada's unwavering support for supply management in our dairy, egg and poultry industries in the context of the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement and our other international trade deals.

These industries are pivotal. I have met many hard-working Canadians in this sector, whether it be Donia Farms, which has been continuously family-run since 1955 and produces high-quality grass-fed milk, or Gurpreet Arneja and Vineet Taneja, who had humble beginnings and launched Nanak Foods in Surrey, a large specialty dairy processor that now exports Canadian dairy products to over 15 countries around the globe. These are real people who have worked hard. As a new member on the Standing Committee on International Trade, I hope to ensure that our government prioritizes their needs.

Let me begin by stating that the future of supply management in Canada is not in question. Our supply management system is fundamental to the overall success of Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry. Our dairy, poultry and egg farmers provide high-quality, delicious and nutritious food to Canadians at an affordable price.

Combined, the sectors drive a strong economy, with almost $34 billion in sales and tens of thousands of jobs. They are vital to the prosperity of our nation. That is why in our negotiations for the new NAFTA, the CUSMA, the government fought hard to maintain the three pillars of Canada's supply management system: production control, pricing mechanisms and import control.

The same commitment to Canada's supply-managed sector also guided Canada in negotiations for CETA and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The new NAFTA, like Canada's other trade agreements, preserves and maintains Canada's supply management system. Canadian dairy farmers will continue to supply the vast majority of the Canadian market. As well, Canada has negotiated reciprocal access to the U.S. dairy market, including tonne-for-tonne access to most dairy products.

We are united in our goal to help the dairy sector innovate and drive the economy for future generations. Across Canada, we are helping dairy producers purchase state-of-the-art equipment to boost productivity and efficiency. Innovation is driving significant growth in chicken and egg production across Canada. Canadian egg producers like to talk about the tale of the three 50s: Over the past 50 years, they have increased their production by 50%, while reducing their environmental footprint by 50%. That is all thanks to innovation.

We continue to roll out investments to support innovation in our supply-managed sectors. Our government has clearly recognized the great value of the supply management system. Canada will continue to defend this system at home and abroad.

Our government has committed to fully and fairly supporting the supply-managed industry. This support will help chart a path forward so our supply-managed farmers can continue to innovate, grow and remain competitive and sustainable for future generations.

In the fall of 2018, the government announced the formation of supply management working groups. These groups were tasked with looking at providing support and helping the industries adjust to recent trade agreements, including the new NAFTA and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP. The overall goal is to ensure Canada maintains its robust dairy, poultry and egg industries now and in the future.

Together with industry, we have one common goal and that is a strong Canadian supply management system. For our farmers and food processors, the new NAFTA will protect and secure our $30-billion agri-food exports to the United States.

In addition to preserving key aspects of the original NAFTA, the new agreement helps open new market access opportunities in the U.S. market. This agreement provides Canadian exporters with new market access into the U.S. in the form of tariff rate quotas for refined sugar and products containing sugar, as well as certain dairy products, including cheese, cream, milk beverages and butter. It also eliminates U.S. tariffs for whey products and margarine, and provides a more liberal rule of origin for margarine.

As my hon. colleagues well understand, trade is vital to Canada and Canada is a trading nation. Our farmers depend on trade. They export about half the value of their production. That is why the government is seeking to expand market opportunities and promote the interests of Canadian farmers by negotiating new trade agreements and modernizing existing ones. This is why our government has big plans for agriculture trade.

Our exports hit a new record in 2018, but we are not stopping there. We set our sights on $75 billion in agriculture exports by 2025. A 2018 report of the agri-food economic strategy table has challenged us to think even bigger, proposing a target of $85 billion.

In addition to preserving Canada's supply management system, Canada's existing trade agreements play a key role in realizing these export goals.

CETA has provided Canadians with preferential access to the European market since September 2017. Canadian farmers and food processors are already taking advantage of access to the world's single largest market for food. From 2018-2019, Canadian agriculture exports to the European Union increased by 24%.

While it is still too early to measure the full impact of CPTPP since it came into force December 30, 2018, there are early signs of success for Canada's agriculture sector.

For example, Canada's exports of pork to Japan increased by 11% and exports of beef grew by 68% during the first 11 months of 2019, compared to the same period in 2018.

We are advancing Canadian agriculture in international markets, while preserving and protecting our supply managed systems.

I am proud of the federal government's incredible achievements in this regard. We will continue to support and defend our dairy, egg and poultry industries, while ensuring a strong and competitive future for Canada's agriculture and food sector.

With this new agreement, we will be helping Canada's farmers and food processors harvest the benefits of what the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement has to offer. I urge all hon. members to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of concern, and for good reason, around the chapter 11 provisions that were in the past NAFTA agreement. These are huge concerns, and it affects our sovereignty with respect to the protection of the environment and indigenous rights.

The New Democrats have been calling for it to be removed in any future trade deal. We were glad to see the U.S. Democrats actually pull that out in their side of the negotiations. We wish it had coming from Canada, but we do not even know what Canada put on the table.

In terms of moving forward, can we count on the member for Surrey Centre and his government to ensure that chapter 11 and those sorts of provisions that threaten our sovereignty and the environment will not be included in any future agreements that Canada does? I know Canadians have voiced concerns about that. We have been brought these concerns forward around investor-state provisions that protect corporations instead of people, communities, the environment and our sovereignty.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, if I recall from my days in law, when I studied some of this international trade, chapter 11 has been more helpful for Canadians in most of those cases. The provisions protecting and arbitrating our trade laws between the two nations must be strengthened and protected so companies and the government are protected.

I take my colleague's point very seriously. Canada has now entered into a new arbitration agreement. There are four WTO trade mechanisms with China and others, which is now the envy of many others. The U.S. is left behind. We have been doing better and I urge our ministers to do even better going forward.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, I wondered how he could be so proud of this government's free trade agreements. We all know the government made concessions on supply management that resulted in compensation for the agricultural sector.

How can he be so proud of CUSMA when, just yesterday, a delegation representing Quebec aluminum workers condemned the agreement for damning their sector to die a slow death?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud. We faced a president in the U.S. who wanted to end supply management. In fact, it was his electoral goal to eliminate supply management to appease his interests in some dairy farming sectors and states. We upheld our end to protect our own supply management systems and gained access for Canadian farmers into the U.S., allowing a very small amount of gain from them.

The alternative option of having no trade agreement and scrapping NAFTA was much worse than what we have now, which is much more robust and healthy for our industry.

As for the aluminum sector, now 70% of the aluminum for the auto sector will come from our country as opposed to what was there before, which was zero protection. Therefore, 70% is a lot more than zero, and I am very proud of our trading team for negotiating that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning supply managed sectors in his intervention.

In the last Parliament, I was on the agriculture committee. I come from Guelph and it is a topic that has been discussed there. He talked about the working group, which also included the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Dairy Processors Association of Canada, that collaborated with the Government of Canada to develop mitigation strategies to protect the supply-managed sector within this agreement. We also have an expert negotiating team that is internationally recognized for its world-leading efforts in negotiating what is best for Canadians.

One thing I have heard is that it is very important for Canadians to know and recognize Canadian products, such as our dairy products, so consumers can make the choice to support our industry.

Could the hon. member comment on how important it is for our industry to have protection in place so we know Canadian products are Canadian products?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very vital to have Canadian dairy produce, our own poultry and our own eggs. Our standards are stricter and our farms are better and world class. The products are eaten locally. The GHG emissions used to get that food to our tables is much less.

In fact, in my personal life, I have been advised by my doctor to drink only Canadian milk, grass-fed milk in this case, which is produced very close to home and is much better and healthier. This agreement is the only way our homegrown industries are protected. These industries are handed down from one generation to another. This protection will make it even stronger and we will have a robust industry, which will provide consumers better products and help farmers who produce them.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my constituents of Kitchener South—Hespeler for electing me to this place. I also want to thank everyone who volunteered on the campaign, everyone who worked in the constituency office and the strangers who offered me water when I was campaigning. I could not be here without them and all their hard work.

Canada is among the top automotive producing countries of the world. The motor vehicle manufacturing industry directly employs nearly 137,000 Canadians and indirectly employs nearly 420,000 people in sales and market services. The majority of the vehicles produced in Canada are exported, and over 90% of our automotive exports are sent to the United States.

Given the importance of our automotive trading relationship with the United States, a key government objective throughout the negotiations of the new NAFTA was to ensure the agreement continued to provide the industry with stability and opportunities for growth. This included maintaining duty-free access to the United States and Mexico, ensuring the rules of origins met the needs of the Canadian producers and securing an exemption from potential U.S. section 232 tariffs on automotive goods.

I want to take some time to talk a little about my riding. I am from Kitchener South—Hespeler. Toyota Motor Manufacturing is within my riding. Not too far down the 401 is another Toyota manufacturing plant, in Woodstock. Between the two plants, they employ 8,000 employees. Just a couple of years back, in 2018, there was a $110-million investment allotted to Toyota through the strategic innovation fund. This helped to support 8,000 jobs, to create 450 new jobs, and will create another 1,000 new co-ops.

Also, in April 2019, Toyota announced it would be building the new Lexus NX and NX hybrid in Cambridge as of 2022. This is the first line of Lexus SUVs that will be built outside of Japan. It is great to see that it will be in my hometown riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler.

The rules of origin are the criteria used to determine whether a good has undergone enough production in the North American region to receive preferential tariff treatment. These rules ensure that the benefits of the agreement go to the North American workers and producers. The final outcome on rules of origin meets Canada's objective and has broad support from all segments of the automotive industry.

However, it was far from clear during the early stages of the negotiations if we would be able to achieve an acceptable outcome. Initially, a series of proposals were put forward that Canada believed would have undermined North American integration in the sector and done lasting damage to automakers and parts producers in Canada and indeed the United States and Mexico. Canada was especially opposed to the proposals that would require every Canadian vehicle exported to the United States to include 50% U.S. content. Canada's position was unequivocal on this point. There were no circumstances under which the proposal would be accepted.

In response, Canada put forward a counter-proposal designed to encourage production and sourcing in North America. These ideas were instrumental in reaching an agreement on new rules of origin, which will incentivize the use of North American-produced materials and support the long-term competitiveness of the North American automotive industry.

In order to benefit from the preferential tariff treatment under the new agreement, automobiles must meet a number of requirements: 75% originating content for the finished automobile and core auto parts like engines, transmissions and bodies; 70% of the steel and aluminum purchased by automakers qualify as originating; and 40% labour value content.

The 70% aluminum and steel requirements did not exist under the original NAFTA. This requirement will apply to all vehicles traded among the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement when the new agreement enters into force. Certain elements of the requirements were expanded upon as a result of the December 10, 2019, amendments to the agreement. After seven years, the steel purchased will have to undergo more manufacturing in North America in order to fulfill the 70% requirement.

In addition, after 10 years the parties will evaluate whether the aluminum requirement needs to be further strengthened in a similar way.

The labour value content provision means that 40% of the value of the vehicle must be from a plant where the workers earn an average wage of $16 U.S. an hour or more. Wages in automobile assembly facilities and parts production plants located in Canada exceed this threshold, which will help improve Canadian automotive manufacturing competitiveness.

Throughout the negotiations, consultations were held with Canadian producers of both vehicles and parts, industry associations and the union that represents Canadian auto workers. All of the proposals put forward by Canada were based on extensive consultations, and the final outcome has the support of Canadian stakeholders.

Regrettably, overshadowing these negotiations were threats by the United States to impose tariffs of up to 25% on automobiles and auto parts imported to the United States. These threats were real, as section 232 of the United States Trade Expansion Act, 1962, provides the means to impose restrictions on those imports that are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security.

The notion that Canadian autos and auto parts could pose a threat to U.S. national security was inconceivable. Canada strongly rejected this notion at all levels. As well, our negotiating team and the media mentioned that it was absurd that Canada was a national security threat to the United States.

At the same time, it was clear that the prospects of a tariff as high as 25% on Canadian automobiles and auto parts would be a significant challenge for Canada-U.S. trade relations and the Canadian economy. As a result, Canada was steadfast in its position that an exemption from section 232 measures on automobiles and auto parts was necessary as part of the negotiations. This exemption was secured through a binding side letter to the new agreement that took effect November 30, 2018.

Should the United States impose section 232 tariffs, the side letter guarantees an exemption from such tariffs for 2.6 million Canadian automobiles annually. It also guarantees an exemption of $32.4 billion worth of Canadian auto parts exported to the United States annually. In addition, the side letter guarantees that Canadian light trucks, such as pickup trucks, are fully exempt from any section 232 tariffs and do not count against the annual exemption of 2.6 million automobiles.

These levels are significantly higher than Canada's exports of automobiles and auto parts to the United States, thereby providing significant room for growth in Canadian production and export of vehicles and parts, even in the event of U.S. section 232 tariffs on these goods.

As a part of the negotiations, Canada also secured a commitment from the United States to provide at least a 60-day exemption to Canada for any future measure under section 232, including for automobiles and auto parts. This side letter also took effect November 30, 2018.

In closing, I will reiterate the importance of Canada's automotive industry to Canada's economy. The sector is heavily integrated within a broader North American economy, and its ability to trade freely in North America is imperative to its success. This is why we worked tirelessly towards achieving outcomes in the new NAFTA in support of this sector. As a result, the future prospects of the Canadian automotive sector are very bright.

The industry is competitive and innovative, the quality of our workforce is second to none, and Canada has preferential market access to the United States, Mexico, Europe and key markets in Asia, together with 14 free trade agreements covering 51 countries that connect us to 1.5 billion consumers worldwide. Canada is the only G7 nation with trade agreements with all other G7 nations. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement is central to Canada's trade with the world, and the automotive sector is central to this agreement.

The new NAFTA maintains tariff-free trade, strengthens the rules of origin and removes the threat of new and prohibitive section 232 measures. It also provides Canadian industry with the stability and market access certainty it needs to grow and continue to provide high-quality, well-paying jobs for tens of thousands of Canadians.

I want to mention that I am very much in support of the bill and I hope other members in the chamber are supportive of it. On average, the Canadian auto sector manufactures one car every 30 seconds, supports over 500,000 jobs and contributes $18 billion annually to our economy.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The problem is that people can make numbers say whatever they want. The 70% everyone is talking about does indeed apply to car parts, but the specifics cover rules of origin for steel. The agreement specifically covers the initial melting and mixing and continues through the coating stage and provides a seven-year compliance horizon. However, there are no specific rules of origin for aluminum used in Mexican-made parts. Clearly workers in the rest of Canada and Quebec's aluminum industry workers are not benefiting to the same degree.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

My French is not very good. I need to practise.

We are protecting 70% of our steel and aluminum. That is better than zero. We were dealing with an administration that imposed section 232 tariffs, which, as I mentioned, was on the grounds that it was in the national security of the United States and that Canada was a threat to the United States. However, they tried to impose a 50% U.S. content on our automobiles. Our negotiating team, along with our government, pushed to ensure that we did not have a requirement for 50% U.S. content.

We export 90% of our vehicles to the United States. We obtained a good deal for Canada. We have a good deal for the automakers here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Green caucus, we are supporting the passage of this revised NAFTA. We see a lot of improvements over the previous NAFTA. For those who have criticisms of NAFTA, we remind people that we do not have a choice in this place between no NAFTA and some other NAFTA; we have a choice between the old one and the improved one. The old one included an energy chapter that was against Canada's interests and the chapter 11 investor-state provisions, which also worked very much against Canada's interests.

I am interested to know if my friend from Kitchener would like to see the improvements made in this CUSMA brought into all our trade agreements so that we could systematically work to remove the investor-state provisions that give foreign corporations rights superior to those granted to Canadian companies.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe part of the member's question was on chapter 19, which was the dispute resolution section. We ensured that we kept that dispute resolution, but in all negotiations, whether with the United States or with other G7 countries, we want to ensure that we are protecting jobs and the economy.

Our Prime Minister has always mentioned that those go hand in hand. We want to make sure that as we move forward, we are creating a greener economy and a brighter economy. Within my riding, Toyota has produced hybrid cars. It is putting more investments into research and development and is looking at ways to have more fuel-efficient vehicles.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the importance of Toyota in his riding. I want to ask him a question about 5G.

One of the things with this agreement is it now means that we can trade equally across the border. Canadians have always done really well if we have a level playing field. Unfortunately, the Americans have been moving ahead with their 5G network. One company alone, T-Mobile, can supply up to 200 million Americans, and now the Liberal government is just dragging its feet on this issue.

To put it into perspective, the 4G network is like driving from Halifax to Vancouver, while 5G is like flying a jet there. If our automotive industries do not have that type of network here, it makes us less competitive.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the Liberal rollout of the 5G network. The Liberals talked a lot about broadband, but they have basically done nothing about it, and if we do not have it, there will be a huge competitive disadvantage between Canada and the United States.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have put a significant amount of investment into broadband, as the member alluded to. We want to make sure that all rural communities have access to the Internet. There should be nowhere in Canada where we do not have access to the Internet.

In terms of 5G, I just heard in a news release that the U.K. has incorporated that technology, or some element to it. For sure, Canada needs to advance in the future, and having 5G would advance our technology and our economy. I cannot comment on it at this point, but I know our government is looking at ensuring that all sectors of our economy and our industry have access to faster networks. That is something we will be looking forward to in the near future.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my colleague, the member for Niagara West.

I did not hesitate to vote in favour of the ways and means motion yesterday, so that I could fulfill my democratic role of debating the new NAFTA.

I am a proud regionalist, and I will fight for all the issues involving my region. I take every opportunity I can to promote the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. I believe in my region and its proud, innovative and welcoming people. These qualities and the know-how we have built up since 1925 enable us to produce the greenest aluminum on the planet today. I will come back to that a little later.

Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean's three economic drivers are forestry, agriculture and aluminum. At my office, we fly the flag of our region, which was unveiled by Monsignor Victor Tremblay on July 4, 1938. The flag has four colours, namely green for the forest, yellow for agriculture, grey for the aluminum industry and red for all the labour of the hard-working local people.

Therefore, I think it is fitting that I am speaking up today to point out the flaws in the new agreement that affect Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

First, I want to point out that there is nothing in the new NAFTA to address the softwood lumber crisis. Will there ever be a solution to this problem? Second, everyone knows that the new NAFTA creates a new breach in supply management. Compensation for farmers and producers following the implementation of the last free trade agreements has been slow in coming. The compensation needs to be paid out quickly.

What is more, we are still waiting for answers regarding gains in market share and sales for the aluminum industry. The government did not conduct any studies to determine what impact the new NAFTA would have on the aluminum industry. We are still waiting.

Since one-third of Canada's aluminum is produced in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, I will use the rest of my time to talk about that subject. I am going to hammer home this message in public, in private, here in the House, in committee and to all the media outlets.

This prowess is made possible by our hydroelectricity, the know-how we have built up since 1925, and our proud, creative and innovative people.

We might think that this argument is enough to ensure the sustainability of our aluminum industry, but it is just a start.

Under the new agreement, the steel used in manufacturing has to be melted and poured in North America, but the agreement does not say that the aluminum has to be smelted and cast in North America. Since we know that there are very few aluminum smelters in the United States and none in Mexico, our workers, processors, consumers and industry are right to be concerned about the traceability of the aluminum. There is a real risk that the aluminum value chain will be outsourced to Mexico, where imports are not as robustly controlled as in Canada.

That is why the Conservative Party suggested that the government bring in an action plan and a timeline of less than a year to ensure the traceability of aluminum on the North American continent. We want the United States and Mexico to apply the same robust controls to their imports as we do here in Canada.

The aluminum market has evolved a great deal since the original NAFTA was implemented. New players who care little about labour standards or environmental considerations have shaken up the market.

The planet needs more Canadian aluminum. We must look beyond the North American market. We need to export more of our aluminum, which, again, is not only the greenest, but is also available in the highest-quality alloys for automotive, aerospace and construction applications.

The government needs to promote our aluminum around the globe, secure new markets and offer strong export programs for our businesses. Aluminum has a bright future. It is abundant and infinitely recyclable. It should be the focus of a federal environmental strategy, or even a supercluster.

The applied research being done at the Aluminium Research Centre at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi is producing results. Aluminum can be used in unexpected ways.

We should be using more aluminum, steel and lumber produced in Canada.

We must consider putting in place, through bilateral agreements, a low-carbon footprint procurement policy in North America. This would result in a more secure North American market because we are the greenest by far. This national environmental strategy must also include aluminum's circular economy. It is estimated that we recycle 40% of aluminum while Sweden recycles 91%. We can do better, and there is a trend towards recycling. An increasing number of aluminum SMEs are recycling.

We are maintaining our leadership position in the aluminum sector thanks to innovation. It is not news to anyone that we must constantly redouble our efforts to remain at the top. In a competitive situation, the next step is always the hardest. We may no longer have the greenest aluminum on the planet or exclusivity for a given alloy.

Investment in research must be maintained, but that is not all. Major investment projects have still not gotten off the ground in our region, and without them we will lose our position as a world leader.

The expertise our workers have been gaining since 1925, as well as their creativity, innovation and commitment to health and safety, have allowed them to be competitive in terms of production costs. However, they cannot compete with foreign markets when it comes to construction costs and delays.

As parliamentarians, we need to have a closer look at this issue in committee and study the possibility of developing programs or easing certain standards in order to be more competitive.

Lastly, fiscal measures have been put in place to stimulate the steel industry and manufacturing sector. While I understand that $2 billion in government assistance will not solve all the problems over the long term, I call on the government to be more transparent regarding that assistance and ensure that SMEs in the aluminum sector get their fair share.

Pre-budget consultations for 2020 are under way. Ultimately, budget 2020 has to respond to this worry of losing our position as a world leader in aluminum. The Conservative Party and I are proposing tangible and constructive solutions to that effect.

The first would be to maintain or increase funding for aluminum research, which benefits our regional university and allows it to thrive.

The second would be to allow accelerated depreciation of capital expenses for the aluminum industry, an effective measure to reduce the uncertainty surrounding any investment plan. I am not saying that this measure will guarantee the arrival of the desired investments that would allow us to maintain our position as world leader, but it would give the industry a serious boost and could eventually secure the status of the aluminum valley in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It would also protect, and even increase, the number of jobs in the aluminum sector. A private company cannot be forced to invest, but we can put in place the winning conditions for it to do so.

The new NAFTA is not perfect, especially for the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. However, as I said to every government minister while congratulating them on their portfolios, I am open to working with the minority government not only in the national interest, but also in the interest of my constituents.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's thoughtful speech. I was reviewing the challenges we faced in the negotiations of supply management in NAFTA and how difficult it was to get the supply management that the U.S. wanted to dismantle.

Would the member not agree that the new agreement, CUSMA, would protect our farmers and give them access to more diverse markets and increase our existing trade with the U.S., at $63 billion, and Mexico, at $4.6 billion? Are our farmers not satisfied with the supply management we have protected?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

One thing is certain, farmers in our agricultural industry have been complaining about compensation being very slow in coming. They are really unhappy about that.

What is more, the agreements are not really fair, in my opinion. Our farmers find it very difficult to get their products across the border, while farmers on the other side of the border can easily bring their products into Canada. Our farmers will therefore not gain any advantage, and they are very disappointed. They are hoping to be compensated at some point. Once again, the compensation has been very slow in coming, and many farmers have not received any compensation.

Let us hope that improves. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord will see to it and will pressure the government to make that happen.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on his speech.

I have to admit that I was a bit concerned yesterday. I was wondering whether he still supported the aluminum industry because, as everyone knows, a large group of protestors came here to the House of Commons yesterday. An MP from Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean was not here, and that was the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I would therefore like to know whether he still wants to be part of the group of people from Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean who want aluminum to gain the same status as steel.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière.

I am very happy that we are working as a team for the same cause. Everyone knows that aluminum is extremely important to our ridings and our region of Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean.

My colleagues from Jonquière and Lac-Saint-Jean are new, and I am very happy that they were elected. However, they should realize that I was here first and that we have put in a lot of effort working with the government, with the minister's office, to find solutions that could help us and the industry. We put forward a number of proposals.

I am very pleased today to see that my colleagues are following my lead. Their maiden speeches sound much like ours, which really makes me happy. This team work is important.

I want to talk about our action plan. Our proposals to the government included an action plan and a timeline of less than a year to ensure that aluminum can be tracked across North America. We proposed that the United States and Mexico should implement the same strict controls on their imports as we do in Canada. My colleagues are with me on that one, which I am happy to hear. We also proposed that there should be more transparency regarding the $2 billion in assistance used—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Time is short. We have just enough time for a third question.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of North Island—Powell River there are multiple dairy farms. I have spent a lot of time on farms talking to farmers about their challenges. I know that one of the biggest losers in this trade agreement is supply management in the dairy sector.

Along with the concessions of CETA and the CPTPP, this latest hit means a 10% loss of market share for our Canadian producers.

Does the member's party support supply management? What concerns does he have for this industry that is so important to our communities?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, supply management is extremely important. It keeps our farmers in the market. However, we have to say that our farmers are currently very disappointed with the negotiations. They are extremely unhappy and disappointed. As I said, they believe that there are certain things in this agreement that are extremely vague. They had difficulty getting their compensation for the trans-Pacific partnership and are still wondering how this compensation will be paid out. There is no mechanism at present to provide them with any form of reassurance.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on a subject that I have been involved in, especially in my previous role as the shadow minister for international trade, and also as a passionate supporter of free trade.

I am well acquainted with the benefits of trade with the United States. I represent a southern Ontario riding that is very close to the border. We have many successful companies in Niagara West that do a significant amount of business not only with the United States but also throughout the world. I met personally with those business owners and operators, and their companies are world class and full of potential. They provide communities with excellent jobs and economic development.

These business owners are asking for the certainty that free trade agreements provide. Free trade is essential to our country. One in five Canadian jobs is created as a result of free trade agreements. I also believe that members of the Conservative Party are the strongest supporters of free trade. We really are the party of free trade.

The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, the trans-Pacific partnership, and the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement were largely negotiated by Conservative governments.

Conservatives negotiated these deals to remove tariffs and quotas, and to eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade. Free trade agreements improve transparency, predictability, certainty and fairness to exporters. I believe all members in this chamber would agree that free trade agreements open markets for Canadian businesses, including small to medium-sized enterprises.

This is why it was so concerning when the United States announced that NAFTA would be renegotiated. The uncertainty had a ripple effect through virtually all Canadian industries that do business with American clients and purchasers. Why did the uncertainty cause so much anxiety in our business community? The short answer is that we are very dependent on one another.

Total merchandise trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled since 1993, and it has grown over ninefold between Canada and Mexico. In fact, 75% of total Canadian exports go to the United States and roughly 3% go to Mexico. All told, the total trilateral merchandise trade, the total of each country's imports from one another, has reached nearly $1.1 trillion U.S.

This is a tremendous amount of business that more than 1.9 million Canadian jobs depend on. The lack of certainty over the status of the renegotiation of NAFTA caused a reduction of business investment, which I think has been well documented, particularly in Canada. Some companies moved to the United States to offset potential losses while also directing their investments to the United States.

I saw the impact of this uncertainty when I did the “defend local jobs” tour from July to September 2018. During that time, I met with over 150 businesses, trade organizations and chambers. In Ontario, I attended round tables and meetings in London, Brantford, Kitchener, Welland, Niagara Falls, Beamsville, Orillia, Windsor and Toronto.

I went to Vancouver, where the BC Chamber of Commerce organized a round table with their members, as well as Kitimat, where I met with LNG Canada. In Alberta I met with business owners in Edmonton, Calgary and Leduc, where I saw first-hand the effects of the government's misguided policies and the anger that these policies were producing.

I did that tour to see first-hand the effects of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and to bring those concerns back to Parliament. I also brought back the personal accounts of business owners of how the uncertainty created by the renegotiation of NAFTA was impacting business operations. What I heard at the time was very worrisome. Stakeholders were asking for immediate support in order to prevent job losses or bankruptcy in the medium or even short term. They wanted to see improvements to Canada's business environment to reduce red tape and enhance our competitiveness. I will get back to Canada's competitiveness shortly, because I believe the government has failed terribly on competitiveness.

On the “defend local jobs” tour I learned that businesses at the time had begun to cut orders, reduce shifts and, in some cases, had even laid off workers. The key word was “uncertainty”. Businesses that had been investing in Canada saw the U.S. as a safer bet because they did not know what was going to happen here.

At the time, businesses impacted by the steel and aluminum tariffs had not yet seen any of the $2 billion in support promised by the government, which was extremely slow to roll out. The Liberals were quick to announce relief, but very slow to roll out any support for our businesses and workers.

Since then, this Liberal government has fumbled the NAFTA file several times. It agreed to many concessions in the renegotiations. Most importantly, I have to mention the concessions the Liberals made with respect to our dairy sector that are particularly damaging.

By the way, there is nothing on softwood lumber, as has been mentioned by other speakers, while the forestry workers are really hurting.

I want to be clear. The Conservatives support and want free trade with the United States. It is no secret that NAFTA is the legacy of the Conservative government, but we must carefully look at the legislation first. Rushing it through would not be wise. After all, when it comes to a trade deal with Canada's largest and most important trade partner, we need to do our due diligence.

I say this because the Liberal government failed to work with us during the negotiation and ratification processes and is now rushing to get this legislation through Parliament, which is not giving us much time to do our homework on it. The government has also failed to provide documents outlining the impacts of the new trade deal despite numerous requests from opposition members. The government does not seem to recognize the realities of the new minority government and is mistaken if it believes we will simply rubber-stamp this deal.

I want to reiterate that doing our due diligence is crucial. We want to ensure there are no surprises that could hurt our businesses and our workers. Hurting businesses and workers has been something the current government knows something about, especially when it comes to competitiveness. According to the World Economic Forum, Canada is now number 14 when it comes to competitiveness. We are behind Singapore, the United States, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, Sweden, the U.K., Denmark, Finland, China and South Korea. This is worrisome news.

The government has put legislation forward for the updated NAFTA, but is keeping Canadian businesses handcuffed with red tape, excessive regulations and high taxes. Just look at what it has done in the west. It has been an absolute travesty. Workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan cannot find jobs for months and some for years because the Liberals have drowned the resource sector in over-regulation, overtaxation and ridiculous amounts of red tape.

Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are the most famous examples of anti-energy legislation passed by the Liberal government. These two bills have done tremendous damage to the economies of our western neighbours. We need the government to finally do something about this. Yes, we need a free trade agreement with the U.S. We absolutely need it. However, if the government continues to stifle the growth of our business sector, including our world-class energy sector, how effective will this trade agreement be when Canadian businesses stall, fail or move south of the border, either to the U.S. or Mexico, because of the government's flawed domestic economic policies? The ill-conceived policies it is putting forward are just recipes for more wasteful spending, more sky-high taxes and more reckless borrowing, all while we are seeing worrying economic signs on the horizon.

The possibility of a made-in-Canada recession is becoming more real. If the government does not believe me, then perhaps it would like to listen to the Wall Street Journal, which stated:

Canadian exports and imports fell steeply in November of 2019, offering fresh evidence the country's economy has hit a rough patch.... The broad-based decline in trade from October [2019] is the latest in a string of disappointing economic indicators, among them a sizable loss of jobs in November and a decline in gross domestic product in October.... Some analysts...indicated the data were symptomatic of a stumbling economy.

What does the government do instead of lowering taxes to stimulate growth and job creation? It is thinking about hiking taxes again. It is looking at the carbon tax hike. It is almost as if it has spent the last four years making life harder and more unaffordable for Canadians.

Canadians should not be punished every time they drive their kids to school or turn up their thermostat on a cold winter day. In my riding of Niagara West, public transportation is almost non-existent. My constituents need to drive to work, drop off and pick up their kids from school, and drive them to hockey practice and all kinds of other activities.

We were very honest with Canadians in the last election. We warned them that the Liberals would raise the carbon tax. The Liberals denied it, but here we are today. They are thinking of raising it and probably will very shortly. This is not good for Canadian families, businesses or our global competitiveness. If they intend to raise the carbon tax, they will finally come clean with Canadians and tell them exactly by how much.

In order to hit our Paris targets they would need to raise it by an additional $50 per tonne. This would increase the price of gasoline by 23¢ a litre. Let us think of what the extra costs would do to job creators, never mind the families with children who have no other option but to drive around. Virtually everything is delivered to our favourite store by truck. The cost on gas will either be absorbed by businesses in order to keep their clients, which may bankrupt some businesses, or it will be passed on to the consumer and increase the price of everything.

In closing, I would like to say that we will carefully look at this legislation. We all owe it to our constituents to do our due diligence and ensure that Canadian workers and job creators will stand to benefit from this new NAFTA.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend on his speech, which did not seem to have too much to do with the subject at hand, but was kind of a litany of every sin known to mankind. I was just wondering which of these following statements he disagrees with.

The Business Council of Canada stated, “We applaud your government’s success in negotiating a comprehensive and high-standard agreement on North American trade.”

Premier Moe of Saskatchewan said that the signed USMCA trade deal is good news for Saskatchewan and Canada.

Premier Kenney tweeted, “Relieved that a renewed North American Trade Agreement has been concluded.”

Possibly I should not mention the Canadian Labour Congress' congratulatory statement. The steel producers, the CSPA, are urging all members of the House of Commons and the Senate to support this bill and swiftly ratify it.

Which of those statements does he disagree with?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will be supporting this. I guess the challenge I have is what I talked about in terms of competitiveness. I think that this is definitely not as good a deal as we could have had. I think everyone admits that we had to take what the U.S. offered to us. They also talk about the fact that Mexico was negotiating with the U.S. while we were not at the table.

I realize the importance of certainty. There is no question about that. We need to have certainty and that is what business organizations have told us. Even if it is a bad deal, we need to make sure that we have the opportunity to solidify what the rules are going to be because it is too unpredictable. When we look at a country like Canada, which takes investments in to make sure that we compete around the world, this certainty is definitely required in order for us to move forward.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to one of my questions, the Prime Minister said that 70% of aluminum was protected under the new agreement, known as CUSMA. Everyone knows that this is not the case. That statement is incorrect. The 70% refers to parts made from aluminum. This means that parts manufacturers can bring in the world's dirtiest aluminum from other countries at a lower price. For the past two months, I have been struggling to get him to see the difference between the protections for steel and the ones for aluminum.

Does my hon. colleague think that the Liberals are acting in bad faith by giving these kinds of answers, or does he think that they simply do not understand the agreement?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to what I originally said. We have been a taker in this agreement. This is what has been dictated to us, so to go around and say that this is a great deal is factually incorrect.

Is it the best deal we could get? I do not know. I guess time will tell.

However, I can assure colleagues of one thing that speaks to the issue I have been talking about, which is competitiveness as a nation. Regardless of the trade deals that we have, if we cannot be competitive at home, which means getting our most economically and environmentally sustainable aluminum to the rest of the world, then we are competing at an unfair disadvantage. These are the things that we need to continue to work on to be competitive at home, so that we do well here at home and around the world.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of North Island—Powell River, one of the biggest concerns folks had around NAFTA was the investor-state provisions that really left Canada in a very weakened space. We were sued again and again by investors.

When we look at these, we see they were negotiated by a Conservative government. It is hard for me to be complimentary. Actually, those who I should be most complimentary to, of course, would be the Democrats in the United States. The reality is that in this agreement the investor-state provisions are not there.

I am wondering if the hon. member could share his thoughts with us on that.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I think one of the things that we need to continually focus on here in Canada is competitiveness. That includes a whole range of issues, as I have said.

Part of the challenge we have is that we compete in a global economy. If we are paying more for energy, if we are not mobilizing and getting the most out of our workforce, if we are not treating people, in terms of education and being able to get the jobs that they need to do, then all of these things factor into our competitiveness. Taxes play into that, as well as trade deals, and all of those other kinds of things.

I would just say that we still need to continue, even with deals like this, to work on our competitiveness domestically so that we compete globally and around the world.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, International Trade.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

As this is the first time I am rising in the House in the 43rd Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to thank the wonderful constituents of Long Range Mountains for re-electing me and returning me to this place to work on their behalf. The support from each and every community, of which I have well over 200, is greatly appreciated. To my many volunteers, friends, and most of all my family, my heartfelt thanks.

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker and all of my colleagues in the House, on being elected. Working together, we can accomplish so much for this magnificent country we are blessed to call home.

I am pleased today to speak about the new Canada-United States-Mexico agreement and highlight its benefits for Canada's agriculture and agri-food industries.

In my riding of Long Range Mountains, along the western coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, one will find dairy and beef cattle farms and sheep and goat farms of all sizes. All of these are found in the rural parts of my riding and they are a mixture of small family-run businesses and large enterprises.

One will find as well innovative produce and grain growers, many using hydroponic techniques and environmentally friendly practices. Of course the fishery is a traditional and vital part of my riding and my province, and both the fishers and the fish processors are excited about this new trade deal and the benefit it will have in my riding and the country.

Our farmers and food processors not only put food on our tables, they drive our economy. They contributed over $68.6 billion to our gross domestic food product in 2018 and $61.6 billion in agricultural exports. They contributed over $13.4 billion to our trade balance and they supported over 550,000 jobs in agriculture and agri-food in 2018 alone. The majority of those jobs are in rural Canada.

The government's ambitious agenda for agriculture includes a strong focus on trade. Canada has always been a trading nation, and our farmers depend on trade. They export about half of the value of their production. Canadian canola and soybean growers depend on trade for 80% of their sales. Wheat growers export 70% of their product and pork producers 67%. That is why we can and must engage in international trade, and that is why our government has big plans for agricultural trade.

Our exports hit a new record in 2018, but we are not stopping there. We have set our sights on $75 billion in agricultural exports by 2025. The report of the agri-food economic strategy table has challenged us to think even bigger, proposing a target of $85 billion.

To help us get there, over the last five years the government has concluded and implemented two major trade deals: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, CETA, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP. Together these gold standard agreements have opened new markets for our farmers and food processors. These agreements are part of our government's strong strategy to strengthen and diversify our trade.

CETA has been provisionally applied since September 2017. Canadian farmers and food processors are already taking advantage of access to the world's single largest market for food.

A second major milestone in trade was the one-year anniversary of the CPTPP on December 30, 2019. The CPTPP strengthens and diversifies Canada's trade and investment position with some of the world's fastest-growing economies. A wide range of Canadian agriculture and agri-food products are already benefiting from reduced tariffs, from pork to beef, blueberries to icewine, canola to pulses, and lobster to salmon.

Our government pushed hard for Canada to be among the first six nations to ratify this landmark agreement. That means Canadian farmers will be among the first to benefit from new sales in the CPTPP countries. For example, our wheat growers are now able to take advantage of Japan's Canada-specific quota for food wheat.

While it is still too early to measure the full impact of the CPTPP, early signs of success are evident. For example, Canadian exports of pork to Japan increased by 10.8% and exports of beef grew by 68% during the first 11 months of the CPTPP alone. That is an incredible increase.

While diversifying our agricultural trade, we are also securing our business with our largest trading partner through the new NAFTA. The North American trading zone is vital for our farmers and our food processors.

Under the 25 years of NAFTA, our nominal GDP has tripled. Meanwhile, agricultural and food trade in the North American region has risen to a value of $100 billion U.S. That is just about $275 million each and every day.

The new NAFTA means stability and security for our farmers and food processors when they are trading with their largest customer, and it means a strong foundation for growth in the future and growth in rural Canada. With this new agreement, we have maintained the tariff-free access to the U.S. market for Canadian exports that we enjoyed under NAFTA.

For our farmers and food processors, the new agreement will help secure $30 billion in agricultural exports to the United States alone. The new NAFTA will modernize, stabilize and re-energize our continental trading partnership, and it will drive even further integration of our North American supply chains.

Under the new agreement, access for Canadian refined sugar into the U.S. market will almost double. That is great news for our sugar industry, especially our sugar beet producers, who are looking to expand access for their high-quality sugar, which is 100% Canadian-grown and processed.

For our world-class wines and spirits industry, the new NAFTA provides for protection of Canadian whisky as a distinct product of Canada. It also protects the definition and traditional production method of authentic icewines. As well, Canadian wineries and distilleries retain the authority to sell only their own products on site.

Our new NAFTA is forward-looking. It will ensure our farmers have access to current technologies and will also benefit from future innovations in biotechnology. The agreement will encourage both innovation and trade in North America by mandating practical and trade-friendly approaches to getting safe agricultural biotech products to market.

There is a requirement for more transparent regulations for current and future agricultural biotech products, so everyone knows what requires approval and how to obtain that approval. As well, there is a provision to drive greater co-operation on agricultural biotechnology on the global stage, as North America will lead by example.

The new NAFTA will set the stage for further growth and help our agri-food industry keep a step ahead of the competition as we get ready to feed the world.

Throughout the negotiations, our government worked extremely hard to advance the interests of Canadian farmers and food businesses. We know that they are key economic drivers for this country. We know they create well-paying jobs, particularly in our rural communities. Over two million jobs in Canada depend on trade with the United States.

The agreement provides increased market access for the U.S. into Canada for dairy, poultry and eggs, but most importantly, maintains the three pillars of the supply management system: production controls, price controls and import controls. It is important to remember that the U.S. administration was calling for the abolition of this, but we know how important supply management is to our agriculture industry. Our government has pledged to fully and fairly support our dairy, poultry and egg producers.

Furthermore, successful trade depends on successful trade routes. That is why our government invested $10 billion in trade and transportation corridors to help get agri-food products to market. We enacted the Transportation Modernization Act. This legislation is delivering a more transparent, fair and efficient freight system that includes a number of new tools to support the grain industry. It is a long-term solution to help farmers get their products to market in a safe and timely manner.

Our government has strong and ambitious growth plans for our agriculture and food industry. Together, we will give our farmers and food processors a competitive edge in two-thirds of the global economy, and the future is bright.

I am confident hon. members will join me to support this bill.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech, which was lovely. I congratulate her on her election and her appointment.

I have been trying to get an answer all week, so I will try to ask a very simple question in hopes of getting a very simple answer. Thus far, the Liberals have been telling me that they thought steel and aluminum had the same protections when the agreement was signed.

Does my hon. colleague on the other side of the House think that steel and aluminum were given the same treatment when this agreement was signed?

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon. colleague from across the way to this House for great debate and discussion.

The focus of my conversation today in debate was on agriculture, but I know members heard the minister today, and we will make sure that aluminum and steel are looked after in this way forward with the new NAFTA.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my ears perked up when the member talked about Canadian whisky. Shelter Point Distillery in my riding makes some of the best whisky in the world. Recently, in Canada, they won several awards. I am really impressed with their product, and they are doing a great job. It is good to see that is going to be protected.

However, as the whole NAFTA process unfolded, we were told, “NAFTA is good; hopefully, we will not have to negotiate, and it is the best deal.” Then we had CUSMA come back to us and we were told that was the best deal we could get. The NDP was very clear: “Let's send this back and see what can happen with the U.S. Democrats”, and they were not interested in that.

Now, here we are again. Finally it has been fixed by the U.S. Democrats, and we are here again, hearing that it is the best deal ever. I wonder at what point do we measure, and how do Canadians measure, what the best deal is, ever.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we also have some incredible distilleries. Maybe we will have to bring up some samples sometime. As a matter of fact, we have one that is based on seaweed.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. colleague has left the House, but I look forward to working with her on the new NAFTA, which has been ratified and supported by many people.

Bruce Heyman, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada said that:

Canada should be especially pleased with [the new agreement]. [It is] a really good deal....Every so often you're able to come out with what I call 'win-win-win' solutions, and this is it. We're here.

I would like to take the advice of the past U.S. ambassador and listen to Mr. Heyman.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the member's speech that she mentioned the importance of the fishery to her riding. I would like to expand on that, as it is so important to the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador. She said that this deal had great benefits for the fishery, which is the economic driver in just about all of our communities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I wonder if the member could comment further on that aspect of the agreement.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the member for Avalon. We share a passion not only for the fishery but also for our province.

Some folks might not realize that Canada exports nearly $4.3 billion worth of seafood every year to the U.S. market. That is 62% of all exports from that sector. Therefore, a stable and protectable tariff-free arrangement is critical to maintaining the growth of those exports, especially from Atlantic Canada.

This will have significant benefits in coastal and rural communities where processing facilities are situated. I know that the lobster and snow crab fishers and the processing companies are excited about the benefits and the stability that this new trade agreement will allow.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to participate in this historic debate. I want to start by congratulating the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the former leader of the official opposition, all of whom have made significant contributions to getting this agreement to the place it is now, and indeed all colleagues, particularly colleagues who were part of the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group led by the hon. member for Malpeque. Indeed, all of us were down to Congress many times in many senators' and congressmen's offices to extol the virtues of an agreement. It really was a team Canada approach, and I think all members should see themselves in this agreement as we debate it and ultimately, I hope, ratify it.

I want to take a slightly different approach to this agreement and talk about its security benefits. It is trite but true that countries that trade together do not very often go against each other in war or any other form of conflict. If I may, I would like to take these few moments to talk about the security element that is generated by virtue of this agreement and other agreements.

We in Canada are extremely fortunate. Possibly the public and even members in the House do not realize how fortunate we are to have a European trade agreement. We also have a Pacific trade agreement and we are about to have a North American trade agreement. That is 1.4 billion customers we have access to in those markets in 41 countries. I dare say there is no other country in the world that can claim such privileged access to such a large pool of customers.

Of course, it is up to us to take advantage of not only the North American agreement but the European and Pacific agreements as well. There are 1.4 billion customers, and we should look at these customers not only as trading partners but also as allies. That gives us, without going into the business of NATO or anywhere else, 41 new allies. Those allies provide us with a level of security that we have not enjoyed for a long time.

I contrast that with, say, Russia. Who can Russia say is an ally? Maybe Belarus, Kazakhstan, Syria, or Iran. These are maybe not the A-list of allies that one would want. Then there is China. Who can say who is actually China's ally? Possibly it is North Korea. It may not be the most reliable ally that China has ever had.

We can contrast that with these three agreements taken collectively, whereby in effect we put together not just 41 trading partners but 41 allies. That is all to our collective security. The collateral benefit of this trade agreement is clearly security. In fact, the two are mutually reinforcing, because security creates trade and trade creates security. These trading alliances are huge assets to Canada.

Some would argue that trade comes first and security follows, and they point to the Auto Pact, to the first free trade agreement, to NAFTA 1.0 and now the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade deal. I would like to suggest that actually security came before trade. I will go back 80 years, and I know as soon as I say that, someone starts to nod off, because not a lot of people appreciate history. However, I direct members' attention to a meeting between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Mackenzie King in Ogdensburg, New York, where the two leaders negotiated a security arrangement for North America known as the Permanent Joint Board on Defence.

From that agreement, the entire security architecture of Canada and North America was revamped. In 1941, we were in the middle of World War II. At the time the prime minister and the president were meeting with each other, the Battle of Britain was taking place, and at that point there was no assurance that Britain would emerge from the battle as the victor. In that context and at that time, there was enormous resistance by the American public, particularly led by the ambassador to Great Britain, Joe Kennedy, to engaging in any European conflict, let alone another war, yet President Roosevelt realized that North America was a vulnerable space. It was vulnerable on the Pacific side and it was vulnerable on the Atlantic side.

Prime Minister Mackenzie King was in a very delicate position because he realized that while we were going to continue to be allies of Great Britain and continue the fight, the shifting of empires was pretty obvious. We were going to be taking ourselves out from the security blanket of the British Empire and placing ourselves in the security blanket of the emergent American empire. That has been our security reality for the last 60 or 70 years.

Out of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, a number of real decisions were made which continue to this day. Gander airport, for instance, was developed as a military airport. It existed prior to the war, but it was really enhanced over the course of the war. That was a result of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. The Alaska Highway was a result of the Americans' concern that the Japanese might come in through the west coast of Canada and separate Alaska from the continental United States.

There were quite a number of other institutions and military-to-military arrangements that were made, the most significant of which is NORAD. NORAD is clearly our most significant military treaty, and it was a direct result of the negotiations between Prime Minister Mackenzie King and President Roosevelt. Hence, we created a security environment, and that security environment, in turn, led to the Auto Pact. That, in turn, led to the first free trade agreement with the United States. That, in turn, led to the first NAFTA. That, in turn, leads to where we are today, because nations that have good security also have good trade, and those that have good trade generally have good security.

Prime Minister Mulroney used to say that job one of any prime minister is to manage the U.S. relationship. There is great truth in that statement. I want to just recognize that in very difficult circumstances, our Prime Minister has managed this relationship as well as it can be managed; hence, we are here today with an agreement that many members of this House will be able to sign onto in good conscience.

The other consequence of this agreement was that we have preferred nation status with respect to military procurement. In military procurement, we are treated as a domestic supplier. Similarly, we treat the Americans as domestic suppliers. That has relevance to the peripheral debate about aluminum and steel in particular. That is what was so silly about the section 232 tariffs. We are effectively making each other's military security more expensive. That is the difficulty with tariffs.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. However, in my judgment, the next most important treaty to be renegotiated is the NORAD treaty, because, as I say, good security makes for good trade and good trade makes for good security.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend from Scarborough—Guildwood on his re-election. He is one of the senior members of this House, and his constituents obviously love him because they vote him in over and over again. It is good to see him in this Parliament. I must say that his ties are getting much better too.

I listened to the member's speech and I am in agreement with him that the link between these trade agreements and security is extremely important. I am also in very strong agreement that the NORAD treaty is very important to us. He also talked about the importance of economic collaboration in our manufacturing and defence sectors, especially in supply chains.

In business, we are seeing the importance of being connected internationally, and I want to talk about the 5G network. The Americans seem to be very far ahead of us, and we will be in a trade agreement through which there will be easy flow back and forth. I am wondering if the member could explain to the House the importance of moving forward with this 5G network, and whether he has any insight into the government's plan for implementing one here in Canada and the date that it would be functional.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oshawa for his kind remarks. It is probably the last time that it will happen in the House.

With respect to the 5G network and in particular a decision about Huawei, the Americans have taken a very clear position and have said that this will not happen. We, of course, are in the Five Eyes. The British have arrived at another decision. They feel they can secure critical infrastructure while still using the Huawei 5G network, while the Australians and New Zealanders have been very firm about not going to 5G.

That decision will have to be taken sooner rather than later. I hope we will all have some significant input into that decision, but I do know that it is before the minister as we speak.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He talked about national security and the importance of the auto industry, but how does CUSMA protect industries that are important to Quebec, such as supply-managed agriculture and aluminum?

Other provinces may benefit, but Quebec is once again left behind in this agreement.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would defer to the opinion of Premier Legault, which is to the effect that this agreement needs to be signed sooner rather than later. I believe he has done an analysis of all the sectors that affect Quebec. The protection of the dairy industry, in particular, is critical. The hon. member will recall the assiduousness with which the president wanted to dismantle it. The government has done a magnificent job of protecting the supply chains.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I enjoyed his history lesson on security. My question is about another aspect of security, namely food safety.

Opening up our markets is great, but what assurances do we have that other countries will apply the same standards as we do here on our products? In the dairy industry, for example, our neighbours to the south allow the use of hormones that are banned in Canada. When it comes to food safety, I have questions, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this issue.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's raising that question, to which I do not have a specific answer. I do know that there are all kinds of chapters that go to each level of negotiation, and the inconsistencies are generally resolved between the trade negotiators. I expect that food safety will be the paramount intention of any negotiation on the part of our government.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed the House on a few occasions, but always during oral question period. Therefore, I have not yet had an opportunity to thank the people of Jonquière for electing me. I am pleased to stand up for them here, although today's circumstances are quite unfortunate, since my riding relies mainly on aluminum. However, let me stress that I will always be there for my riding and that I intend to see this little battle over aluminum through to the end.

Before I begin, I would like to give some background on Quebec's economy, to put the free trade agreement into perspective. As we know, Canada is an oil-producing country. The Canadian economy is driven by two major sectors, namely Ontario's automotive industry and Alberta's oil industry. Members will recall that Ontario received $10 billion in financial support in 2008 to help it overcome the financial crisis.

Alberta, meanwhile, has been struggling to make tar sands oil profitable. From the 1970s to the early 2000s, that sector received about $70 billion, which is a huge amount of money. At the time, Jean Chrétien mused that, if he had invested as much money in Quebec as in Alberta, Quebec would have elected Liberal members in every riding and would have been red all over.

Quebec has seen no economic spinoffs from the oil sands. In fact, for Quebeckers, it was like an own goal, because our manufacturing industry was completely destabilized by Dutch disease, when the dollar rose because of the oil sands industry, resulting in heavy job losses.

Everyone knows that, for the past 25 years, Quebec has not been considered in Canada's economic policy. Quebec's economy depends on three sectors, and I am sure everyone knows what they are.

The first is forestry, of course, a sector that has gone through crisis after crisis and is in crisis again. The new NAFTA does nothing to support forestry.

The second is supply management, which has been compromised repeatedly. When the Conservatives negotiated the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, they severely weakened supply management.

The third, which we are talking about today, is aluminum. If I were not such a nice guy, I would say enough already. We have had it up to here.

For 20 years now, Quebec has been the one to suffer in any negotiations involving the federal government. Canada is an oil-producing country that is moving in the opposite direction of every other country on the planet. By all accounts, even the economic indicators used in Canada, the best thing to do is to shift to renewable and transitional energy sources.

Today in Canada, we have the issue of the Teck Frontier project, which I see as completely unacceptable and frankly insane. That project would increase greenhouse gas emissions by four million tonnes a year and make it impossible for Canada to meet its Paris targets. It is going to take a major wake-up call to free Canada's economy from its dependence on these two key sectors, which, in my opinion, is paralyzing Quebec's economy.

Now that I have given a brief history of Canada's economy, I would like to come back to what has happened in the past few weeks. Before the holiday break, we learned that aluminum would be sacrificed in the new NAFTA. Oddly enough, we were told that aluminum had been protected until the end of the negotiations, but that two days before the agreement was ratified, Mexico put the pressure on. We do not know why the Canadian government decided to abandon aluminum workers. We asked many questions about this. We asked the government why it decided to give the steel industry a guarantee while abandoning the aluminum industry.

The government has not responded, so I will try to answer. The fact that 90% of Canadian aluminum is produced in Quebec may be a clue. The steel industry is concentrated in Ontario. Ninety per cent of Canada's aluminum is produced in Quebec, and 10% is produced in British Columbia. Quebec's market is the U.S., but B.C.'s market is Asia.

British Columbia is not affected by the agreement that the government just signed. Its aluminum industry is not affected because it will be able to continue to export its aluminum to Asia on an ongoing basis. The only ones affected are us. Again. When all these things are taken together, a man starts to get fed up, as my father used to say. Today, I get the impression that we need to re-establish the balance of power in the House so that Quebec's voice is heard. We need to make MPs aware of the situation so that cabinet listens to Quebec's concerns. I get the impression that such has not been the case for some time now.

Our situation is unique. Economically speaking, we are, to some extent, the disadvantaged of this federation. In recent weeks, we have wanted to show the government the real impacts that the new NAFTA will have on the aluminum industry. In order to do that, people from my region formed a huge coalition of municipal officials, union representatives, aluminum experts and business people. All of those people decided to come here to make MPs aware of our situation. People from the region really rallied together. They travelled here this week. They came with the numbers that I will talk about momentarily, which are accurate and credible. The methodology of their study is ironclad. I will talk about that in a moment.

The thing no one has been talking about all week is the fact that when the first NAFTA was signed in 1994, one of biggest aluminum producers in the world was Canada, and Canada's aluminum came from Quebec. The biggest aluminum producer was Canada and China played a marginal role. Today, China produces 15 times as much aluminum as Canada. China has no problem inundating the North American market via Mexico, completely burying every effort we have made in the past 20 years to maintain this aluminum cluster in my region. It is easy for China because they are getting help from the Canadian government, it seems to me. All we ever wanted is for the government to admit that aluminum was not getting the same treatment as steel. We asked about that again in question period today. We get the same answer every time, that 70% of auto parts manufactured in North America will have to be produced in North America. If that is satisfactory to the government, then I fail to understand why it gave steel special status. Why does this special status not apply to aluminum?

My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean had the wonderful idea of explaining the difference between parts made of steel and parts made of aluminum to his eight-year-old daughter, Simone. With the wisdom and insight of her eight years, Simone came to understand the difference. Maybe the government should have a discussion with Simone in the next few weeks. Maybe it will come to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I want to come back to this unprecedented mobilization. We must understand that, in Quebec, six major projects to expand aluminum smelters are currently on ice. As soon as Rio Tinto Alcan found out what was in the agreement, they announced that, in their opinion, market conditions were not good enough to go ahead. We wanted to know what the impact of scrapping these six major projects would be. To me, the numbers are quite astounding. For the construction phase alone, we are talking about $6.242 billion. To this amount, we must add the 10-year period during which the aluminum smelters will be operating. That comes to a staggering $16.242 billion. This means that, for the period from 2020 to 2029, Quebec will have to miss out on $16.242 billion.

Why is Quebec going to miss out on that money? Because the federal government did not want to fight for aluminum. It is déjà vu all over again. The government wanted to save Ontario's steel industry and the auto industry. Now it is moving surprisingly quickly to save Alberta's oil industry by buying a pipeline that is not viable. When it is our turn, all we get is crickets because everyone has left the building.

Sixteen billion, two hundred and forty-two million dollars over the next 10 years is going to make a significant dent. It is going to put 60,000 jobs in jeopardy.

Today, one of the members opposite was bragging about how his government created wealth for the middle class, reduced unemployment and raised the standard of living. The government may have done that for the rest of Canada, but it is definitely not doing that for Quebec. Even with 60,000 jobs at stake, the government does not seem to care.

The government said in the throne speech that it was open to dialogue with the opposition. We are open to discussion. Unlike what some members claim, we are not against free trade. Far from it. We want to ensure respect for the economic sectors that make Quebec strong. In recent years, this respect has unfortunately been lacking. Any negotiation should start with consideration for Quebec's economic sectors.

I mentioned the staggering figures of $16 billion and 60,000 jobs. As members can see, without access to a guaranteed market, Quebec's economy will experience a slump over the long term, and the aluminum industry will slowly collapse, or even disappear, in the face of China's massive output.

The government also said in its throne speech that the environment was a priority. If the environment is one of the government's priorities, it has no choice but to support the aluminum industry. The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec produces the greenest aluminum in the world. Elysis has developed technology to produce carbon-neutral aluminum.

On one hand, we are talking about carbon neutral aluminum with Elysis in Quebec and, on the other, we are talking about 4 million tonnes of GHG emissions with the Teck Resources Frontier project. Even if an alien arrived in Canada and was presented with these statistics, the choice would be easy.

We need access to the aluminum market. That seems essential, but the new NAFTA does not allow for that because it allows China to dump its aluminum.

The United States recognized that China is dumping its aluminum through Mexico. Canada recognized that China is dumping its aluminum through Mexico. We are not making this up. It is a proven fact.

How can we address this situation? Quebec aluminum needs to be granted the same coverage as Ontario steel.

Expanding an aluminum plant is not something that happens without big investments. In order for those big investments to happen, the main producers are always saying that they need a certain amount of predictability in the market. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that predictability. What we have been saying to date is that we unfortunately had to vote against the government's ways and means motion. It was unacceptable to us because it did not recognize aluminum.

We in the Bloc Québécois are not just looking for confrontation, but also co-operation. We want to find solutions with the government. However, for us to work together, we must speak the same language. That means recognizing the wrongs. To date the government has refused, at least in question period, to acknowledge that it has sacrificed aluminum and that aluminum does not have the same status as steel. Perhaps a good starting point for discussion would be this acknowledgement on the part of the government. It is sometimes said that it takes two to tango. We are open to discussion. I hope the government will be as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while my hon. colleague was talking, I was thinking about the beautiful Saguenay region and the Alcan Rio Tinto plants being up there because of the hydroelectricity. The hydroelectricity is there because of the beautiful rivers and the nature that surrounds that region.

I am thinking of the aluminum coming from Quebec to Ontario to the auto manufacturers and the agreement that was presented to us by the negotiators a few nights ago. All parties were able to be at a meeting where they told us that the regional value content threshold of cars has gone from 62% to 75%. This means the content of the goods and services going into the cars has to come from the North American region.

The stronger regional content is going to protect jobs in Quebec. Seventy per cent of the aluminum and 70% of the steel have to come from within our region. Where else is one going to get aluminum in North America, other than Quebec? One could go to British Columbia, but that is a long way from Ontario. The partnerships we have in place have only been strengthened because of this agreement.

The new labour content would require a minimum of $16 per hour, and there are safety provisions for the plants where the labour is carried out.

I think we are protecting Canadian jobs. We are protecting jobs in Quebec. The hon. member is not realizing that the change from 62% to 75% includes components from Quebec. Could the hon. member comment on that? Was he at the briefing the other night?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that repeating a lie does not make it true.

The aluminum sector has not been protected. Let me point out again that it seems to me that the 70% of auto parts was mentioned because the idea is to protect the automotive industry, not the aluminum industry. Those parts may be made from aluminum that comes from Mexico, which is already the case. If my colleague wishes, I will provide him with a nice chart from Radio-Canada showing the surge in imports of aluminum auto parts from Mexico over the past two or three years.

I would also like to tell my colleague that in Alma, in my region, a project for a billet plant was proposed and the groundwork was already done. However, everything was left unfinished. The proponents changed their minds, and the investments were cancelled. The reason the proponents changed their minds midstream was that the market is not in our favour right now because China is being allowed to dump aluminum.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share some of the thoughts that I have about the agreement.

We need trade agreements that have enforceable protections for workers, the environment, the rights of indigenous peoples and women. We need trade agreements and processes in Canada that make government more accountable and allow all parliamentarians to play a greater role in this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I will just interrupt the hon. member, as I am not too sure if she is posing a question or a comment for the hon. member for Jonquière. Is that the intention?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Good. I just was not sure whether she was starting into some remarks pertaining to the question that is before the House. I will let her go ahead and finish her comments, and then we will go back to the hon. member for Jonquière.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during the agreement, the Liberals have over-promised and under-delivered in terms of holding consultations and working with all parliamentarians in a meaningful, comprehensive and public way.

Even though I would agree that there have been some positive amendments with the new NAFTA, there continues to be this disturbing trend in trade agreements of giving more rights or favouring the privilege of corporations rather than real people, the environment, the rights of indigenous peoples and women.

Trade agreements should always guarantee—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The time is limited. We have about a 10-minute period for questions and comments, which we open up to other members.

I will say that certainly members can pose comments or questions to the hon. member. We will take what the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has said as a comment.

The hon. member for Jonquière can now respond to the comments.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I also care about indigenous communities. Canada is made up of three nations, namely the Canadian nation, the Quebec nation and the indigenous nation. Unfortunately, the indigenous and Quebec nations are often left out of multilateral agreements.

I agree with her that indigenous nations deserve better care, especially considering completely insane projects like Teck Resources' Frontier project, which indigenous communities oppose, though they are going unheeded.

[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 was listening very closely to what the member for Jonquière was saying. I take a different approach in the sense that on this side of the House, Liberal members of Parliament advocate for all regions of the country. We see the benefits of this trade agreement universally applied to all regions of the country. At no point in time would this government ever consider taking an area and writing it off in any fashion whatsoever.

The Premier of Quebec is encouraging members from the Bloc to support this agreement, recognizing the value of this agreement to Canada and particularly the province of Quebec.

Is the Premier of Quebec wrong in advocating that we pass this legislation?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding to hear the member opposite refer to the Premier of Quebec, because it is probably the first time he has ever listened to him. My colleague has selective hearing. He only hears what the Premier of Quebec says when it suits him.

I could also point out that the Premier of Quebec is asking for a single tax return. In addition, he is asking for an increase in health care funding, which is something the government has been refusing to do for years, and it is a disaster in Canada. This is what we call fiscal imbalance.

The federal government has a much broader tax base than the provinces, it does not spend as much, and it constantly balances its budget by reducing transfer payments to the provinces.

That would be a good start. If the government does that, I might consider voting for the project.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a section on indigenous peoples that was presented to us a few nights ago by the panel that was negotiating on behalf of all Canadians, including indigenous peoples.

This agreement does have government procurement protections for indigenous-owned businesses and enterprises, outcomes around the environment, protecting the role of indigenous peoples and protecting our environment. The sections are in there, and I really wish that the hon. member across the way could refer to those sections when he is speaking in the House.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's point of view very interesting.

I have taken a closer look at the sections he mentioned and I even think that some could be added. We do not have to just look at the first nations in the negotiations. We could also look at the Quebec nation, and perhaps add certain provisions that would respect Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and Quebec's unique economic sectors. My colleague makes a good suggestion. I thank him for that.

[William Amos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the benefits of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement for all Canadians, and particularly the benefits for the province of Quebec. I am happy to be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Laurent.

For over a year, Canada fought hard while negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. I would actually like to congratulate the negotiators. All of Canada's negotiators are incredible. They successfully managed an extremely complex file and all kinds of political surprises. We knew how important it was to get an agreement that is good, not only for Canadian workers but also for Canadian businesses and our communities, both rural and urban. We did everything in our power to protect jobs, create more opportunities for Canadian workers and their families, and ensure economic growth. We wanted a progressive agreement in terms of the environment and labour.

This paid off for the farmers of the Pontiac and the Gatineau Valley, the forestry workers in Maniwaki and the entrepreneurs in Gatineau, Shawville and Val-des-Monts. The new agreement will benefit not only the people of the Pontiac, but also Quebeckers and Canadians across the country.

In the agriculture sector, Canadian exports will continue to benefit from duty-free access for nearly 89% of U.S. agriculture tariff lines and 91% of Mexican tariff lines, which is extremely important to Canadian exporters, especially those in Quebec and, of course, the Pontiac.

In 2018, Quebec's farmers and food processors exported $5.6 billion worth of goods to the U.S. Quebec exporters will have access to new markets for refined sugar and goods containing sugar, margarine and whey. The government will continue to work with all supply-managed sectors to mitigate any future repercussions of the new NAFTA.

Let us now talk about culture. In the new agreement, Canada has successfully maintained the general exemption for its cultural industries, a key provision that seeks to preserve Canada's cultural sovereignty, which was an important aspect of NAFTA. The cultural exemption fully preserves the latitude Canada has to adopt and maintain programs and policies that support the creation, distribution and development of Canadian artistic expressions or artistic content, including in the digital environment, which is the future of many cultural industries. This result is very important, especially for Quebec. The dynamic information and culture industries account for more than 73,000 jobs in Quebec and nearly 340,000 jobs across the country, which pumped nearly $63 million into the Canadian economy in 2018.

The new agreement preserves the mechanism for dispute settlement by a binational panel that was included in the original NAFTA. This mechanism allows Canada to use an independent and impartial process for challenging American or Mexican anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The mechanism is especially important for Quebec's softwood lumber industry and, of course, for my riding, because exports to the United States reached $1.3 billion in 2018.

The original NAFTA's temporary entry provisions were maintained, providing Canadians with preferential access to the United States for the purposes of providing services or after-sales service or monitoring their investments on the ground. These investments are especially important in advanced manufacturing, such as Quebec's aerospace sector, because it is essential that engineers and other experts be able to travel freely within North America to provide their services.

The agreement also seeks to modernize the disciplines to adapt them to the digital economy, thereby enabling businesses to conduct business across borders electronically, while still maintaining the government's ability to regulate and protect Canadians' personal information.

This modernization is important for the video game industry, which is booming in the Montreal area. It is also important for the region's position as a burgeoning leader in tech innovation and a top destination for investment in artificial intelligence and life sciences. The information, culture and recreational sector in Montreal supports more than 56,000 jobs. The city is becoming a top international hub in this field.

Because the riding of Pontiac has a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, I also want to point out that this agreement includes a new chapter on SMEs. This chapter will allow for greater co-operation between the three countries, which will open up new markets and increase investment opportunities for small businesses. The new chapter will also ensure that SMEs have access to the information they need on how the agreement works and what obligations it imposes. This chapter is of particular importance to Quebec, where SMEs accounted for 99.7% of all businesses in 2019.

We must not forget that a progressive approach was taken in negotiations for the new NAFTA. We were sometimes ridiculed by the opposition for that. We always wanted the agreement to be progressive on environmental and labour matters.

I would now like to highlight these matters. The labour chapter is robust and fully subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the agreement. It aims to improve labour standards and working conditions in each of the three countries, based on internationally recognized labour principles and rights.

For example, the labour chapter includes new provisions prohibiting the importation of goods produced by forced labour, imposes obligations related to discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, combats violence against workers who are exercising their trade union rights, and ensures that migrant workers are protected under labour laws. To ensure a timely response to cases of labour rights violations related to collective bargaining and freedom of association, the agreement also includes an innovative rapid response mechanism between Canada and Mexico.

On the environmental front, the agreement strengthens and modernizes the environmental provisions by incorporating them into an environment chapter that is ambitious, comprehensive and enforceable. This chapter sets out a mandatory, enforceable dispute resolution process for all compliance issues. When the countries cannot agree on the method of consultation and co-operation, it provides for recourse to the agreement's more general dispute resolution mechanism. The agreement also includes new obligations to address global environmental challenges, including the following important obligations: combatting the illegal wildlife trade, illegal logging and illegal fishing; promoting sustainable forest and fisheries management, in particular through a commitment to prohibiting subsidies that negatively affect fish stocks; preserving species at risk; implementing relevant multilateral environmental agreements; and taking measures to protect the ozone layer and prevent marine pollution.

I would also like to mention that the much-criticized chapter 11 on investor-state dispute settlement was scrapped for Canada. In addition, the chapter on investment includes a provision on corporate social responsibility.

We can see that this new agreement is full of progressive elements. I could have mentioned the aspects related to trade and indigenous peoples. I hope I will get questions about that. I could also have talked about trade and gender. Those are some very interesting aspects.

In closing, I am very pleased that our officials and our negotiators were able to negotiate the best possible agreement. This agreement will be good for Canada, for our economy, for the environment, for our workers and for our SMEs.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard a colleague opposite bragging about the three free trade agreements, but if there is one thing that the successive federal governments have in common, whether blue or red, it is that they signed those agreements at Quebec's expense. We need look no further than the forestry industry, aluminum, cheese producers and supply management. It is true. These parties are like two peas in a pod. Whether the Conservatives or the Liberals are in power, they both do the same thing when signing free trade agreements. They sign them at Quebec's expense.

We need to speak the same language if we want to find a solution. My colleagues opposite have been saying over and over that 70% of aluminum is protected. I have just one simple question: Does the member know that Mexico does not produce aluminum and that the anti-dumping provisions apply only to producers, that is, to Canada and the United States? This means that China could provide Mexico with aluminum that can be resold as parts. Is he aware of that? Will they stop saying that 70% of aluminum is protected when that is not the case? Nothing is protected when it comes to aluminum production.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We know we will hear a lot of sovereignist and nationalist rhetoric from the Bloc Québécois. We expect this type of criticism, but it is untrue that the new agreement is not good for Quebec. Quebec's SMEs, business councils, companies and elected officials all tell us the same thing. They want us to sign this agreement. They want us to pass legislation that secures a place for Quebec and Canada in the North American economy.

As for aluminum, our government has made it clear time and time again that this agreement protects and benefits the aluminum sector. That is why Jean Simard, the president and CEO of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said that we absolutely must move forward and sign this agreement.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. He spoke a lot about innovation and technology, which was very interesting. I think it is important and worthwhile for SMEs to have access to new technologies.

You mentioned that SMEs are very important. They are important in your riding, in my riding and in many ridings across Quebec and Canada.

Does the new NAFTA give our SMEs, especially those in the regions, an opportunity to access all of these new technologies?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member for Beauce that he must address the Chair and not speak directly to the parliamentary secretary or the member who gave the speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Beauce and congratulate him on winning his seat. I am always happy to see new faces here in the House of Commons.

Pontiac is indeed full of SMEs. In Pontiac, Vallée-de-la-Gatineau and Collines-de-l'Outaouais, SMEs are the backbone of our economy. As I said in my speech, that is why we are so pleased with the negotiations. SMEs were foremost in our minds during negotiations. That is why there is a new chapter on SMEs.

Our SMEs will definitely be able to seek advice from government departments such as Global Affairs if they want help exporting more of their products to the United States and Mexico.

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

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

When negotiations began over a year ago, I remember how much uncertainty there was about what would happen if we did not manage to sign a deal. People were afraid for our economy's future, because there were too many unknown or unpredictable factors going into these negotiations.

I represent the federal riding of Saint-Laurent, one of the most industrial ridings in the country. There are technically more jobs in my riding than there are people. I had countless meetings with companies that told me that they relied on a good NAFTA deal to continue to thrive and, in some cases, for their company to even survive.

During these meetings, I told them about the confidence I had in our then foreign affairs minister, the member for University—Rosedale, to get a good deal for Canada. Many of them asked me why it was taking so long and had doubts that we would succeed in getting a good deal. I explained that we were not going to fold until the deal was a good one for all Canadians, that we had a strong team of skilled negotiators hard at work who were going to hold off on signing until it was an excellent deal for Canadians.

Lo and behold, we have done just that. We have managed to get an excellent trade deal that will support well-paying middle-class jobs in many different industries for Canadians across the country.

In addition to ensuring that our jobs are protected, this new deal also has a new enforceable environment chapter that will uphold air quality and fight marine pollution. Furthermore, we have worked hard to protect women's rights, minority rights and indigenous rights. In fact, this deal has the strongest protection for these groups as well as for the environment of any Canadian trade agreement to date.

It is through our trade deals that we are able to hold other countries accountable when it comes to the environment and gender equality.

This new Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, which we refer to as the new NAFTA, is an excellent agreement that will allow us to solidify economic ties and support good, well-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians. It took us quite some time to sign this agreement because we felt it was important that it benefit all Canadians.

As my colleagues have certainly heard, the Americans wanted nothing to do with the cultural exemption at the beginning of the negotiations, an exemption that we know is critical for Quebec. We fought very hard to keep it and we clearly indicated to the Americans that we would not sign any agreement without this cultural exemption.

Our government will always stand up for our cultural industries because that means protecting a $53.8-billion industry representing more than 650,000 good jobs for middle-class Canadians. For Quebec, it represents 75,000 jobs.

Yesterday, I was surprised to see the Bloc Québécois vote against this agreement. I was surprised because I know that Quebeckers, who the Bloc generally tries to represent well, want us to sign this agreement. Quebeckers need this agreement, which, in many ways, is even better than the old NAFTA.

The Bloc Québécois argues that this agreement does not offer aluminum the same protections as steel. Let us not forget that the old NAFTA did not protect aluminum at all. Before, when a car was manufactured, 100% of the material could come from China, while under this new agreement 70% of the material has to come from North America.

We hope the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this agreement at the next opportunity.

This new NAFTA will also help the manufacturing industry. We have modernized the process at the border in order to cut red tape and to make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to export and import with the United States.

We have also ensured that the deal is a good one for Canadian workers. The enforceable provisions that protect labour are the strongest ones yet.

It is a great deal for Canada's car sector. The new auto rules of origin will directly secure the future for auto workers in cities such as Windsor and Oshawa.

It is time for Canada to join the United States and Mexico by ratifying this new and improved deal. It is in the national interest to move quickly to get this signed, as the Deputy Prime Minister has stressed time and time again, as signing it will bring our country economic and political certainty.

I think back to the conversations I have had with my constituents in Saint-Laurent, as well as with the many businesses in my riding for whom this deal is a great source of comfort, and I know that not signing it is simply not an option. We have worked hard to ensure this new deal is one that will benefit Canadians and Canadian businesses across the country, and it is time to secure what our top negotiators have fought so hard for.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned auto workers in Oshawa. I am just wondering if she is aware that our plant closed down. Within a few days after the details of this agreement were announced, GM announced that it was not allocating new product to five plants. One of them was Oshawa. Since the American plants did recover, it did have some product allocated to it. Overall, I think the auto industry is happy with this agreement.

The member did not mention the fact that the uncertainty, by dithering to get an agreement, really caused problems. The government could have signed the TPP, the original one, four years ago. It was Mr. Obama's deal, the most progressive deal out there. However, a lot of uncertainty caused problems.

The TPP was eventually signed. If trade was so important, why did the Liberal government not sign the original TPP when it was available four years ago?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize that it was obviously not a great moment when the plant in Oshawa closed, which was before the agreement was signed.

Uncertainty does not help. We wanted to make sure that this deal was as good as it could be for Canadians. We were not going to sign just any deal. We wanted to make sure that Canadians across the country were going to benefit from this deal. Uncertainty never helps. However, signing this deal is going to help us move forward in a positive way and it is going to help our auto sector.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

I am pleased to know that she listened to the people of her riding. We are also listening to the people in various ridings in Quebec. A delegation of people from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean came here yesterday to express their concerns regarding this agreement.

It is possible to improve the implementation of this agreement without having to renegotiate it. It would not be an exceptional procedure. In the spirit of co-operation, we proposed including standards that would offer certain guarantees for aluminum. That way, the Bloc Québécois could reconsider its voting position.

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, this new negotiation includes some good news for Quebec's aluminum sector. The old agreement had no protections for that sector, but now, in the new agreement, 70% of all materials must come from North America. This will really help Quebec.

I think the Bloc Québécois should have another look at the deal to be sure how it wants to vote. This is a very good deal for Quebec.

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

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

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

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

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

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

Dairy Farmers of Ontario stated:

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

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

(2) Milk classes 6 and 7 are eliminated;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some quotes from stakeholders that are particularly insightful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

The hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

You are right; I am a new member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

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

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

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

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

Madam Speaker, we will not rewrite history. It is true that the member's party almost jeopardized both the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

My colleague said that if he were in opposition he would probably be saying that improvements could be made. However, my response to him is that I am in opposition and we certainly would not have done any worse than the Liberals did.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that great speech.

I am pleased to see that the Conservatives recognize the importance of protecting aluminum. That makes me very happy, and I thank them for that. All parties need to work together.

In fact, we invited the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to join us when we all got going on this in December. He agreed to join us then and got to meet with Ms. Néron and the other participants. We were the ones who invited them, organized their press conference, and let them meet here in the House of Commons. We invited the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to that too, but he did not come, unfortunately.

My question for my hon. colleague is this: Are there partisan reasons why the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is no longer interested in joining us? If not, can we count on him to help us protect our workers?

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

Madam Speaker, not only can Quebeckers and the people of Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean and Chicoutimi count on the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to stand up for them, but they can also count on him to play a leadership role with the co-operation of the Bloc Québécois, of course.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is a strong supporter of the aluminum industry. He has been talking about this from the beginning. I would only urge my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean to ask the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord the question directly, rather than asking me.

The only answer I can give him is that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is a strong supporter of aluminum and that we can be proud of his work.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am the representative for North Island—Powell River, and we have multiple dairy farms in our communities. One of the challenges for small, rural, remote communities is when industries are attacked through trade agreements, and we see a huge decline of resources to those communities. One of the things I love about supply management is that it protects these family-owned businesses and it protects those communities.

I would like to hear the member's opinion on supply management and how much more our dairy farmers can take with trade agreements like this one.

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

Madam Speaker, the government should not touch supply management in any upcoming free trade agreements. No new concessions should be made. That is the reality. Supply management protects all the small farms in my riding. I am obviously a proud supporter of supply management.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before I recognize the next speaker, I want to advise members that we are now at the time when we are transferring over to 10-minute speeches as opposed to 20-minute speeches. Unfortunately, at some point I will have to interrupt the member because we are going to run out of time. He will be able to continue his speech tomorrow if this matter is before the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today for my first speech and to speak to the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. Some people call it CUSMA. In my home riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, we simply call it the new NAFTA. Either way, this trade agreement spells certainty and job security for the 40,000 manufacturing workers and 8,000 agriculture workers in our region, whose companies rely on open and reliable access to the U.S. market.

Two billion dollars in trade crosses the U.S.-Canada border each day, and one-quarter of that trade crosses the Windsor-Detroit border. More than just market access, the new NAFTA means every car made in North America will have 25% more local content. That means more production, more jobs and greater prosperity for our region.

Members should not just take my word for it; the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association said that the new NAFTA is “the single biggest boost to the fortunes of the Canadian auto supply sector in our history.” That is why I urge my colleagues in the House to move swiftly and resolutely on ratifying this important trade deal.

I also want to talk about another key aspect of the new NAFTA that would help tilt the playing field even further in favour of Canadian workers like those in Windsor—Tecumseh, and that is the new labour chapter.

Through the new labour chapter, the agreement seeks to improve working conditions and living standards across North America and to protect and enhance basic workers' rights. Trade and labour protections are mutually supportive, and Canada strives to demonstrate internationally that a competitive economy includes safe, healthy and co-operative workplaces. The labour chapter in this new agreement aims to raise and improve labour standards and working conditions in all three countries by building on international labour principles and rights.

The original NAFTA includes a side agreement on labour called the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. This new labour chapter is a significant improvement over the original side agreement and is fully incorporated into the new NAFTA. The new labour chapter includes commitments to protect and promote internationally recognized labour principles and rights, including the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Most importantly, these commitments are all subject to dispute settlement.

The chapter also includes commitments to ensure that national laws and policies provide protection of the fundamental principles and rights at work, including the right to freedom of association and to collective bargaining. The chapter also includes a non-derogation clause that prevents parties from deviating from their domestic labour laws in order to encourage trade or investment.

Importantly, the new labour chapter has a number of key provisions that support the advancement of fair and inclusive trade. For instance, it includes enforceable obligations to address issues related to migrant workers, forced or compulsory labour, and violence against union members. To address labour rights violations in Mexico, it also includes an annex with specific requirements on worker representation in collective bargaining.

I mentioned the issue of forced or compulsory labour, an odious practice that still exists in many countries. The Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is the very first agreement to include an obligation that would commit Canada as well as the United States and Mexico to prohibit the importation of goods produced by forced labour. This is a milestone provision that could have an important impact on workers around the globe.

Let me give some context.

The ILO estimates that in 2016, approximately 25 million people worldwide were subjected to forced labour, and a disproportionate number were women and young girls. For this reason, our government has committed to addressing forced labour within the labour chapter of the agreement.

While these inclusive trade provisions would largely help workers outside of Canada, the modernized agreement would also help workers here at home. “How, exactly?” one may ask. North American free trade has been an enormous benefit to Canadian businesses, workers and the overall economy. It means more good-quality jobs here at home and more affordable goods and services. The agreement would ensure that trade does not come at the expense of workers' labour rights.

Ultimately, trade is about people. It is about creating the best possible conditions for growth, for jobs and for the prosperity of individuals and working families in their communities.

Let me give an example of how the CUSMA would protect Canadian interests and help to curb the outflow of jobs.

The rules of origin chapter addresses automotive manufacturing wages in North America by including a labour value content requirement. Basically, this means that 40% of the value of a vehicle must be from a plant where the workers earn an average of $16 U.S. per hour or more in order for the vehicle to be considered as originating from a CUSMA country.

This provision, together with the labour chapter provisions on collective bargaining rights, may create upward pressures on wages in Mexico and help to level the playing field for Canadian workers and businesses.

It is important to note that the labour chapter is subject to the dispute settlement chapter in cases of non-compliance to ensure that all obligations are respected. The agreement provides an opportunity for governments to take the necessary actions and measures if prior attempts to resolve the matter through consultations prove ineffective.

The labour chapter allows for complaints from members of the public, including businesses and unions, in cases of non-compliance.

When Canada, the United States and Mexico agreed to further strengthen the labour chapter of the agreement on December 10, 2019, Canada established a new bilateral rapid response mechanism with Mexico that allows Canada to request an investigation into certain labour rights violations by an independent panel of labour experts. This mechanism will ultimately hold covered facilities accountable for the commitments on workers' rights.

The labour chapter is a significant improvement on the original NAFTA side agreement on labour. This robust and comprehensive chapter will bolster existing protections for workers. Workers at home and around the world will benefit from the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement and enjoy better labour standards for years to come.

Let us get this deal ratified.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have three minutes and 20 seconds the next time this matter is before the House should he choose to finish his speech and take questions and comments.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak to the trade agreement now before the House. I have had opportunities in the last few days to stand in the House, but this is my first speech.

I would like to thank all the people in my riding who helped me in being elected to serve in the House for a second term. When we have an election, it is amazing how many people come forward to volunteer, and they do so much significant work in the community.

I also want to thank my family members who supported my being here today, especially my sister Mary. Even though she has three small children to care for, she flew in to spend the last few days of the election with me. It meant a lot to have her there.

However, I also want to acknowledge all the volunteers for every party. At the end of the day, democracy is fundamental to our country. It is important to acknowledge all the people who volunteered and spent time working very hard for their candidates.

I have some concerns about this agreement and I am torn on this issue. I recognize the importance of trade to our country and to its economic success. We live in a global economy, but I have a lot of concerns about how that works.

The U.S. is Canada's most significant trading partner. It is our friend and our neighbour. We have some political challenges with the U.S. at certain times, but there is a lot of back-and-forth between our two countries. Therefore, trying to find ways to work with the Americans is important.

However, at the end of the day, trade needs to focus on fairness. We need to have trade that assures all Canadians are respected throughout the process.

I live in a rural and remote community. North Island—Powell River is just under 60,000 square kilometres. There are several ferries. It is both on Vancouver Island and on the mainland. One of the things that worries me in our trade process, and I will talk about the transparency of that process, is we often forget some of our rural and remote communities and the challenges they face when we do not think about trade through that lens.

My riding has several dairy farms. When we look at what has been happening with the past several trade agreements, supply management is struggling. From my perspective, supply management is really under attack. I understand that there are challenges when we trade, but supply management is so important. It assures all Canadians of a good product in which they can trust. I encourage people to check out a Canadian dairy farm. It is an amazing thing. It is a lot more healthy and wonderful than one thinks, and we can trust that product.

Protecting rural and remote communities is key. Supply management allows us to have robust farms that are small and local, that provide local jobs, not only on the farms but in the services they use, and that is important.

Viewfield Farms, Daldas Farms and Lloydshaven farm are in my riding. Those farms are a big part of our community. Not only do they employ people at their farms and create amazing products, but they also access the services around them to care for their farms, their milk products and their cows.

When we look at the negotiations that have taken place on supply management, under CUSMA, CPTPP and CETA, we see that about 10% of the market share has been taken away from those sectors, which makes it harder for those farms. I hope we do not want more focus on centralization. That takes away from those small rural and remote communities and starts to build in larger centres. Therefore, this is important.

The other thing that worries me is that this trade agreement contains a provision that would grant the U.S. oversight into the administration of the Canadian dairy system. It undermines Canada's sovereignty and our ability to manage our product. When we look at the product produced in the U.S., we need to be concerned about it. We know that the American dairy sector uses bovine growth hormone, which increases milk production up to 25%. There are no studies on what that does to people when they consume these products.

We know it is really bad for the cows. They suffer from more stress and there is a higher incidence of udder infections, swollen legs and premature death. It should be very concerning when that product is coming across our borders. Canadians need to know what the product is. As I said earlier, those who go to Canadian farms will feel good about eating dairy products. Farmers take care of their cows.

Another important area for me, especially in this day and age, is environmental protections and addressing issues like climate change. When there are trade discussions, Canada has an important opportunity to reflect on how it is doing with respect to its climate change actions, on which we need to do a lot better. However, it is also an opportunity to negotiate with other countries to increase their accountability. I want to see more trade agreements in which provisions around the environment and climate change are binding and fully enforceable. We do not see that in this agreement.

The provisions should also focus on and be in line with Canada's international obligations. When we look at the Paris Agreement, we do not see that reflected. When I look at this trade agreement, it really does not help us move forward toward those important environmental climate change targets.

I have another frustration. I remember being in this place in the spring of last year, talking about ratifying this agreement. Again and again, the NDP asked why the government was rushing this, that we needed to ensure the U.S. Democrats in Congress had an opportunity to do their work on this deal, that they would make it a better deal, and that happened. However, we kept hearing that it was the best deal we could get. Then the government would go back to the table and come back again, saying it was a better deal.

It is important for the government to understand it has an obligation to get the best deal it can, to take every action it can to ensure Canadian workers are cared for, that we are respectful of workers in other countries, that we look at how it will impact our businesses and economy, what it looks like in urban settings and in rural and remote settings. I am glad the work was done, but it is frustrating to keep having this conversation.

I am very pleased that chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement of NAFTA, is finally gone. When we look at the history of the country, Canada was sued repeatedly, and this mechanism kept us in a vulnerable position. I am glad it is gone.

However, I am also concerned about some of the language I see in the agreement that leads me to believe some of those things are entwined in the language. We will have to watch that carefully, and we should be concerned about it.

At the end of the day, though, one of my biggest frustrations on all trade agreements is the lack of transparency of the negotiation process. It needs to be addressed, and I hope that is fixed soon.

Canadians across the country need to understand what we are negotiating and why. As I said earlier, I represent three dairy farms in my riding, and one thing they wanted to know was how much supply management quota we were giving away. They were frustrated by the lack of communication and clarity around this very important issue.

We have a huge country with a lot of diverse economies. We also have a lot of rural and remote communities, like mine, that are struggling as we adjust to this changing world and changing economy. We need to ensure that trade recognizes this and looks at how we can work collaboratively to ensure those folks are not left behind in these discussions.

I call on the government to understand that we need a more transparent process. I understand that when we are negotiating something, we do not want to lay all our cards on the table publicly. However, there still was not enough information that allowed different sectors in our communities across Canada to express their concerns and ensure that those voices were heard. Even in the states, Trump was very clear about his goals, so we need to hear the goals of government.

I look forward to having further discussions. I am excited for the bill go to committee, where we can study these issues more fully.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the dairy industry.

First, why should poor families in Canada have to pay higher prices for dairy for their children?

Second, when we close our markets, how can we ask other countries to open their markets for agriculture exports?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about the fact that the member does not seem to fully understand what supply management is. He also does not seem to support it. It is not exactly what I thought I would hear from that side of the House.

I want to be really clear. In Canada, we have, through our supply management system, a really strong dairy sector that is reliable and strong. We know what we are getting in that product. The cost of our dairy is very reasonable. It is a great relationship between ensuring we have fair prices and providing stability and support for those businesses that are often held by families for generation after generation.

I am going to come back to the good, healthy product we have. We know what is in our dairy products, and that is really important.

I am a little concerned that side of the House, which says it supports supply management, seems to have a different opinion.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and I congratulate her on her election.

Seeing as we both come from ridings with major dairy businesses, I would like to hear her speak again about how CUSMA opens up a new breach in supply management. The agreement gives up more than 3% of our dairy market, which amounts to a loss of about $150 million a year, every year. Furthermore, the government announced that farmers would be fully compensated, but we still do not know what that compensation will look like.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for not responding in the member's first language, French. I am working on it, but it is taking me a long time.

This is an important part of the reality for our dairy farmers across the country. I want to be really clear. I am not sure about the dairy farmers in her riding, but the dairy farmers in my riding have said that they will take the compensation if they have to. However, what they really want is just to do their job and to provide a good product, and not have their quota moved all the time.

That does raise a lot of concern. How is that compensation going to come back to those businesses? How is that going to roll out? Is it going to be continuous? How are we going to ensure that those dairy farmers have the opportunity to be strong and well funded in their own right? This is a concern.

As I said earlier, in small, rural and remote communities, we need these dairy farms. They assure us of a good product. They do all the things in which I think Canadians really believe. We need to ensure we protect them. Compensation helps, but it is not the last solution. Hopefully we will see something from the government soon, because they deserve it.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, most of the premiers of the provinces welcome this agreement.

I would like to ask the member a question.

Can she deny that the signing of this agreement adds a level of certainty to our Canadian economy? Can she deny that the agreement commits to protecting our environment, air quality and marine pollution? Can she deny that the agreement recognizes the gender identity, sexual orientation and diverse genders of all persons here in Canada? Can she deny that under the new agreement, we will no longer have to pay customs at the border on Canadian dairy products, eggs and poultry?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the member that I am actually in a seat on the opposition side. My job and my duty to all Canadians is to look at agreements and offer suggestions on how I feel we could do better based on the conversations I have in my riding.

That is the work I do, and I am really proud to do it. I would just encourage that member to look a little more closely, because the environmental commitments are nowhere near what he is suggesting.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I start my first speech in the House, I would like to thank my wife Barbara; my kids Shauna, Carolyn, Christina; their partners, their kids, the whole team that helped to get me here, including my campaign manager Brent McArthur, and the voters of Guelph.

It is such an honour to rise in this place today in support of Bill C-4 regarding the implementation legislation for the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. This agreement encompasses Canada's most ambitious environment chapter to date, and it is also complemented by the environmental co-operation agreement.

It is a priority for the Government of Canada to ensure that all of Canada's trade agreements not only advance our commercial interests, but also bring concrete benefits to all stakeholders. By including environmental provisions with our free trade agreements, we support Canadian businesses and ensure that trading partners do not gain an unfair trading advantage by not enforcing their environmental laws.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, which came into effect in 1994, was the first free trade agreement to link the environment and trade through a historic parallel agreement on environmental co-operation, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.

The parties committed at that time to maintain robust environmental provisions established on our trinational institution for environmental co-operation, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

The Canada-United States-Mexico agreement integrates comprehensive and ambitious environmental provisions directly into an environment chapter within the agreement, which is subject to the chapter on dispute settlements.

The agreement also retains the core obligations on environmental governance found in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. This includes commitments to pursue high levels of environmental protection to effectively enforce environmental laws and to promote transparency, accountability and public participation. This reflects the importance that we place on ensuring that trade liberalization, environmental protection and conservation are mutually supportive.

The agreement also includes commitments that go beyond the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. This includes prohibiting a party from moving away from environmental law to attract trade or investment and ensuring that environmental impact assessment processes are in place for projects having potential adverse effects on the environment.

The new NAFTA creates substantive commitments and many of these are in line with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership on a wide range of global environmental issues, which shows the interconnection of our trade agreements within major markets within the globe.

These protections include illegal wildlife trade and illegal logging; fisheries management; protection of the marine environment and the ozone layer; sustainable forestry; and conservation of species at risk and biological diversity, which also includes consultations with indigenous peoples. New commitments aiming to strengthen the relationship between trade and the environment include the promotion of trade in environmental goods and services, corporate social responsibility and the voluntary mechanisms to enhance environmental performance.

For the first time in a free trade agreement, the new NAFTA includes new articles on air quality and marine litter, as well as a binding commitment that prohibits the practice of shark finning. This is a first for Canada. It also recognizes the important role of indigenous peoples in the long-term conservation of the environment, sustainable fisheries and forestry management and biodiversity conservation to make sure that their voices are also at the table as we move forward.

The agreement provides for an environmental consultation mechanism. Should parties fail to resolve an environmental matter arising under the agreement in a co-operative manner through various levels of consultation right up to the ministerial level, the complaining party may seek recourse through broader formal Canada-United States-Mexico agreement dispute settlement procedures. To help ensure compliance with the environmental obligations, trade sanctions may be imposed by an independent review panel.

While the core obligations on environmental governance apply only to federal legislation, commitments in other areas of the agreement, such as conservation and fisheries, apply to the federal government as well as to Canada's provinces and territories. Provinces and territories were consulted thoroughly throughout the negotiation process.

The agreement maintains and incorporates the submissions on the enforcement matters process established under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, which is a key mechanism to promote transparency and public participation on the enforcement of environmental laws in North America. Under this process, citizens of the three countries may file a submission alleging that one of the three parties is not enforcing its environmental laws. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation secretariat evaluates the submissions and requests from the implicated party to provide information and clarification regarding the enforcement of the environmental law at issue within its jurisdiction.

In December 2019, Canada, the United States and Mexico also agreed to update certain elements of CUSMA, including to strengthen environmental obligations under the agreement. This includes a commitment from parties to implement their respective obligations under specific multilateral environmental agreements, MEAs, that are ratified domestically, as well as the new provision to clarify the relationship between CUSMA and MEAs.

New language has also been added confirming that failure to comply with one's obligations in the environment chapter that affect trade or investment is now presumed to be “in a manner affecting trade or investment between the parties”, unless the defending party can demonstrate otherwise. The environmental provisions are written right into the law of the agreement.

In addition, Canada, the United States and Mexico have negotiated a parallel environmental co-operation agreement that ensures trilateral environmental co-operation continues, supported by ministerial-level dialogue and public engagement as we move forward to improve our targets under the co-op agreement and other international agreements.

The environmental co-operation agreement ensures that unique institutions for trilateral environmental co-operation are created under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and maintained and modernized going forward. This includes the continued operation of the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, including the secretariat, based in Montreal; a ministerial council, which will continue to meet on an annual basis; and a joint public advisory committee.

The environmental co-operation agreement allows the three countries to establish a work program in which they can develop co-operative activities on a broad range of issues related to strengthening environmental governance, reducing pollution and supporting strong low emissions and resilient economies, conserving and protecting biodiversity and habitats, supporting green growth and sustainable development and promoting the sustainable management and use of natural resources.

In addition, through the joint public advisory committee, representatives from each country will continue to ensure active public participation and transparency in the actions of the commission. Membership of this committee will be from a diverse pool of candidates, including with respect to gender balance, and will include representatives from all segments of society, including non-governmental organizations, academia, the private sector, indigenous peoples, private citizens and youth.

The environmental co-operation agreement complements the ambitious environmental chapter of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. The environmental co-operation agreement will contribute to the maintenance of robust environmental governance and the modernization of the existing institutions for trilateral environmental co-operation.

The Government of Canada is committed to bringing Canadian goods and services to international markets while maintaining our high standards of environmental protection and conservation. We know it is possible, and we have a responsibility to do both. Under this agreement and the new parallel co-operation agreement, we will be moving forward together to ensure we are protecting our shared environment now and for future generations.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was very excited about Canada's opportunity to work toward gender equality protections in the NAFTA negotiations because he mentioned that gender equality is an economic issue. Could the member opposite tell us what sort of big wins we received in regard to gender issues in the new NAFTA?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome the new member for Cloverdale—Langley City to this place.

Gender equality and women's economic empowerment are key priorities of our government. The gender lens is used throughout all agreements we negotiate. There are new labour provisions within this agreement that require all parties to implement policies that protect against employment discrimination based on gender. Gender is also addressed in other chapters, including provisions related to corporate social responsibility and small and medium-sized enterprises.

We do not want to leave anyone behind in this agreement.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, in Simcoe—Grey, one of the largest employers, not only in my riding but probably in Ontario, is a company called DECAST. The company seems to have problems in the buy American stance. It cannot put any contracts in the United States at this time, but the United States is allowed to tender contracts here. It is really not fair. It is dropping its prices.

What is the member for Guelph doing for these industries and why did they not address the buy American issues? It is an extremely important issue in my riding and certainly across Canada.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, DECAST is an example of a business that will benefit from this new provision of having 70% of steel and aluminum included in the parts supply chain. Within the steel agreement, these products have to be cast in our trade region and not overseas.

When we move forward, companies like DECAST that have already benefited from our removal of the section 232 provisions will benefit as we go forward to make sure that we use North American products in our North American manufacturing.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

He talked about the environment, and he even answered the last question by mentioning the aluminum sector and saying that 70% of the materials used in parts, whether steel or aluminum, are now required to be from North America. However, he knows full well that this is not true.

The parts may come from Mexico, but Mexico does not have any smelters, so the aluminum will come from China. Since the member brought up the environment, it is worth noting that this aluminum will be nowhere near as green as the aluminum we produce here in Quebec.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think there is some confusion on this. I have heard that argument from the member's party across the way over the last few days.

There is a regional value content limit of 75% regional content, which means that 75% of all content has to come from within the North American region in order to qualify under NAFTA provisions.

Aluminum is covered throughout the supply chain, including parts. The inclusion of North American supplies is under the regional content section. I encourage the member to look into that section.

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

Madam Speaker, New Flyer Industries in my riding is a lead producer in electric buses, but it also produces a lot of diesel buses for the United States.

We are losing jobs in Canada that are going to the U.S. because of the buy American policy. I want to follow up with the member for Guelph as why Canada did not make any progress on getting exemptions from the buy American policy.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very excited to say that Guelph will be receiving 65 electric buses under a new agreement we have with the federal, provincial and municipal governments.

I hope to see the procurement process go through the evaluation between New Flyer and Nova Bus in Quebec. I am from Winnipeg originally, so I hope the process includes getting some of the 5,000 electric buses we are targeting for Canada to come from New Flyer in Winnipeg.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about this important agreement with our most important trading partners.

It has been 51 days since we, the official opposition, the Conservatives, who are very concerned and seized with the economic future of our country, requested the economic impact analysis for this agreement from the Liberals. While we wait, the Deputy Prime Minister has asked us to accelerate our approval for the ratification of this agreement through this place. We have continued to wait. Perhaps while I am speaking today, the Liberals will deliver that economic impact analysis to us. In the meantime, we can talk about some of the ways this deal has fallen short and why we think it is important for it to be studied before its passage.

As Conservatives, we understand the weight and importance it has for all Canadians and our trading partners. Ultimately the Conservatives, as the party of free trade, will support important free trade agreements like the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. However, that does not mean that it gets a rubber stamp, because we know that in all of our ridings, and truly in all 338 constituencies represented by members from all parties in the House, this deal falls short. That is not for a lack of trying on the part of the official opposition to give good advice to the government and give them opportunities to get this deal right.

In my riding of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I have heard concerns from a variety of sectors. I will highlight a few of them today.

Over the course of this debate, we have heard people talk about the deal's negative impact on dairy farmers. We know that these concessions, the capitulation on these items, are not only unnecessary but harmful and hurtful to these farmers. The uncertainty created by this deal is also hurting them. We know that these farmers are on the cutting edge of sustainability. They do it not because they have to, not because the government regulates them to do so, but because they, as stewards of our land and responsible providers of world-class food products like milk and cheese, want to do what is best for Canadians. They expect the government to do what is best for them.

The concessions on market access that were given and the elimination of milk classes 6 and 7, which were done in the absence of proper consultation with their sector by the government in negotiating this deal, has caused a lot of concern. We are concerned and skeptical as we wait for the details of the full impact of CUSMA, and we know that farmers are waiting to find out what the full impact will be.

We have also talked about aluminum. I want to talk about the impact that has on my community. The folks at Northern Cables have been very concerned about some of the policies that have been in place and how they have not been protected from the dumping of aluminum, sourced from China, in North America and its impact on their business.

Northern Cables is a local employer. It is a company owned by Canadians that produces a high-quality product. The company knows that its future is uncertain due to a lack of protection in this deal. It is great for industry associations to say that it is good for them, but I can tell members that Northern Cables, which is located in multiple communities across my riding, is concerned. The company knows that producers based in China are skirting the rules by soldering connectors onto long lengths of aluminum to get around the existing rules.

They know the provisions in this deal allow for that. North American-based aluminum means aluminum that has been melted down and then shipped again.

Transshipping of aluminum is going to hurt the industry, especially if it lands in Mexico and is sent across the continent to land in Canada. It is going to hurt producers and manufacturers. It is going to have a negative effect on jobs in places like Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and at locally owned and operated businesses like Northern Cables. That gives us concern.

We wonder what the impact will be. We worry about what the compensation will be, because the government has been silent on that. We do not know what is going to be done to compensate supply-managed sectors. We do not know how the government is going to protect the aluminum sector.

Our NDP colleagues do not seem to be sure whether they want the deal to pass or not. Our record shows that we are the party of free trade. I am not sure that the NDP has supported any but one free trade agreement in the history of our country, so that causes us concern.

When it comes to holding the government to account, this falls squarely on our shoulders. We need to make sure that all Canadians are heard, not just well-placed lobbyists speaking to people in the Prime Minister's Office. That is what we hope to have done in committee.

We need to look at important provisions in this deal, like how it would affect our sovereignty. This deal would allow the United States to have oversight of Canadian trade negotiations with other countries. That should concern all Canadians. It seems very much like an unforced error. It seems very much like the result of an unprepared team in achieving the deal that it has.

Other important Canadian sectors have been left unprotected. Our forestry sector is still looking for a resolution to softwood lumber concerns. With that dispute not addressed in this deal, is this truly free trade?

Here in Ontario in particular, the auto sector is important to the Canadian economy. It is an important employer. For a car to be seen as North American, only three-quarters of the car are considered, from the ground up. It is not really a North American car. When the requirement is only for 40% to 45% of auto content made by workers earning $16 an hour, this gives opportunity to countries with labour provisions that do not protect their workers. That is going to undercut our auto sector here in Canada.

The sunset clause in this deal requires a formal review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement every six years. The agreement will terminate in 16 years if the parties do not agree to it.

I call it the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement because that is its official name. However, we know, having heard praise from the American president for what the Canadian government was prepared to give up, and he said we gave up a lot, that this deal really is NAFTA 0.5.

Conservatives want a good deal for Canadians. Conservatives will support free trade, but Conservatives know that Canadians depend on us to find out where this deal falls short, and that is what we are going to do at committee. We will get those answers so we can help support those sectors when we form government as soon as Canadians call on us to do so.

It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this important deal today. Along with all members of the House, I look forward to giving it a thorough examination before its passage.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his research and for talking about various issues that concern his constituents.

This deal has taken a lot of effort. It was a difficult deal to get through to the U.S. So many positive things have been said about the deal by businesses, by Premier Legault of Quebec and by the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I wonder what it is. Is it just because the agreement was negotiated by the Liberals? It was done along with a whole team and with other prime ministers involved as well. Could the member tell us what is so wrong with this deal?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have arrived at this deal and there are so many questions, but not as to why Conservatives might have concerns. I think I have laid those out. We know that there is a lot that we do not know. We know we have asked the government for 51 successive days for an economic impact analysis on this agreement.

It is hard to get behind a deal when we do not know what is in it. It is often said that the devil is in the details, and I have certainly listed some of those concerns. Therefore, I am asking the member to encourage her government, to encourage the Deputy Prime Minister, to provide the full assessment and analysis to the official opposition so that we can do the work that we were sent here to do.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member what he thinks of our process here in Canada compared with the United States.

When the United States is developing a new trade agreement, it goes before Congress to ask what the priorities should be and what should be negotiated. The same thing happens in the European Union. However, here in Canada it is all done in secret.

We do not know what the priorities are for the Canadian government until we see the agreement, until the agreement is signed. It just seems to be a terrible way for Canadians to get involved in something as important as a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico when we know nothing about it until it is already done.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, truly it is a flawed process. Not only were the opposition and Canadians not given an opportunity to give input and help the government set its priorities throughout the negotiations, but the deal has been signed and we still do not know what is in it. We are asked to accelerate its passage through this place, but we still do not even have the picture of it.

We did not have input, certainly not for a lack of trying, throughout the negotiation. However, now the deal has been signed and ratified by our trading partners, the other signatories. The Canadian government has signed it and is now asking the House to ratify the deal, but we do not know what its full impact is going to be. Therefore, it is truly a flawed process and one that should be discussed as we undertake the study of the deal.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the issue of transshipping is one of grave concern to the aluminum sector in particular. Aluminum can come in by way of ingots that are melted down and then deemed in Mexico to be North American content. I wonder if the member could expand on that concern.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's point is very well taken.

It is very concerning. When aluminum sourced from China can be delivered to Mexico, melted down, re-formed and then shipped across the country, it hurts the Canadian aluminum industry and it hurts the producers who use it.

I have heard this concern from the good people at Northern Cables in my riding. We have heard it from our colleagues who have aluminum producers in their ridings. We are going to look for more information as we study the bill.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, or CUSMA. For over a year, Canada negotiated hard for a modernized free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. We knew how important it was to get a deal that was good for Canada, good for Canadian workers, good for Canadian businesses and good for communities across the country.

CUSMA, or the new NAFTA, is a significant milestone in our relationship with the United States and Mexico. The United States, as we all know, is our biggest trading partner. Two billion dollars' worth of goods and services are exchanged every day, totalling about $720 billion per year.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the team of negotiators who worked so hard not only to ensure that Canadian jobs were protected but also to create more opportunities for Canadian workers and their families.

CUSMA, as the new NAFTA is known, has paid off. We have secured a great deal that protects all Canadian communities and benefits Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

What does this ratification mean to all Canadians and to my constituents of Don Valley East? CUSMA will reinforce the strong economic ties between the three countries and support well-paying middle-class jobs for Canadians. CUSMA will maintain the tariff-free market access from NAFTA, which includes the updated new chapters to address modern-day trade challenges and opportunities.

In this speech I will focus on some of the key outcomes of CUSMA as they impact Canadians and my constituents.

First is the environment. The environment has been and continues to be one of the biggest concerns to Canadians. In the last election, 95% of Canadians stated that the environment was their top priority. I am pleased to say that the agreement has a new enforceable environment chapter that replaces the separate side agreement.

What are some of the highlights of the environment chapter? It upholds air quality standards and fights marine pollution. It has an enforcement mechanism through the core obligations in the agreement. It establishes binding and enforceable dispute resolution processes to address any questions regarding compliance. It means robust environmental governance and a win for Canada.

How? Canadian businesses can remain competitive by ensuring that our trading partners do not gain an unfair trading advantage by not enforcing their environmental laws. When all parties play fair on the environment, we can continue to be competitive, grow and expand our economies and get good-paying jobs.

Second is the cultural exemption. Our cultural industry is a robust $53.8-billion industry. Our government, through CUSMA, has protected this industry. The industry represents 650,000 high-paying jobs. In my riding, there are many cultural organizations that are very pleased with the exemption the government has negotiated. This is one way of augmenting the middle class.

The new NAFTA, or CUSMA, preserves cultural exemptions and provides Canada the flexibility to adopt and maintain programs and policies that support the creation, distribution and development of Canadian artistic expressions or content, including the digital environment. That is why the negotiators of team Canada stood firm to protect the cultural exemption and our economic interests during the renegotiation of the new NAFTA.

As I mentioned, this is good for the cultural businesses in my riding of Don Valley East. For example, organizations like SOCAN can count on the stability and assurances the new trade agreement brings. It means they can defend our cultural sovereignty and see that financial benefits go to our talented Canadian artists and the economy.

Many of the creative industry organizations are small and medium-sized enterprises that depend on exporting large amounts of their production to the North American market. It is imperative for the House to implement CUSMA sooner rather than later so that our creative industries can gain from the financial benefits and protections offered through it.

A robust cultural sector enables the growth of innovative businesses that embrace the digital market and increase their cultural exports, which makes Canada stand out globally. To back this up, I will quote from an open letter from creative industry organizations published in The Hill Times on January 27, 2020:

We thank the government for signing the Canada-U.S.-Mexico (CUSMA) trade agreement last year. Under it, copyright in Canada will be strengthened by extending the term of protection by 20 years, to the life of the author plus 70 years.

Third is the auto industry. Canada's auto sector is one of the biggest winners from CUSMA. On November 30, 2019, Canada signed a side letter, which has already been entered into force to protect our auto industry and its high-paying jobs against a possible section 232 tariff on cars and car parts. The new rules of origin level the playing field for Canada's high-wage workers. I am pleased to say that Canada is the only G7 country with that protection. This is a good deal for Canada and Canadian workers.

Fourth is the SMEs. Small and medium-sized enterprises will be some of the biggest beneficiaries of the new NAFTA agreement. SMEs are the backbone of the Canadian economy and employ more than 10 million Canadians, or 90% of the private sector labour force. CUSMA includes a new chapter on SMEs designed to foster co-operation among the parties to increase trade and investment opportunities for them, ensuring information is available to the SMEs on the obligations and functioning of the agreement. This is good news for many SMEs in my riding of Don Valley East. Businesses like Conavi, Clear Blue Technologies, 7D Surgical and Volanté Systems will benefit from this trade agreement through continued access to the U.S. and Mexican markets.

The streamlined customs and origin procedures and greater transparency in government regulations make it easier for our small and medium-sized enterprises to do businesses in North America and grow and expand. The Business Council of Canada has said:

We applaud your government's success in negotiating a comprehensive and high-standard Agreement on North American trade. [It] maintains our country's preferential access to the United States and Mexico—Canada's largest and third-largest trading partners respectively—while modernizing long-outdated elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In conclusion, CUSMA is good deal for Canada. Millions of Canadians depend on stable, reliable trade with our largest trading partners. We are moving forward with the new NAFTA right away to secure millions of jobs, create more opportunities for Canadian businesses and keep our economy strong.

I hope to see support from all of my colleagues in the House to ratify this important deal.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask the member the same question that I put to the previous speaker.

We are finally debating this new NAFTA deal in the House, yet we should have been debating our priorities and what we were going to be negotiating for before we started negotiating the deal. That is what happens in the United States. It is what happens in the European Union. It seems to be a very backward thing to present Canadians and Parliament with a signed deal and then ask what everyone thinks. When we say there are problems with it and that things could be better, they say it is too late.

What does the member think about having a new process, for future deals, that would let parliamentarians and Canadians join the debate on how to go about negotiating and setting our priorities?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering where the hon. member was, because this deal has been in negotiation since 2018. We have worked so hard, going back and forth with all the issues we had with our neighbours. That is important to understand. We should not make statements that do not resonate logically.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague praised the free trade agreement and all of the gains that Canada supposedly made with it.

I would like to know what she thinks about what the chair of the U.S. House ways and means committee said. He stated that the former foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister conceded on just about every point for one reason, and that was enforceability, enforceability, enforceability.

What concessions did Canada make to elicit such a reaction from the chair of the ways and means committee?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we did not make any concessions. We eliminated section 232 tariffs, we got our environmental protection and we got our content requirement, so I do not know what he is talking about.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have two minutes and 15 seconds remaining for questions and comments when this debate resumes after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-United States-Mexico Implementation Act

[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, when we talk about the trade pact between Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico, the country came together in many ways. When we look at the legislation and what we are debating, the amount of support is very real and tangible, from industry leaders to premiers of all political stripes. Everyone understands the importance of the $2 billion in trade every day between Canada and the U.S.

Could my colleague from Don Valley East provide her thoughts on the importance of passing this bill? Could she also reflect on the support across the country for this agreement?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have had so much praise for the agreement from different premiers, both Conservative and NDP, the labour unions, the agriculture sector, which is so important, and even from the Quebec premier. It is important for all of us.

In my riding of Don Valley East, the cultural industry and others are very keen on ensuring the bill passes. I hope we have the unanimous support from the House.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here today to discuss the new NAFTA and the importance this agreement has not only within my riding of Foothills, but across the country.

Today, I want to be really clear. I want to talk about some background of how we came here. I want to be extremely forthright in the fact that many of the stakeholders who I deal with in the agriculture sector, whether that is farmers, ranchers or food processors, support this agreement and they want to see it passed. So do we as Conservatives.

We are the party of free trade. It was under a previous Conservative government that the first NAFTA was born, an agreement which brought about historic opportunities for the Canadian economy, whether that was manufacturing, industry, energy and certainly in agriculture.

It was also under the previous Conservative government, with prime minister Stephen Harper, that we signed free trade agreements with more than 40 countries, bringing Canadian businesses more than a billion new customers. That was unprecedented economic opportunities for our Canadian businesses across the country.

I would like to give a little history lesson. The previous Conservative government negotiated the free trade agreement with the European Union as well as the trans-Pacific partnership. However, the current Liberal government almost bungled those critical trade agreements, with geopolitical mistakes, that almost proved extremely costly to the Canadian economy.

For all intents and purposes, the trans-Pacific partnership was to be the renegotiation of the current NAFTA. We negotiated that agreement with President Barrack Obama in the United States, probably the most progressive president in the history of the United States. However, when the current Prime Minister and the Liberal government took power, that trans-Pacific partnership agreement was not progressive enough for him. In fact, when the Prime Minister was a no-show at that signing ceremony, it was an embarrassment to Canada. It embarrassed our allies and it was highly inappropriate, so much so, it almost resulted in Canada not being an initial signatory on the trans-Pacific partnership.

However, what did result from the Prime Minister's embarrassing behaviour as part of that project was four more years of uncertainty to Canada's economy. It also resulted in the Prime Minister saying that he was more than willing to renegotiate NAFTA under the new president, Donald Trump. That is where our concerns lie.

When the previous Conservative government negotiated the trans-Pacific partnership and the free trade agreement with the European Union, our previous agriculture minister, Gerry Ritz, and the previous trade minister, the member for Abbotsford, ensured that every step along the way their colleagues in the opposition had regular meetings, regular updates on what the process was, what the concessions were and what the pros and cons would be in it. In addition, all the stakeholder groups also had very keen interests and were included in all those discussions. We have none of that with the current Liberal government.

We have been kept in the dark from beginning to end with this new NAFTA. All we were asking for was some due diligence to see the details in that agreement. Therefore, people can see why Conservative members are not ready to jump on board and approve the Liberals' new agreement without giving it that due diligence, without giving it that scrutiny.

We have heard over the last few days of debate on the new NAFTA that the Liberals have asked us to trust them, that this is a great deal, better than any deal we have had before. However, the Liberals have not earned that trust. They have not earned that trust from Conservative members. They certainly have not earned that trust from stakeholders who have asked us, especially in the agriculture sector, to do our due diligence, to give this process the scrutiny it deserves.

Let us go back a little to why stakeholders are asking us to ensure we review this and why they are wary of what the Liberals may be trying to pass through this NAFTA. They have not earned that trust of many of stakeholders, especially in the agriculture sector.

It is a government that promised to do a thorough and robust review of the business risk management programs and come up with a new program that would be bankable, accessible and efficient for Canadian agriculture. The Liberals have not done that. It is a broken promise.

It is a Liberal government that promised a compensation package for dairy processors as part of its previous free trade agreements. It reneged on that promise. There is no compensation package at all for dairy processors. It is another promise broken.

This is a Liberal government that missed a critical deadline to apply to the World Organisation for Animal Health for negligible risk status for Canada when it came to bovine spongiform encephalopathy. That was a critical mistake.

The agriculture minister, the trade minister, the health minister, the Prime Minister, all of them dropped the ball. How does one miss a date that we knew of 11 years before it was coming? As a result, our beef ranchers in Ontario are struggling because of a lack of capacity and now have limited options to export their beef products.

Had the Liberal government met that deadline, and it was just putting a notice of motion on the table with the World Organisation for Animal Health to let it know that we would be applying this year, it would have opened doors for Ontario beef producers. However, the government did not do that, and has not apologized for this or admitted that it was a mistake. Not only was it a mistake; it was a crushing mistake for Ontario beef producers and certainly cattle ranchers across Canada. It was an important date that the government missed.

In addition to that, the Liberals have implemented a punishing carbon tax on Canadian agriculture. The agriculture minister has admitted this week that she is not keeping any data on the impact of the carbon tax on Canadian farmers.

People can see why our agriculture stakeholders from coast to coast to coast are questioning the ability of due diligence of the Liberal government when it comes to this NAFTA agreement. As I have said from the beginning, the vast majority of stakeholders want the new NAFTA agreement to be enforced, but they do not want us to jump in and sign this agreement as quickly as possible. They want us to ensure we look at every aspect of this agreement before we vote to ratify it.

This has been a harvest from hell for Canadian agriculture, and we have heard this from many stakeholders. I will read some quotes to show why our producers are a little wary of the Liberals' intent here.

Bill Campbell, the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers said:

We are firm in our position that there needs to be an exemption for farmers under the carbon tax framework for all the costs associated with drying all grain, as well as for heating barns and farm buildings...Now that Manitoba falls under the federal backstop, farmers are left paying prices that, as price-takers in the global economy, cannot be passed along.

Jeff Nielsen of Grain Growers Canada said this week:

The 2019 harvest season has put undue burdens on farmers’ livelihoods and every part of the country has been hit hard...Beyond just the crop left in the field, farmers have faced major grain drying expenses, courtesy of the federal carbon tax, to ensure at least some crops make it to market....These costs are adding up and we cannot continue to pay the price for inaction...A complete exemption for all fuels used on the farm is what farmers ultimately require to avoid these crises in the future and provide farmers with the resources to continue doing what we do best.

People can see why our agriculture stakeholders are concerned, because there is no trust level with the Liberal government.

Certainly, the Liberals are giving that great lip service that this new NAFTA is a better agreement, but before we make that decision, we want to have every opportunity to review it.

As many of my colleagues have said in their speeches over the last week, we have asked for an economic impact analysis, we have asked for data that backs up the agreement the Liberals have asked us to sign, but we have not seen any of those documents.

As I have said previously, the stark difference between when the Conservative government was negotiating these free trade agreements and the Liberal government is that under the Conservative government, we ensured that the opposition was involved every step of the way, that it was well informed with all of the decisions that were being made and that the stakeholders were there at the table with us. However, the stakeholders and the opposition have not had the same opportunity when it comes to this agreement.

It is an obligation as elected representatives that we do our due diligence. Our constituents demand us to do that. They are wary of what this agreement may hold. This is especially true when it comes to a trade agreement with one of our most important trading partners, the United States.

For agriculture, we must ensure that there is no question that the new NAFTA agreement represents stability and reliable trade with Mexico and the United States, two of our most important trading partners. In my constituency of Foothills, my residents demand that; they want that.

Free and fair trade is a top priority for us as Conservatives and certainly for our constituents as well.

[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, what Conservatives often have in common with Liberals is that we both support and recognize the importance of trade. This agreement furthers the sense of security for the $2 billion in trade between Canada and the U.S.

I disagree with the member, as he is attempting to rewrite history. The CETA agreement included just under 30 countries in Europe, and the trans-Pacific agreement included 10 countries. These are agreements that were not finalized by the Stephen Harper Conservative government. To give the impression that they were finalized at that time is just false. They were not even close to being finalized then. Many meetings took place, with the minister travelling abroad.

Having said that, this particular agreement has brought Canadians together, and the official opposition was provided the opportunity to sit down in December to get details.

Would the member not agree that we need to continue to work together to get the bill passed?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the parliamentary secretary to keep his questions a little tighter, a little shorter. I want to remind the members on this side that I have no doubt the member for Foothills is able to respond. In the meantime, I ask that they hold their comments.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with my colleague across the floor, who is actually trying to rewrite history.

The TPP agreement was ready to be signed on the eve of the 2015 election. The second the Prime Minister took office, he should have gone to the table and signed the agreement. However, it was not good enough for him. That agreement was not progressive enough. In fact, the Prime Minister did not show up at the signing ceremony, an incredible embarrassment to this country.

We ended up with four more years of uncertainty when the TPP agreement was almost ripped apart. We came close to that. Canada was almost not even a member of the trans-Pacific partnership agreement. It was the same with CETA. In fact, under the Liberal government we have lost very important trade agreements with China, India, Peru, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and the list goes on and on.

We are the party of free trade. The Liberals are the party of eliminating it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech, especially since he spoke about agriculture.

Speaking of compensation, the Bloc Québécois will absolutely not accept as support a modernization program similar to the one the government created in 2018 for Europe. That program has proven to be a disaster.

We are calling for a program that provides direct support, and we want to see it in the next budget. What does my colleague think of that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are some concerns with the new NAFTA agreement when it comes to the dairy sector.

There is no other agreement I can think of that Canada signed that has put a cap on the growth of an agricultural commodity, which the Liberals have done with dairy. There is now a quota on the export of products like skim milk powder and protein powder.

When the Liberals say this is a better agreement, certainly that may be true in some areas, but in the dairy sector it is absolutely not true. In some areas, like dairy processing, there is no compensation whatsoever, even though the Liberals did promise a compensation package.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was talking to a dairy processor from British Columbia who made the point that quotas are going to be very destructive to that industry.

My question for the hon. member is about the process we had. He mentioned the secrecy behind it. I am just wondering if the member would be in favour of working with us to produce a new system for future trade deals.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we do not have to rewrite the process, because the process was done properly under the previous Conservative government.

As I said, the minister of trade and the minister of agriculture at that time offered to hold regular meetings with their colleagues on the opposition benches and not only kept all stakeholder groups informed but actually had them at the negotiating table with us. That is the system that works. That is the system that ensures everyone's voice is heard. Stakeholders did not always agree, but at least they had the chance to put forward their positions at the table. That is the system we need to follow.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the new NAFTA. I would like to start by showing why this agreement is so important.

More than 400,000 people cross the Canada-U.S. border every day for work. Every day, $2.4 billion in goods cross the border. About two million Canadian jobs are directly linked to free trade with the United States. We now have six times as much trade with Mexico than we had when we signed our agreement in 1993.

Let us also look at the history of why we are negotiating NAFTA. The U.S. president was elected by saying that NAFTA was the worst deal ever made. It was inevitable that any Canadian government was going to have to renegotiate with the United States on NAFTA.

This Canadian government, in my view, did an exceptional job in arriving at a deal that is even better than the previous NAFTA in almost every area. That is sensational when looking at the difference in size between Canada and the United States. The United States has a population that is about nine times bigger than that of Canada.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that Canada is the U.S.'s biggest trading partner in the vast majority of states and that millions of American jobs are linked to NAFTA, there is far less knowledge in the United States on the importance of the trading relationship between Canada and the United States than there is in Canada.

As a result, the team had to deal with numerous challenges in this negotiation, one of which was educating Americans on how important their trading relationship with Canada is. Another was navigating the system in the United States, where the administration was of one party and the majority in the House of Representatives was of another party.

We have now arrived at a point where Mexico has ratified the new NAFTA, the United States Congress has passed it and the U.S. president has signed the bill, ratifying it. We in Canada are now left to decide one thing: Do we go along with our partners in the United States and Mexico and ratify this deal or do we not? I would say yes, we need to do so.

I will talk about a couple of the areas where Canada resolutely defended its position in the NAFTA negotiations.

First, there is chapter 19, the dispute resolution mechanism. We all heard the Americans continually challenge chapter 19, trying to have it removed from the new NAFTA. Indeed, in the initial agreement between Mexico and the United States, that chapter was removed. Canada was able to ensure that this chapter remained, leaving us a dispute resolution mechanism with the United States, something we desperately need in dealing with a trading partner that is vastly bigger than us.

In the course of these negotiations, we succeeded in protecting supply management, something the Americans, who saw it as one of their key issues in the deal, said they wanted us to repeal. We also succeeded in this deal by getting new labour and environment chapters that were not in the previous agreement, things that will be of benefit to Canadian workers and the environment. Indeed, with changes made through the demands of Democrats in the U.S. Congress, the enforcement mechanisms for the labour and environmental chapters are better now than they were in the original deal.

As parliamentary secretary for labour, I am very pleased with the labour chapters in NAFTA. The labour standards that are now established in NAFTA are progressive and fully enforceable. They help level the playing field for Canadian workers and businesses; are a major upgrade from those in the original NAFTA because they protect migrant workers and union members; prevent the import of products made by forced labour; require measures to protect workers against discrimination; ensure that laws and policies that protect workers' rights, like those for collective bargaining and freedom of association, are enshrined; give Canadian businesses a chance to grow; and give workers a fair chance to share in the benefits of free trade. That is something.

In addition, for automobiles to be NAFTA-certified, 70% of the parts used in them have to be made in North America, in Canada, the United States or Mexico. In the current NAFTA this obligation is not there. That is a huge deal for parts makers in Canada that contribute to the auto industry, and it includes steel and aluminum. Seventy per cent of the components need to be made in North America.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed about aluminum, but we have to remember that we started with a 0% requirement and are now at 70%. For those parts that are manufactured in Canada and the United States, the anti-dumping measures prevail and, as such, Canadian aluminum producers are doing far better, despite concerns that Mexico may use Chinese aluminum. We do not want that to happen, but that could be happening and is probably happening right now. The deal does not change that issue. It only means that now 70% of the parts need to be made in North America.

While I acknowledge it is true that the deal for steel states that parts need to be poured and melted in North America and it does not for aluminum, that will come into effect seven years from now. We have seven years to see if we can improve stuff on aluminum. However, it still means that the protections for aluminum providers today are better than they were under the previous NAFTA. It is a gain, not a loss.

Another thing that is really important is that now a significant percentage of parts need to be made by workers earning more than $16 an hour. That is a huge deal, because it means that factories in Mexico with low-cost workers will no longer be able to produce the NAFTA-certified parts under this threshold. That means that more jobs will be kept in Canada and the United States and not moved to Mexico. That is an incredible victory in this deal. Canada has established with Mexico a working group to improve labour standards and working conditions. Mexico is going to need to make labour reforms, especially in areas that are crucial for the implementation of the new NAFTA. The Canada-Mexico bilateral labour working group will ensure that Canadian expertise is available to share our best practices and strengthen co-operation with Mexico. It will bring together Canadian and Mexican experts to help implement the new NAFTA's labour protections and standards. Therefore, when we talk about all of the different things that NAFTA could have been, and we look at the U.S. original negotiating position, this new trade agreement could have been very difficult for Canadians. In the end, this panel of people that Canada has put together, from our professional civil service to our government members working on this, to those many others that helped in the process, including many members of the former Conservative government who aided our current government in negotiating NAFTA, all talked about former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who was intricately involved in assisting our government, and the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. This was a team Canada effort, as it should be, because when we create a trade deal that is of so much importance to Canadian jobs, Canadian workers and our Canadian economy, it is primordial.

It is primordial to have a first-rate team of people from all over the country who represent labour, employers, unions, individuals from all different groups, including the government, the opposition and everyone. I think Deputy Prime Minister Freeland and her entire team did an outstanding job.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he cannot use the minister's name. He can use the position, but not the name.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, in closing, what I would say is this. This trade deal, while not perfect in every area, is better even than the previous NAFTA, is an incredible victory given the political context of our times and the current U.S. administration we were negotiating with. I am very proud to vote in favour of this trade deal.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish my colleague across the way all the best.

I want to ask him about the negotiating strategy that we followed. The rhetoric during the last presidential election was very much focused on Mexico. The American president, then candidate, was very critical of trade practices by Mexico as part of that rhetoric. Over the course of the discussions after the election, it was interesting to see how that rhetoric shifted from Mexico to Canada. The American administration basically signed on to a deal without Canada and then said, “Take it or leave it.”

The opposition and the public do not know all the things that happened, or what was said or not said behind closed doors. I wonder if the member could reflect on why he thinks that, as a result perhaps of some of the conversations or steps or missteps by the Liberal government, the target shifted from Mexico to Canada in the context of that conversation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would note that the rhetoric of the current U.S. administration seems to shift from target to target to target with a lot of volatility.

I cannot necessarily speak to the issue of rhetoric. I can say that the Canadian government stood resolutely for the points that Canada said we would make in the current NAFTA, meaning we resisted U.S. demands to remove the dispute resolution mechanism from NAFTA, which the Mexicans had agreed to in the initial deal with the United States. That was reinserted because Canada insisted upon it. The United States wanted us to completely remove our supply management process. We resisted that.

I am proud of the fact that we not only reached a deal but we reached a deal by resolutely standing in defence of Canadian workers across the country.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that seems to be missing from this whole conversation, both here in the House of Commons and across the country, is any sort of economic analysis of the impact of this trade agreement. It would seem a very important thing to know before we say yes or no to this or ask for changes. The U.S. Congress made some significant changes. We are being asked just to rubber-stamp it and send it on. One thing we do not have is any kind of economic impact analysis. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on that.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that is incredibly important is that we can all recognize the disastrous impact on Canada of not having a trade agreement with the United States, when literally millions of jobs in Canada depend on that trade agreement. Our officials who provided us with briefings this week made that clear. In this case, the economic benefits to Canada of free trade with the United States and Mexico are abundantly clear.

I very much hope that we will have, and continue to have, more information in that regard provided to Parliament and to committee.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for admitting that the agreement gives greater protections to steel than to aluminum. Since there are solutions that do not necessarily involve changing the agreement but could protect aluminum, does my colleague think that his government should try to find a solution? We could do it now, rather than wait seven years.

What does my colleague think?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs's answer to the question from the leader of the Bloc Québécois. She told him she was open to any proposals. I know the Deputy Prime Minister, and she is a woman who says what she thinks. I hope we will all work together to improve what we have.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to this very important issue for the Canadian economy and Canadian foreign policy. I know it is also important to my constituents.

We are discussing the new NAFTA. It is important to be clear at the outset that I and the Conservative Party are very supportive of free trade. We are the party of free trade, and it is important to review how we got here. Before I do that, I will underline our commitment to the importance of free trade, particularly in North America. My party wants to see that happen and wants to ensure it happens in a way that is in the best interest of Canada.

If we go back a few decades to around the time I was born, some people in the House will remember the free trade election in 1988. It was very much a live issue of whether free trade with the United States was good for Canada. The Liberal Party and the NDP's position was that this would lead to a hollowing out of Canada completely, and that the effect of this was, as John Turner said at the time, to make Canada a colony of the United States.

I am pleased to say that our party, as on many other issues, was on the right side of history and has been able to prevail in that cause. We are now at a point where there may not be a universal consensus, but a much greater consensus, on the importance of free trade.

Even as we hear more verbal acquiescence from Liberal politicians and others to the idea that free trade is good for Canada, it is very clear if we look at the record that, even today, Conservatives have pursued trade relations with other countries with a great deal more enthusiasm and vigour.

During the time of the Stephen Harper government, we moved forward and signed trade deals with countries representing over 60% of the world's GDP, including the trans-Pacific partnership deal and the Canada-E.U. free trade agreement. We were also pursing trade negotiations with a variety of other countries that were a bit smaller, but still very important.

The government's celebrated achievements in the last Parliament around trade were really crossing t's and dotting i's on agreements that were negotiated under Conservatives. We applauded the fact that they did not stop the progress that was happening.

As we can see even today, the vigour with which Conservatives support and pursue free trade deals is much greater. We understand that voluntary exchange between free peoples is the basis for prosperity, here and around the world. In a context where that voluntary exchange is between free peoples, where it benefits Canadian workers as it does, there is no reason for the government to get in the way of people's ability to engage in commerce across international borders.

In front of us, we have a situation dealing with NAFTA. To add context, we had the election of an American president who said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. He took some positions that were very far out of step with what Canadians wanted, which would not have been in Canada's interest.

The Liberal government now claims as victories the fact that it did not make all of the concessions that were asked for. It says, “We could have lost this”, and so forth, but we did not lose things we could have lost. Hopefully the negotiation was never saying, “You can have exactly what you want.” It is a certainty, and it is clear in the deal and the outcome we have, that the government took the existing position we had, negotiated with the positions proposed and ended up with something in between, something that still lost ground for Canada in terms of our interest.

The Liberal government has argued, although not explicitly, that it was inevitable. Maybe it is not said directly, but the government says it was a difficult context and, given the context, this was the best that it could do. There were various strategic decisions made at the political level that did not help.

I think the government could have, at the outset, put the emphasis on Canadian jobs and Canadian workers. It could have been clearer earlier in articulating the specific focus of Canada's interest, rather than putting the focus on more symbolic issues.

I think the government could also have avoided being directly unnecessarily antagonistic. I, of course, disagree with policies of other governments from time to time. I am not someone who is shy about expressing that, including in the chamber. However, I think the government could have done a better job in trying to miss those opportunities to goad the other side and to make themselves the issue, instead of making Canadian workers and their opportunities the issue.

We now have this deal in front of us. I think it could have been much better, but on the other hand we have to take it as it is. I will say for the government, that we are negotiating deals in a minority Parliament. We see an example of this happening in other countries around NAFTA, where the system requires the President to engage actively with congressional leaders around the details of the deal.

Right now we have a minority Parliament, where the government did not actually get the most votes in the last election. They got about a third of the votes. They got fewer votes than the Conservative Party did. The responsible way to negotiate deals, to pursue these kinds of things in the context of a minority Parliament, is to have opposition shadow ministers and members directly involved all the way along and given the opportunity to be actively there, proposing ideas, rather than the government just saying that they are going to be briefed after the fact.

As it happens, Conservative members were very involved in advancing the national interest. They were spending time in the United States advancing the relationship, defending Canadian-American trade and talking about the importance of these things. However, we are still not being briefed and engaged in those conversations in a way, and to the degree, that would be considered automatic in the vast majority of democratic legislatures around the world.

I would ask the government to work to do better on that. If it wants to ensure the success of these kinds of agreements in a minority Parliament, it needs to understand that the opposition has a responsibility to scrutinize them in the national interest and in particular in the interest of Canadian workers.

In the context of trade, we need to reflect on our national competitiveness. In an environment where we are trading internationally, we inevitably have to consider the competitiveness of our economy in relation to other countries. That is one of the reasons I think the Teck mine project in Alberta is very important.

We need to ensure economic development. We need to ensure that Alberta is able to develop its natural resource sector. The Teck Resources Limited project, a $20.7-billion project, could be producing 260,000 barrels of crude oil per day. This would be very good for the Canadian economy. This would be very good for our competitiveness. This would be very good for jobs and opportunity in Alberta.

I want to clearly express my strong support for this project, but we have mixed messages and dithering on this from the government. We had the environment minister saying the cabinet could make a decision to improve it, reject it or delay it. Indeed, the Liberals have implied that they might make that decision contingent on certain policy actions at other levels of government.

The reality is that this project has already been through a rigorous assessment. It is a project that is good for the Canadian economy, and I think is consistent with our environmental commitments, insofar as the world will continue to use oil and we should create incentives for the development of new technologies to improve our environmental performance. In that context, and recognizing strong support for this project from indigenous communities, I hope the government supports it.

This is one of many examples of issues that are important for our national economy and for ensuring our competitiveness, and I hope the government will take my support for the project, and that of other members and certainly of the whole Conservative caucus, into consideration as it moves forward.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his well-delivered, well-thought-out speech, and I agree with him on practically 95% of it. However, in a minority Parliament, God forbid that I dwell on the 5%, so let us take a look at the 95% that I agree with.

I have been involved with the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association and have been through the CETA negotiations with the EU, and one of the most contentious items I have dealt with over the years was dispute settlement. Let us be honest: A country of our size can punch way above its weight when it comes to international agreements on free trade and many other multilateral agreements.

I want to get the member's comments on the importance of having a dispute settlement mechanism in this agreement, as well as in CETA, in order for us as a small nation to go one step above.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate knowing that the member agrees with 95% of what I said, and we would love to have him over here any time.

With regard to investor-state dispute settlement, I believe, although I know some colleagues in this House do not agree, that if we are going to sign an agreement, then there has to be a mechanism for dispute settlement that in some cases would allow us to go beyond simply the national courts. If a Canadian company is investing in Mexico and there are terms of the trade agreement that say it is able to make that investment and should be treated on an equal footing with local companies, but that is not happening, the company should have legal remedies that go beyond the local courts.

Unfortunately, in this particular deal we were set back in terms of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. Chapter 11 of the old NAFTA dealt with this issue, but we just do not have that kind of protection for Canadian companies. Of course these provisions protect American and Mexican companies investing in Canada, which should not bother us as a rule-of-law country, but it makes Canadian companies more vulnerable when making investments in other countries, particularly if there are situations in, for example, Mexico, where Canadian companies would be adversely affected.

I believe in the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that other questions need to be posed as well, so let us keep the questions and comments short.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan grasps chapter 11. I am certainly thrilled that it is no longer in NAFTA 2.0, or CUSMA, or whatever we are calling it.

In experience and theory, I hear what the member is saying about how it would have protected Canadian companies against unfairness from U.S. governments. However, we have an empirical track record and a history showing that when Canadian companies brought forward these chapter 11 cases in the U.S., they virtually always lost. On the other hand, when U.S. companies such as Ethyl Corporation from Virginia, SD Myers of Ohio, AbitibiBowater or Bilcon brought charges against Canada, they succeeded in cases that were fundamentally anti-democratic and against what Parliament had decided was best for Canada.

I cheer the removal of chapter 11 from NAFTA.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague probably agrees a little less than I do with the previous questioner. However, it is not just a matter of opinion; it is a matter of numbers. Let me share the numbers with the member in terms of ISDS cases that have been settled or decided.

Canada has lost eight cases and won nine cases, so we are batting above .500, and in total Canada has paid out about $219 million in damages and settlements and has spent about $95 million in legal costs to defend against ISDS claims. This is during the period in which NAFTA was in place. I compare those relatively small numbers to the $406.1 billion in foreign direct investment from the U.S. into Canada today.

By having a mechanism that protects Canadian companies that are making investments, we are winning more than we are losing and we are benefiting more than it is costing. It is a reality of a rule-of-law country that companies can sue the government when agreements have not been followed. That is part of a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, time is up. I tried to allow for a little more time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brampton East.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today for my first official speech. As the member for Brampton East, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for putting their trust in me to represent their interests here in Ottawa. I would also like to thank my family, especially my wife, Jo, and two daughters, Ayva and Maya.

Having spent the last 11 years working as an international trade consultant with businesses from coast to coast to coast, I am grateful to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. I know this agreement will give businesses the stability to keep trading and investing in good middle-class jobs here in Canada. With over $2 billion in trade per day, and the countless integrated supply chains with our neighbours to the south, it is clear that Canadian businesses rely on a dependable and stable trade relationship with our friends in the U.S. and Mexico.

In my riding of Brampton East, trade has an enormous impact on families. The trade corridor in my riding brings stability to many Canadians, giving them good-paying jobs and the ability to provide for their families. Many businesses rely on an open trade agreement with the U.S. and I have seen that first-hand. In Brampton the transportation industry, especially the trucking industry, relies heavily on trade with the U.S. This trade deal will give businesses the stability they need to further invest in their ventures and continue to create new middle-class jobs.

The new NAFTA will continue to give Canadian businesses favourable access to almost half a billion consumers. This agreement was a robust, collaborative effort that sought the perspectives and opinions from over 47,000 Canadians to ensure their views were considered at the negotiation table. We also spoke to over 1,300 stakeholders, including small businesses, indigenous groups, female entrepreneurs, academics and youth. Thanks to Canadians who shared their views, we went into these negotiations prepared and, in the end, we got a good deal for middle-class families and for our country.

This trade deal will bring new opportunities, security and market access for many Canadian industries. This new progressive trade deal brings forth a great opportunity for growth and expansion in Canada's automotive sector. More robust rules of origin for the auto sector will help to keep the benefits of the agreement in North America and level the playing field for Canada's high-wage workers.

This new agreement has the potential to generate increased automotive production in North America, including Canada. Additionally, this agreement creates sourcing opportunities for many Canadian parts producers. The strength of Canada's highly skilled workforce and our workers' ability to produce high-quality vehicles has always given the Canadian automotive sector an advantage.

For auto workers in Ontario, this new deal preserves crucial cross-border auto supply chains. It provides an incentive to produce vehicles in Canada and significantly improves labour rights for Mexican workers, which helps level the playing field for Canadian workers. Jerry Dias of Unifor has said that this is a much better deal than the deal that was signed 24 years ago.

Throughout the negotiations for the new NAFTA, Canada fought hard to lift the U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, and we succeeded. Canada is now the only major producer of aluminum in the world that is not subject to U.S. tariffs. This is great news for Canadians. This success is the cumulative result of our firm and measured response, including $2 billion in support for Canadian workers and companies, and hundreds of interactions with U.S. officials.

The new NAFTA is in the interests of steel and aluminum producers across Canada. Jean Simard, the president and CEO of the Aluminum Association of Canada, even said, “We think the USMCA is the right way to go.”

Catherine Cobden, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said, “Implementation of the CUSMA is critical to strengthening the competitiveness of Canadian and North American steel industries and ensuring market access in the face of persistent global trade challenges and uncertainty.

Let us set the record straight. This modernized agreement has secured key benefits and key access for many generations to come and CUSMA is something that all Canadians should be especially proud of. The new NAFTA will preserve existing agriculture commitments between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico and help bring together an already integrated North American industry.

We fought hard to secure many beneficial outcomes for agriculture, including new market access in the form of tariff-free quotas for refined sugar, sugar-containing products and certain dairy products. We established a modernized committee on agriculture trade, which will address issues and trade barriers, and provide obligations for agriculture biotechnology that will promote innovation, transparency and predictability. Over 50% of all of Canada's food exports are destined to the United States.

That is why the new NAFTA is so important. It would ensure that our farmers and producers can continue to have the access they need to sell their goods across the border so that they can continue to help grow the Canadian economy.

Leading into the trade deal talks, the U.S. summary of objectives for NAFTA renegotiations focused on the one key priority of eliminating the remaining Canadian tariffs on imports of U.S. dairy, poultry and egg products. Through our firm approach to the negotiations, Canada preserved it for future generations, just as we are delivering on our commitment to fully and fairly compensate for the impacts of the other trade agreements like CETA and CPTPP for our dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors. We will do the exact same once CUSMA is fully ratified.

Fundamentally, the ratification of CUSMA is good news for the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the agriculture sector that depend on continued tariff-free access to our largest trading partner. Canada's status on the national stage is a non-partisan issue. Canada's success benefits all of us, some way or another.

Premier Moe of Saskatchewan has expressed his support for the new NAFTA, having said that a signed CUSMA trade deal is good news for Saskatchewan and Canada.

Premier Jason Kenney of Alberta has said that he is relieved that a renewed North American trade agreement has been concluded.

Premier Legault of Quebec, who knows how important this trade deal is for Quebec and Canada, has said, “I think that the Bloc [Québécois] must defend the interests of Quebeckers, and it is in the interests of Quebeckers that this agreement be ratified and adopted.”

From farmers in Alberta and auto workers in Windsor, to aluminum producers in Quebec and entrepreneurs in St. John's, Brampton and Vancouver, the new NAFTA would benefit Canadians from every corner of the country.

Throughout the entire process of NAFTA negotiations, Canada's key objective remained the same: Ensure our new deal secures benefits for every Canadian. I am proud to see that this objective was fully achieved. Through the full ratification of this new trade agreement, I am confident that Canada's strategic objectives will be further advanced through a united approach to managing and maintaining our economic relationships with two of our most key allies.

While my speech has featured just some of the key successes of the new NAFTA, I would like to also point out other notable revised outcomes of CUSMA on areas such as environment, energy, culture, indigenous peoples and gender equity. In every aspect, we got a good deal for our country, which means we got a good deal for all Canadians. Canadian parliamentarians of every political stripe must understand that, politics aside, the interests of Canadians come first, last and always.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his first speech here in the House of Commons. However, he should remember that we cannot assume that every document sent out by the Liberal Party is accurate. We must question some of that information.

My colleague said that dairy, egg and poultry farmers were fully compensated for the losses they incurred as a result of concessions made in earlier free trade agreements. That is false. Only dairy farmers have received compensation. Egg and poultry farmers did not receive anything. What is more, we are still waiting for the continuation of the program.

Did the member know that only dairy farmers were compensated and that the others are still waiting?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, while we respect the dairy and poultry industry, our position is to negotiate for Canadians across Canada. The member's questions are very important to me. The new NAFTA is incredibly important for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including the dairy and poultry sectors. I have talked to numerous business people across Canada. Some of them are farmers from Alberta and Saskatchewan, while others are tech entrepreneurs from Vancouver. They told me they rely heavily on this trade agreement.

Over the last 11 years, I have worked as an international trade consultant across many different industries, and everyone is for this NAFTA. Thank you for your question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member that he is to address the responses to the Speaker of the House and not to individual members.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am concerned about is that, when the first agreement was made, it was such a great agreement that the minister said that she did not want to renegotiate it, did not want to open it back up, and that it was very naive of the NDP to ask them to do that as it would be opening a Pandora's box.

However, the Democrats in the United States reopened it and apparently we got a better deal than our first best deal.

What is the best of the best? Is the first one the best, or is the second one the best? Is there a third best?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, 75% of our trade is with our partners to the south. We know this is a great deal for Canadians. It is an honour to stand here and talk about this deal.

I know the member across the aisle is from Hamilton. The auto sector has a huge part in this new agreement. The new rules of origin level the playing field for Canada's high-wage workers. We signed a side letter on November 30 that has already entered into force. It is a gold-plated insurance policy against possible 232 tariffs on cars and car parts. The insurance policy is strongly supported by our auto industry. Canada is the only G7 country with that protection.

The bottom line is that this is a good deal for Canada and for Canadian workers.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

I am wondering what he thinks about the delegation of people from Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean who came to Ottawa this week to express their concerns and disclose the results of the study conducted by the Groupe Performance stratégique. This group examined the economic impact that the failure to include a definition of aluminum similar to the definition of steel in the protocol of amendments would have on Quebec over 10 years, from 2020 to 2029.

Does he believe that those people are not Quebeckers?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could respond to the member in French. I am working on that right now.

This is a great deal for Canadians and for the people of Quebec. The respected Premier of Quebec has one of the highest approval ratings across the country. The Bloc Québécois must defend the interests of the Québécois, and it is in the interests of the Québécois that the agreement is ratified and adopted.

The trade between NAFTA, Quebec and the U.S.A. is $57 billion. It preserves the culture exemptions and preserves supply management when the U.S. was calling for its complete dismantlement. When the new NAFTA is ratified, we will have a guarantee that 70% of aluminum contained in a car built under NAFTA must come from North America. At the moment 0% of aluminum in NAFTA must come from North America. In my books, 70% is better than zero.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about NAFTA, but first I would like to thank the hon. Speaker for the opportunity of a lifetime earlier, having sat in the chair with some of the most important people in Canadian history.

Conservatives are the party of free trade. There can be absolutely no doubt about that. Our party is responsible for negotiating some of the largest and most important trade agreements in Canadian history. The importance of that cannot be underscored too much. Our economy today is greatly reliant on the great work of previous prime ministers from the Conservative Party. Indeed, we benefit from that today in our daily lives and in our productivity and wages.

Because of the importance of free trade, I will signal today that it is my intention to support NAFTA .7, however, it is not without deep reservations that I do so as the new NAFTA .7 will have significant impacts on the aluminum industry, the forest industry and an industry that is very important to my riding, the dairy and supply-managed sectors.

National unity should be a key issue that we discuss in every debate. It is incumbent upon members of other provinces to reach across. As the member from Ontario, I have to acknowledge and tell the members, our brothers and sisters from Quebec, that I believe this agreement has an unfair and disproportionate impact on Quebec.

Much of the 2019 discourse focused on a little company called SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister's decision to direct his Attorney General to act on a deferred prosecution had a significant impact on Canada. Of course, Canada is seen across the world as a beacon of virtue, honour and light. Unfortunately, that beacon dimmed a little with his actions.

In the Ethics Commissioner's report, it was found that the Prime Minister's attempt to influence his Attorney General breached the Conflict of Interest Act. Acknowledging mistakes were made, he stood and said he would not accept full responsibility, saying he will always stand up for Quebec jobs. That statement is very troubling because it means almost limitless actions to protect maybe one job in Quebec. Is he willing to put in peril the rule of law, one of the most sacrosanct principles, just to protect one job in Quebec? Apparently so.

Also, the reality of that statement was found to be untrue because the CEO of SNC-Lavalin said there were not Canadian jobs at stake with respect to the deferred prosecution agreement.

I believe that the final bit of any credibility left in the statement that the Prime Minister will stand up for jobs in Quebec fell apart with the signature of NAFTA .7. To be clear, it is the worst deal for Canadians. The pain from this diminished deal is disproportionately felt by rural Canada and by Quebec.

The dairy industry is an incredibly important part of the economy in Northumberland—Peterborough South. There are 66 dairy farms in my riding. They contribute over 34 million litres of milk to our community. I have been told over and over, most recently at a debate during the election by a farmer who said he was not going to ask for anything except that we stop going through the negotiations bartering their livelihood, farmers' futures, as the first bargaining chip that goes down. Farmers are more important than that and they deserve better treatment than that.

Quebec's dairy industry is also extremely significant. There are nearly 8,000 dairy farms averaging 55 cows per farm and three billion litres of milk are produced, which accounts for about 30% of Quebec's total agricultural production. NAFTA .7 will do significant damage to the dairy industry by reducing the market by nearly 4%. We lost that production without receiving any equivalent compensation from the United States and that is because it is difficult for our producers to get into the U.S. and European markets.

Those markets, as I am sure many members are aware, are barred by tariff and non-tariff barriers. One great example of that is the U.S. pasteurization standard. Due to technicalities in the market, it is nearly impossible for Canadian producers to hit that. However, our milk is safe, it is perhaps the safest in the world, and the only reason to apply that standard on our producers is to block entry into their markets. Why could we not have made progress on that important issue?

Perhaps just as significant as the reduction in quota and the reduction in market size is the elimination of classes 6 and 7. The milk that comes from our wonderful cows becomes many different products, such as cream, whole fat and skim. However, the reality is that the market is limited for skim milk, but classes 6 and 7 would allow that skim milk to be sold competitively. In the absence of classes 6 and 7, that skim product now becomes unsaleable and unmarketable, and could be a wasted by-product, adding to the cost and perhaps even limiting the market.

This is not a good deal for the folks in the dairy industry. It is not a good deal for our dairy producers from coast to coast to coast. When we look across the nation, we could have gotten a better deal, and it is not just me saying that this is not a good deal for our dairy. Bruno Letendre, the head of the Quebec milk producers association said that “the agreement is a bad one for the Canadian industry” and that our Prime Minister “negotiated on his knees, and I'm being generous.”

There simply can be no question that the dairy industry and the supply management sector have been damaged. However, supply management has been great for the Canadian economy. It has been great for the Canadian consumer. We have amazing milk in Canada, which is among the safest in the world. Therefore, I was shocked when a Liberal member across the way earlier today said that supply management was not a good system for our consumers. That is completely untrue and objectively false.

When we look at this agreement, we acknowledge that there has been something taken away from supply management. It is clear, because the government has signalled that it will have a compensation package. However, when I talk to our farmers, they do not want another government handout. What they want is to be left alone so that they do not live in fear that, the next time a Liberal negotiator walks up to a free trade agreement, the first bargaining chip put on that board is the farmers of our country. It is not right and it is not fair.

On the impact to the aluminum sector, I have to say that the government members have done an extremely poor job in communicating. Instead of engaging us as the opposition, as partners, they have attempted to gloss over it. Therefore, I will be forthright with members. The aluminum protection is better, because it was not there before. However, the Liberals also have to acknowledge that, to be fair, this protection is undermined, if not completely undermined, by the fact that the aluminum does not have to be melted or poured in North America. I was pleased to hear, during the conversation from members on the other side, an acknowledgement of that, but they should have done that from the beginning instead of trying to sail over these issues.

My ask of government members is that in future communications with opposition parties, they simply acknowledge the loss issues rather than attempt to sail over them. The intellectual dishonesty of selling too hard leads to distrust, which is never useful, particularly in a minority Parliament.

Further, I ask that the government be transparent and answer the following questions.

What will the economic impact of NAFTA .7 be? The Liberals have the numbers. Please share.

What are the details of the dairy compensation package? How many millions of dollars will the dairy industry lose as a result of this deal?

What is the potential exposure of the aluminum market to foreign dumping? Why was the aluminum industry not afforded the same protection as steel, and if it had been, what would the economic benefit be?

This deal, beyond a shadow of a doubt, shows that the Liberals will not stand up for jobs in Quebec when it means doing the hard job of negotiating with President Trump, and will only act when it is politically expedient to do so.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have been speaking with the dairy producers and dairy processors of Canada who have been working on a committee of agricultural trade to look at impacts and things he has addressed with respect to economic impact, mitigation and compensation strategies going forward.

We are very deeply involved with the people in dairy industry to ensure we do what we can to protect them. They have told me, and maybe to the member across the way has heard this as well, that it is important to label Canadian dairy products being produced in Canada, so Canadian consumers can make the right decisions.

Would the hon. member agree that if Canadians knew that it was Canadian milk, they would buy Canadian?

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that Canadians want to support Canadian business and that we continue to support the supply management sector.

I look forward to having further discussions. These are the types of discussions we need to have across the aisle. We want to be brought into these negotiations. It has been said that Conservatives can even be useful at times. We would love to hear those discussions.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that one of the biggest losers in the CUSMA agreement is the supply-managed dairy sector, a sector that is very important to my riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

One of the things I am a little bit confused by is that in his remarks, the member talked about his support for the supply-managed dairy sector. I am trying to reconcile that with the past attacks from his party on that very same sector. Perhaps he could elaborate on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the leader of the official opposition and our party have been very clear about our support for supply management. We will continue to do so.

I am here every day to represent the farmers of Northumberland—Peterborough South and the farmers of Quebec, who produce the best milk in the world.

[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 would like to think that Manitoba might share in some of that best product in the world.

However, I want to give assurances for my colleague across the way that the government has been a very strong advocate for supply management, and nothing has changed. We have seen that advocacy, whether it is in this trade agreement, CETA or the trans-Pacific agreement. We recognize that it is important, not only for Canadians but specifically for industry representatives, such as our dairy farmers and others.

Could my colleague comment on how important it is that we collectively, as a House of Commons, make a very strong and powerful statement that we are there to support supply management?

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

Madam Speaker, to be clear, I think all Canadians produce the best milk in Canada, including the great province of Manitoba.

I would also like to thank the hon. member, in the spirit of good, honest humour here, for the way he rails against brevity. We certainly appreciate that. I have learned a lot as a new member.

Yes, we should all stand together. That is what I am really asking for, that as we go forward as a minority Parliament, we work together for all Canadians. I look forward to working with the wonderful members on the other side, to hear all about their great ideas at the various committees and that we are doing the best we can for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague for his very flattering speech about the dairy industry. It is obvious that he knows his file really well.

Now that we have a minority government, my colleague will surely be pleased to learn that the members opposite will no longer be able to block the studies on financial compensation that we have requested.

Why did they not want us to know what it was going to cost the Canadian dairy industry? I imagine that in the wonderful spirit of co-operation the Liberals will say yes when we ask for studies on compensation.

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

Madam Speaker, I look forward to seeing the studies. Once again, I look forward to a wonderful spirit of collaboration.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about the new North American Free Trade Agreement. Whether we call it NAFTA 2.0, the USMCA or CUSMA, this agreement is a testament to the hard work of Canadians from across the political spectrum, from business to agriculture to labour, who came together to put Canada first and present a united front, a team Canada, to reach an agreement that would preserve access to our most important export markets and the millions of jobs that relied on that access.

During these negotiations, over 47,000 Canadians shared their views with the negotiating team, including over 1,300 stakeholders representing small businesses, indigenous groups, women entrepreneurs, academics and youth. The non-partisan advisory council included former Conservative ministers Rona Ambrose and James Moore, NDP strategist Brian Topp and leaders from labour and industry. Their advice and perspective helped make this agreement possible.

I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her leadership and determination to pull this deal off. Under challenging circumstances, she got an agreement that not only preserves our market access, but makes real forward progress in areas such as protections for women's rights and minority rights, and the strongest ever labour and environmental chapters.

Free and fair trade helps to support the quality middle-class jobs that support families in communities across the country.

My community of Scarborough has a strong industrial base that relies on access to global parts and particularly the North American market. The economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico have become so integrated that before a project is complete, it could move across the border several times.

Falcon Fasteners is a Scarborough company that sells a wide range of collated nails and brads across North America. Any type of nail one can think of, it probably makes it. It has grown from a two-person operation in 1956 to a North American leader today, from its base in Scarborough. It relies both on access to the North American market and access to affordable quality steel to make its products. This trade agreement secures that access and will allow it to continue to grow its business.

Many companies in Scarborough rely on access to foreign markets.

Berg Chilling Systems has provided hundreds of industrial refrigeration systems to customers in more than 50 countries. The Scarborough branch of Héroux Devtek specializes in landing gear for aircraft and serves a global market. eCamion is a developer of leading-edge modular energy solutions. The Cableshoppe is an IT services and solutions company that works across borders to deliver the right technology to its clients.

Those are just a few of the Scarborough-based companies exporting their expertise and leading-edge technologies across Canada and around the world. Swift passage of this trade agreement gives them the confidence to continue to invest in and grow their business and create more quality jobs, confident they have a predictable and level playing field on which they can compete. It was not just about getting any deal; it was about getting a good deal.

Let us talk about gender equality. For example, for the first time, this agreement includes enforceable provisions that protect women's rights and minority rights. This includes labour obligations regarding the elimination of employment discrimination based on gender. This is also the first international trade agreement that recognizes gender identity and sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination in the labour chapter.

Why is gender equality so important? A McKinsey Global Institute report estimates that women's economic equality could add $150 billion to Canada's GDP by the year 2026. However, women face barriers to full labour market participation, such as gender-based discrimination and lack of training.

More women participation in the global economy is good for all of us.

Let us talk about protecting Canada's cultural industry.

Canadians are justifiably proud of our arts and cultural community. It is a $53.8 billion industry that represents over 650,000 quality jobs that support our middle-class families from coast to coast to coast. It is not just the actors we see on the screen and the artists whose music we stream. It is the many thousands of technicians and professionals who support their work.

By preserving Canada's cultural exemption, Canada has the flexibility to adopt and maintain programs and policies that support the creation, distribution and development of Canadian artistic expression or content, including in the digital environment, and this is important in the streaming era. That is why we stood firm to protect the cultural exemption and our economic interest. Canada's cultural industries are world class, and we all always defend our cultural sovereignty.

Let us talk about protecting our environment.

My constituents are deeply concerned about climate change and want to see Canada and the world doing all we can to protect our climate and our planet for future generations. I am pleased that the new NAFTA has an enforceable environment chapter, which replaces a separate side agreement. This chapter upholds air quality and fights marine pollution in Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Why do environmental protections belong in a trade agreement? It is about a level playing field and protecting the planet by protecting workers in all three countries. Commitments to high levels of environmental protections are an important part of trade agreements.

Perhaps no industry in Canada is more cross-border integrated than our auto industry. Canadian auto plants assemble more than two million vehicles every year. The automotive sector is Canada's largest export industry, supporting over 525,000 jobs and contributing $18 billion annually to our economy. Canada is a global leader in emerging automotive technologies, such as lightweight materials, advanced safety systems, software and cybersecurity and alternative power trains. Free trade is essential to our auto industry, and the new rules of origin in this trade agreement level the playing field for Canada's high-wage worker.

Our negotiators secured a side letter that is already in force. It is a gold-plated insurance policy against 232 possible tariffs on cars and car parts. Canada is the only G7 country with this protection.

This is a great deal for labour, and members do not need to take my word for it. Jerry Dias of Unifor, one of Canada's largest unions, has said that this is a much better deal than the deal that was signed 24 years ago.

Hassan Yussuff, of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that this deal “gets it right on labour provisions, including provisions to protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of gender.”

It is not just labour. Business is on board as well.

The Business Council of Canada said, "We applaud your government’s success in negotiating a comprehensive and high-standard agreement on North American trade."

Saskatchewan Premier Moe called this trade deal good news for Saskatchewan and Canada. Premier Kenney of Alberta said he was relieved that a renewed NAFTA had been concluded.

The renewed NAFTA defends Canada's farmers, it offers new protection for our auto sector, it protects out culture and it sets out new labour standards for gender and minority rights and environmental protections.

Let us have a robust debate. Let us implement this trade agreement. Let us keep Canada's economy growing. This is a progressive trade agreement that will benefit our economy for years to come.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree there are a few things that are better than they were in the last agreement. I will admit that.

However, I am concerned about sovereignty. Clause 32 states that if Canada begins negotiations on a trade deal with any non-market economy, such as China, we must notify the U.S., submit the text of any deal and get permission to continue those negotiations. If the U.S. disapproves, it could exclude Canada from CUSMA.

Does that work in reverse? Does the United States have to come to Canada and get our permission, and if not, why not?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada has negotiated hard over the last year for a modernized trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. We do recognize the importance of getting a deal that is good for Canadian workers, good for Canadian businesses and good for Canadian communities across Canada.

I hope we can work together to make sure that we ratify this agreement as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I am loath to admit it, but I find myself in agreement with my NDP colleague. He asked why there is a provision in this trade deal that allows the Americans to effectively veto Canadian engagement in negotiations with other countries. Why is that there? Why would we cede our sovereignty? Is there a parallel provision giving Canada the same power to veto American engagement in these kinds of negotiations?

My colleague who gave the speech did not answer the questions from the NDP, so I will ask the same questions again. Why would we cede our sovereignty in this way? Does the same provision apply to Americans as applies to us?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have worked very hard. It is important for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses that we have a robust debate here and ratify CUSMA to make sure that we can protect Canadian jobs and that our business community has the assurance they can have free trade with their major trading partners, the United States and Mexico.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested when the member spoke about the cultural exemption we were able to obtain in the new NAFTA.

I would like to ask the member what would have been the risk to our cultural industry if we had not obtained that exemption and what it means for our cultural industry. In my riding and in Quebec, we have many important producers, film directors, artists and musicians which represent 75,000 jobs in the province of Quebec alone.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have always stood up for our cultural industries. It means protecting a $53.8-billion industry, representing almost 650,000 quality jobs for middle-class Canadians, and includes 75,000 jobs in Quebec alone.

We stood firm to protect the cultural exemption and our economic interests during the renegotiations of the new NAFTA.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time that I rise to speak in this Parliament.

I would like to sincerely thank the constituents of Manicouagan for putting their trust in me and electing me for another term. I would also like to thank the team that supported me over the past months: my family, my spouse, my three children—Loïc, Charlotte and Ulysse—my friends, the people who work with me and those who wish to serve the North Shore with dignity, integrity and energy to advance the development of our region and Quebec. I will tackle all the challenges entrusted to me by the people of the North Shore and Quebeckers with humility and respect, as well as with conviction and determination.

Today we are debating a bill that could significantly affect the Quebec economy for the next decade or more. Bill C-4 will have major repercussions for Quebec, especially because of the large volume of Quebec exports to the United States.

We have been doing business with the Americans for over three centuries and, more often than not, our trade relationship has been beneficial to Quebec's economic development. In fact, almost 70% of our exports go to our neighbours to the south. New York state alone receives about 10% of all our world exports, as does the small state of Kentucky, which has a population of 4 million.

Given how important a free trade agreement is to Quebec's economic future, each member of the House has a duty to take the time to carefully examine all the details of the agreement and to ensure that all its victims have a forum to tell us about the harmful consequences that passing Bill C-4 will have on their industry.

It is only natural to want a “full, frank, and vigorous debate”, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. To think that we do not need serious, legitimate and therefore necessary discussions about the negative impacts of Bill C-4 on Quebec and its regions, on the stability of international trade, on unfair import practices and on the environment shows a lack of respect for Quebec voters and for workers in the dairy and aluminum industries.

I will focus on aluminum workers in particular, not just because there are two smelters in my riding, including the biggest smelter in America, but also because I can foresee the impact that the agreement will have on my constituents.

We are talking about aluminum because this economic sector is crucial for Quebec. The North Shore, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Quebec need good jobs in order to prosper. However, in its current form, the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico places no less than 60,000 aluminum sector jobs in jeopardy.

We will all agree that the government can hardly claim to be looking after Quebec's economic development if it accepts, without any serious negotiation, a free trade agreement that may seriously jeopardize six major projects in Quebec's aluminum sector representing $6.2 billion in investments, according to an impact study carried out by Groupe Performance Stratégique. The study estimates that these private investments could generate more than $16 billion in economic spinoffs from 2020 to 2029. That is $16 billion that Quebec would have to go without for the next 10 years.

It is important to understand that the only reason these investments in Quebec are in jeopardy is that the government failed to take Quebeckers' interests into consideration when it signed this agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Perhaps the government does not fully appreciate the importance of regional development and land use. Although the Prime Minister claims he secured guarantees that 70% of the aluminum parts used in automobile production in North America must be from North America, the fact remains that he did not bother to also ensure, as he did for steel, that the aluminum content in those parts would also come from North America. Worse still, he is playing games with the figures, which is just misleading.

The Prime Minister's carelessness and lack of faith in the intelligence of voters is leaving the door wide open for Mexican auto parts plants to import aluminum from China, even though Canadian and U.S. courts have determined that Chinese aluminum was being dumped.

As written, CUSMA makes it possible for Chinese aluminum to flood the North American market, even though Canada and the United States have anti-dumping duties in place. Chinese aluminum needs only to be processed in Mexico in order to circumvent the protections we have collectively put in place. In other words, we could wind up with car parts that are supposedly North American but in fact contain “made in China” aluminum.

For free trade to be truly free and profitable for everyone, we must make unfair trade practices such as dumping impossible.

Allowing car parts made with Chinese aluminum to be considered North American in origin is an insult to Quebec's expertise in the aluminum sector, especially since our aluminum is the greenest in the world. The Liberals seem to think that Chinese aluminum is Quebec aluminum. Just ask Quebeckers if they agree. It is absurd.

Primary aluminum produced in Quebec releases 67% less greenhouse gas than aluminum produced in the Middle East and 76% less than Chinese aluminum. Why would a government taking steps to close coal-fired power plants in Canada be so supportive of Chinese aluminum when 90% of the electricity used to produce it comes from coal? That makes no sense.

Providing aluminum the same protection as steel is not just an economic decision. It is a political one.

If the government had given any consideration at all to Quebec's interests, its economy, its regions and its workers, it would never have signed an agreement whose every concession is detrimental to Quebec. If the Prime Minister's team is really working for Quebeckers, it should fight for Quebec as vigorously as it fought for Ontario steel.

It is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois that every single concession in the free trade agreement should be made at the expense of key sectors of Quebec's economy, and as such, even though it supports free trade, the Bloc Québécois cannot support Bill C-4. The Bloc encourages hon. members to not blindly accept a bill that is deeply unfair to Quebeckers.

If Quebec had negotiated the agreement, it would have negotiated it in its own interest and never would have compromised the growth of key sectors of its economy.

We are talking about my riding and my constituents. Hon. members will agree that we cannot allow the government to sacrifice aluminum workers back home just to satisfy Ontario's economic interests. The Bloc Québécois is the only party that is truly standing up for the interests of Quebeckers, and I am one.

[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—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind members that when a member has the floor, he or she should have the respect of the House. Also, words such as “liar” or “lying” are not allowed in the chamber, so I would remind members to be very mindful about what they say.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, does the member across the way believe that anything has really changed with regard to the negative point of view from a year ago?

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

Madam Speaker, the member must have missed my entire speech. Many have called this agreement “NAFTA 0.5” rather than “NAFTA 2.0” because of its deficiencies.

I understand that the government was put in a bind, but the government ended up capitulating, to use the language of the hon. member, in the deal because of mismanagement. When we had this debate in the last Parliament, I said to the member that his government allowed Mexico and the United States to talk between each other about trilateral relationships specific to NAFTA instead of our being there at the table. We should have been there at that table. We should have done what Mexico did and gotten in with the Americans and had a quick deal. It was an option for the government. The Liberals chose instead to allow Mexico to do that, and we ended up at the short end of the proverbial NAFTA stick.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the official opposition for sharing his thoughts on the protection of intellectual property.

A few weeks ago, a singer-songwriter from Quebec, Pierre Lapointe, said that for the hundreds of thousands of times his songs played on a certain Internet music platform that shall remain nameless, but whose name starts with “s” and ends with “potify”, he only received a few bucks in royalties.

How does my colleague believe we can protect our artists and their income from these practices on the web?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec for her question.

The existing legislation is precisely what the Government of Canada must address. Artists from Quebec and all of Canada are in a difficult situation.

I hope that the member will read the report from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that addresses this topic. I think the government made a mistake, especially when it comes to copyright matters.

It is important that Canadian artists are compensated fairly. The current provisions in this agreement make this that much more difficult.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I congratulate the member for making the effort to answer the question in French.

At this time, I want to say that unfortunately I will have to interrupt the next speaker during his speech. He will be able to continue it the next time this matter is before the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. 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.

[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, our country came together and negotiated hard. With representation at the political level, the civil service level and from many different stakeholders, we achieved a modernization of the free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

By doing that, we have secured the future for literally hundreds of thousands of jobs here in Canada. We have provided a more secure market for the future economy and economic growth of our country. We need to realize that over $2 billion of trade takes place between the United States and Canada every day.

This is an important agreement. What I am saying should not surprise anyone in the chamber because we can see the support it is getting in all regions of our country, in all the different sectors.

Unions, businesses, non-profits and governments of different levels have recognized the significance of the modernization that we have achieved. We have an incredible group of individuals who sat through the negotiations. We have a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who were committed to get the job done.

We have built a large base of support among individuals and groups to ensure that Canadians' interests were first and foremost at the table and protected.

A good example of that is supply management. There has been an immense amount of pressure. Whether in this trade agreement or previous trade agreements signed by this government, from dealing with the European Union to the trans-Pacific partnership, protecting Canada's agricultural community, in particular our dairy farmers and other producers, through supply management is something we have been very clear on.

In certain situations there will be some compensation, but let there be no doubt that whether it is supply management or industries that are so vitally important to the many different regions of our country, they have been protected.

The other day when we had the vote on the ways and means budget, I was pleasantly surprised. When the vote was counted, we had Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and Green Party MPs standing in favour of this agreement. I recognize that as a very significant achievement. One would have to go a long way back to have that group of political entities voting in favour of a trade pact, if it has ever happened before.

It is a significant achievement. To my friends in the Bloc, I would encourage them. They have raised many concerns, in particular for the aluminum industry. They will see, at second reading, that it is an industry that is protected a lot more than in the original trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. For the very first time, there are guarantees in place.

If we look at some of those advocates for passage of the legislation, we will see that it includes the Premier of the Province of Quebec, and not only that particular premier but virtually all premiers. I know other premiers, such as Jason Kenney, who have also been quoted in regard to this agreement and the need to see it passed.

As a government there is a reason why we have been so successful at getting well over a million new jobs created in the last four-plus years. We understand how important it is to get public policy right and how it can have the type of desired impact that Canadians want to see.

We see that in the form of tax breaks. We see it in the form of progressive social policies such as the Canada child benefit, the seniors policies and the infrastructure policies.

I would argue that our commitment to expand world trade has been second to none, especially on a per capita basis. Canada is excelling. These are the types of initiatives that are making a difference in the everyday lives of Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada. These are the types of things that help in increasing disposable income, driving our economy and providing more hope for future generations.

When I look at this particular trade agreement, I often think of John Crosbie, who made the comment that he had not really read the deal when we had the original trade agreement with the United States. I have faith and confidence in our negotiations. I have been following the news, much like the other members in opposition and I have had the opportunity to have a great deal of dialogue with stakeholders and others. I am absolutely confident that this is a good deal, and I look forward to continuing my speech on Monday.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have three and a half minutes when this matter is before the House again.

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has three minutes remaining.

[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 thought I would just emphasize the importance of the legislation that we are debating today. One of the ways to look at the trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico is as a modernization of the free trade agreement. This is something that is really good for workers, businesses and communities across our country.

We need to recognize that Canada is very much dependent on trade. Through trade we are able to continue to support and often lift our middle class. That is something which this government has been very much focused on since taking office back in 2015. We realize that building on Canada's middle class and supporting the middle class is good for Canada's economy. Both areas will benefit.

We have seen that through different approaches dealing with public policy. One of those policy measures is the idea of expanding the economy by securing markets through free trade agreements. I would suggest to members on all sides of this House that our government has been very progressive in moving forward and taking specific actions on free trade agreements.

In fact, in looking at the agreement with the European Union with, I believe it is 28 countries, along with the trans-Pacific partnership and some of the other smaller agreements, such as the trade agreement with Ukraine, the World Trade Organization, and legislation brought forward by this government a few years back, we will see that the government has really recognized the importance of trade. That was reinforced over the weekend for me in the city of Winnipeg where New Flyer recently entered into an agreement to sell and export a number of electric buses to the United States. I believe it is a total of 100 buses, although I could be wrong.

In terms of the actual numbers, the point is that many companies all over Canada very much need those export markets. When it comes to the United States, we are talking about billions of dollars, about $9 billion every day of commerce between our two countries. We have a very strong desire to ensure that we secure those markets. The best way of doing that is to have these trade agreements in place.

What is really nice about this particular agreement is that Canadians, different stakeholders, organizations, non-profits, governments and political parties of all stripes have really been engaged over the last two and half years to ultimately achieve the final product, which is what we are debating today.

I listened very closely to the debate and the concerns that members across the way have expressed, but I think the overall agreement that we have before us is the best agreement that we could have delivered for Canadians. I recognize that opposition parties will always want to believe that they could have done better. I respect that. However, at the end of the day, I believe that what we are presenting through this legislation is the best agreement for Canada and that all Canadians in all regions will benefit directly as a result of it. It was really encouraging to see the Conservatives, the Greens and the New Democrats support the ways and means motion with respect to this legislation.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it would be greatly appreciated if the member opposite could name three important areas in this agreement where Canada has won.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of our greatest wins by signing this agreement is with respect to supply management. We were able to resist the pressure. Many outside groups would have loved to see the demise of supply management in Canada. Our current Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and our caucus have been behind supply management for years. I would argue it was a Liberal administration that brought in the system of supply management.

Farmers in all regions of the country are very much supportive of it. We cannot underestimate the pressure we received from U.S. industries and the United States government for us to abandon supply management. I am proud of the fact this agreement continues to ensure that supply management will always be part of the Canadian economy. I see that as the strongest benefit in this agreement. However, that is my personal opinion.

Another win is the fact we have an agreement. This was not an easy thing to achieve given the changes that were being asked for. I believe we are doing exceptionally well with the agreement.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to what my colleague across the way said. I was reassured to hear that he seems to care about supply management.

However, recent history proves otherwise. The government often promises to protect this system but, every time, it ends up giving up a little chunk. Under this agreement, the local market will lose a total of 18% of the market. That is a lot, and it is starting to hurt our farmers.

Would my colleague agree that it is time to stop throwing roadblocks in the way of this system and protect supply management through legislation? Would he be open to that proposal?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have always been a very strong advocate of supply management. I have witnessed first-hand both in the provincial legislature of Manitoba and as a member of Parliament how the industry itself has benefited. More specifically I have witnessed how consumers and Canadians have benefited, whether it is with respect to the quality of products, job creation or the fact we have something worth fighting for. I suspect we will find that universally applied within the Liberal caucus, in particular with our members of Parliament from the province of Quebec, who are very much aware of the importance of supply management.

We will continue to be there to protect the industry. At times there needs to be a form of compensation. Once we get to the second reading vote on this legislation, I would encourage the Bloc members to give it their consideration and recognize that we have an agreement that is in the best interests of all of Canada. We have great support crossing political lines from the different premiers across the country. I hope the Bloc will give extra consideration to recognizing the value of this agreement.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for opening up the debate for us this morning.

On his last note, he mentioned co-operation across party lines. That is not just with respect to political co-operation, but also co-operation across labour, business and indigenous groups, and the political co-operation that came together with respect to the NAFTA advisory council. I wonder if the hon. member would reflect a bit on how that all came together to get this good, hard work done on this new NAFTA.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is quite right. However, to say that this took place within a month or two would be wrong. It has taken a great deal of time and effort by a good number of people from different stakeholder forums, including political and non-profit. We had a great group of people. We have a wonderful agreement, which we should be looking at passing.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the new NAFTA, the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

New Democrats recognize that the United States is Canada's most significant trading partner, and that the trade enabled by the agreement we are debating today is critical to Canada's economic success. Since the signing of the original free trade agreement, Canadian exports to the United States increased from $110 billion in 1993 to $349 billion in 2014. However, it is vital that the wealth generated through trade creates good jobs for working people in Canada and not simply for the interests of the wealthiest few.

When the initial agreement was signed back in November 2018, the NDP raised serious concerns about how the new trade deal addressed workers' rights and environmental regulations. Disappointingly, it was left to the Democrats in the U.S. rather than the Liberal government to stand up to the Trump administration and fight for these important changes.

I would like to use my time today to address three broad areas of concern. First, I will highlight two industries in my riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley that I believe should have done better by the deal the government signed. Second, I will address the failure of this deal to engage indigenous people and to uphold their rights. Third, I will speak on our thoughts about the closed-door process by which our government negotiates deals such as this one.

While we have seen some sectors thrive and bring jobs and opportunities to northern British Columbia, we have also seen some industries struggle. We have heard a fair bit in the House already with regard to how this agreement would affect Canada's aluminum industry.

Canada's aluminum industry is the fifth largest in the world with an annual production of 2.9 million tonnes of primary aluminum. All of this is produced with a lower carbon footprint than other international producers.

The only aluminum smelter in western Canada is located in my riding in northern British Columbia. Rio Tinto's Kitimat smelter employs more than 1,000 workers in the town of Kitimat and contributes over $500 million annually to British Columbia's economy. As anyone who knows Kitimat will say, it is hard to overstate the importance of the smelter to this community. Indeed, it was the primary reason for the founding and construction of the community in the 1950s. However, for over a year, illegal steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the U.S. left workers in Kitimat anxious about their community's future. While people in my riding were left wondering whether they would continue to have work, the government went ahead and signed the new NAFTA deal with those tariffs still in place.

The cost of the government's inaction on aluminum has been high. It has been estimated that across the country over 1,000 jobs have been lost. While the government is celebrating the lifting of these tariffs, I am still hearing concerns from aluminum workers in my riding.

The U.S. has made it clear that it would be willing to reinstate tariffs at any time, and all it would take is for President Trump to decide that there has been a surge in aluminum imports for these tariffs to return. Unfortunately, we do not have a definition in this agreement for what would constitute a surge in imports, which means continued uncertainty for workers in my riding regardless of whether this agreement is ratified.

I have also heard concern with how the amended agreement deals with rules of origin in the automotive sector, a topic we have heard about in the House over the past few days. While the agreement requires that 70% of steel and aluminum used in the manufacture of automobiles be from North America, no one seems to have bothered to ask what percentage the industry currently uses. Without that information, how can Canadians determine if this threshold will stimulate our industry or simply be a backstop?

Furthermore, the requirement that 70% of aluminum be North American is undermined again by the lack of a definition for what is meant by “North American”. For steel, the agreement sets out a specific definition, which reads, “for steel to be considered as originating under this Article, all steel manufacturing processes must occur in one or more of the Parties, except for metallurgical processes involving the refinement of steel additives....”

Such processes include the initial melting and mixing and continues through the coating stage, yet for aluminum, no such definition exists. This calls into question whether Mexican auto parts manufacturers could import cheap aluminum ingots from China without running afoul of the 70% rule. If this is indeed possible, it begs the question as to what the value is of having the 70% provision included in the agreement at all.

It appears that weaker aluminum provisions were the cost of getting this agreement signed, a concession that poses a real risk to the economy of the region I represent. Should this deal be ratified, workers in my riding deserve to hear more from the government about how it plans to protect aluminum workers and increase the market for Canadian aluminum.

A second area of concern I have heard about from people in my riding is softwood lumber. In Skeena—Bulkley Valley, as many as 3,500 people are employed in the forestry sector. However, for many communities, falling lumber prices have led to tough times. We have seen layoffs, curtailments and mill closures across northern B.C. At such a tough time, what we needed was a government in Ottawa on the side of forestry workers, but that has just not been the case.

While it is vital and positive that the NAFTA dispute mechanism has remained in the new trade agreement so that Canada can continue to argue for independent arbitration when the U.S. seeks to impose tariffs on Canadian softwood, we see very little in this agreement for the forestry sector. Since the previous softwood agreement expired in October 2015, we have desperately needed a new agreement to give forestry workers certainty that their product will still have access to the U.S. market. Instead, we have seen the Trump administration imposing softwood tariffs.

It would seem that during all those trips to Washington, getting a fair deal in the softwood lumber dispute was never on the table, but we will never know because of the opaque process by which this agreement has been negotiated. I would have thought that while we were opening up trade negotiations with the U.S., getting a stable resolution on softwood would be at the top of the agenda.

Another real concern with this new agreement is indigenous rights. In 2017, the Liberal government promised it would negotiate an entire chapter in this agreement to promote indigenous rights, but again we are left disappointed with what the government has delivered. It is so disheartening, as we work toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples across North America, that this agreement makes no mention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We see again that the government has put the interests of big corporations ahead of indigenous peoples, who are seeking justice and respect on their own lands.

Finally, I would like to address the process by which this agreement was negotiated.

Throughout the negotiations, we heard from the Liberals that this was the best deal possible, but then the Democrats in the United States were able to deliver the important changes that the Liberals told Canadians were just not possible. Now we are hearing more concerns from some sectors, and again it is difficult for Canadians to have their voices heard. For people in northwest British Columbia, it feels like the government is just not listening.

People are rightly concerned that such an important agreement for Canada's economy would be adopted without a thorough examination. Why is it that Canadians know more about the negotiation strategy and objectives of our trading partner than they do of their own government?

Going forward, we need to see a real commitment to changing how Canada negotiates international trade agreements. Too often we see deals made behind closed doors, with everyday Canadians having little input. We need a commitment to increase transparency and a government that gives voice to working people most affected by trade agreements, not just to corporate lobbyists that stand to profit most from the outcome.

That is why the New Democrats support a thorough study of this deal along with the creation of a transparent trade process that holds our government more accountable and allows Parliament to play a more meaningful role than that of a simple rubber stamp. We owe it to Canadians.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome our new member.

After second reading, Parliament will refer the legislation to a committee. As chair of that committee, I expect we will have several hours, many hours possibly, to hear from witnesses who want to comment. In spite of the very long process, many Canadians had an opportunity to contribute, but we want to ensure that if any other comments need to be put on the record, Canadians have the opportunity to do that.

With reference to aluminum in particular, what kind of protection do aluminum workers currently have, prior to this agreement?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the warm welcome.

I do not doubt that there will be a robust debate at committee concerning the bill and that there will be important discussions, but the question is what bearing it will have on the bill itself.

Comparing the process here in Canada to that in the United States, members of Congress have a more meaningful role in making changes to legislation. I believe that the discussion at debate in Canada comes after the fact and that our role as Parliament is little more than to give a rubber stamp or there will be no deal at all. That is what the New Democrats would like to see changed.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent intervention.

The Bloc Québécois is also concerned about these agreements being negotiated behind closed doors, because the details are often slow to emerge.

For instance, does my colleague know that the Canadian government agreed to limit exports of milk by-products, milk protein concentrate and infant formula to countries outside the agreement? This provision is something we have never seen before, and I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, what the hon. member has raised is precisely why we need a better process, one that is transparent and engages Canadians in the debate around what the objectives and the strategy for negotiating these trade agreements should be at the front end of the process, not the back end. The example he raised is a good one.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague to this place. My sister and brother live in his constituency, so I know his neck of the woods very well. It is a beautiful part of the country.

I am not 100% sure whether the hon. member is supporting this trade deal, but I get the impression he is not. In addition to our accessing more markets around the world, what does he have to say about competitiveness here in Canada?

Also, I know that things like the carbon tax put us offside in terms of competing with the world, particularly on things like aluminum. I am wondering if he has any thoughts on that.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do indeed know that the hon. member has family connections in my riding. We had a lovely chat earlier about that.

His question is about competitiveness, and obviously Canada's competitiveness in the world is important. I believe his question is broader than the debate we are having today specifically around this trade agreement. In a world moving toward a low-carbon economy, which we all know is an imperative, having regulations and systems in place that show we are being responsible is indeed going to be a competitive advantage and will open Canada to new markets around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two quick comments. One is on the question of competitiveness just raised by the opposition. We put a plan in place to cover and take care of large final emitters, and the Conservatives have spoken against it.

The second is on quotas, in particular the new ones that were just raised. Canada is not producing an amount near those quotas at the moment, so it is not going to adversely affect us.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, are the quotas the hon. members raises the quotas for aluminum?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Baby formula.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I apologize. He raises a good point. I do not have the depth of knowledge on that particular aspect and I look forward to learning more.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today not only as the member of Parliament for Humber River—Black Creek but also as the chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade to speak in favour of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement and to encourage my hon. colleagues to support the legislation.

I would like to recognize my committee colleagues from all parties for their dedication to their constituents and their country. I look forward to working with them as we go through the parliamentary process. All members have made it clear to me that their sincerest intent is to collaborate, co-operate and come together as a committee to make sure we do the job we were elected to do and do it right.

For over a year, Canada negotiated hard for a modernized free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. During this time, government officials consulted with over 47,000 Canadians and over 1,000 stakeholders from all areas of Canada's economy to ensure that the deal we struck represented the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses from coast to coast to coast. Our foremost concern throughout the negotiation was always Canadian workers and their families: protecting workers' jobs, their families and the planet and ensuring that the deal would grow our economy.

In these respects, the deal we have struck is a winner. The new NAFTA safeguards the over $2 billion of daily cross-border trade, ensures tariff-free access to our largest trading partner and protects Canadian jobs. I have been encouraged by the spirited debate in the House by my hon. colleagues and their commitment and interest. I know that every member shares the same commitment to protecting Canadian workers and maintaining economic growth. In these especially turbulent times for global political discourse, I would like to thank my colleagues for restraining the partnership on all levels, wherever possible, and maintaining the respect and decency that this chamber commands. I hope that will continue.

We must keep in mind that negotiating transformational trade deals like the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement is always tense and difficult. I remind colleagues of the attitudes that existed when NAFTA was being negotiated. Canadians were worried about the impact of NAFTA on not only the Canadian economy but also our national identity. Not only have we found those fears unrealized, and we are very grateful for that, but we now know that NAFTA is one of the pillars of our relationship with the United States and Mexico and one of the cruxes of our economic strength. It is my sincere belief, notwithstanding the occasionally adversarial nature of the debate on this agreement, that we will look back on this deal years from now with the same lens through which we viewed the original NAFTA: a good deal that has contributed a significant amount to Canadian economic prosperity.

From coast to coast to coast, from agriculture to aluminum, to automobiles, every sector of the Canadian economy will stand to gain from this agreement. On the farm, we have successfully defended our supply management system for dairy, poultry and eggs, despite attempts to completely dismantle it. We have gained new market access for refined sugar and margarine and protected billions of dollars in agricultural and agri-food trade. I am well aware of this, as the former minister of agriculture spoke about those issues a lot in the House.

In the factory, we have a gold-plated insurance policy against a possible 232 tariffs on cars and car parts. I would be remiss if I did not remind my hon. colleagues that we are the only G7 country that has been afforded that protection.

We have strengthened labour protections that have been praised by union workers. Jerry Dias of Unifor has endorsed the deal, noting that it is a better deal than the one signed in 1994. We ensured enforceable labour obligations were included in the new deal to protect workers from discrimination in the workplace, in particular on the basis of gender. The improvements made on labour rights for Mexican workers will help level the playing field for Canadian workers, especially in our automotive industry.

In my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, companies such as Etobicoke Ironworks were feeling the pressure of the tariffs imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum. These tariffs were affecting their competitiveness not only abroad but also domestically. I had the distinct pleasure of touring its facilities last year and saw first-hand the important work that it does and how damaging these tariffs were on its competitiveness and ability to plan for the future.

With this new agreement, with the certainty that its products are protected, Etobicoke Ironworks can continue to innovate, expand its operational capacity and provide Canada, the United States and Mexico with high-quality Canadian steel and aluminum.

However, it is not just in the critical sectors of steel and aluminum that we have ensured the protection of Canadian workers and taxpayers. The investor-state dispute resolution, which was a provision of the original NAFTA, was a dispute resolution system that allowed companies to sue the Canadian government. This system cost Canadian taxpayers over $300 million in penalties and legal fees. It elevated the rights of corporations over those of sovereign governments. It is now gone. With the removal of the ISDR, our government's right to regulate in the public interest, especially with respect to the protection of public health and the environment, has been significantly strengthened.

Our climate is changing. For too long, we have known this and not taken the requisite action. The election and re-election of this government is no doubt due in part to our commitment to protecting the environment. On that note, perhaps some of the most important wins in the new NAFTA deal can be found in the environmental protections that have been included in this agreement.

In replacing the separate side agreement regarding the environment, the new NAFTA has a dedicated chapter on the protection of the environment. We now have far more robust and enforceable standards for air and marine pollution.

This is a good deal for auto workers, through the lifting of harmful tariffs; for dairy farmers through the protection of supply management; for indigenous people through the protection of their culture and land; and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have heard from all Canadians of all political stripes who echo their support for this deal, from Premier Moe of Saskatchewan to Premier Kenney of Alberta and Premier Legault of Quebec. There is consensus among political leaders in the country that this is a good deal.

We have also heard from important stakeholders such as the Canadian Labour Congress, the Business Council of Canada and the Canadian Steel Producers Association, which all speak in favour of rapid ratification of this agreement.

Arrival at the agreement would have been impossible without so many people rowing in the same direction. As many others have rightly said, this was a pan-Canadian effort, and I am optimistic that we will see more of this spirit of Canadian co-operation over the course of this Parliament.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns that have been raised about the new agreement is its failure to acknowledge indigenous rights. It makes no mention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The other area of deep concern is related to the environment and the fact that this new agreement does not have binding and enforceable provisions to ensure we meet climate targets at a time of climate emergency. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on those aspects.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member. I am very glad that she has joined us.

On the environment side, the new NAFTA has an enforceable environmental chapter, which is something we did not have before. We had a side agreement that clearly was inadequate. The new agreement will help us to move forward with better protections for the environment. We clearly believe that commitments to high levels of environmental protection are an important part of trade agreements and should be part of all trade agreements, not just the NAFTA agreement. We need to move forward urgently when it comes to the issues of climate change, as we see the impacts every day. I look forward to all of us in this House working toward implementing the right protections.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Humber River—Black Creek on her speech in the House today. I appreciate it. It was much more accurate than the speech given by her colleague, the member for Winnipeg North.

The member for Winnipeg North said there was $9 billion a day of trade going on between Canada and the U.S. I believe her number of $2 billion a day is much closer to the facts. He took credit for 28 trade agreements. His own minister showed a response of friendship in the middle of the floor here for the member for Abbotsford, who negotiated the CETA and TPP agreements before the CPTPP. The member for Winnipeg North was asked to find three things of importance or three benefits in the trade agreement that was signed, and he could only come up with one, which was dairy.

If the agreement was so good, what did they get for giving up class 6 and 7 in the milk quotas? There was also no softwood lumber agreement at all. Could the member for Humber River—Black Creek expand on some of those areas to correct her colleague?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the issue of supply management, the member said it was number three, but supply management was number one. From some of my work in the House over the last 20 years, I know supply management has been under attack and threatened. My personal concern through the NAFTA agreement negotiations was that we would lose the entirety of supply management. I am very happy that our negotiators were able to fight for that and maintain it.

Protecting the auto industry with the steel agreement is a win for Canada and all auto workers, many whom are in Ontario. I am well aware of the pressure on the steel side. We are able to protect the aluminum industry for 70%. Right now they have very little protection, if any. This agreement will help the aluminum industry by protecting it through the 70% number.

Is there more to be done? Of course. This is a beginning, and as things progress, I suspect we will hear, at the committee level as well, other areas we need to work on. I look forward to working with my colleagues, because I recognize that we all have one basic interest, which is protecting the interests of Canadian workers and advancing the opportunities for Canada's economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not want to intentionally mislead anyone. On Friday, I had indicated that it is $2 billion a day. Today, I believe I did say $9 billion a day, but it should have been $2 billion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Point taken.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to continue debate on Bill C-4, which would implement the new NAFTA between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Since this is my first opportunity to address the House at some length in this Parliament, I would like to very briefly thank the good people of Perth—Wellington for giving me the honour of serving a second term as their representative here in Ottawa. While I have a great fondness for the 105,000 constituents in Perth—Wellington, I want to thank four constituents in particular: my wonderful wife Justine and our three kids Ainsley, Bennett and Caroline. They have been my biggest supporters, my greatest fans and my rock of support over these past four years and into the current Parliament as well.

The Conservative Party's record on trade is clear. In the previous Conservative government, our government negotiated trade deals with over 40 different countries. We recognize the importance of trade on a global scale, and at a personal level, in my great riding of Perth—Wellington, we recognize the importance of trade for our local agriculture industry and also for the manufacturing industry there, so the concerns of this new trade deal are there as well.

The Liberals appear to not be entirely aware that they are now operating in a minority Parliament, that the basis for their support is not limited only to their party and that they need and require the support of opposition parties to negotiate and to pass these types of trade deals. Therefore, relying on us as the official opposition to blindly rubber-stamp any piece of legislation, but in particular a piece of legislation like this, would be foolhardy. We will not idly vote simply to ratify a deal without certain provisions and certain information being provided to us as the official opposition.

That said, we do recognize the stability that is provided by a continental trade deal such as the new NAFTA. In Perth—Wellington, we are landlocked. We do not share a border with our friends south of the border, but the industries in Perth—Wellington are global in nature. They are reliant on trade deals to export their products all over the world.

After all, Perth County is number one for pork producers in Ontario. Wellington County is right behind it at number three. Perth County and Wellington County have over 100,000 cattle, placing them in the top five for cattle production. Perth—Wellington has, literally, some of the most fertile farmland in the world. Prices for farmland are as high as $25,000 an acre. If we believe the gossip at the coffee shop, the price is approaching $30,000 per acre because of the great nature of the farmland in Perth—Wellington.

Chicken production in Perth and Wellington counties accounts for nearly one-quarter of all chicken production in Ontario. Zones 6 and zone 7 for the egg farmers of Ontario have over 800,000 and over 1.7 million laying hens respectively. Of course, the dairy industry in Perth—Wellington is massive. There are more dairy farmers in Perth—Wellington than in any other electoral district in this country, so when we talk about trade deals and we talk about agriculture, Perth—Wellington is truly at the heart of these discussions on a global scale.

However, it is not just agriculture. It is auto parts manufacturing as well. We have many auto parts facilities in our riding in the city of Stratford, but auto parts facilities across the riding in Palmerston, Arthur, Listowel and St. Marys also provide inputs to the auto parts industry, so it is important that we provide the stability of this trade deal.

At the same time, this trade deal saw concessions. Typically in any negotiation, when we make concessions, we receive something in return. We saw concession after concession after concession, but all we got in return was maintaining the status quo. There was not any new market access. There were not any new opportunities for farmers and farm families and auto parts manufacturers in Perth—Wellington to expand on the global scale. What we saw were concessions, including 3.6% in the dairy industry and the elimination of milk classes 6 and 7. What we saw were potential limits on future exports in the dairy industry, all against the backdrop of $619 million worth of dairy imports already coming into Canada from the United States.

We saw an agreement that will see 10 million dozen more eggs coming into Canada. We saw 57 metric tons more of products from the chicken industry that will flow into Canada, which is nearly double that negotiated under the trans-Pacific partnership.

On the issue of sovereignty, we saw a trade agreement in which we need permission from another country, the United States, to explore trade deals with non-market countries. This is a concern for people across Canada and people in Perth—Wellington.

Despite all these concessions, despite all these opportunities where we gave, what did we see in return? We did not see a softwood lumber agreement, which has been called for since the beginning of the previous Parliament to help the forestry sector. We saw that the “buy American” provisions have remained. While Mexico was able to negotiate a specific chapter on “buy American”, Canada did not.

We also saw concerns raised around the aluminum industry. My colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, has been a strong voice on this, not only for his constituents but for the aluminum industry as a whole. He has proposed meaningful solutions to help address these concerns. He is truly a champion for the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, but also for the aluminum industry as a whole.

Trade is important, particularly with the Canada-United States relationship. Estimates from places like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have indicated that two-way trade is as high as $627.8 billion on an annual basis. That is approximately $320 billion of exports from Canada, and about $307 billion of imports back into Canada.

This is important for industry, but it goes back to our minority Parliament context and the information that is important and needed by all parties, but in particular the opposition parties to implement this trade agreement.

On December 12, members of the official opposition met with staff and members of Parliament for the government. They requested very specific information about the economic impact that this trade deal would have on specific sectors. Here we are on February 3, and that information is still outstanding.

In fact, on January 28, this question was asked in question period and the minister responsible said that the chief economist from Global Affairs Canada was working on the economic impact and was working on getting that information. However, here we are, still without that information, still being asked to ratify this trade deal despite not having all the information that is needed to ratify it.

We, as the official opposition, have a duty to analyze any piece of legislation that comes before the House, but in particular one that has such a lasting and broad impact on our economy, across every province and every territory, including my riding of Perth—Wellington. For us to do that meaningfully, we need the information that is required.

We need the government to provide us with the economic impact assessments that would tell us the impact this would have on the dairy industry, on supply-managed commodities, on the aluminum industry and on the auto parts industry, in our ridings and across the country.

I am proud to put our record of negotiation up against any. However, we cannot simply idly stand by and ratify an agreement until this information is available to parliamentarians. I look forward to continued debate on this matter. I look forward to the key sector and stakeholder groups appearing before committee and telling us how they see the economy and our country being impacted by this trade deal. We have not gotten the information, as of yet, from the government.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for a very well-reasoned speech today. We know that almost certainly those economic impact figures are available but, for reasons we can only suspect, they are being withheld from Canadians.

I would like to ask my colleague about the 70% rule that the Liberals seem so proud of, saying it did not exist in the original NAFTA. It was not necessary in the original NAFTA, because in the 1990s Russia, China, India and Canada were all basically producing the same volume of aluminum. However, in this century, China has grown to be the largest producer, at 33 metric tons in 2018, 10 times what Canada produced at only 2.9 metric tons.

Mexico, our partner in the new NAFTA, did not have any aluminum production at all. All of a sudden, Chinese aluminum being dumped through Mexico is showing up in the United States, in India and in Vietnam. We will not know until we see the actual figures, but this very deficient treaty with very serious potential impacts is having a very serious impact on the Canadian aluminum industry.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on this backdoor corruption of what was at one time a Canadian-dominant partnership in the North American aluminum sector.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the concern being expressed by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. He is such a strong advocate for the aluminum industry, particularly in his riding. No one on this side of the House wants to see the potential for that industry to become corrupted by the dumping of aluminum from China into Mexico.

The 70% rule looks good on its face, but it ignores the reality of what we are going to see on the ground. It ignores the reality of what we are seeing today, where the market cap is already above that 70%. It is already having a major role here, but we are seeing the impact of that down the road. How can we know this for a fact without the economic impact assessments that have been promised to the opposition parties since December 12? Here we are on day three of debate on Bill C-4 and the government still has not provided those statements.

In question period, we heard that the government was working on this. If Liberals have been working on it since December 12, are we simply supposed to take their word that, yes, it is as they have said? That is not good enough for the people in the aluminum industry. It is not good enough for the people in Perth—Wellington. It is not good enough for the Canadian people who are impacted by this trade agreement.

[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, in the original trade agreement with then prime minister Brian Mulroney, John Crosbie played a critical role in the whole free trade agreement. On one of the days, he indicated that he had not read the agreement in its entirety.

We had the TPP under Stephen Harper, when we had Thomas Mulcair stand and say that New Democrats opposed the TPP and there was absolutely no information being provided by the government.

In the last two and a half years, there has been a wide spectrum of debate and discussion. Parties have put their thoughts and ideas on the record. I am wondering if the member would do a comparison in terms of the amount of discussion, dialogue and debate on this agreement with previous agreements with other administrations. I think this agreement would fare quite well.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the House leader's question gives me the opportunity to talk about the Conservative Party record on trade and in particular the work of the member for Abbotsford and the former agriculture minister, Gerry Ritz, who were instrumental in negotiating the trans-Pacific partnership.

I have spoken with stakeholder groups, especially in the agricultural industry, who received phone calls at all hours from these two gentlemen when negotiations were being undertaken, updating them on negotiations, letting them know where Canada was going as a country and making sure that they were on board and onside with the important discussions that were taking place. They stood up for our country. They stood up for the agricultural industry, and I am proud of people like the member for Abbotsford and Gerry Ritz.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak this morning in support of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, Bill C-4.

I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional lands of the Algonquin peoples.

Let me take this opportunity to thank our Deputy Prime Minister and her outstanding team for their efforts in securing this deal for Canada. There were many moments of angst, but our minister was diligent and focused on getting not just any deal, but the best deal for all Canadians.

The new CUSMA is a big win for Canadian businesses, Canadian jobs and Canada as a whole. The agreement solidifies our government's resolve to expand trade around the world through agreements such as CETA, CPTPP and a renewed NAFTA. It will help our middle class grow and allow more jobs to be created right here in Canada. The agreement has wins for all parts of the country and in many sectors.

Trade is more important today than at any other time. Access to other markets, free of tariffs, allows us to compete around the world. It also gives our businesses certainty and predictability.

The agreement allows over 500 million people in North America to trade freely, move freely and build an area of trade that is unprecedented in the world. Last Friday, we saw our good friends in the United Kingdom exit the European Union after 47 years. We know that many parts of the world are contracting, in terms of trade. This is an opportunity for Canada and North America to shine as we solidify and reaffirm our interconnectedness, the people-to-people ties and the enormous economic benefits we have seen over the last 24 years through NAFTA.

This bill is about NAFTA and advances it in many significant ways. I want to outline a few key points in the agreement.

First, there is a lot of conversation on agriculture and the very important issue of supply management. This was central to our negotiations in this agreement. As we can see, supply management is secured in this agreement. It allows our farmers to benefit from existing policies. Of course, it opens up a bit of market share to others, but fundamentally for all farmers it secures the supply management system that we have.

It is important because, in 2017, Canada-U.S. bilateral agricultural trade was $63 billion and Canada-Mexico bilateral agricultural trade was $4.6 billion. Together, that represents close to $70 billion in trade. This allows our farmers to be secure in the work they do. Of course we will compensate those who are affected, with cheques going to them as early as this month.

The auto sector is very important to our economy. It affects us across the country, but particularly in Ontario and Scarborough, where we have a lot of auto workers and auto-related jobs.

Over the last 25 years, we have lost many jobs. I grew up in a place called the golden mile, which is within walking distance of my apartment. In the golden mile area, we had Ford, GM and many auto manufacturers and suppliers. Over the years, we saw many of those jobs move.

What is critical is there is still a very strong auto industry in Canada. We see the pressures in Europe. We see Germany, France and the United Kingdom struggling to maintain a strong auto industry. I believe this agreement will ensure that the Canadian auto industry remains strong and vibrant, and will ensure high-paying jobs for Canadians going forward.

As members know, on November 30 our government signed a side agreement that essentially ensures us against possible 232 tariffs on cars and car parts. This is critical for the protection of auto jobs. Canada is, in fact, the only G7 country to have such a protection, and it really does allow us to advance the auto industry.

I will speak briefly on the cultural exemption that was negotiated in this agreement.

Previously, I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Canadian Heritage, and in that role I met with many stakeholders in the cultural sector. There are over 650,000 quality jobs for the middle class as a result of our cultural industries, with 75,000 just in Quebec, and it is a $53.8-billion industry.

This is an important part of our economy and an important part of who we are as a people. The cultural exemption provisions allow our cultural industries to continue without diluting their ability to create content. It is such an important part of this agreement.

There was a great deal of skepticism when the minister and our government spoke about protection for the environment, gender equality and labour. There was a great deal of criticism from others saying that this is a trade agreement and we should not bring issues that may appear to be ancillary to trade into these discussions. I am very proud to say that we did not give in to that.

We knew, and we know, that we can have good trade and good social policies at the same time, and we can advance many important values that Canada espouses through these trade agreements. This particular agreement is an example of how we were able to do that.

On the environment, for the first time we are ensuring that we are upholding air quality in flights and addressing marine pollution. We believe that commitments to high levels of environmental protection are an important part of not just this trade agreement but all trade agreements. They protect our workers and they protect our planet.

On gender equality, we worked hard to achieve a good deal that benefits everyone, but particularly to ensure that provisions that protect women's, minority and indigenous rights and environmental protections are the strongest in any of the agreements that we currently have. We also included protection for labour to ensure that there are minimum standards across our three countries.

I believe this is why, for a variety of reasons, we have Canadians from many different backgrounds supporting this agreement. For example, Premier Moe of Saskatchewan has said that a signed USMCA trade deal is good news for Saskatchewan and for Canada. Also, Hassan Yussuff, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said, “The USMCA gets it right on labour provisions, including provisions to protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of gender.”

I will conclude by saying that this is a very important step in protecting our economy, creating middle-class jobs, ensuring our businesses are able to compete and ensuring that Canadians have secured access to this market of 500 million. It is an important step forward in advancing our economy.

I look forward to all parties coming together to support this agreement. No agreement is perfect, but there are sufficient benefits here for many sectors and across the country that warrant the support of all parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech, but I have a couple of brief comments. I find it very interesting that the members of the government are very quick to criticize certain premiers across this country, except when they quote them to further their agenda. I find that very concerning, so I preface my comments with that.

I also find it interesting that the members opposite are quick to say they accomplished so much in this trade deal. However, at the briefing last week on the new NAFTA, or I would like to suggest maybe NAFTA 0.7, the negotiators who hosted it said that they virtually did not get anything accomplished regarding the environment and that they got hardly anything they hoped for on some of the cultural and social exemptions, which the government seems to be boasting so much about.

Can the member expand on why the perspective of the hard-working public servants who provided the briefing last week is so different from the perspective that we are hearing from the members across the floor?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate my friend opposite for his election to the House and to say that in this renewed agreement many things were on the table.

We know that, for example, cultural content was on the table to be negotiated. I believe our minister and our team worked very hard to secure cultural exemptions as part of the agreement. It was integral that we were able to push back and secure them within the agreement, ensuring that over 650,000 content producers employed in the sector are protected. Those are the types of advances, I believe, that we see in this agreement.

That is why I am asking the member opposite and the party opposite to support this deal.

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

Madam Speaker, in the member's speech he mentioned that the automotive industry is thriving in Canada. I am not sure if “thriving” is the word I would use. I think it was just yesterday I read that FCA is reducing production here in Canada. I noticed there is a cap on the number of units that we are able to produce here in Canada. Therefore, I do not think that this is a new NAFTA, rather it is a half NAFTA.

The other thing I want to point out is that the forestry sector is a huge part, at least a third, of the economy where I come from. However, we have no security with softwood lumber in this agreement.

I wonder what my colleague has to say about the comment that this agreement is a half NAFTA, not NAFTA 2.0.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my friend opposite, we worked very closely on the indigenous affairs committee in the last Parliament and I look forward to working with him again in this Parliament.

I do disagree with him on a number of issues, particularly when he describes this as a “half NAFTA”. In fact, this is a newly improved agreement that will protect Canadian jobs, ensure that our businesses are able to compete and continue to allow our middle class to grow. That is really what this agreement is about.

There are provisions in the agreement that protect our auto workers. It allows our auto industry to continue its groundbreaking work, and it makes sure that our workers are protected. I view it in the context of other areas in other countries where the auto sectors are struggling in relation to the Canadian auto sector. Of course, we have seen some reduction in employment. What is important is that we have enough protection within this agreement to allow our auto sector to continue to build on what it is doing already.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been hearing plenty of glowing praise for the Canada—United States—Mexico agreement from my colleagues opposite. They say the agreement is a big win for Canada on many fronts. I just want to say “you're welcome” on behalf of Quebec's aluminum workers and supply managed farmers, whose major sacrifices gave Canada that win.

Now that aluminum workers and supply managed farmers have made those sacrifices, would my colleague be willing to enshrine supply management in law so that it cannot be touched during future international trade negotiations? Also, could they perhaps stop saying that the agreement protects cast aluminum and make it clear that the agreement protects only North American aluminum parts?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

What is important in terms of aluminum is that there are protections in this agreement that were not in the original NAFTA. This is progress and it protects workers.

As for the cultural exemption, it will directly impact workers in Quebec. In fact, 75,000 workers in Quebec are protected because of the cultural exemption provisions contained in this agreement. It will allow for our creative sectors to continue and thrive within Canada.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a broad and heavy topic, so today, I will just keep to the country of origin rule. I will give a brief history to explain where that comes from, why it is important and how this agreement threatens Quebec's aluminum industry.

First, modern agreements originated with the European Economic Community, which was established under the Treaty of Rome in 1957. At the time, the parties concerned created a customs union where goods could move within their countries tariff-free.

The six countries could move goods and services without any trade barriers. However, when they negotiated with other countries, a single negotiator spoke on their behalf. At the time, this decision was made to ensure they could better compete with the Americans under GATT, for example. This was not complicated for them. I will give an example that is easy to follow. Under that agreement, if a Japanese car wanted to enter any of the six countries, the same tariffs would apply for all six. There was no advantage for the car to enter one country first and then be sent to another. At the time, that was how things were done.

The Canada-U.S. agreement signed and implemented in 1989 is a bit different. Canada and the United States decided to merge their markets to remove any trade barriers between the two countries. Tariffs could not be imposed on products being exported from Quebec or Canada to the United States.

Take the example of the Japanese car to be exported to the United States. The Americans had the right to independently decide that products from Japan would not be imported to the U.S. In a free trade zone, the Japanese car could enter Canada and then get a free pass to go to the United States. Obviously, that was disrespectful and inconsistent with the intentions of those who had signed the agreement.

To protect themselves from that, the Americans and Canadians told the Japanese, among others, that if they wanted to take advantage of this customs free zone between the countries, they would have to manufacture the car in Canada and then export it unencumbered to the United States. For a car to be able to go to the United States, the country of origin rule stated that at least 50% of the car needed to be manufactured within Canada's borders.

When Mexico joined the agreement in 1994, this percentage rose to 62.5%. Today, this is a free trade zone where three countries have some sovereignty over what can happen in other countries. Two out of the three countries produce aluminum, namely Canada and the United States. Mexico does not produce any. There is one foreign producer, which is China. In five years, China has increased its production by 48%. It produces four times as much aluminum as the second-largest producer in the world. This is a hefty competitor. It produces 15 times as much aluminum as we do. It is well known that China is dumping products.

Dumping refers to the practice of producing goods that are then sold at a loss. There are several reasons why China would do this, but one of the main reasons is that it can eliminate competition in a country and take over the entire market. It can then increase rates and its profit margins.

That is the game played by countries that engage in dumping. Canada and the United States, both aluminum producers, passed anti-dumping legislation, since they have the right to protect their own markets. China's solution was to go through Mexico. Mexico does not produce aluminum and has no need for an anti-dumping law to protect its market. In two months, between May and July 2019, the Chinese increased their aluminum exports to Mexico by 240%. No, they are not all dressing up as RoboCop. They simply figured out a way around the rules. The Chinese sell their aluminum to the Mexicans, who process this aluminum into aluminum parts, which are then sent across the border into the United States and Canada.

They could not get that aluminum across the border because we have anti-dumping laws. This is a way for Mexico to get dumped materials into markets that are supposed to have protections against dumping. To get this aluminum across borders, to create jobs in Mexico and to support Chinese production, which is the most polluting in the world, the aluminum is transformed into automotive parts. It is a good scheme. Between May and July, aluminum parts exports from Mexico to the United States increased by 260%. This is an established, well-known and lucrative scheme that must absolutely be eliminated.

The agreement does nothing to address this. Given that Canada, and especially Quebec, relies heavily on aluminum production, the Liberals talked a good game and said all the right things to lull people to sleep. They said that 70% of aluminum parts used in automotive manufacturing had to be produced in Mexico, Canada or the U.S. What I just explained is supported by the numbers, and numbers do not lie. As the numbers show, this scheme will continue under this trade agreement.

There is a lot of talk about Donald Trump. Everyone is afraid of Donald Trump. Essentially, the government did not capitulate to Donald Trump, it capitulated to Mexico, which decided to produce auto parts with aluminum dumped by China. They are doing this right under our noses and think we will not notice. We figured out this scheme and have condemned it many times because aluminum is Quebec's second-largest export. It is an extremely important market for us. Just go to Lac-Saint-Jean or visit an aluminum plant in Quebec, on the North Shore or elsewhere, and you will see the number of people working in this sector. They have well-paying jobs. We are talking about more than 30,000 direct and indirect jobs, not to mention those that would be created by planned expansions. That is the legacy the government will leave with a flawed agreement. It was unable to negotiate perhaps because it is used to making concessions, but somehow it is always Quebec that ends up making the concessions, and we are sick of it. It is quite clear that Quebec is always the one to make concessions.

We are here to say that this agreement must be amended. We need to agree on that. I know the government is not going to reopen the agreement and renegotiate it, but there are things it can do. We are calling on the government to do what must be done because Quebeckers' jobs depend on it, because Quebec's second-largest export depends on it and because regions depend on it.

That is why the Bloc is rising. We are in the right here. We know we are defending Quebec's interests. That is why we were elected, and that is what we are going to fight for throughout this Parliament.

[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 member's passion on this issue. Obviously, it is an important issue for all of Canada, with particular focus from the Bloc with respect to the aluminum industry in the province of Quebec.

I would ask the member to reflect on what is currently in place prior to this particular agreement. This agreement would provide something that was not there previously. I see that as a good thing. Hopefully, we may be able to get some of the more specific questions answered once it gets to committee.

I would further note that even the Premier of Quebec is strongly in favour of this agreement. He has raised concerns, but also encourages its passage. Could the member provide his thoughts in regards to that?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Obviously, trade deals are always a good thing for the parties and countries involved. This has been known since Adam Smith published his thesis in 1776. I do not fall off my chair when I hear someone talk about the importance of trade deals.

Our fundamental problem is that we missed out on getting an agreement that addressed the scheme that is currently leaving Quebeckers in an extremely uncomfortable situation with regard to aluminum. The scheme that was created for aluminum is Chinese dumping in Mexico. The figures are growing, they are soaring, and this is a recent situation. The government should have negotiated an agreement that put an end to this unfair competition from China. The government did not do that, and once again, Quebec is paying the price.

Yes, it is a good thing to have an agreement, and there are good aspects to this. We are not denying that. What we are saying is that this agreement has been drafted with a loophole that jeopardizes a major industry in Quebec. Why not close that loophole? It would be feasible, and the government has the wherewithal to do it.

I am reaching out to the other side. Let us get it done together, make sure Quebec stops being the one to pay the price, and sign agreements on an expedited basis.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I heard what the member said.

We, the Conservatives, absolutely agree that not enough work was done on this agreement, particularly on aluminum. Yes, we support the Bloc. We support the province of Quebec and, of course, we support the aluminum industry.

That being said, I would like to know what the member and the Bloc Québécois will do to support Alberta's oil industry.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are not bargaining here.

We are not about to say that we will trade support for aluminum for support for other industries. That is not what is happening here. We have here a trade agreement that does not close the insidious loophole that was forced down Quebecker's throats when it comes to aluminum. That is where we are now. Before we start talking about other industries that are not affected by this agreement, before we get into any more analyses, let us start by working in favour of Quebeckers' legitimate interests. All we want is for justice to be done, nothing more. We want to be on equal footing with the other aluminum producers in the world.

We can do good things. We produce the cleanest aluminum in the world. We can compete with anyone, but not if the competition is unfair. We should not have to deal with unfair competition. No country in the world would accept that, and Quebec will not either.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Bloc Québécois House leader.

I have a question for him. As I understand it, the new NAFTA provides more protection to the aluminum industry than the existing one. It is natural to want more, but I think the new NAFTA is better for the aluminum sector than the old NAFTA.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the dairy sector and the steel sector both got the kind of protection I was talking about earlier.

I talked about the history of international relations within various organizations, such as customs unions and free trade zones. The steel industry got this measure; why not the aluminum industry? Why are people saying there is an emergency now that was not there before?

The urgency of the situation is ramping up for two reasons. We are in a vicious cycle. I have the numbers to prove it, which I shared earlier in my speech. Chinese aluminum dumping is a threat to Quebec aluminum because aluminum parts are being made in Mexico. The trade agreement endorses that.

If we let this slide, that could eventually mean a death sentence for the cleanest aluminum in the world, which is from Quebec.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I stand among my colleagues today with the duty of holding the Liberals accountable over the new NAFTA they have agreed to and now asked the House to ratify. I would note that they want us to ratify this as soon as possible, yet they still have not provided the requested documents, including the cost-benefit analysis.

I do intend on voting to ratify this agreement because industry, especially the automotive sector, needs certainty so we can keep Canadians working and obtain new investment. Sadly, it is too late for Oshawa. Though this trade agreement has its issues, the certainty of a trade deal will keep our exporting companies in Canada and hopefully bring an end to four turbulent years.

When the Prime Minister originally took office, he had the TPP and CETA ready to sign. We had good relations with both China and India. There were talks of potential trade agreements with each of those growing economies.

However, both China and India want nothing to do with the Prime Minister and the new TPP is a shell of its original form. It does not include the United States. One in four may be average for a baseball player, but it is an awful record for the Prime Minister.

The government has misstepped at every possible turn on the world stage. In fact, this all could have been avoided five years ago with the signing of the original trans-Pacific partnership in 2015 or 2016. The TPP was set to open up Canada to some of the largest markets in the world, over 1.2 billion people. Canada is now a signatory to a new version of the agreement, but there is one noticeably absent signatory: the United States.

The trans-Pacific partnership, in its original form, was the renegotiation of NAFTA, given both Mexico and the United States were involved in the agreement. It solved key bilateral and, more importantly, multilateral issues. One of the TPP's main purposes was to counter the rapid economic expansionism of China, an issue that is growing larger day by day. China is now holding its economic power over our heads as the Prime Minister tries to navigate the current situation he created.

I rose in this House during the last month of the previous Parliament to raise the point that the Prime Minister had the opportunity to avoid the turbulent last four years of NAFTA renegotiation if he had just signed the original TPP. In response, the member for Mississauga Centre completely ignored history and said, “The claim is that if we had ratified the TPP, it would have solved so many problems, but the U.S. pulled out [of] the TPP.” This attitude is still taken by the Liberals today. They cannot seem to remember that the Prime Minister refused to sign the original TPP more than once.

By October 6, 2015, almost two weeks before the 2015 election, the ministers from each of the 12 signatories gathered to announce that the negotiations were complete for the TPP. All the Prime Minister had to do was put pen to paper.

As reported by Bill Curry on November 15, 2015, 14 months before President Trump was sworn in, the Prime Minister's best friend internationally, Barack Obama, was in the Philippines and referenced Canada when he said, “We are both soon to be signatories of the TPP agreement.” Alas, the Prime Minister did not sign.

If we fast forward to March 2016, it is still nine or 10 months before President Trump took office. This time the Prime Minister said he was confident that the softwood lumber dispute would be resolved in a matter of weeks to a month under the TPP, a sentiment shared by President Obama during the Prime Minister's first official to the White House. Sadly, the Prime Minister did not sign again. Even with the most progressive president in recent U.S. history and the Prime Minister's BFF, he refused to sign the agreement because it was not progressive enough for him.

Virtue signalling aside, the TPP was important because it was set to resolve many issues that we still face today. For example, under the agreement, there would not have been issues with section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Signing that agreement would have stopped this years-long debacle in its tracks before it even started.

President Trump may have been able to renegotiate a trade agreement with two other countries, as he did with NAFTA, but he did that over the past two years. Trying to negotiate a trade deal with 11 other signatories would have been next to impossible, and the original TPP was a template for that agreement going forward. If the Prime Minister had signed the TPP in the first place, this mess he created would likely have been avoided.

The handling of the TPP was the first time the Prime Minister angered other world leaders, but it would not be the last. After the Prime Minister kicked the TPP down the road, a new president took the Oval Office. President Trump pulled our southern neighbour out of the agreement.

The remaining countries proceeded without the U.S. and were ready to sign in 2017. In fact, the leaders of each soon-to-be signatory gathered in a room for a historic event, but the Prime Minister decided to play hooky and refused to sign once again.

The Prime Minister was nowhere to be found; he just did not show up. Over and over again, the Prime Minister has failed Canada on the international trade file and has angered our global partners.

In response to these antics, the leaders of the aspiring TPP signatories were outraged. High-level Australian officials described the Prime Minister's no-show as “sabotaging the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, according to the National Post. One official even told Australia's ABC News that Canada screwed everybody. How bad does it have to be for Australia to get so upset?

The Prime Minister later signed the updated agreement, but not until he angered world leaders and waited for the United States to withdraw.

It gets worse. In 2017, when President Trump officially indicated his intention to renegotiate NAFTA, the administration issued a list of specific provisions and issues that it was looking to have renegotiated. At that time, it put forward concerns regarding supply management, rules of origin and other specific areas of interest. The Liberal government responded by voicing its outspoken commitment to the so-called progressive agenda and did not even address the list of priorities put forward by the United States administration.

This began a negotiating process that saw our U.S. counterparts leave the negotiating table and deal only with Mexico until they had worked out all the details, without Canadian input. The government's inability to get the job done appropriately led Canada to an agreement that would only maintain certain standards and provisions, but would gain nothing over the original NAFTA agreement.

This is basically a Mexico-United States agreement, and we are only involved because Mexico felt bad for Canada. The Liberal government's negotiating team was forced to sit at the kids' table while the adults settled the details.

I have never been the prime minister of this great country, but it does not take a genius to know that if one screws up an opportunity like the trans-Pacific partnership, one should at least try to make up for it. However, the Prime Minister decided not to bring an end to the softwood lumber dispute and made our trade relationships with lndo-Pacific nations like China and India even worse.

Rather than finding a solution to the softwood lumber dispute and getting exemptions to “buy America”, the Prime Minister's logic has been to give away our trade sovereignty to the United States. For example, if Canada wants to sign a trade agreement with a non-market economy like China, we now have to ask the U.S. for permission. The last time I checked, Canada was a strong, powerful country that should not need to ask dad for a treat.

I can understand why the Prime Minister might not trust his own decision-making, but to forfeit Canada's sovereignty is not the solution. The Prime Minister needs to understand that people's entire livelihoods are at stake when he repeatedly makes mistakes that could have been easily avoided. We know this all too well in Oshawa: Our assembly plant did not receive a new product allocation. While the Prime Minister dithered, Oshawa lost.

We are debating this bill in its current form, yet issues remain. On December 12, members of the Conservative caucus requested the release of the economic impact study for the new NAFTA agreement. It has now been 54 days since the request and we have yet to see the report.

On this side of the House, we have been asking when the economic impact study will be released and, as usual, the Prime Minister and his government are ducking the questions. It is a simple question that does not need to be dodged. The economic impact study will give greater insight on the effects of the agreement. The question remains: What do the Liberals have to hide?

This study is important because Canada deserves a trade agreement that will benefit all of us. For example, something that is very important in my community is that the agreement requires that 40% of cars produced in Mexico be completed by workers making at least $16 per hour. However, because of this, there is an assumption that automotive manufacturing jobs will migrate north. How many jobs are expected to be created in Canada? It is impossible to know because the economic impact study has not been released. As well, what effect will this have on the price of cars? Again, we do not know, because the Liberals refuse to release the study.

With that said, I plan on supporting the deal. Though the agreement has issues as a result of the Prime Minister's bad decisions, premiers, small businesses, farmers and manufacturers need the certainty so they can resume their day-to-day business. Canadian businesses cannot wait any longer for certainty and they need to make investments and decisions for their livelihoods. Canadians need a deal, and that is why I plan on supporting the agreement.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to sit with the hon. member on the international trade committee.

If the member could recall the election of 2015, the Liberal Party made a commitment to Canadians to consult widely, to have a trade agreement be transparent and accountable to Canadians. With the member, we travelled from coast to coast to coast to many different communities. We heard from the people. We heard from agricultural groups, industry groups and labour groups. In the presidential debate, we heard that the United States would rip up the TPP.

We wanted to ensure that this government got it right, and that is what we did. Does the member not think it was right to consult with all stakeholders, especially with the people of Canada, allowing them to speak, rather than what the Conservative government wanted, which was to do things in secret and push through a TPP that was not in Canada's interest?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Liberals is unbelievable. I have worked with him and I have a lot of respect for the member for Mississauga-East—Cooksville.

However, the Liberal government has not even given us the economic impact studies. It is saying that it wants this passed as soon as possible. We requested the studies in December, and the Liberals still have not given them to us. He says that the Liberals had to do their due diligence, which I actually agree with, but the member omits the fact that Conservatives had already done much of that.

The TPP was an agreement we worked on with President Obama for seven years. It was his legacy. He wanted to have it. With the Americans onboard with the new TPP, which was part of NAFTA, it could have been resolved. All this silliness could have been resolved if the Liberals had just signed that agreement.

By the way, just a note for the hon. member. The Liberals did sign the agreement eventually. He would remember we had the bureaucrats in front of committee, and it was exactly the same agreement except for two sidebars. Of course the United States was not in it. We could have avoided this whole mess if the Liberals had signed it five years ago and we could have been working on other agreements, such as the agreements with China and India, on which the Americans are already ahead of us.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see the two main parties passing the buck back and forth and blaming each other for past failings in various deals over the years. What does all this really amount to? Concessions have been granted over the years, especially in supply management, and now in the aluminum sector. Virtually all the concessions made to reach a comprehensive agreement that is good for all of Canada have one thing in common: Quebec pays the price. It is unfortunate, but there is no other way to see it.

I would ask the House, the government and specifically my Conservative colleague whether they would be willing to put an end, once and for all, to these concessions that are undermining our agricultural system and supply management. We have already given up 18% of our market. The government has conceded not only on that but also on our capacity to export to countries that are not even parties to the agreement. This is unheard of, and it is just not right. I would like the political parties to make a clear commitment and tell us whether they will protect supply management, through legislation, to ensure that this never happens again.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, negotiations should never be on the backs of hard-working farmers. I do appreciate the fact that the member is speaking up for all Canadian farmers in the supply management field.

I will go back to the original TPP agreement, on which there were some concessions. Our Conservative government was very proactive and very committed in saying that there would be proper compensation for that.

We have the agreement with NAFTA, and my colleague is absolutely right in asking what the plan is moving forward. We have been asking the Liberals about this. I know my friends in the Bloc want to see the cost benefit analysis too, showing exactly how things will be affected and the industries that will be hurt by this. The Bloc members have brought up supply management, but there is also the aluminum sector. Again, with this agreement, we now have new rules for aluminum, which we did not have in the past.

I am in agreement. In committee, we will bring forward witnesses to ensure the government has a plan, so if somebody is negatively affected, a proactive approach can be taken to ensure certain compensation is available for that, like our Conservative government did. We have to let the government know that to dither any further is not appropriate.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House for the first time in 2020. On top of that, I do so as you preside over this august chamber. I am happy for you, and I thank you for giving me the floor.

I am very pleased to be here to present to the House of Commons an important result the government obtained for the cultural sector with the new NAFTA, also known as CUSMA.

Canada has managed to retain the general exemption for cultural industries, a key provision designed to preserve Canada's cultural sovereignty. This is an important aspect of the original NAFTA.

The general exemption for cultural industries fully preserves the latitude Canada has to adopt and maintain the programs and policies that support the creation and dissemination of Canadian artistic expression or content, including in the digital environment.

At the outset of the negotiations, our government made it clear that it wanted to preserve the cultural exemption and did not back down on that objective throughout the negotiation process, to get the result we have today. The cultural exemption is a matter of national interest that enjoys overwhelming support from Canada's cultural industries, and most certainly those of Quebec, all the provinces and territories, and several municipal and local governments.

Today I am very proud to say that Canada fought hard at the negotiating table to ultimately achieve our objectives in the cultural sector by retaining the cultural exemption.

Why is that so important? As countries' economies become increasingly integrated, different nations need a strong culture and national cultural expressions to preserve their sovereignty and their sense of identity.

Canada is proud of its cultural diversity. We are proud of our heritage, stories, culture and population. As a Quebecker, I can say that we have a very rich culture, a culture we export to just about every corner of the planet. That is also true for the entire country. We should be proud of this, and that is why the cultural exemption is essential. We must preserve the vitality of this important sector. I will speak a little later not only about Canada's fabric, but also about the very important economic benefits of culture.

We understand that culture is important at a number of levels. It helps build our societies, it strengthens social cohesion and pride, it supports economic prosperity, it is an integral part of who we are as Canadians and it enriches our lives.

Historically, culture has been treated differently in Canada's free trade agreements. Since the bilateral agreement we signed with the United States in 1988, Canada has chosen to exempt cultural industries from the obligations of free trade agreements.

The cultural exemption in the new agreement protects Canada's right to pursue its cultural policy goals. This enhances the benefits of the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and the original NAFTA.

The new CUSMA recognizes that Canada has a right to promote its cultural industries through incentives like grants, tax credits, regulations and other forms of support. This is why the cultural exemption is so important.

I should also point out that the cultural exemption is neutral on technology. This means that the exemption applies to both the physical world and the digital world. Because of its horizontal scope, this exemption takes precedence over the disciplines on trade associated with the cultural industries in all chapters of the new agreement, including the chapter on digital trade.

The definition of cultural industries in Canada takes into account the key role that both Canadian and non-Canadian online platforms now play in distributing Canadian cultural content. That is why we worked so hard to make sure the cultural exemption would fully apply to the online environment. During the negotiations, we stressed that our ability to take action to adopt measures aimed at promoting Canadian cultural expression in the digital realm needed to be recognized and preserved in the new agreement.

The digital environment is evolving at a fast pace, and it is in this country's interest to keep its strategic options open in the future, especially since we are in the process of reviewing the Broadcasting Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act.

Canada not only maintained its existing programs and policies, but it also ensured that it would have the flexibility to intervene strategically to support cultural industries in the future. Over the years, Canada's approach to culture when negotiating free trade agreements has played a decisive role in promoting Canada's national cultural industries and has therefore contributed to economic growth, job creation and prosperity. Since music, television shows, movies and books are not just entertaining, but also essential to our quality of life, as I mentioned earlier, they represent a major industry and a significant segment of our economy.

Together, Canada's cultural industries account for more than 660,000 jobs and contribute $53 billion to our economy. In 2017, our cultural industries accounted for about 3% of Canada's GDP and exports worth nearly $16 billion.

The cultural industries have much to offer the world. Just think of artists like Céline Dion, Drake and The Weeknd, who have propelled Canada onto the international stage. We are an exporter of culture, and we need to celebrate that. Quebec has some amazing filmmakers, such as Xavier Dolan, Denis Villeneuve and Jean-Marc Vallée, who are internationally renowned for their talent and their storytelling. The list goes on and on.

It is our collective responsibility as a government to support this industry, which is the foundation of our national identity, and to create the conditions needed to support the artists of today and help develop the talent of tomorrow.

I would also like to point out that Canada's vibrant cultural industries are ready to do business. In recent years, for example, Canada has become Hollywood North as a result of its welcoming film production environment, world-class production infrastructure—including skilled labour—and strategic tax credits. It is no surprise that over the past five years alone the number of foreign productions filmed in Canada has increased by 160%, more quickly than in the United States or the United Kingdom.

Our commitment to protect culture includes much more than free trade agreements. Canada is a global advocate of the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which was adopted by UNESCO in 2005. This convention recognizes both the economic and social value of cultural goods and services and reaffirms the right of governments to adopt their own cultural policies.

In addition, the government made the single largest reinvestment in Canadian arts and culture not only in over 30 years, but also in the entire G7, precisely to bring in the tools needed to support Canada's entire cultural ecosystem. That makes me very proud. It is one of the first things we did when we came to power in 2015, as early as budget 2016, after the cultural sector took such a hard hit during the previous decade under the Conservatives.

I believe it is important to show our support, especially when we see both the social and economic value of culture. We know that the money invested generates returns both for jobs and the GDP. This industry represents 3% of our GDP, which is huge. It is important that the government support our content creators, our artists, artisans and Canadian cultural industries, which are so vital.

I would like to reiterate that the cultural component of the new agreement represents a major victory for the Canadian cultural industry and for all Canadians. Indeed, Canadians will continue to have access to rich and diverse cultural expressions across all media and all formats.

In future, we will continue to tell our stories and express our culture in all its diversity and on every platform. I think that all members of the House should be pleased that in spite of tough negotiations, Canada succeeded in preserving our country's cultural exemption and ensuring that it applies in the digital age.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked at length about the cultural exemptions.

We appreciate the briefing that the Liberals provided to members of Parliament last week, in which the hard-working public servants who were part of the negotiating team briefed us on matters relating to this new NAFTA. However, while we all recognize in the House the importance of a North American trade deal, these negotiators shared with us that, although they did make some gains on the cultural side of things, they did not on the government's so-called priorities for the environment and gender.

I wonder if the member could highlight his feelings on the areas that the negotiators made very clear they were not able to make progress on.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not at the briefing that the hon. member is referring to. I will look into exactly what was said.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the public servants who worked tirelessly for months on these negotiations. They did a wonderful job under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who oversaw the NAFTA renegotiation.

I believe it is important to point out today that we had a long way to go on these negotiations. That was the very essence of my speech. However, we achieved very good results. We got a modernized agreement that maintains the cultural exemption, which has always been fundamental to Canada and even more so to Quebec. I cannot help but be pleased about that. I think that was well received by everyone in the cultural industry. From a cultural perspective, the results of the renegotiation were very well received. Overall, this agreement was well received by economic and political actors across the country, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois. It is still hard to understand the Bloc Québécois's position, when the Premier of Quebec is calling for the quick ratification of this agreement.

Overall, it is a good agreement. With regard to the cultural exemption, it is a victory for Canada and Quebec.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

Hearing him talk about culture was music to my ears. Speaking of ears, I am a little worried that he still does not understand why the Bloc Québécois opposes the agreement, because we have explained our position at great length.

Getting back to culture, I certainly welcome good provisions. However, the aspects protected in the agreement are things we do not even have in Quebec and Canada. The cultural industry, especially in Quebec, has expressed concerns about the glaring lack of resources in the industry, about artists who are going hungry and have a hard time making ends meet and who have been calling for government money for years. My colleague opposite blames the previous Conservative government for the cuts, but I do not think the Liberals have done much in four years to make up for those cuts.

When will the government sit down with the industry and with cultural industry representatives in Quebec, listen to their concerns and address this serious problem?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague. He said it was music to his ears, which I think is appropriate considering the subject of my speech.

I am very pleased to remind him that, when we came to power, we invested over $2.3 billion. We doubled the budget of the National Film Board of Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts. We made massive investments. Never in the past 30 years has a federal government invested as much in culture as we have since taking office in 2015.

Canada's cultural sector went through a very dark decade because, as we all know, it was not a priority for Mr. Harper's government or the Conservative Party. It was a priority for us and still is. In fact, we are the only G7 country to have invested so heavily in culture. I think it is something we can be very proud of, actually.

Just talk to people at the CBC, the National Film Board or Telefilm Canada. Most people in the arts felt the difference right from when we took office. As a Quebecker, I intend to continue to push the government to invest more in culture because it is essential for our identity and our economy.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, taking a different tack, I am wondering if the member could speak a bit about the process by which the House engages on trade agreements. We have heard a little about the comparison between the process the United States follows and the one that we follow, whereby the House debates the content of the agreement after it has been signed, at the ratification stage.

I wonder whether the member would agree that Canada would benefit from a more robust process that provides a formal role for the House in shaping the content of trade agreements.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that we must always respect parliamentarians' work. Any suggestion may have merit. This debate has merit, but there must also be an understanding of the context in which negotiations were held. Ultimately, it is important to ratify the agreement to benefit the Canadian economy. That view is held by business owners, unions and the provincial and territorial premiers. There is a consensus that this agreement must be ratified as quickly as possible.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to address the House in formal debate, let me first thank the amazing citizens of Red Deer—Mountain View for their support during the last election. None of us makes it to this place on our own. From that perspective, I wish not only to recognize the numerous volunteers who have supported me, but also my devoted family who has stood beside me all along the way. My wife Judy, our son Devin, our daughter Megan, our son-in-law Hanno and our grandchildren Julian, Serena and Conrad are my inspiration for my service to my community.

I have been blessed to have so many wonderful people guide me along my political journey. Over the past 12 years, I have continually felt that same sense of duty and honour each time I enter this chamber. I reflect upon the love, passion, desires and counsel my parents, brothers, family, colleagues and friends have taught me, and I strive to live up to the honour they have bestowed upon me by allowing me to serve as their representative.

During the last Parliament, I was honoured to serve on the international trade committee. Committee members had a unique view of the negotiation process and numerous opportunities to meet with parliamentarians from around the world, including our American neighbours.

I was also honoured to accompany Prime Minister Harper to London in the final days of the CETA negotiations, where discussions with Canadian producers, manufacturers and distributors looking to do business with their European counterparts took place.

Canada is a trading nation. As Conservatives, we truly are the party of trade. This was obvious from the respect that Prime Minister Harper commanded as he spoke with global leaders. It saddens me to hear how the current Liberal government continually tries to minimize the great work done by our former government and how it desperately tries to weave its way into the international trade narrative.

When it comes to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, the current government was handed CETA on a silver platter. All the Prime Minister had to do was retrieve the ball the Harper government had hit over the fence for the walk-off home run, and sign it.

The government's insistence that it reopen parts of the agreement caused serious confusion with our trading partners and showed inconsistencies and weaknesses of which other signatories were quick to take advantage. This became the opening that encouraged one of those European partners, Italy, to initiate unsubstantiated, non-tariff trade barriers against Canadian durum wheat. Ironically, its ploy was to demonize us for herbicide use. This came from a region that uses three to six times the amount of herbicide our Canadian farmers do. Because the current government had no strategy or ability to help our farmers, the rest of the world saw this administration as weak.

Canadian farmers once again took it on the chin when the government chose to tweet in Arabic about internal issues in Saudi Arabia, which had always previously been dealt with professionally through proper diplomatic channels.

Similarly unexplainable behaviour by the Prime Minister created a near disaster with Vietnam at a time when tensions were high after the U.S. pulled out of TPP discussions. Because the TPP was a template for a renewed North American trade agreement and was so close to being a reality in July 2015, it was with disbelief that we saw the Prime Minister once again put our position in jeopardy by creating a scene during these negotiations. Whether it was the entire reason or not, the consequence is that we have another non-tariff trade barrier with Vietnam that once again affects our agricultural exports.

Then we had our problems with India. The trade committee happened to be in Malaysia on the last leg of an ASEAN trade tour when the Prime Minister's Indian antics hit the global news wire. To say that all of us were embarrassed would be an understatement. If it had just been the costume party, that would have been bad enough, but revelations about his guest list and the snubbing of the Indian prime minister went beyond the pale.

Canada had always had agreements with India regarding our pulse exports, but these agreements needed constant vigilance. The government dropped the ball, and all of a sudden we had an international incident: another non-tariff trade barrier that put our Canadian pulse producers in jeopardy. This multi-billion dollar market became another casualty of a disjointed government strategy that lacked both knowledge and direction.

Sadly, Canadians are no longer surprised by these types of unforced errors from the Prime Minister. This has also been the underpinning of his attitude with our southern neighbours. This was obvious from the Prime Minister's confrontational commentary once he thought the American president was out of earshot. His irresponsible statements inflamed our relationship with the United States at a time when we should have been addressing solvable irritants with our southern neighbours.

There may have been a sense of bravado at the PMO, but the result was that the U.S. administration lost its respect for its traditional ally and stopped listening to us.

This heightened the problems associated with the stalled steel and aluminum tariffs, slowed any action on softwood lumber, and in the new NAFTA, solidified their entrenched position on dairy.

The issues that we have with China today are complex and I wish our diplomatic team success as it deals with these concerns. On the trade file, the concerns we have today have been exacerbated by the government's global, knee-jerk response to serious trade issues and the serious diplomatic missteps that have been a hallmark of the government.

If Canada would not stand up to the non-tariff issues of the countries I previously mentioned, then the Chinese government was pretty confident that we would not stand up to its import restrictions either. Canola, pork and beef were to become pawns in this debate. With the present developments with the U.S.A.-China agreement, we find ourselves on the outside looking in. Quite frankly, neither of these important trading partners has time for us. No longer are we that soft middle power that both our U.S. neighbours and the Chinese government would seek counsel from when issues arose. The egos of the leaders and administration of all three countries now dominate the discussion and as Canadians, we suffer the most.

Where does this leave us with the new NAFTA? We have always had strong relationships with our southern neighbours and we must continue to value these trusted partners through a strong, well-thought-out free trade agreement. However, while doing so, we must always think of our Canadian workers and their combined expertise, our manufacturers and their ability to compete with Canadian raw materials, our farmers and their world-class food production, and our natural resource industry and its respected environmentally friendly footprint.

These are the people, and the industries in which they toil, that any free trade agreement must consider. In our present national discussions, we hear a lot of talk about the environmental practices of our mining, oil and gas, agriculture, forestry and other industrial users and naively think that this matters to the rest of the world.

As a western Canadian, I would love it if we would use our environmental record as a lever for global acceptance of best practices and that as a nation we would champion this expertise so that the world would take notice. Sadly, our global competitors that pile on when it comes to natural resource development have found allies with anti-development actors that have infiltrated political parties, honest ecological activists and inculcated our education system. All this to portray our natural resource industries in a negative light.

In Alberta, we did not look for sweetheart deals from the federal government to allow our heavy emitters to put actual pollutants into the air or to get permission to pour raw sewage into our rivers. Instead, we set up strong environmental conditions that made sense for our geography, that recognized our natural resource advantages from forestry and agriculture, and our desire to build on all resources for the betterment of the nation. We wanted to do our part.

Do any of these things seem to matter to the eco-activists that will do all they can to shutter in our resources while ignoring the blatant economic sabotage and environmental disasters that are practised by our competitors? No, but we in the west still forge ahead despite these attacks because we know that this is how we can help build a nation.

We will stand up for the green aluminum producers from Quebec because we are proud of what they produce, because it is the right thing to do. We will stand up for our oil and gas industry because by doing so we can help displace poorly regulated and environmental suspect energy from other global suppliers, because it is the right thing to do. We will stand up for our forestry workers and we will stand up for our great farmers and ranchers who produce the best food in the world with the softest environmental footprint, because it is the right thing to do.

[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, when the member stands and talks about the reputation of the Prime Minister and what the government has done outside of Canada's borders, I would suggest that we only need to look at the area that we are debating today and that is the area of trade.

We have an incredible group of civil servants, arguably some of the best negotiators in the world, who have been working with the Government of Canada to achieve significant trade agreements. When the member makes reference to the world looking in, I would suggest that Canada is envied around the world for the number of trade agreements and the amount of trade that takes place between Canada, a population base of 36 million, compared to other countries around the world.

Would my colleague not agree that, on the trade file, Canada is one of the most aggressive countries in completing trade agreements second to no other western world country?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, sadly, the current government has done all it can to make things difficult for the Canadian producers and our Canadian trade people. Yes, there are some fantastic folks who are working on behalf of Canada, but unfortunately, they take direction from the Prime Minister and his trade people in his party.

Sadly, it has caused us problems. The latest statement from the wheat growers estimates that market losses in the last 36 months, as the result of non-tariff trade barriers imposed by the six countries that I mentioned, amount to $3.7 billion. That is the type of thing that we are talking about.

No, making a show of oneself in an international scene is not something that Canadians are proud of.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will say that unfortunately the member and I do not see eye to eye on some of the environmental concerns. However, as a member who represents a more rural and remote riding, I understand that using our resources is really important.

In my riding, dairy farmers are very concerned. There are several dairy farms in my riding and they are very concerned about the changes that are happening and the impacts that those changes will have on their communities. One of the things I would like to hear the member speak on is when we look at trade agreements how we can start to do a better job of remembering the rural and remote communities, where we have those huge impacts, if we are not thoughtful in moving forward.

I would love to hear how the member plans to move toward some really meaningful climate activism that we need to do across this country. We have not done well in our emissions in this country, but let us just leave it on the rural and remote communities and making sure that as trade agreements are negotiated, that lens is put in place. I feel that they are not looked at seriously enough at this point.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things one should recognize is that in the CETA there were discussions between the dairy industry and the government, and they went forward so that they understood what was happening. They understood, as well, that there was going to be money put aside to backstop for any damage that might possibly have occurred because of the agreement. The dairy producers indicated that they thought that if they got this market, they would have an opportunity and would not even need to go into that, or certainly might not have to take all of it.

That disappeared when the Liberals took over. Now we are in a situation where they have given away even more concessions to the United States: class 6 and 7 milk and other issues concerning overproduction or production that we might have, if we wanted to sell baby formula around the world.

Those are the kinds of things that happened on the dairy front, and I think that is significant. I will leave it at that.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, this morning in the media, Teck Resources said that the mine that the federal government needs to be approving at the end of this month will be emissions-free by 2050.

We have blockers of pipelines in this country who continue to talk about green aluminum. I would like the member to talk a little about the green efforts that are happening in Canada's oil and gas industry.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, not only do we have people blocking pipelines around the country, we have them here in this particular House.

What has been lost in the discussion, as far as aluminum is concerned when it comes to production and distribution, is who the global competitors of Canadian aluminum are now and how confident we are that we can trust those competitors to play by the rules. Since aluminum sourced in Canada is some of the most environmentally and ethically sourced on the planet, how can we effectively leverage this green aluminum at the global-conscious level? If we do that and are prepared to help the people of Quebec, we then have to have them understand that the strides that have been made in Alberta for all of the energy sources have been amazing.

Why do the Liberals not spend a little time paying attention to what is real, and look at the people around the world who are destroying this planet?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal Party for sharing this speaking time with me so I can add my voice and perspective to this important debate on the new NAFTA or, as it is called now, CUSMA.

I would like to congratulate the Canadian negotiating team for getting this deal done with a U.S. administration that, at best, can be described as difficult to deal with.

This is not a perfect agreement. As parliamentarians, we are being asked to choose between the original version of NAFTA and this updated version. The original NAFTA successfully created an integrated supply chain that benefited businesses and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, there are many flaws in the agreement that created and accelerated inequality.

For more than a decade, the Green Party has called for the renegotiation of NAFTA and the removal of problematic components. In our view, the worst part of the original agreement was the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms and the proportionality clause, both of which have been removed in CUSMA. The investor-state provisions in NAFTA allowed foreign corporations to seek financial compensation from taxpayers through private arbitration tribunals when laws and regulations got in the way of their profits. Canada is the most-sued country under these NAFTA investor-state rules, and taxpayers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to U.S. companies, but no Canadian company has ever successfully won compensation from the U.S. government.

For more than 10 years, I have worked to raise awareness about the serious problems created by investor-state provisions in our trade agreements. These provisions are anti-democratic and they obstruct good public policy and environmental protections, including action on climate change. I am happy to see the investor-state provisions removed from the CUSMA. This is a win. I would like to see investor-state dispute settlement provisions removed from all trade agreements and investment treaties that Canada has signed, and they should be excluded from any new agreements.

NAFTA's proportionality clause required that Canada export the same proportion of energy that it had on average in the previous three years, even in an energy crisis. Mexico did not agree to the inclusion of this clause. Canada, the coldest NAFTA country, signed away too much control of its energy sector. Fortunately, the proportionality clause was removed from the CUSMA. This is also a win.

The continued exemption of bulk water exports is encouraging, and the Canadian cultural exemption remains intact. These are wins as well.

The Green Party believes in fair and equitable trade that does not exploit lower labour, health, safety or environmental standards in other countries or result in the lowering of standards in Canada. Done right, trade can be an effective way to improve conditions for people and the planet rather than creating a race to the bottom.

Free trade agreements have allowed corporations to exploit lower wages and standards in other countries. Under NAFTA, many jobs in Canada were moved to Mexico for this reason. This hollowed out Canada's manufacturing and textile sectors and led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs here. When NAFTA was negotiated and signed, Canadians were promised that it would increase prosperity. In reality, NAFTA increased the wealth of the rich at the expense of working Canadians, whose wages have stagnated.

As an international human rights observer in the 1990s, I accompanied labour activists who were trying to organize workers in Guatemala's sweatshops, which produced low-cost goods for the North American market. The simple act of trying to create a union led to intimidation, violence, disappearances and murder. This was not how international trade should work. I am pleased that CUSMA would create stricter enforcement of labour standards in Mexico, would guarantee Mexican workers the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and would help to strengthen the labour movement there. The agreement includes a rapid response mechanism for labour violations.

These labour standards were strengthened in the new, improved version of the agreement, thanks to a push by Democrats in the United States who were not happy with the lack of proper labour standards or enforcement in the first signed version of CUSMA.

U.S. Democrats also managed to roll back the patent extensions on biologic drugs proposed in the first version of the CUSMA agreement. This change will save Canadian consumers money and make it more affordable to create a universal pharmacare program in Canada.

Thankfully, the Canadian Parliament did not rush to ratify this first signed version of the agreement, so we can all benefit from these important changes made by U.S. Democrats.

Another area of improvement is the rules of origin. Higher levels of North American content are now required before goods can be certified as made in North America. There is a new 70% North American steel and aluminum requirement for automobiles, but while the steel content requirement guarantees that steel must be produced in North America, there is not an equal requirement for aluminum. This requirement should have been included in the agreement.

Our supply management system for dairy and poultry farmers will remain intact, but one of the drawbacks of the new agreement is that it will allow imports of dairy products from the U.S. This will undermine the economic viability of Canadian farms and will require compensation to farmers.

In addition, many dairy products in the U.S. contain a genetically modified bovine growth hormone called rBGH, which is banned in Canada. We need legislation in place to ensure that U.S. products containing rBGH are either labelled or blocked from entering this country.

The CUSMA agreement makes some progress on environmental protections. Countries are committed to meet their obligations on a number of multilateral environmental treaties they have signed. These agreements are all enforceable. However, what CUSMA is missing is any mention of climate change and any obligation for the three CUSMA countries to uphold their commitments under the climate accords. While the climate change targets established in Paris are binding, there are no enforcement mechanisms or penalties for countries that do not live up to their commitments.

Increasing trade in goods will accelerate climate change. One of the best ways to combat climate change is to localize our economies as much as possible. This is especially true for agricultural products. Redundant trade, such as importing products that can easily be produced locally, does not make sense.

There are other concerns with CUSMA. The agreement fails to address the decades-long softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States. Getting the proper agreement on softwood is critical to the health of the Canadian forest industry.

The good regulatory practices chapter is also of concern. Who decides what good regulatory practices are? Will this process involve only business and government, or will civil society organizations representing labour, consumers, and the environment be involved?

The extension of copyright from 50 years after an author's death to 75 years is an unnecessary change.

It is ironic to hear the Conservatives complaining about not having enough access during the negotiation process and having to study an agreement that is a done deal. This really speaks to the lack of a clear and transparent process for negotiating trade agreements. The process of negotiating CUSMA included briefings for an expanded group of stakeholders, going beyond just the business organizations and corporations that were consulted in the past. That is an improvement, but there is still work to do to make the trade agreement negotiation process more transparent. It is unacceptable that Canadians, and the parliamentarians who represent them, can only get involved in a debate about the merits of a trade agreement once it has been completed and signed.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives complained about the secretive nature of the negotiation process while they were in opposition. The Greens believe that we should be following the European Union model for trade negotiations. We should have an open and transparent discussion and debate about Canada's objectives before negotiations start. That debate should continue during and after negotiations are concluded. Also, a socio-economic analysis of the potential impacts and benefits of a new trade agreement should be made available to all Canadians.

For years I have spoken out loudly against the corporate free trade model, so people who know me might wonder why I intend to support the CUSMA agreement. This is not a perfect agreement, the negotiation process is flawed and we can and should do better, but this is a choice between retaining the old flawed NAFTA and ratifying this new, improved version. A step forward is preferable to the status quo.

[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 position of the Green Party and the comments, which recognize that it is of value to do a comparison of the modernization of the old agreement and that some significant steps have been taken in going forward. Some of them are very much socially progressive measures, as has already been mentioned.

I ask my colleague to recognize that there has been a great deal of discussion about the process. I have stated before that we have an incredible group of people, civil servants who have assisted in the negotiations and even made this agreement possible with the leadership of the government. That said, no one would be surprised that there have been talks, discussions and consultations over the last two to two and a half years.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts in regard to the many dialogues that took place well in advance of the agreement being signed? Would he not assign some value to that?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that there has been expanded consultation on this agreement in particular and with CPTPP. I think that we need to continue that process and have more debate in Parliament before we enter into a process of starting a trade negotiation. For example, the Conservatives want a trade agreement with China. We have a committee right now that is looking at problems with China and the socio-economic impacts of getting into a trade negotiation with China.

I appreciate having those discussions in advance, and a more open and transparent process. I appreciate the openness that has happened and I would like to see more of it in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my fellow British Columbian's contributions to the House today, although he has made a materially wrong contribution by saying that the Conservative Party supports a free trade agreement with China.

In fact, our leader has been very clear on this matter. We believe that the Liberals are being very naive on all things related to China. We have seen rejection after rejection, including the issue of an extradition agreement that the government actually tried to reach with the Government of China.

I ask the member to keep those things in mind and again challenge the Green Party on its continued opposition to all trade, particularly when it comes to the issue of investor-state provisions. There are many things to disagree about in terms of process and whatnot.

Does the member think that when we are encouraging many of our businesses in British Columbia to trade abroad, if they had a choice to do it in a country where the court system and the rule of law are not the same as in Canada, they would feel comfortable taking their claim if they had expropriation without compensation in that country? They would much rather see the World Trade Organization rules apply, I think.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the Conservatives. You may not be in favour of a trade agreement with China at this point, but you did sign the Canada-China FIPA, and I am wondering if you have regrets now about the extensive power that has been given to—

[An hon. member]

Do not say “you”.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Conservatives have regrets now about the extensive power that they have given to Chinese state-owned corporations to seek damages through this investor-state process, whereby they can take us on for environmental protections, labour standards, health and safety standards, or for opposing the purchase of retirement homes and providing substandard services to our communities and seniors. Investor-state—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, very rapidly, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of areas that the hon. member totally neglected to discuss in his comments.

One is in regard to gender. Of course we know that the Liberal government promised an entire chapter to promote gender equality. It failed to do that. The government also promised to include an entire chapter to talk about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It failed to do that.

Considering the makeup of a huge portion of the member's electorate, I wonder why he neglected to mention those two critical areas in his statement.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was given 10 minutes to speak.

I definitely think that those areas are important, crucial areas. I have four first nations in my riding, and having an indigenous lens on trade and investment is very important. Having a gender lens on trade and investment is very important as well. It was not neglect but a lack of time to cover all of the issues that I would like to speak about.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak about the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

After a long and gruelling process, it is great that we have arrived where we are. Parliamentarians now have the chance to review this new agreement and ensure that free trade with our continental partners continues to benefit all Canadians.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs rely on this international trade, and the North American Free Trade Agreement has been a critically important component of that trade. In fact, one in five Canadians who have jobs in Canada have them as a result of this agreement.

However, there is merit in occasionally updating agreements like NAFTA. There are always going to be things changing, new developments that require reviewing and adjusting existing agreements, but with respect to this latest renegotiation, it seems that the Prime Minister was just a little too eager to open things up when he stated that he was more than happy to renegotiate NAFTA with incoming president Donald Trump.

It was something of a shock when the Prime Minister voluntarily submitted Canada to this renegotiation when it was widely known that the U.S. was primarily concerned with the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. Canada was suddenly drawn into what would become a long and tumultuous couple of years of negotiating. Thankfully, we seem to have arrived near the end of this stage.

I know that those on the negotiating team put in extensive hours, and for that I want to thank our officials and bureaucrats for the efforts they have contributed. I realize that they are handcuffed and restricted from using the tools and environment in which they are working. However, I am confident that they worked tirelessly and that they did their best to make as good a deal for Canada as they could.

Frustratingly, along the way there were some serious missteps that made this process even more difficult. For example, let us take the time that the Prime Minister went to New York City, President Trump's hometown, to deliver a commencement speech at a university. Naturally, he took some time for a photo op, which was featured on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine during this visit. I do not ever expect to be on the cover of Rolling Stone, but I am sure that is quite an accomplishment. To further exacerbate the situation, the article in Rolling Stone magazine portrayed the Prime Minister as an opponent of the president, making the whole trip seem like it was nothing more than an opportunity to poke the President of the United States in the eye. Why would the Prime Minister risk insulting the president right in the middle of tough negotiations with his country when Canadian jobs were on the line?

I have had the opportunity to negotiate many deals in business over the years. I have learned over the years that the best way to make a good deal is to make a connection with the person we are dealing with, develop a relationship of mutual trust and respect and not to try to provoke and intimidate the person and think that we will end up walking away with a fair and equitable deal.

Understandably, the missteps and challenges of this renegotiation have left the agreement with certain shortfalls. I am talking about the Liberals' sellout of our supply management farmers and aluminum producers. Then there were the missed opportunities, such as failing to address the softwood lumber dispute, failing to respond to the “buy America” clause and failing to move to update the list of professionals eligible for temporary business entry to reflect the 21st-century economy, just to name a few examples.

When President Trump signed the agreement at the White House last week, he called the CUSMA the “largest, fairest, most balanced and modern trade agreement ever achieved.” In Canada, the Liberals have not used that same terminology, and I do not think that they appear nearly as confident that we got an agreement that is as fair, balanced and modern as they would have liked. I think that this recognition shows in the way they comment on this particular agreement.

Despite these realities, with Canada's economy slowing and vulnerable, a lack of access to U.S. markets would further weaken business investments and exports. Free trade with our southern neighbour represents opportunities for all Canadians, and we need to embrace those opportunities even as we work to resolve the problems the Liberals have created with this agreement.

Here on this side of the House, the Conservative Party is proud to be the party of trade. It was of course a Conservative government that developed the first free trade agreement with the United States in the first place, generating increased economic activity and jobs for the last few decades.

The United States is our largest trading partner, with roughly $2 billion in bilateral trade per day crossing our international borders. This represents 75% of all Canadian exports. In fact, since the time NAFTA was introduced, more than five million jobs have been created. The total trilateral trade, when we include Mexico, has increased fourfold, to $1.2 trillion annually. Therefore, the Conservatives recognize there is a lot of potential for continued growth, continued investment and continued prosperity with a strong agreement in place.

Like all Canadians, I want the best deal for our families, the best deal for our workers and the best deal for our businesses. Having a free trade agreement in place is important, but it has to do right by Canadians. After the Liberal mismanagement, the reality is that the CUSMA will cost taxpayer money. We need to now ensure that the sectors and industries in areas of our economy and businesses that have been left behind by this agreement have a soft landing.

Allow me for a moment to speak about supply management, for example, for dairy, chicken, eggs, egg products, turkey and broiler hatching eggs.

My riding in Manitoba is home to the largest concentration of supply management farmers in the province. It goes without saying that these folks really are not just farmers. They are pillars in southeast Manitoba communities. They are heavily involved in communities. They are employers. They are what make my constituency of Provencher the most generous constituency in all of Canada when we look at Statistics Canada's numbers for charitable donations, second only to Abbotsford. We are very proud.

Part of the success of being noted as a very charitable riding comes from the fact that our supply management sector contributes heavily to that. However, these folks, unfortunately, have been left behind by the Liberal government. The Liberals agreed to open up 3.6% of the Canadian market to increase dairy imports in this new agreement. That is more than what was even agreed to under the TPP.

When it comes to supply management, we need to remember that under the TPP, the United States was part of that access into our markets. Instead of backing that out when the Americans withdrew from the TPP agreement and we eventually signed the CPTPP, we left that market access in for Asian countries. Now, in addition to that, the Americans have tacked on additional 3.6% market access, really taking that market away from our Canadian producers. I am sure our supply management folks do not view this as a new and improved NAFTA agreement.

Under the CUSMA, Canada will adopt tariff rate quotas providing U.S. dairy farmers with access to Canada's dairy market. That includes milk, concentrated milk and milk powders, cream and cream powder, buttermilk and even ice cream. The CUSMA also dictates specific thresholds for Canadian milk protein concentrates, skim milk and infant formula. When export thresholds for these are exceeded, Canada will be obligated to add duties to the exports that are in excess, making them even more expensive.

Our dairy farmers have anticipated annual losses of $190 million, an additional $50 million on export caps. On top of that, our dairy processors have estimated that their losses will be $300 million to $350 million annually. That is significant and is a lot of money that needs to be made up.

Our chicken farmers are going to experience challenges as well. Under the new agreement, Canada will allow 47,000 metric tons of chicken to enter the country duty-free from the United States. That begins in the very first year, once the deal has been ratified, and will increase to almost 63,000 metric tons annually of chicken coming in from the United States.

The Conservatives are, nonetheless, a party of free trade and we need to find a path forward. A majority of major industry associations want the House to ratify the deal. No one was really looking for these changes, but we are faced with them regardless. I am certainly very clear-eyed looking at the contents of a new CUSMA, but the importance of free trade to so many industries and so many jobs in the country means we simply cannot walk away.

The Conservatives will be there to hold the Liberals accountable and ensure that those negatively impacted by this agreement will have the tools they need to succeed in the aftermath.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague talk about his concerns with the Prime Minister after the President of the United States clearly said that renegotiating NAFTA was his number one priority and that he was going to do it, come hell or high water.

The Prime Minister said that he was willing to negotiate and to meet with the President on those terms. Was there a way the Conservatives could have avoided President Trump renegotiating? There seemed to be a suggestion in the hon. member's presentation that the Liberal government should have refused to talk to President Trump, should have refused to renegotiate and should have refused to meet the President on his terms. Quite clearly this was the President's number one priority heading into office. Now it appears to be the number one claim the President makes to his legacy.

How were the Conservatives going to avoid dealing with President Trump if he insisted on ripping up the old agreement?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was at home in my riding this past weekend. My grandson told me he had been invited to the principal's office. When I asked him why, he said that one of his friends was getting beat up, so he decided to help him out. The principal promptly advised him that unless things were really lopsided and his friend was in severe danger, that maybe next time he should just leave him alone.

When President Trump was elected, he made it very clear that he was unhappy with Mexico's position in the existing NAFTA agreement. Many lucrative manufacturing jobs and businesses were migrating south into Mexico, where there were poorer working conditions, the worker was not looked after and wages were low. This put it at competitiveness advantage to the United States. That was his primary target in wanting to renegotiate the NAFTA agreement.

Canada was not on the radar initially. It was Mexico that was particularly troublesome to President Trump. When the Prime Minister heard the interaction between President Trump and the President of Mexico, he said that he was very happy to renegotiate. It should have never happened.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was really interesting to listen to my colleague's speech.

The Conservative Party is talking about concerns over threats to Canadian sovereignty from U.S. protectionism, which make the negotiations that much more complex and difficult. Common concerns are being voiced from east to west regarding supply management and aluminum. However, both main parties say they are going to ratify this agreement.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed constructive solutions for solving these problems, which, as I noticed while listening to my colleague's speech, are having economically disastrous consequences that are trickling down to his own riding.

Over the past few years, in deal after deal, Quebec's interests have been used as a bargaining chip, and Quebec is suffering setbacks. Do members know that, day by day, every setback brings Quebeckers closer to the realization that the only valid solution is to take their decisions into their own hands, by which I mean become sovereign so they can negotiate for themselves, freely and without obstruction?

Ultimately, our colleagues will need to realize that their refusal to act only bolsters our case for sovereignty. I thank them for that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member had listened very carefully to my speech, he would have recognized that our position is in response to looking at the whole picture, to looking at all of Canada.

If we look at the different industry associations and farm associations that have petitioned us, they have asked us to sign the agreement not because it is a great agreement or as good as what they had, but because they need the agreement signed.

I clearly stated during my speech that our bilateral trade between Canada and the United is over $2 billion daily. That is significant. We cannot just say that we are not going to sign the agreement, jeopardizing billions and billions of dollars of international trade. That would do us, and Quebec and its business people and their agricultural sector, incredible harm. This would be a foolish position to take.

We have to look at the whole picture. Yes, it is not as good an agreement as what we had, but we need this agreement. We can live with it, and if we know the certainty of the agreement, our industries and our farmers can adapt.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have spoken in this Parliament, I want take this opportunity to thank the residents and families of Mississauga-East—Cooksville. I thank them for their support, their trust, their belief in a better tomorrow and for electing me for a second term. I would be remiss if I did not thank my greatest supporters, my wife Christina and my twin boys, Sebastien and Alexander.

When I get the opportunity to visit schools, I meet many children, such as the young girl who loves science and wants to be our next scientist to discover the cure for cancer or the little boy who loves to plant things in the yard and will be our next farmer who will grow the safe and healthy food we eat. They are why we do this work, for them.

We do this work for the seniors who have toiled and worked so hard to build our country. We want to support them with a life of dignity and respect. We do this work for some of our newest Canadians, so they have the opportunity to contribute fully and fulfill their Canadian dreams.

I am not alone with these desires. I have heard them from all members of Parliament from all sides of the House.

An intersection in my riding of Mississauga-East—Cooksville, at Hurontario and Dundas, is called the four corners. At any time of day, people from the four corners of the world will be at that intersection. They have come to Canada to share and contribute to our goals and values, those of peace, democracy, freedom, fairness of the rule of law, safety, security, opportunity, teamwork, friendship and trust, all the things we value as Canadians. It is the same values that brought all of us to Canada, and our forefathers.

I will take everybody back to the U.S. election debates of 2016, when the threat of ripping up NAFTA came to light. That existential threat soon became real. Our country was seized with this new reality and we rose to the challenge. We became a unified force, team Canada. The Canadian people, the industry and labour sectors, all levels of government, indigenous people and all sectors of the economy, including agriculture, manufacturing and environment, worked together to protect and enhance this agreement.

Canadians believed in the plan. Canadians believed in the process. Canadians ultimately believed in the goal. The goal was to have a win-win-win agreement. Canadians believed that was possible, and we made it possible.

I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for their work in bringing all members of the House together, across the aisle and on this side. We understood how big and important this was.

I appreciate the opportunity I had to be on the international trade committee, to criss-cross the country and listen to Canadians and stakeholders. We received 47,000 submissions on the new NAFTA to ensure that this agreement was good for Canada and Canadians and that we could all prosper through free and fair trade.

That did not only happen here. We went to the United States, through our committee and ministers' offices. Many members here had the opportunity to speak to senators and representatives. We were able to share with our friends, the Americans, how important this agreement was, not only to us but to the U.S. and Mexico, to create this trading bloc that has brought so much prosperity to all of us.

I want to thank Steve Verheul and the amazing negotiators we have in Canada, who were at the table and did not give an inch when it came to our values. They understood that we were open to change, to making things better and to modernizing this agreement, which is what we did. We did it through the voices of the House, through stakeholders, through much consultation and through listening to people.

That is the difference with this agreement, which has put Canada in an enviable place, being the only G7 country to have agreements with the Pacific Rim, Europe and North America. This agreement covers 1.5 billion people. In this economic region, we are talking about $23 trillion, with $2 billion going between the United States and Canada every single day.

This agreement touches everyone in a good way. It is a progressive agreement that takes into account indigenous peoples, our cultural sector, the environment and our labour sector, many things that others never thought could be touched. However, we took a progressive approach to this agreement. Through that plan, that process and the belief that this was the right way to do things, we were able to achieve this good agreement for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

That is why I am so proud of the work all of us have done. I say that to both sides of the aisles, because the input that came from the opposition, and many of those who were skeptical, was important. It helped shape the agreement to what it is today, and much of that input was brought into the agreement.

In my riding of Mississauga-East—Cooksville, having met with stakeholders, small businesses and some bigger enterprises, I have heard positive reactions regarding supply chains and the many workers they employ. People are saying that we got it done.

It was difficult. At many times, we did not know if this agreement would happen, but we have reached an agreement. We are at a stage right now where we must all come together again in this Parliament. We come together because it is an opportunity for us to debate the agreement and talk about the many wins and benefits that will come to Canadians in all different sectors, but also an opportunity to think about and discuss the fact that we have a very good agreement for Canadians.

I have heard some of the debates, as well as some of the questions that have been asked and answered by members. I always look at the glass as being half full. I have heard about things that we could do in the future that may be better, and I agree: We can always do better. Better is always possible. We know that. The opportunity to debate and hear from members about how we can make things better in the future is terrific.

At this time, we also need to come together and understand that there has been a significant amount of listening, working and toiling by all of us. We have to get this agreement past the finish line for the prosperity of all Canadians and businesses, so that we can bring them the stability they have been looking for, for a very long time. This modernized agreement is good for Canadians. It is going to provide the predictability and stability that businesses and workers need.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to stand in the House and stand up for my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. However, it will not surprise my hon. colleague across the way that I am going to stand up for all the forestry workers and the hard-working forestry families from the province of British Columbia. Over 140,000 jobs, either directly or indirectly, are tied to forestry, and 140 communities are forestry-dependent.

In the last year, we have lost 10,000 jobs, yet there was not one mention of forestry in the Speech from the Throne, and forestry could not have been thrown in or a new softwood lumber agreement could not have been thrown into the CUSMA. My simple question is why.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel for those forestry workers, for their families. They have been unjustly and unfairly hurt by what is happening with this dispute when it comes to softwood lumber. It has gone before the courts many a time, five times, and Canada has won every single time.

[An hon. member]

Seven times.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I hear “seven times”, Madam Speaker.

We will win again. We are with our forestry workers, and we will support them through this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There will be three minutes and 35 seconds for questions and comments on the member's speech after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand to talk about the new NAFTA and speak on behalf of the concerns of the good residents of West Nova, and by extension Nova Scotia generally.

It could be my Maritime sense of humour, but we keep calling it CUSMA, or the Canadian-U.S.-Mexico agreement. Quite honestly, “NAFTA” meant that the North American population was benefiting, but we know now from the things we have been seeing and hearing that Canada is not necessarily benefiting from many of these concessions.

Maybe we should change the name to the organization or country that is making the most out of this. Then it would be the USMCA, because it seems that the Americans ran the gamut here and won all the concessions they needed. Let us just call it the new NAFTA in the hope that North Americans are benefiting from this new Liberal trade agreement.

This debate has been going on for a long time and as an agreement such as this one is very complicated, our partners have their own outcomes, making negotiations challenging.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment. I want to remind hon. members that eating in the chamber is not permitted. I can see a few people chewing and eating something. I just want to point that out and make sure that we are all aware of that. I am sure the member who is eating will move out of the chamber or stop.

The hon. member for West Nova.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that intervention. These are all learning experiences for us, especially for those of us who are new to Parliament.

As I said, it makes our outcome for negotiating challenging. We find ourselves in the last two weeks toward final ratification of this agreement. Mexico did all its work ahead of time and the U.S. spent a number of weeks ratifying its side of the agreement. Here we are on February 3 and we find ourselves trying to ratify the Liberals' agreement as brought forward. It is only through this process that the Liberal government has realized that it is a minority government and it needs the opposition to support and pass the bill.

I was asked several questions about the new NAFTA during the election, as many of us were. Most of them revolved around the dairy industry or supply-managed commodities and I will get to that in a few moments, but first I would like to underline some statistics about Nova Scotia's exports to the United States. The numbers I have are from 2015, 2017 and 2018.

In 2015, the United States was the destination for 69.39% of Nova Scotia's international goods exports. The U.S. by far is Nova Scotia's number one trading partner. Europe, at about 10%, and other countries, at about 20%, received the balance of Nova Scotia's exports in 2015.

Four U.S. regions received about 85% of Nova Scotia's U.S. trade in goods in 2015. About 37% was sent to New England, as one would expect, on the eastern side of the country. About 24% went to the southeast region, 15% to the Great Lakes region and about 8% to the mid-east region. The remaining 14.77% was distributed among other regions in the U.S.

In 2015, rubber or tires from Michelin and fish products added up to about 55% of the total exports for Nova Scotia. They were the main domestic exports to the United States. Another 17% of exports to the U.S. were paper, mineral fuels and plastics. The remaining 28% consisted of other miscellaneous goods.

In 2018, fish products accounted for 24%, or $883.5 million, of total exports from Nova Scotia to the U.S. Crustaceans, lobsters, crabs and others, represented about 69%, or $605 million, of this product group.

Nova Scotia's exports continue to diversify by destination, with declining exports to the U.S. They were down about 0.6% when comparing January and February 2018 with January and February 2017. Exports to other destinations rose and were up about 31%. This is also the case for many other provinces in Canada. Exports from New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, where growth in exports to the U.S. outpaced growth to other destinations, grew more concentrated in the U.S.

Nova Scotia's exports to the U.S. were down by about $3.4 million as declining values for energy, forestry, electronics, motor vehicles and parts, aircraft and other transportation equipment and consumer goods more than offset the gains in farm, fishing, intermediate food, metal ores, metal, mineral products, chemicals, plastics, rubber and machinery equipment.

As an aside in this discussion, the coronavirus is creating tremendous challenges for our exporters. China is Nova Scotia's second-largest export destination. Comparing January and February 2018 with the same months in 2017, Nova Scotia's exports grew by about $36 million, mostly on gains in forest products and consumer goods.

To say that U.S. trade is important to us is truly an understatement and the trade deal that supports it is paramount.

I spend a lot of time talking about the fishing industry in the riding of West Nova which, as we can see, exports almost all its products outside the country, so I thought I would spend the remaining time talking about the agricultural industry. It may not export quite as much, but it was affected quite substantially by the changes in protections pertaining to supply-managed commodities. It seems that every time Canada negotiates a free trade agreement, those commodities take a hit.

A few years ago, in 2005, when I was a provincial minister of agriculture, I attended the WTO negotiations in Hong Kong. At that time there was a protracted discussion on Canada's continued support of supply-managed commodities, pressure from the European Union and the U.S. The Liberal government of the day was ready to allow access to other countries at that time.

It was not until the provincial ministers, Liberal, Conservative and NDP, came together, supported by the national commodity associations, that the negotiating team finally took it off the table. Since that time, and before that time, I have been a supporter of our commodities. Now that I represent the largest agricultural area in Nova Scotia, that support has become even stronger.

Nova Scotia's agricultural community is small compared to those in other provinces, but the backbone is dairy and poultry. Without those, the other commodities would have trouble existing. That is why any loss of market affects Nova Scotia more than others. A 3.6% loss of the dairy market truly affects the small farms in Nova Scotia, which is why the adjustment payments are important to allow better cash flow due to these market changes.

I am a big believer in grassroots government. We must listen to those in our community. I therefore want to underline what we have heard from others.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, or CAFTA, stated:

CAFTA welcomes the announcement that negotiations have concluded on updating the CUSMA.

We look forward to receiving confirmation that the changes don’t negatively impact our members.

Since the initial negotiations concluded well over a year ago, the prolonged discussions required to secure support in the U.S. Congress have undermined business certainty.

CAFTA is waiting for answers on what the final decision is going to be.

Pierre Lampron, president of Dairy Farmers of Canada said that in a parliamentary system, “all bills, including those aimed at ratifying international agreements, are subject to a legislative process designed to improve them, and it’s important not only for the dairy sector, but also for aluminum workers, that this agreement be put through that process.”

I hope that everybody has the opportunity to talk to the dairy farmers who will be coming to Parliament Hill over the next number of days.

The North American free trade agreement is extremely important to producers in my riding, but not any old deal will do. We need one that benefits our industries and which does not take one area of the country for granted, as we are looking at with the aluminum issue. The government must prove to us, and better yet, prove to Canadians, that it is getting it right. That is in the court of the government today.

[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 know that the dairy farmers are in Ottawa this week. I am hoping to meet with some tomorrow morning. I am sure many of my colleagues on all sides of the House will be engaged with the dairy farmers in the coming days.

Having said that, whether it is this trade agreement or previous ones, one of the issues has always been supply management. Our negotiators on the Canadian side, along with politicians on all sides of the House, and perhaps some more so than others, have always had a strong sense of compassion and emotion in ensuring we maintain supply management. The dairy sector is probably one of the best examples as to why it is important we do just that.

In the Liberal caucus, there is very strong support for supply management and there always has been. Perhaps my colleague could provide his personal perspective, and possibly even the perspective of his caucus, on supply management.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, we have heard the continued support for supply-managed commodities on a number of occasions when different members have spoken of the new NAFTA. We talk a lot about dairy because that is the one area that seems to be hit the most, but we also heard about chickens and other poultry coming across our border. We will continue to be supporters of free trade, but at the same time, we understand the challenges we have in our supply-managed commodities.

As I said, in Nova Scotia, without dairy, without the monies that come in because of that protection, if we want to call it that, they are the ones who have the money for tractors and new equipment, which falls into support for the rest of that industry.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to draw my hon. colleague's attention to one particular section in the agreement that places threshold limits on dairy exports, notably milk protein powders and infant formula. This agreement would establish export thresholds whereby if Canada goes beyond them, we have agreed to slap on punitive tariffs, basically pricing ourselves out of the market. I would like to know what the United States got in return for our agreeing to this.

Does my hon. colleague know of any other example around the world where a country has so ceded its sovereignty over its ability to determine where it wants to sell its exports? Just what kind of economic damage might this mean for our important dairy producers across the country going into the future?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I had to cut my speech a bit short, but one thing we have been wondering is what the government got in exchange for forfeiting our sovereignty over our exports of milk protein concentrate, skim milk powder and infant formula.

Even within our caucus, we have the same questions as the member just asked, namely what the government offered up in exchange and how it is going to fix this situation.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has spoken about what would happen with the supply management system with this accord. We know there have been some compromises made by the government in order to get this on the table. The issue was not just the fact that this was there, but in the shadow of the agreement that preceded it, the trans-Pacific partnership, some room was ceded by the supply-managed industries to foreign powers. No expectations seemed to arise when the government met with the other parties to the NAFTA that this would also have to be offered to our strongest trading partners.

Would the member like to comment on the lack of preparation and the lack of reality which the government entered into these negotiations with, as opposed to our previous trade agreements when we actually walked in from positions of strength so we were able to negotiate give and take with our trading partners? I look forward to that answer.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it has seemed that all through the process we have not been a part of it, until this point when we as an opposition are actually part of this discussion. We were dragged into this discussion. Mexico seemed to be able to do more than we did in negotiation. We actually seemed to be put aside during part of this discussion, which created a tremendous challenge for us. This would have been better if we had been at the table the whole time.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.

I would like to take a moment to thank the managers at the Montérégie-Ouest CISSS. When I was part of the management team overseeing senior support services, they gave me a chance to fulfill my passion and my dream and put the right conditions in place for me to do the work that I am doing right now in the House of Commons. I want to thank all the managers who made it possible for me to enter politics. These female managers enabled a woman to enter politics. They walked the talk.

That was a short digression to say that I am very pleased to rise. Quite frankly, what I am really interested in today is talking about the situation affecting dairy producers. What we have seen, and this has been mentioned on numerous occasions, is that there are always winners and losers when a trade agreement is signed. It is important to recognize what the losers are losing. It is important that they have a voice and that we understand them. We need to debate these issues among parliamentarians. The Bloc Québécois intends to debate these issues for as long as possible and to continue the debate in committee so that all the witnesses, individuals, companies and industries that want to have a say about this agreement have the opportunity to do so.

In the latest trade agreements, Quebeckers have been the big losers. In the agreement that we are debating today, we are talking about the aluminum industry, a key industry for Quebec, as well as the supply managed industry. All dairy, turkey, chicken and other poultry producers were victims of the agreement.

Over 3% of our market will be open to American dairy products, which represents an annual loss of around $150 million. It is not just one loss in one year. For Quebec's dairy farmers, it is a market lost for life.

I represent a riding where more than half the dairy farms in Montérégie-Ouest are in my riding, Salaberry—Sûroit. Among the 237 farms in the Beauharnois-Salaberry, Haut-Saint-Laurent and Vaudreuil-Soulanges RCMs, half are dairy farms in the Montérégie-Ouest area. I must point out that our farmers are entrepreneurs, business people who are passionate about agriculture and who generate revenue and economic activity in our communities.

In my research I found part of a speech on protecting supply management that I delivered in 2006. Even then I was quite clear about the fact that we need to stop thinking that agricultural producers are not business people. They contribute to revitalizing our rural communities. They support local garages, convenience stores, grocery stores, mechanics, and the list goes on. Many businesses in our rural communities rely on farming activity. In my opinion, it is important to emphasize that these are businesses that generate major economic activity.

I will admit that I have a soft spot for dairy producers. All members in the House know that Quebec and Canada produce higher-quality milk. In Quebec, dairy producers have stringent standards with respect to the environment and animal well-being. Traceability standards are also quite strict. Quebec's traceability system is very effective, which means that we produce very high-quality milk. Unfortunately, this milk will end up competing in markets against milk produced under different and, we can only assume, lesser standards.

The trade agreements that were negotiated and ratified after 2011, when the Bloc Québécois ended up with fewer members in the House of Commons, were clearly more harmful for Quebec. One example is the free trade agreement with Europe. I was shocked to see that Quebec cheeses had been sacrificed. Quebec has some excellent cheeses. We have 300 different cheeses.

My colleague's riding of Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix is a remarkable place where you will find the best Quebec cheeses.

Quebec's cheese producers were sacrificed because Quebec produces 70% of Canada's fine cheeses. Many cheese producers told us that this agreement affects them because our market will be flooded with European cheese.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership created the first breach in supply management by opening up 3.25% of our dairy market.

Supply management is so important to us and we speak so much about it because for us it is the basis for Quebec's agricultural model, which we are really proud of.

Like all Bloc members, I have great aspirations for Quebec. We hope that one day it will take its place at the table of nations and be master of its own destiny. A strong Quebec with farm businesses that have a strong presence, are profitable and have solid ties to their community is important to us. We must maintain this highly developed agricultural model that is so uniquely ours and reflects our character as Quebeckers.

We know that dairy farmers were compensated for this year, but they are worried because they do not know what will happen in the years to come. As someone said earlier, when dairy markets are lost, it is not only for a year; it is forever. It is therefore important for farmers to understand what will happen next year.

The government appears hesitant to implement a program that farmers would have to qualify for, much like what the Conservatives did with the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

Our message is clear, and we will repeat it to the government when it presents the budget. We absolutely insist that dairy farmers must be compensated directly, as they were this year, for the duration of the compensation agreement. We do not want a program that farmers have to qualify for, a complicated program with more red tape. That is the last thing farmers need. They need to be financially compensated in the simplest way possible, as they were this year.

It would be unfortunate not to address the whole issue and challenge of milk proteins. I am not sure whether those watching our debate at home understand that the issue of milk proteins is threatening our dairy sector.

In Canada and the United States, milk consumption has gone down while consumption of butter, cream and ice cream has gone up. Processors are like everyone else. They want to make these products for less. That is why they are interested in buying milk ingredients for less from the United States.

Under the old agreement, our market was flooded with milk proteins from American diafiltered milk. In response to pressure from the Bloc Québécois and other parliamentarians, the government finally created a new milk class, class 7, that provides some protection to our processors so they will source dairy protein from our own dairy producers and stop buying it from American producers.

Naturally, the U.S. government was not pleased. In negotiations, it demanded that Canada get rid of class 7 so American protein could once more flood our market and threaten our dairy producers yet again.

I see two big problems with this agreement. In two very clear instances, the government failed supply management. First, it opened up a significant chink, and second, it took away class 7, which enabled our producers to work with processors to find an outlet for their inexpensive milk.

Dairy producers know they can count on the Bloc Québécois to vigorously advocate for them, because we believe that a country without agriculture is not a real country.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the ways and means motion was introduced the Bloc members voted against the opportunity to introduce NAFTA, the USMCA or whatever we are calling it now. Therefore, I can only assume they are opposed to the legislation. The member talked about how important it is for Quebec to have an economy that is strong and the opportunities it needs to continue to be prosperous. What we know historically is that good trading relationships and partnerships can create exactly that. I am curious to know whether the Bloc Québécois and this member are going to fall in line with what the Premier of Quebec is saying and get behind this piece of legislation and the need for this strong free trade agreement with the United States.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

This gives me the opportunity to remind him that the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly and leader of the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly said in the House that we were prepared to listen and collaborate and that we had proposals that would help mitigate the adverse effects of the current treaty on Quebec's economy.

We are in a democratic partnership where it is good to have a full debate to allow every parliamentarian to put forward their changes or proposals to improve the agreement wherever possible.

That is why the Bloc Québécois decided to vote against the current state of affairs. However, we are open to working together in committee and participate in further debate. I think it is healthy to be able to express our views and allow every sector affected by the agreement to testify in committee.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, our Liberal colleague enjoyed bringing up what the Quebec premier said. I would like to remind him of what the Prime Minister of Canada said not too long ago in October 2018. He himself acknowledged that previous trade agreements had had a number of negative effects on dairy producers. Our supply management system is still being sacrificed.

Does my colleague agree that Quebec wants a strong economy, but that the federal Liberal government often gets in its way?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed a private member's bill that will prevent the government from chipping away at the supply management system. We will debate this bill, and we hope that all of our colleagues in the House will support us on this, since this bill would prevent any further breaches. This is tangible action, and we hope to have the support of all our colleagues in the House.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I followed my hon. colleague's remarks with some interest. She briefly mentioned the debate she hopes will occur at committee over this bill. Given the point we are at in the process, what bearing does she feel that debate would have on the outcome of the final vote? Also, does her party support an improved process that would engage this House earlier in the process, so that members can have a more effective voice in shaping our negotiating strategy with respect to international trade agreements?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Beloeil—Chambly stated many times during question period, the Bloc Québécois has put forward some proposals.

Although they cannot be discussed in the House at this time, these proposals were submitted to the government, and they have the potential to lessen the impact of the agreement on Quebec's economy. I believe it would be very healthy and democratic to let the many witnesses speak in committee, regardless of whether they are for or against the free trade agreement. We currently do not have the opportunity to hear from all sides. We do not have the opportunity to hear from those who support the agreement and those who do not. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of hearing from witnesses affected by the agreement who are not currently receiving press coverage. We sincerely hope to have a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Niagara Centre.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to talk about the new NAFTA deal, which Canadians throughout this great nation have worked so hard on.

For over a year we have negotiated hard, for a good, modernized free trade agreement with our partners: the United States and Mexico. I would like to thank all Canadians, from every part of this country, from all walks of life, and from all political points of view for helping and supporting our government over the course of these negotiations.

We have heard from over 47,000 Canadians to ensure their views were considered at the negotiating table, and we have spoken to over 1,300 stakeholders, including businesses, unions, indigenous groups, women entrepreneurs, academics, youth and political leaders from all parties.

A special thanks to our Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, the NAFTA council, premiers and municipal partners for joining in this effort to protect, support and create Canadian jobs, and sustain and enhance our business communities throughout this great nation.

Our focus in bringing the new NAFTA to Parliament is to preserve and foster opportunity for our workers, our businesses and Canadians, and for our communities from coast to coast to coast to thrive, ensuring that their business interests, once again and well into the future, are sustained, as well as enhanced.

Businesses and industries across our country rely on free trade agreements, like the new NAFTA, to grow their customer base, ensuring that their products and services are available at competitive pricing in Canada and the United States, as well as Mexico, and to strengthen their diversification options to contribute to strengthening their overall global performance.

By reaching more consumers and building more profits, Canadian businesses are then able to create jobs, build stronger communities and grow our economy. The new NAFTA is certainly excellent for Canada's growing economy, as it will support well-paying, middle-class jobs.

With this new agreement, we are being proactive and constructive for our national steel industry, especially for local industries in Niagara, such as Welland's ASW Steel. We are supporting innovation, as well as diversification in steel and in steel-related industry, sustaining the industry and the skilled trades that support it.

In Niagara Centre, small and medium-sized businesses will in fact benefit from this new chapter, including Iafrate Machine Works in the city of Thorold, a family-owned, custom machine business in that community.

Reliable trade agreements will not only increase trade and investment opportunities specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises, but will also allow such businesses to continue growing and have the potential to expand abroad.

Despite remarkable improvements in the area of skilled trades since 2015, our government is aware that it needs to do much more. Our government is committed to continuing its work in order to provide necessary tools and support for Canadians to be at their very best, and to ensure they get the skills they need to improve and contribute to this great nation, find and keep stable jobs, as well as sustain our economy. This is being made available to them as individuals to once again contribute.

Several regions across our great country are finding it extremely hard to find qualified workers to fill many positions. Niagara Centre is no exception. We are experiencing a skilled trades shortage throughout our region as well.

We need welders, pipefitters, boilermakers, seafarers, tile setters, plumbers, technicians, cooks, chefs and other hands-on hard-working skilled tradespeople.

For example, we introduced the Canada training benefit in 2019. It is a personalized and portable training benefit to help Canadians plan and get the training they need for a successful career.

Our government was able to boost federal support to provinces and territories by $2.7 billion over six years. This investment aims to help unemployed and underemployed Canadians access the training and employment supports they need to find and keep good paying jobs.

Our government has also invested $225 million over four years to identify and fill gaps in the economy in order to help Canadians be best prepared. Additional investments and collaboration with our different partners will allow us to work collectively in our fight against skilled trade shortages.

The new NAFTA will bring more job opportunities for Canadians, enabling them to pursue stable and successful careers in construction, transportation, manufacturing and service-related industries.

I bring this to the attention of members of the House because many programs introduced by our government align with the new NAFTA, sustaining and growing this great nation's economy. This will certainly have a positive impact on the standard of living of all Canadians and our economic growth. As many members in the House know, I am extremely passionate about transportation and infrastructure, and that is also key to my riding in Niagara.

The Welland Canal, the Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 406 and the Niagara-Hamilton trade corridor all position Niagara-Hamilton as a perfect example of how strategic, interconnected locations with different modes of transport can come together and benefit from trade agreements.

As a binational region connecting the U.S. to our great nation, Niagara-Hamilton is a vital economic gateway for trade between Canada and our American trade partners.

As advantageous as it is for Niagara-Hamilton, our strategic location benefits our nation, ensuring fluidity in goods movement. With the new NAFTA, we are able to safeguard more than $2 billion a day in cross-border trade and tariff-free trade access to our largest trading partner, the United States.

I am honoured to have been a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities throughout the last Parliament, which led to the establishment of a national transportation strategy, trade corridor strategy and ports modernization review that once again align with the new NAFTA, sustaining and growing Canada's economy.

Much progress has already been made to improve rail, air, road and marine transportation, integrating distribution and logistics, particularly in strategic areas of the country, such as the Niagara-Hamilton area, and in turn, working on the productivity and quality of life in Canadian communities.

With the new NAFTA come great new opportunities for all Canadians and for the people living in my riding of Niagara Centre. With this in mind, and moving forward in the 43rd Parliament, I look forward to working with all members in this House to further economic, environmental and social strategies that will contribute to all 338 ridings and all Canadians.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to my hon. colleague's remarks. He should know that we in the official opposition agree that Canadian businesses, industry and the provinces need predictability and certainty with our support of this new NAFTA. However, I hope the member understands why we want some answers regarding the deficiencies in this new accord, particularly with regard to the Liberals' boasting about the new benefit of the 70% rule in our very important aluminum sector.

The Liberals say this benefit is new and was not in the original NAFTA. Well, of course it was not in the original NAFTA, because China was not mega-producing millions of tonnes of aluminum then. With the slowdown in the Chinese economy, China is now dumping it into various countries around the world, including, as we have seen, through the back door of this agreement, into Mexico and our economy. This threatens the producers of our very clean hydroelectrically produced aluminum here in Canada, such as those on the west coast in Kitimat and in the Côte-Nord and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean areas.

I hope the hon. member understands why we are asking for the impact assessments that we know have been carried out, and undoubtedly should have been carried out by the government, with regard to the negative impact of this new agreement on the vital aluminum sector.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a question, but I will speculate on the question the member was asking with respect to the aluminum industry.

The aluminum sector is not discounted under this new agreement. As was mentioned by the minister on many occasions, discussions are going to continue. There is a time factor in comparison to steel, with the seven versus 10. They get that and we get that, and those discussions will continue. However, I want to make it very clear that the agreement does not discount; it is simply a matter of time. Of course, what the aluminum sector would like to see in that matter of time will in fact be recognized in short order.

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

Madam Speaker, as some of my colleagues and I were discussing, this is not even necessarily a new NAFTA but rather HALFTA, or NAFTA 0.5.

I think we all acknowledge, including the Conservatives, that free trade is important. We are proud to be the party of free trade. I am curious about what my hon. colleague across the way has to say about the op-ed piece that CNBC just published by Jared Kushner, who is, as I am sure the member opposite knows, a senior adviser to President Trump. On the agreement's expiring after 16 years, known as the sunset clause, he said it was “imperative that the United States retain leverage in [all] of [its] trading relationships”. The U.S. government started out by saying that it was a non-starter. Well, there it is.

Does the member have any comments as to how a non-starter is suddenly a central key in the new HALFTA deal?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is quite rich for the member to talk about HALFTA, since, quite frankly, back when NAFTA was drawn up and authored by the Conservative government, the Conservatives gave away the farm. When we are looking at what has happened to some of the industries throughout the country, especially industries that have moved away to other countries, I think the member best do his homework before standing up and slinging mud.

This agreement, in fact, protects Canadian workers. This agreement sustains industries and the niche markets we have been able to grow in the past many decades. It is not giving away the farm but doing the opposite: It is getting the farm back.

My expectation is that in short order, this agreement, which is good for Canada, the Canadian economy and Canadian families, will in fact take us to the next level of where we should be when it comes to our economy and create a healthier market and better performance overall on the global market.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today for the first time in this new session. I would like to thank the constituents of Lethbridge for once again giving me the privilege of being in this place and representing them.

I am here to speak to the new NAFTA deal, the USMCA. The Conservative Party is the party of free trade, something that has always been a part of our value system and things that we believe are essential for moving this country forward.

NAFTA is, in fact, a legacy of the Conservative movement. Since its ratification in 1994, it has served as a vehicle of long-term economic growth, has facilitated freedom, has spurred innovation and has generated prosperity for this country and those who call it home. Together, Canada, the United States and Mexico account for nearly one-third of the world's GDP, which is significant since these countries together comprise only 7% of the world's population.

The United States is Canada's largest and most important trading partner, which makes the new NAFTA deal particularly important for the health of our economy and the well-being of Canadians. That said, it should be noted that the new NAFTA is not what it could have been or should have been. The fact is, we have a deal, but we have to ask the question, did we get a good deal?

A good deal would be one where Canada left the table with a little more than what it first had in the original agreement. An acceptable deal would be if Canada left the negotiating table with about the same. A bad deal would be if Canada left the table with less than what it had in the original NAFTA. It is unfortunate to have to report to the House that ultimately the USMCA must be judged on how Canada benefits, and Canada does not. We left the table with less than what we had in the original deal.

Throughout the entirety of the negotiation and ratification process of the USMCA, we offered to work with the opposite side of the House. We offered to assist and collaborate, but we were left in the dark.

When Conservatives were in government and negotiated trade deals, like the trans-Pacific partnership for example, we made the effort to ensure that opposition members were included and kept informed in that process, that they had a part in it. We involved stakeholders—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Members will all have the opportunity to speak. Please, the hon. member for Lethbridge has the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we involved stakeholders and worked with many interested partners to make sure that as many valuable voices were added to the discussion as possible.

These deals require effort. They require collaboration and serious discussion. These are things that Conservatives are very committed to, and we wish it had been the same in this scenario.

President Trump said that the deal was negotiated entirely on his terms, and sadly I have to agree with him. The United States had extensive conversations with Mexico and they worked out a deal. Then they invited Canada to the table. Basically they said, “Sign or don't sign; it is your choice.” Canada signed, but we were not included in the negotiations due to poor negotiating tactics on the part of the government.

I would argue that the Liberal government, which had an obligation to negotiate in the best interest of Canadians, dropped the ball in this case. The Liberals made concession after concession and eventually capitulated to the United States and Mexico. What we have is a deal that will leave us with more barriers, more red tape and more obstacles for Canadian businesses to overcome. It will end up costing taxpayers more, because in order to make up for the failures of the government's negotiation, we will need to assist sectors that were left out of the deal.

We understand that most industry associations and chambers in Canada want this deal to be ratified. We understand that the premiers have put forward a letter asking that it be ratified. While we understand the importance of a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, we also know that in this place it is our responsibility as legislators to put it through due process.

The fact is that Canada backed down on far too many things.

The government backed down on the automotive sector, giving Donald Trump exactly what he wanted: limits on how many cars Canada can export to the United States.

The government also backed down on dairy, again giving Trump exactly what he wanted: more market share for American exporters and less business for Canadians. In fact, arguably one of the biggest losers of the USMCA is dairy, as 3.6% of the Canadian market is now open to imports. The deal also specifies thresholds for exports anywhere in the world for certain dairy products. If the industry grows or if there is a surplus of these products, Canada must add duties to the exports, making them more expensive and less competitive.

The government also backed down on pharmaceuticals, giving Trump, again, exactly what he wanted. That means higher prices and bigger profits for American drug companies, and less for Canadians.

Another sector that was not successfully advocated for is aluminum. The rules of origin used for steel were not agreed to when it came to aluminum, which has left the industry wondering why not.

When it comes to temporary entry for business people, the list of professionals in chapter 16 failed to be updated to bring it into the 21st century. Why would we not take advantage of the opportunity to do that? That seems obvious.

For all these concessions, Canada was unable to win anything significant in return. “Buy American” provisions still remain in place, thus shutting Canadian companies out from bidding on American government contracts. Unfair and illegal tariffs still remain on softwood lumber. Forestry workers are going through a tough time, and it is because the government, quite frankly, failed to negotiate this deal well.

If those capitulations are not bad enough, Canada also signed a clause that prevents us from entering into trade negotiations with non-market economies, such as China, Vietnam and Brazil, without first gaining big brother's approval. The United States and ultimately Donald Trump have veto power in terms of how we move forward in our trade agreements.

Furthermore, with regard to the sunset clause, it is 16 years out. When we first entered into this deal as a country, the Prime Minister made it really clear that a sunset clause was not even going to be an option, yet he signed off on one. After 16 years this deal will be done away with if a new negotiation is not done. This creates great uncertainty in our economy.

Of course the government has pushed back, saying that is not the case, but as Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and adviser, said in his published article, “It is imperative that the United States retain leverage in any of our trading relationships”. Thus, the sunset clause was put in. This is about the United States and its betterment, not about Canadians and our well-being.

Considering the magnitude of this trade deal, it is important that people do not get left behind. The United States does remain our largest trading partner, with $2 billion of trade passing across our border each and every day. This represents about 75% of all Canadian exports, and NAFTA has created more than five million jobs, which is amazing. These things are worth celebrating.

Free trade must continue. We just wish the deal Canada got would have been a little better.

Despite the fact that those in the House are being asked to vote for this legislation, it should be noted there is still a fair bit of uncertainty. The government has still not released the economic impact statement, and many industries are unclear as to how NAFTA will impact them. These are important considerations that should be brought before the House and to committee. There are considerations that industry stakeholders should be allowed to take under advisement. Yes, we have a deal, but could it have been better? Ultimately, yes, it could have been much better.

With that said, I believe this bill should move forward to committee, where it can be studied further and industry stakeholders can be invited to have a voice at the table. My hope would be that the government would release the economic impact statement so it can be thoroughly studied and the government can be held accountable, so that Canada can ultimately move forward in a way that is beneficial to all Canadians.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know what it is like being in opposition. One has to find problems with everything the government does, and the member made a valiant effort.

First, she said nothing was gained under CUSMA. However, we salvaged the dispute settlement mechanism at a time when the United States has very little patience for dispute settlement. In fact, it is trying to get out of dispute settlement. It has not appointed members to the WTO dispute resolution panel. That is called panel blocking. We got rid of panel blocking in CUSMA, which means the U.S. cannot use that mechanism to shut down dispute settlement panels.

Second, we got rid of chapter 11, which means multinational corporations have less of an ability to impose their economic interests on Canadian sovereignty.

Therefore, I think we have gained quite a bit.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is no question.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree. I think there have been some huge wins on this. Getting rid of investor-state provisions is a huge win. Having foreign corporations dictate to us and challenge, in private tribunals, our laws and policies that protect the health and welfare of Canadians and our environment is an affront to democracy. I am glad to see it gone. I want to see it gone in every one of our trade and investment agreements.

I am hearing, in this debate between the Liberals and Conservatives, that when they are in opposition they do not feel like they are being heard, negotiated with or part of the dialogue on these trade agreements.

Does the member not think it is time we started to look at another process for trade agreements? If we look at the European model, it has an open dialogue and debate. It talks about what the social economic impacts of an agreement would be before negotiations start. As the negotiation goes through, there is debate. We should have that ongoing debate in Parliament. Having an open, transparent process would be helpful to all concerned.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would have to draw attention to the fact that this agreement attacks Canadian sovereignty in the sense that, if we want to enter into other trade agreements with non-market economies, we have to get the U.S. to sign off. That is not okay.

As a sovereign nation, as a country, we should be able to move forward and enter into trade agreements with China and Brazil without needing the United States to sign off on that. We are a country governed by our own system. We should be able to make our own decisions with regard to our imports and exports. Therefore, I have to disagree with the member when he said that this document somehow enforces our sovereignty.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the members opposite talked about sovereignty. I know the member for Lethbridge commented on what we lose in terms of sovereignty when we have the U.S. making decisions about who we can and cannot have free trade agreements with.

My question is about sovereignty. This sunset clause was a driving factor behind the negotiating position of the U.S. and has put it in the driver's seat again. Therefore, we have forfeited our leading position.

[An hon. member]

It was a non-starter.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I wonder if the member for Lethbridge, in spite of the interruptions, can give us some comment on that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I draw attention to the fact that, when we started these negotiations, the Prime Minister and his crew over there said that a sunset clause was a non-starter, and that it would not even be allowed. At the end of the day, the government did sign off on a sunset clause. What that does is create incredible uncertainty for those within our own country who would invest capital in order to further their business.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time in three days that I have heard opposition members refer to hon. members in the House using language that I would view as unparliamentary.

I wonder if the member, whom I know and who is an honourable woman, could choose better language when referring to all members, all of her colleagues in the House of Commons.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is referring to the fact that I said “the Prime Minister and his crew.” I certainly did not mean any disrespect by that and I apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Thank you.

We are resuming debate and the hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I want to start today by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

While we are on the subject, the member for Spadina—Fort York used some language that would also fall under the same category addressed by his colleague. I am just wondering if you, Madam Speaker, would like to give him the same opportunity to address the type of language that he used as well, since we are on the subject.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I admit that I stooped to their level, and I apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The apology has to be genuine, and the member knows this.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, after they called us the “crew over there”, I referred to members on the side opposite as “the gang over there.” I apologize for using that word and I withdraw it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the member.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I again want to start by acknowledging that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-4. In the fall of 2018, leaders from Canada, the United States and Mexico announced a new trilateral trade agreement to replace the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement. This was a pivotal moment for our country, for North America and for fair trade around the world. This agreement would ensure free and fair trade in North America, a trading zone that accounts for more than a quarter of the world's economy, with just 7% of its population.

During the negotiations, we saw unprecedented support from across the country. We came together to ensure that we got the best possible deal for Canada and Canadians. We had co-operation from all political parties.

In May 2017, I visited Washington, D.C., with the public safety committee. Conservative, NDP and Liberal MPs came together to meet with U.S. elected officials. Talk inevitably turned to trade and we successfully shared stories about why NAFTA was so important to the trading relationship between our countries.

Brian Mulroney and Rona Ambrose have both worked with our government and have spoken out in favour of the agreement. The new NAFTA has the support of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Assembly of First Nations, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, to name just a few. Business, industry, individuals and local governments are in favour of this deal because of the certainty, security and prosperity that will come from a modern free trade agreement.

Perry Bellegarde, AFN national chief, said:

The new NAFTA...is the most progressive and inclusive trade agreement to date. It’s good for #FirstNations and Canada. Involving #Indigenous peoples & respecting our rights leads to better outcomes and greater economic certainty.

As the Deputy Prime Minister said following the signing of the new NAFTA:

...it preserves free trade across the North American continent and market access in a $25-trillion open market of 470 million people. A market that has tripled in size since the creation of NAFTA in 1993.

And it does this while providing insurance against the spectre of auto tariffs that were threatening our economy and thousands of good, well-paying jobs—on both sides of the border.

...[It] maintains tariff-free access to the majority of Canadian exports to U.S. markets.

...Since the Auto Pact, Canada has been an integral and essential part of a North American auto industry, with its highly integrated supply chains. We fought for that, and we have preserved it and created opportunities for growth.

She also said:

...[It] is good for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers. Not only does it preserve essential cross-border supply chains, but it significantly improves wages and rights for Mexican workers. This will concretely level the playing field for auto workers in cities like Windsor and Oshawa [and Oakville]. It helps guarantee their future.

The minister continued:

...[It] preserves the Canadian cultural exception, that was demanded by Canada, especially in the digital world. That protects our cultural industries and more than 650,000 jobs across Canada. It preserves our unique, bilingual identity, as Canadians.

...[The] agreement fully upholds the impartial dispute resolution of Chapter 19 of the original NAFTA. When there’s a disagreement over trade, it goes to an independent, bi-national panel. And that panel gets to decide.

This legislation is the final step in safeguarding more than $2 billion a day in cross-border trade as well as tariff-free access to our largest trading partner. It will also support hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, now and in the future.

In December 2019, Canada joined the U.S. and Mexico in signing an agreement that reflected additional changes. That has given us an agreement that strengthens the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, labour protection, environmental protection, intellectual property and the automotive rules of origin. It will also help make the most advanced medicines affordable for Canadians.

These changes were met with widespread praise. I was particularly happy to see Jerry Dias, president of Unifor Canada, say, “The new [deal], while far from perfect, provides a road map to implement necessary changes in trade policy to benefit workers.”

Throughout the negotiations for the new NAFTA, we fought for a total lift of the U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, and we succeeded. Canada is now the only major producer of aluminum in the world that is not subject to U.S. tariffs. It is the result of our firm and measured response, including $2 billion in support for Canadian workers and companies and hundreds of interactions with U.S. officials.

I was pleased to welcome the Prime Minister to Oakville North—Burlington in 2018, shortly after the negotiation had finished on this new agreement. We visited MetriCan, which has facilities in Canada, the United States and Mexico and is a significant, innovative player in the global automotive industry and a leading supplier of tooling and stamped metal components.

The Prime Minister told MetriCan employees:

Canadians told us they wanted us to stand firm to protect good middle-class jobs like those here at MetriCan. The automobile and auto parts manufacturing industry remains a key driver of Canada’s economy. Thank you for showing me the important work you do here at MetriCan to ensure it remains so.

I am proud to have a company like MetriCan in my riding, and I know the impact the visit had on the owners and employees of the company.

Ford of Canada's head office is located in Oakville, and from the time of my election, ensuring their access to the U.S. and Mexico has been a top priority. I have been pleased to work with both management and Unifor Local 707 to ensure their concerns were heard and shared with the government.

I remember a meeting held with the presidents of the big three automakers and the president of Unifor Canada, where we all agreed that a team Canada approach to trade with regard to the auto industry was critical for success. I am proud to work with the fine men and women from Ford of Canada, and I know they want to see this agreement passed by this House.

These are just two examples of businesses in my community that are counting on us to ratify this agreement. The new NAFTA is an important achievement for the middle class and Canadians working hard to join it. This new agreement will be good for Canadian workers, businesses, and families. It will strengthen the middle class and create good, well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half a billion people who call North America home.

This agreement is good for Canada's economy. It will modernize and stabilize the economy for the 21st century, guaranteeing a higher standard of living for Canadians for the long term. The agreement will also protect jobs and preserve cultural industries in Canada.

It is now time to ratify the agreement so that we can move ahead with confidence that the Canadian economy is secure, even as we expand our trade to markets around the world. Canada has always had strong economic ties with the United States and Mexico. By strengthening the rules and procedures governing trade and investment, the agreement will provide a solid foundation for building Canada's prosperity and demonstrate the benefits of open trade for the rest of the world.

I am proud of our government for standing firm and getting not just any deal, but the best deal for Canada. I would in particular like to single out our Deputy Prime Minister for her leadership, professionalism and determination to ensure that the interests and values of Canadians were always defended. She did yeoman's work to see this agreement negotiated and to see it ratified here in the House. I thank her on behalf of all residents of Oakville North—Burlington and all Canadians.

As hon. members know, the Deputy Prime Minister has asked that we work together as colleagues to put Canada and Canadians first and get this important work done without undue delay. We have seen industry, business, union leadership, diplomats, indigenous leadership and government officials all buy into a team Canada approach. The United States and Mexico have already ratified this agreement. Now it is our turn.

Let us show the world that we all play for the same team.

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

Madam Speaker, the member often referred to this “new NAFTA”; I would much rather refer to it as “half a NAFTA” or HALFTA.

I am just wondering if she is at all concerned about the fact that this NAFTA deal was unable to secure a softwood lumber deal along with it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we will disagree on the name. There seem to be an awful lot of acronyms bouncing around with regard to this trade agreement.

I hope that we can all agree that it is important to ratify this agreement. Certainly the softwood lumber industry is extremely important to the Canadian economy, and our government continues to work towards ensuring that the softwood lumber dispute is settled. We will go from there.

I do hope that we can count on the hon. member's support, and that of his party, when we vote on this deal.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of questions.

I know that one of the items the hon. member discussed, in terms of an achievement, was working with indigenous peoples. The Liberal government promised an entire chapter to promote indigenous rights in 2017. This was not delivered in CUSMA.

The other area I have a question about is in regard to gender and women. I am wondering if the member could describe how the rights of women are highlighted in this deal, considering that the Liberals again promised an entire chapter to promote gender equality in trade in 2017. Again, this was not delivered in CUSMA.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her advocacy on two issues that are extremely important.

On the first, as the member likely knows, the government held extensive consultations with nearly 50 different indigenous groups on this agreement, including self-governing nations, tribal organizations, national organizations, development corporations, business and lending organizations, legal advisers and policy experts, so they were certainly included in the negotiation.

In terms of gender, there are enforceable provisions in the new agreement that protect women's rights, minority rights, indigenous rights and the environment, all of which we have never had before in a trade agreement. I am very proud of what we were able to negotiate.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of criticism on the opposite side from the Conservatives about the fact that Trump is not going to be allowing non-market trade agreements. I do not want to be dictated to by the United States. What does “non-market” mean? We are talking about Communist countries and dictatorships. We are talking about countries that are not democracies, that do not have the same rule of law that we have.

Should we be engaging in trade with countries that do not have those same values and giving them Most Favoured Nation status, or should we be looking at strengthening trade with democratic countries with advanced judicial systems so we do not need to worry about Canadian investors getting ripped off? Should we be looking at countries that respect the same kind of rule of law that we have? Should we be facilitating and working on trade agreements with those kinds of countries instead of non-market countries?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a government we have taken leadership on a number of trade agreements. We are the only country that has trade agreements that allow us access to billions of people and markets around the world, and we are always taking into account the human rights conditions in those countries. We have always been a strong advocate for human rights around the world, and we will always stand up for that. We certainly are not dictated to by any other country when we are negotiating trade agreements. Canada is standing up for what is best for Canadians, Canadian workers and Canadian business. We will always do what is best for our country.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a great pleasure to rise in this House and to be speaking on behalf of the amazing constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am pleased to be able to stand today and offer a few of my thoughts on the proceedings before us with regard to the implementation act of CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, through Bill C-4.

I want to start by acknowledging our relationship with the United States. The sheer amount of trade and travel that happens between our two countries and the long shared history that we have make it the most important relationship that Canada has. I want to also acknowledge how difficult this negotiation was for many of our hard-working trade negotiators, especially when policy from the United States seemed to be changing on the fly, according to tweets we would read from President Trump.

The NDP's position with regard to trade has always been that we want to have fair trade agreements that have enforceable protections for workers, the environment, and the rights of indigenous people and women. We feel that far too often, and there are many examples that we could list, trade negotiations seem to turn into corporate rights documents and give a lot of attention to regulatory harmonization. I understand that in some cases regulatory harmonization can be a good thing, because we do not want our businesses overburdened by too much red tape. However, we have to remember it is often large multinational corporations that are seeking the free flow of goods between borders, and often those regulations are in place because they are particular and unique to the country that hosts them. When we have regulations dealing with environmental protections or workers' rights, those are extremely important, and we do not want to be chasing the lowest common denominator. We do not want to simply make it easy for the free flow of goods and trade without respecting those very important things.

I understand too that the renegotiation of NAFTA was sparked by President Trump. Again, this illustrates why it is so important for Canada to maintain relationships with the other branches of the United States government. We must maintain our contacts in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, but more importantly the various governors and state legislatures, because the United States has a very broad power-sharing network and it is certainly not equal to just one person.

I find the debate surrounding this agreement interesting. Not only has the current Parliament been seized with the agreement, but it was also a big feature in the 42nd Parliament. I can remember when question period often had the theme of CUSMA. I want to acknowledge the hard work of my former colleague Tracey Ramsey, the former MP for Essex, who led the way as our international trade critic and was often probing the government's negotiating tactics and the objectives that it was trying to achieve.

At that time, our main argument was that we should hold off on ratifying the agreement, because it was quite clear to anyone who was a keen observer that the United States Democrats in the House of Representatives were keen on changing some aspects of the deal, yet the Liberal government in the 42nd Parliament thought that would be a mistake. They wanted to agree to it as it was, not taking into account the fact that changes were coming.

In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister, when she had her previous role as the lead minister for this file, said, “Mr. Speaker, what the NDP needs to understand is that reopening this agreement would be like opening Pandora's box”, and that it would be naive for the NDP to believe that Canadians would benefit from reopening this agreement, yet that is precisely what happened. I do not know of any other instance in which Canada had to rely on the actions of a foreign government to deliver a better deal. I think that is actually quite unprecedented.

If only we could have had a process whereby the Parliament of Canada had played a bigger role. I know a lot of legislators on the opposition side of the benches were constantly referring to this and to the fact that there were possibilities of getting a better deal, but no: The government at the time wanted to proceed forward. Thankfully, we did get a renegotiated deal, and the U.S. Democrats were about to put in some important provisions. I think that when we look at the balance sheet, some improvements were definitely made.

I look to my home province of British Columbia. I make my home on Vancouver Island. Of course, the big industry that has had no mention in this agreement is our softwood lumber industry. That dispute is still ongoing with the United States, and I understand that Canada has had to take its concerns to the World Trade Organization.

We have many workers in British Columbia who still have this cloud of uncertainty hanging over their industry. Many mills have closed over the previous decades. Many communities in British Columbia have had to transition out of a mill-based work force into something closer to tourism or a service-based industry. However, it has forever changed the face of many small towns in British Columbia.

For the towns that are lucky enough to still have a thriving mill, we still are plagued with a lot of uncertainty. This is certainly one part of the Canada-U.S. relationship that has to be studied and worked on.

As the NDP's critic for agriculture, I would also be remiss if I did not mention the concessions that were made in this agreement to our supply-managed dairy sector. We are giving up a few percentages of our market, as we did under the CPTPP and CETA. The Liberals constantly say in the House that they are the party that defends supply management and that they are the ones who brought it in. However, now we have started to see even more cuts. The problem is that when we were negotiating this deal and opening up parts of our market to the United States, especially in supply management, in a sense what the government is asking our dairy farmers to do is to pay the price for another jurisdiction's overproduction problems.

I will illustrate that by pointing this out. The State of Wisconsin produces more milk than the entire country of Canada combined. As it does not have supply management, it has wild fluctuations in price. Many farmers are experiencing bankruptcy down there. There are serious concerns to mental health and they do not have the protections there. In a sense, we are trying to open up our market from U.S. demands. We are trying to pay the price for their overproduction.

It goes further. Under clause 3.A.3 of the agreement, we have now agreed to establish threshold limits on exports. We have put those threshold limits on things like infant formula, milk protein concentrates and skim milk powder. This means that Canada has agreed to absolute limits of exports in those categories. Furthermore, if we exceed those thresholds, we then have to place a punitive tariff, which would essentially price us out of the market.

I would like to know if we have an economic impact statement on how this will affect the future growth of the industry. Has the government done an analysis of how close our industry already is to those threshold limits? Furthermore, in the coming into force provisions of the agreement, are we giving our producers enough time to compensate and deal with those changes?

Through the debate on Bill C-4, I would like members of the House to think about how we can have a better process in place for future trade negotiations.

We all know that the negotiation of international treaties, such as trade treaties, is a royal prerogative of the Crown. It is a latent power of the Crown, held over from centuries ago. It is certainly within the executive's right to negotiate deals. However, the problem is that when we get the final product in the House of Commons, all we are allowed to do is to vote yes or no. The deal has already been signed. Our role is limited only to implementing legislation.

I know there have been consultations with many groups, but if we could find a process whereby members of Parliament have that opportunity to have a more extensive discussion, whereby we can state what our objectives are and have a more involved role, as they do in the European Parliament and in the United States Congress, then we could take this opportunity to ensure that in future negotiations, perhaps with the United Kingdom, we would go in as the people's representatives with a much better idea of exactly what we are trying to achieve.

I look forward to any questions that my colleagues may have.

[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, it is encouraging to hear that the New Democratic caucus has taken a look at the important issue of trade, particularly the $2 billion a day of trade between Canada and the United States, not to mention the importance of trade in North America.

As the member reflects on the old trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.A., would he agree that there are significant changes in this new agreement? He has made reference to some of them. I have talked a great deal about the issue of supply management. We hear a lot about the guarantees on aluminum, the 70%. There are things in the agreement that ultimately are better for the environment and other social progressive measures.

We recognize that everyone believes we could have a better deal, but from our perspective, this is a good deal for Canadians. Could he tell us why he feels it is an important agreement to pass?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the choice before us in the House of Commons is whether, through the implementation of Bill C-4, we want to go back to the old NAFTA, which is not a possible route anymore given that the United States and Mexico have ratified the new agreement, or go to something that is slightly better.

I would refer my colleague back to my remarks during my speech. The Liberals were well prepared in the last Parliament to barge ahead with an agreement that was not quite acceptable. There were still some glaring holes. My main point of contention, my main criticism, is that Canada had to rely on the actions of U.S. Democrats to get a better deal. If we had proceeded with what the Liberals wanted, we would not have these improvements before us today. We had to rely on the actions of a foreign government, and that is unfortunate.

I hope the Liberals will take a lesson from this and take stock from our suggestion that there is now an opportunity before us to have a better process in place.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that this deal seemed to be slightly better than the previous NAFTA. I continue to call it “half NAFTA” or HALFTA.

We went backwards on one thing. CNBC reported recently that there was now a sunset clause in this deal. Does the member think a sunset clause is a better part of HALFTA than NAFTA?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have to realize just who we were negotiating with. The United States President often changed his position and the Americans were driving a hard bargain. In particular, I would like to know how we agreed to place threshold limits on our dairy exports.

It is important that we send the legislation to the international trade committee where we can hear from witnesses and really start to dissect the process that put us where we are at today. This could be a thing for us to worry about in 16 years' time, which I am led to believe is the correct number. However, that is certainly why the international trade committee has to do its important work, even from the agricultural industry's perspective. A lot of stakeholders have already been knocking on my door, expressing an interest in giving their viewpoint. There is a wide spectrum of opinion depending on which particular industry one is a member of.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has a way of drilling down to the key issues and I appreciate the way he does that.

I am sure he remembers last year when we were talking about the trade deal in the House, CUSMA or NAFTA 2.0, whatever one wanted to call it at the time. The President of the United States said that he would not sign a deal without a sunset clause in it. He was referring to five years. We did not accept that. However, the Conservatives were asking us to sign the deal at that time.

The President also said that he would not sign a deal with supply management included in it. It is still there, and that is important.

Dispute resolution is in the new agreement and even better.

Does the member want to share—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, The Assistant Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, a very quick answer.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I have time to answer three separate questions, but what I will say is let us use this to recognize there is an opportunity here to allow Parliament to have a greater role in future negotiations. If we went into these negotiations understanding exactly what our red lines and objectives were, people could have more confidence in the process. In the end, we would have greater buy-in than having a bill presented to us with simply a yes or no answer.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Health; the hon. member for Edmonton Riverbend, Health; the hon. member for Victoria, The Environment.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge that today's debate is taking place on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

When our government was elected in the fall of 2015, the world was a very different place. There was a certain degree of stability. There was a consensus that the principle of multilateralism was the ideal recipe for keeping the peace between nations and supporting free international trade to ensure greater prosperity for as many countries and people as possible.

Needless to say, the world has changed a lot since then. It has moved in the opposite direction. In the new international political context, as a country, we have suddenly been forced to cope with the need to return to the negotiating table to overhaul one of our most important agreements with the two countries that share the North American continent with us. That agreement is NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. We succeeded. We successfully negotiated something that was far from a foregone conclusion. We negotiated as equals with the most powerful economy on the planet, our neighbour and friend, and a tough negotiator, the United States.

I want to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, the then minister of foreign affairs, for her perspicacity, her determination, her poise under pressure, her tactful words at critical moments, her dignity and her diplomatic skills throughout the process.

I also want to congratulate the Prime Minister, who stepped in at the right times with firm and focused remarks to make it known that Canada would not capitulate to the United States.

We negotiated hard and successfully in the Canadian way. We were confident and firm but always respectful. We were true to our nature and to our reputation around the world. We were friendly but determined to stand up for Canadians and Canada's economic interests.

Canadians have a right to feel proud of our success in the NAFTA 2.0 negotiations, which were crucial economically, intense and not always linear. I think that is obvious.

In the time I have left, I would like to touch on a few key aspects of the new trade deal that I believe are important to my constituents, because they have written to me on numerous occasions about these issues.

The first is on dispute resolution, which, to my mind, is why we negotiated the original free trade agreement with the United States in the first place. I do not think it was to reduce tariffs so much, as there was already a free flow of goods, but we wanted to make sure, as a middle power with huge trade with the world's largest economy, that we could have a mechanism to objectively and rationally resolve disputes when protectionist pressures might rise south of the border. It was important. The whole idea of the free trade agreement, as far as I am concerned, was to have a dispute resolution mechanism so that we could be trading on a level playing field with a country that is 10 times bigger than we are.

We know that the United States, at the moment, is not fond of dispute settlement. In fact, for two years, the Trump administration has blocked the appointment of new members to the WTO's seven-member dispute resolution panel, claiming that dispute resolution compromises and undermines American sovereignty and latitude in trade. Therefore, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism was effectively paralyzed at a time when Canada was looking forward to having it deal with the United States and resolve the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

We have heard a lot about softwood lumber in this debate. We have a case in front of the WTO, but because the dispute settlement mechanism has been paralyzed, obviously the WTO is not able to make a decision in that case.

Under NAFTA, there was similarly the potential for what is called “panel blocking”, where a country can block the creation of a dispute resolution panel by refusing to appoint members. That power existed under NAFTA for the United States, for example. Today, we have succeeded against all odds, given the prevailing mindset in the U.S., in having dispute resolution maintained in the new trade deal. Worth noting is that the new agreement is asymmetrical. That means that there is the possibility of dispute resolution between Canada and the U.S., but not between the U.S. and Mexico. Therefore, we clearly have a privileged position in this regard. We have also achieved an end to panel blocking, which is so important in the case of dispute settlement panels. We stood up and we won on that point.

A second issue is investor-state dispute resolution. For many years, there was concern that investor-state dispute resolution compromised Canadian economic and environmental sovereignty by subjugating our domestic policies to the economic interests of multinational corporations. NAFTA's infamous chapter 11 has been removed from the USMCA, or CUSMA, as some people call it, and investor disputes between Canada and the U.S. will no longer be subject to the investor-state dispute resolution process that existed under chapter 11.

It is important to mention that there are still obligations under the new agreement, with respect to expropriation, whether direct or indirect, where charges of indirect expropriation often flow when domestic environmental laws and regulations are seen to negatively impact foreign private interests in Canada. However, the Library of Parliament has stated:

Annex 14-B [of the USMCA] indicates that such actions' adverse effects on the economic value of an investment would not be sufficient to establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred. As well, Annex 14-B notes that whether any such actions constitute indirect expropriation would depend on factors that include the actions' economic impact, object, context, intent, and interference with 'distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations” that such actions would not occur.

In many environmental cases, we would be able to argue that any rational investor who is well informed would understand that we would want to have policies to protect our environment in a particular area. For example, there was often speculation that chapter 11 would make it easier, hypothetically, for foreign private interests to one day pressure Canada to export its fresh water in bulk to a thirsty southern neighbour, namely, that in the face of domestic policies intended to block such exports, massive financial compensation might need to be paid to foreign private interests seeking to access bulk water as a tradable good. The USMCA makes that an even more remote possibility.

Many constituents wrote to me about dairy. I would like to reiterate that the supply management system has been maintained. There will, indeed, be new higher quotas for dairy imports from the U.S. with Canadian tariffs still being applied on dairy products that exceed these new quotas, tariffs ranging from 200% to 300%. According to reports, the new quotas are expected to give American dairy farmers access to up to 3.5% of Canada's market, from 1%. Therefore, we can see that the defence of the system is still very much in place. Yes, there has been a slight increase, but supply management has been maintained.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the aisle gave a well-thought-out and well-researched speech.

Over the past five years under the Liberal government, we have seen foreign direct investment, particularly from the United States into Canada. People are acutely aware of this in Alberta with the loss of investment in the critical oil sands sector. Does the member see any connection between the loss of investor-state dispute settlement systems and the possibility that Canada's foreign direct investment will continue declining in future years?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not see a connection whatsoever. I was reading up on foreign direct investment flows into Canada. The situation in Alberta with the lower oil price has had an impact on foreign direct investment into Canada and we want to make sure that the Alberta economy can rebound. There is no doubt about that. People are suffering.

Two reasons were given for the drop in foreign direct investment: the slump in the oil industry and the trade uncertainty around the new deal. By coming to a new deal, we have taken some of that uncertainty away and according to a Bloomberg report, foreign direct investment is coming back. What is even more hopeful about the situation is that it is not only coming back in the oil sector, it is coming back in other sectors as well.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague and thank him for his speech. He praised his government's negotiating skills and claimed that government officials stood up to the Americans.

In my earlier remarks, I said that aluminum dumping is happening in Mexico, which is processing the metal and redirecting it to other places in North America. In a way, that jeopardizes Quebec's aluminum production. This new agreement institutionalizes the idea of Mexico taking the aluminum being dumped in its market and using it to manufacture parts for the production of North American vehicles.

My question is simple. If federal officials stood up to the Americans, why did they capitulate to Mexico?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister explained to the House repeatedly during several oral question periods, the aluminum sector is in a better position now and is better served by the new agreement than it was by the old one.

Under the new agreement, vehicles will have to contain a certain percentage of North American steel and aluminum, which was not the case before. I believe the requirement is now 70%, whereas it used to be zero. I think 70% is better than zero.

Moreover, we must not forget that transportation costs are a factor in this market. If aluminum is produced near its markets, customers will naturally choose a product that costs less because it does not have to be transported as far.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, a veteran MP, on his analysis of this agreement.

My question is very simple. We have been hearing a lot of outrage and concern about aluminum even though we know international trade rules have anti-dumping provisions that apply in Canada.

Would the member tell us a bit more about that aspect of the new NAFTA?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about dumping as though it were acceptable practice and commonplace. However, in international trade, the rules of the game prohibit dumping and that does not change in the least under the new agreement. There is no need to spend too much time dwelling on this practice.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the matter at hand, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. I hope the Speaker will indulge me for a few moments as this is my first speech in this new Parliament and I want to thank a few people who are crucial for me being here today.

First and foremost, I would not be here without my wife Raechel. She has always been my rock. She has always supported me in all my political endeavours, so I thank her.

I thank my family. I will admit some of them did not vote Conservative in the last election. However, they stood beside me and supported me the entire way. In particular, I would like to thank my mother Rebecca and my grandparents Cindy Lou and Graham.

I would also like to thank my hard-working campaign team, Imelda Maclaren, Tom Cox, Barb Costache, Jesse Furber, Julia Roy, Luke lnberg and Kris Alex, under the leadership of Cherise Geisbrecht, along with all those who poured countless hours into door knocking, constructing signs and fundraising. I am also indebted to my board president Susan Evans and my financial agent Dennis Francis.

I would like to thank some others, Murray Kulak, Ben and Josh Sawatzky, Jody Dahrouge, Ed Basaraba, Tim and Julie Milligan, Fran and Ander Wolthuis, and Mark and Melissa Haarsma. Without their support, I would not be here today.

Finally, I want to thank my constituents in Sturgeon River—Parkland, who gave me a resounding 77.5% of the vote. Over 53,000 people have sent me here to Ottawa. That is 10,000 more than the previous record set in my riding.

With that strong mandate, I come to speak before this House on an issue that is of great importance to the people of my riding: our relationship with our largest trading partners, the United States and Mexico.

Sturgeon River—Parkland is composed of the counties of Sturgeon, Parkland and Lac Ste. Anne, as well as the major centres of Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and Morinville, all of which lie to the north and west of Edmonton. This constituency has many charming small towns like Onaway, Legal, Gibbons, Bon Accord and Redwater. We are proud to be a part of Treaty 6 territory and we include the communities of Alexander and Enoch, which are members of the Cree Nation. The people of all these communities have been watching the trade negotiations with interest and great concern.

There is a growing value-added plastics industry in the Alberta industrial heartland in my riding. There is a groundbreaking new oil refinery in Redwater. There are thousands of farmers across our riding who are growing potatoes, canola and lentils. As well, there are cattle, dairy and chicken farmers. We are home to Canada's top value-added pet food producers, and a lumber industry that has suffered under high tariffs from the United States. We also have the largest privately held steel fabricator in not just Canada but North America.

All of these important industries provide thousands of jobs for Canadians in my riding and across Canada, but we have seen very little from the Liberal government to address their challenges. I am going to delve a little deeper into those challenges.

The government is repeatedly claiming that all is well and that there is nothing to see here when we look at this trade agreement. However, Canadians are watching as our trade position in this world, and particularly with the United States, grows more and more precarious. I will mention a few examples of the concerns of those in my community that I am hoping the government will address.

On January 24, just a couple of weeks ago, the United States announced further trade action against our fabricated steel industry. A year ago the Americans initiated trade action against our fabricated steel industry. On September 4 of last year, the Department of Commerce found there was little to no evidence to show that our fabricated steel industry was impacting that industry in the United States.

Despite that positive ruling, our fabricated steel industry continues to face an unrelenting attack from American competitors. Just a few short days ago, the Department of Commerce made its decision to impose a 6.7% tariff on Canadian fabricated steel imports. A final appeal is yet to be heard, but I have seen little from the government to show it is considering the challenges of our fabricated steel industry.

We are debating the ratification of a trade agreement. As we speak, our competitors are attempting to kneecap our industry. Does this sound like a successful free trade agreement? Thousands of jobs across Canada are at stake. Hundreds of jobs in my riding are at risk, yet the Liberals are doing nothing to stand up for our steel fabricators, an essential value-added industry.

The government is so desperate to ram this agreement through that it is ignoring the erosion of our domestic industry. To add insult to injury, we are further opening up the procurement market in Canada to foreign competitors in the U.S., the very same competitors that are seeking to put tariffs on their Canadian competitors.

I ask the government how the new trade agreement will prevent the United States from discriminating against our steel industry at will. How are we going to make sure we have a fair and level playing field for our steel fabricators, among others?

Aside from our steel industry, we have an industry that has suffered even more severe damage over the past few years. Our softwood lumber industry remains at the mercy of our American competitors. We need certainty, rules and a vision for the prosperous future our hard-working men and women in the lumber industry deserve.

In the United States over eight million homes were constructed last year. These are homes that needed Canadian wood products. At the same time, Canada saw the closure of nine mills and reduced production in dozens of others. As of October 2019, over two billion board feet in production had been curtailed in Canada. Meanwhile, the price of lumber in the United States has skyrocketed by 33%.

It does not take an economist to see that the laws of supply and demand are not being followed. The price of a product is going up significantly, but here in Canada we are cutting production and facing mill closures. The reason is that the Liberal government has failed to take this opportunity to act and achieve a deal for our softwood lumber producers that would ensure sustainability and prosperity for years to come.

Ultimately, we need to delve deeper into the details of this trade agreement. However, the government has refused to share its internal economic analysis with us. What does it have to hide? There are clearly areas in which Canada is continuing to get a raw deal, and this must be addressed immediately. Canadians want to see transparency and accountability from the government.

What will the impact on our supply-managed agri-food sector be? How will Canada continue to diversify its trade when the United States can withhold its signature on our agreements? How can we ensure that Canadian companies, and the Canadian shareholders who trust their retirement savings to these companies, will be treated fairly by foreign governments? All of these are important areas where Canada has relinquished control and is vulnerable.

In the end, we need to ask ourselves if this deal will protect and grow a sustainable industrial base in Canada, the kind of base that we can depend upon to provide the middle-class jobs and prosperity previous generations have enjoyed as their birthright. We continue to see the hollowing out of our industry to low-cost jurisdictions. We see an American economic tiger cutting taxes, and we see regulations aimed at enticing Canadian job creators to America.

Canada only seems to be moving in the opposite direction. The only companies we can get to invest in Canada are ones the government has to write a big taxpayer cheque to.

Without a clear economic analysis provided by the government, the one thing I can conclude is that this trade deal does little to move our country forward. Rather, it maintains a status quo, a status quo that we see quickly eroding under our very feet.

[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, we have heard a number of Conservatives say that they want a clear understanding and they want an economic impact study completed. In part, they need to realize that this was not just two people sitting in a room who came up with an agreement. It has taken a couple of years to hit the point where we are today.

Thousands of discussions have taken place. Provinces and different stakeholders, whether it is labour or business, have recognized that the agreement we are debating today will further advance the interests of Canada well into the future. That is something we need to recognize. It is not something that should be new to any caucus. Even the current Conservative caucus was provided the opportunity to have more details.

Would the member not agree that this has been a topic for discussion for well over two years?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, if I could summarize the hon. parliamentary secretary's question, it is, “Just trust us. It's a great deal, but you do not have to see any of the details, because we cannot trust you with those details.”

I do not need to be lectured by the parliamentary secretary, because I had the honour of working for the member for Abbotsford when he served as Canada's minister of international trade. Under his Conservative leadership, we achieved the Canada-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-European trade agreement, and those are trade agreements that we can be very proud of for our country.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to elaborate on something which he touched on.

We have just heard that the United States has signed a free trade agreement with China, which will have a potentially devastating impact on Canadian agriculture. There may be as much as $40 billion in agricultural trade between those two countries, which will certainly have an impact on ours.

The United States beat us to the punch. When we sign the new NAFTA, we will not be able to enter into free trade agreements with countries like China and Vietnam without first having the approval of the United States.

I do not know of any other free trade agreement that Canada has ever signed that has signed off our sovereignty in trade in future deals with another country. I would like my colleague to talk about the impact this would have on his riding.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I answer my colleague's question, I would like to say that my heart and the hearts of all the people of Sturgeon River—Parkland are with the Chinese people as they currently go through the terrible pandemic in Wuhan and across the world. Our hearts and prayers are with them.

In my riding we are very strong. We are invested in beef and canola production. We are in the steel industry. With the United States signing a new trade agreement with China, we are significantly disadvantaged in Canada. We have not seen the resolution of the canola crisis with China yet. We have not seen any forward progress on it. Unless we see that kind of forward progress, our farmers are going to continue to be disadvantaged and lose market share.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned softwood lumber, which is a subject that is very close to the concerns of my riding and others in British Columbia. I wonder if he could expand on his comments.

I was heartened to see the chapter 19 provisions of the old NAFTA still in this new agreement so that we can go to NAFTA panels to battle these illegal tariffs that the United States has put on. I wonder if the member could expand on that and how it would play into the disputes that are still before a couple of those panels.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has the privilege of coming from one of the most beautiful ridings in Canada and southern B.C.

On softwood lumber, I cannot speak to the panels that are being disputed at this point. However, we have to look at some of the challenges that we can address in Canada to make our softwood lumber industry more competitive. One thing we have seen is that in the province of British Columbia the stumpage fees are much higher than they are in the province of Alberta, for example. We have seen a disproportionate number of closures in British Columbia over Alberta. That is something we can address as a country.

In terms of getting market access to the United States, without that, I was talking to American homebuilders who told me it is raising the cost of a house by $6,000. Surely we can make a strong argument for Canadian wood products to be entering the United States on a fair and level playing field.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that we are here today, as every day, on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Nation.

We are currently debating the new NAFTA. The Green Party considers this to be a real improvement over the first version of NAFTA, now that chapter 11 has been removed. That chapter was detrimental to Canadian laws and regulations and beneficial to U.S. corporations. That chapter also hurt our health and environmental protection regulations.

What is more, the section on energy in the former NAFTA will be rescinded when the new NAFTA comes into effect. This is good for us because Canada is the only NAFTA country that is still required to comply with the old export levels, which in fact undermines our own energy security.

The changes that have been made are something of a surprise given the history of trade agreements. I have long been an opponent of trade agreements that put corporate profits above sustainability, above community health, prosperity and well-being. The case of this agreement, CUSMA, is the first time, certainly in recent decades, that any trade agreement represents an improvement over what has preceded it in giving up more clout in protecting the environment and reduced the corporate powers that have been expanding ever since the neo-liberal era began.

In fact, it was in the first NAFTA that the notion of investor-state dispute resolutions gained traction, particularly in the developed world. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, has already spoken to this and provided some details about investor-state agreements.

I will add a little more personal detail. Before ever being involved in politics, I was always involved in the environmental movement, whether as a lawyer or in government or with environmental groups. As executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, we ran straight into the very first application of chapter 11. When NAFTA was being debated within Canada, the pernicious anti-democratic impacts of chapter 11 were unknown.

We debated many things about NAFTA in the country, but no one talked about investor-state provisions. It was something of a sleeper in the first version of NAFTA. We woke up to that sleeper when I was involved in a citizens' campaign to try to get rid of a toxic gasoline additive in the country called MMT, manganese-based toxins.

I worked with neurotoxicologists from Montreal, particularly Dr. Donna Mergler from UQAM. I worked with the car manufacturers, because this MMT as a gasoline additive gummed up the onboard diagnostics in the car, potentially violating the warranties. It was the first time to have a coalition of environmental groups, carmakers and scientists all saying this toxic gasoline additive had to be removed.

Under the minister of the environment at the time, Sheila Copps, we managed to get rid of this toxic gasoline additive, only to have Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia, bring a suit against Canada. We were shocked by this first chapter 11 challenge. In a secret tribunal, it made the case that this was going to cost it money.

It is important for members of Parliament to understand how important it is that we get rid of these provisions in every other trade agreement. The agreements need not say that the actions Canada took, under former environment minister Sheila Copps, were in any way in objection to trade. They were not hidden, veiled protective measures; they were what they said they were. Getting something that was bad for human health compromised the onboard diagnostics to ensure that pollution was controlled by the engine itself. All of these things were caused by MMT. There was no doubt about that. However, the government at the time under, former prime minister Chrétien, decided to settle with Ethyl Corporation, fearing the worst out of the secret tribunal.

We had to pay, as a country, taken out of the A-base budget of Environment Canada, millions of dollars to Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia. We had to repeal the law we passed to keep this stuff out of our environment. On top of everything else, we wrote a formal letter of apology that Ethyl Corporation could use around the world to peddle this toxic stuff in other countries.

There are many more cases like that. There is S.D. Myers of Ohio, which challenged the decision to stop the export of PCB-contaminated waste.

Probably the worst of all is the most recent case of Bilcon. A U.S. corporation brought charges against Canada for the proper use of our environmental assessment law, properly applied, the version that occurred before the 2012 demolition of environmental assessment in this country, which is still not repaired, and was able to claim that the environmental assessment panel had not been fair to this company. It would have threatened the survival of one of the world's most endangered whales, the right whales of Atlantic Canada.

I could go on, but I need to move to other sections of this agreement. It is very important that we understand the difference between two chapters. I have noticed some speakers through this debate have mistaken chapter 19, the dispute resolution portions that we are pleased to see remain, and chapter 11, a resolution of disputes between two parties who should never have the right to challenge each other, that a private corporation that is in the United States under chapter 11 of our current NAFTA has superior powers and rights to a Canadian domestic corporation. That is still the case in the countries we deal with in the TPP. We put investor-state provisions in there.

Horrifically, it is the case with the Canada-China investment treaty, which the Harper cabinet passed in secret and never came to this place. It still binds this country to allow state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic of China to secretly sue the government if we do anything that gets in the way of their profits. That is a legacy from the Conservatives that they do not seem to know about.

We have seen such damage from investor-state provisions. We need to track them down and remove them wherever they are. CUSMA is a huge improvement and sets the pace for getting rid of them elsewhere.

I am pleased to see the end of the energy security chapter. It was really strange. Mexico had no corresponding provision in its requirements to the United States. Only Canada made a commitment that we would not restrict any of our energy exports beyond the proportion that we had been selling to the United States over a period of time.

If we were selling 60% of our natural gas to the United States, we would have to continue to do that under the current provisions, which will be gone with CUSMA. Even if we were running out of natural gas, we would still have to export 60% to the United States. They were very strange provisions and we are glad they are gone.

I want to turn to three areas that have not received much attention in this debate. One is the improvements in the environment chapter and although not as strong as what was promised by the Liberals, we certainly have stronger language, and for the first time, a component of NAFTA dealing with gender rights and indigenous issues.

In the environment chapter, I am really pleased we were able to withstand efforts by Donald Trump to eliminate something that many members in this place may not have known of at all, which is the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

That commission is led by the environment ministers of the United States, Mexico and Canada. They work together to protect our environment in every country. A truly democratic provision would give each citizen of the United States, Canada, or Mexico the ability to file a complaint against a decision that would be harmful to the environment.

Any citizen or NGO of Canada, the U.S. or Mexico can bring a complaint to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation to say our government is reducing environmental protections because it wants to promote trade. It is now protected and is better funded.

I want to underscore that although it is not everything we wanted, I am pleased that indigenous handcrafted products can now be duty-free. I am pleased that various indigenous provisions of this agreement highlight the importance of indigenous people throughout Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. I am also pleased there is at least some language that the goals of all of our trade agreements and multilateral co-operation have to focus on the rights of women and girls.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands made a well-informed speech. I am glad she mentioned the egregious case of MMT and Ethyl Corporation. It is a case that shall live in infamy in our country's trade history. I am glad to see chapter 11 gone. The NDP has been fighting those kinds of provisions for years and years in all the trade agreements we have signed.

What are the member's thoughts on this trade agreement and others, and future trade agreements, regarding the possible export of water from Canada? In this agreement it is only covered with a side agreement, a letter between Robert Lighthizer and the Deputy Prime Minister. I just want to get the member's thoughts on water and trade agreements that we might sign.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, who is such an environmental champion himself, I think we are okay. The way the old NAFTA worked is continuing in the new NAFTA, which is to say that water in its natural state is not considered a good in trade and if it is not considered a good in trade, NAFTA does not apply.

We took the step in the 40th Parliament under a private member's bill to have a law on the books that says the export of water from transboundary basins is not legal. There is still the threat. We can go back to that grand canal scheme of putting a pipe into Hudson Bay and running it to the United States.

However, as long as no jurisdiction in Canada allows the export of water in its natural state, NAFTA would not apply.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.

We were quick to speak out to protect jobs in the aluminum sector. I thank the member for asking me a question about this.

I find the government's interpretation of the agreement quite impressive. Everything the Liberals have to say makes me think that they have not read the agreement. That is not what we are talking about right now, but I find it impressive. I am very impressed to see that their interpretation is unfounded, based on the clauses in the document tabled in the House, but that is a whole other story.

I would like the opinion of the leader of the Green Party. Quebec has the cleanest aluminum in the world. We have not heard many people speak in favour of improving the environment around the world or within our country, in Quebec. We want to understand why the government never pointed out that the cleanest aluminum in the world will be tossed aside by the agreement. As has already been announced, this aluminum will soon be carbon neutral. What these companies are doing in Quebec is amazing. Under this agreement, Quebec aluminum will be replaced by another aluminum that is produced with coal and that creates eight times more pollution. It will create a billion times more pollution than carbon neutral aluminum. That divided by zero equals infinity, if I am not mistaken.

Why do we not hear the member talking about this?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague.

He is right. We are hoping for an improvement so that the parties to this agreement acknowledge that Quebec's aluminum really is the greenest in the world. Why not use it in projects like the LNG Canada project in Kitimat? The current government has agreed to grant huge subsidies to this project, which uses Chinese aluminum exclusively, even though Quebec's aluminum is better for our environment and for our economy.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have had more than 30 seconds to address my colleagues in the House, I want to take this opportunity to thank my wife Kate, who supported me on the campaign trail and has been at my side ever since I started my career. I also want to say hello to my seven-month-old son, Léo-Xavier.

I mention him in the House because some members have done the same with their children. Family is important, and it makes all the difference when we are on the campaign trail or working in the House. I know that every member takes care of their family.

Naturally, I also have to mention my father Yves, my mother Nicole, and my brother Mathieu, who have helped me every step of the way. I also want to thank my parliamentary assistants, namely Martin, who has now gone on to bigger and better things, Louise, Line, Judith, Carole and Andrew. I want to thank them for their support.

The important thing to keep in mind about Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, is that we now have access to a market. MPs who are against the agreement can raise any argument they like, but we need to think about what is more important: a market made up of 35 million people or a market made up of 330 million people, not including Mexico? That is the important thing about this agreement.

Of course I want to talk about the importance of steel producers, a major presence in my riding that, in one municipality, accounts for 25% of the tax revenue. I can hardly imagine what would happen if the Government of Canada did not sign the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. I can hardly imagine what would happen to that municipality if 25% of its tax revenue disappeared overnight. That is something else each member should consider when the time comes to vote. Do members of the House want to do something that is good for the steel sector or not?

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister worked very hard on the new NAFTA, and it is a good agreement for all Canadians all over this country.

Obviously, we have to acknowledge its flaws. I cannot represent the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell without addressing those. In my riding we have dairy farmers, chicken and turkey producers, and egg producers. Supply management continues to be a very important issue to them.

The only thing I can tell them is that the work of an MP is to be present in the riding. That is what is important. When the government makes decisions, it would be easy to simply tell the producers without ever meeting them that everything will be fine.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs took the time to meet producers across the country and listen to their concerns.

It is true that we lost some market share. During negotiations around the agreement between Europe and Canada, it was not the Liberal government that was prepared to allow loopholes in supply management. It was the members who are currently seated across the way who, in 2013, were prepared to give up 1.5% of Canada's market share.

It was not the Liberal government that said it was willing to give up 3.25% of the market under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. It was the Conservative government that announced it had signed an agreement on October 5, 2015, at 11:59:59 p.m. The Conservatives threw out a number that did not make any sense to the dairy industry, which nevertheless accepted it without even consulting its farmers.

I think it is important to mention that we have a duty to consult Canadians, even if our party is the one in power. It is important to talk to producers, as I did. I met with some 300 dairy farmers who were against CETA, against the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and against the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. It is important to listen to them and to make their voices heard in the House of Commons. That is exactly what I am doing this evening.

Yes, we signed an agreement with Europe. Yes, we signed a trans-Pacific partnership agreement. Yes, we signed a new agreement with the United States and Mexico. However, yes, we are always going to listen to our dairy farmers, our chicken farmers, our turkey farmers and all of our supply-managed farmers. I can only reiterate how important it is to meet with all of the representatives of our agricultural sector across the country.

The agreement between Canada and the United States is important because it helps ensure market stability. My riding is home to a large steel producer, Ivaco. This company helps support our families by employing more than 400 people.

I cannot speak enough about the great work that the United Steelworkers are doing in representing their workers back home, but also the HEICO Corporation and Ivaco, which are doing a fantastic job representing our workers back home and making sure that they have stable, long-term employment.

If there is one thing I can say about Ivaco, it is that it changed leadership at some point and the unions have changed leadership at some point, but they have always cared and they have always put their differences aside to ensure that the families back home, whether they are in L'Original, Hawkesbury or Vankleek Hill, have a steady income and a company that they can believe in. I can assure families that Ivaco and the union have worked hard to ensure that investment remains at Ivaco. It is a great deal for L'Original, Hawkesbury or Alfred.

I have under two minutes left to address my colleagues. I know they are a little surprised by my speech.

Market stability is definitely something we must keep top of mind. The Bloc Québécois should listen to this. If we do not guarantee economic stability for our voters, our employers and all our families, what other option do we have?

In closing, I want to emphasize that the economic issues in my riding, my province and Canada are extremely important to me.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, CNBC just published an update by Jared Kushner, talking about the sunset provision of this new NAFTA.

He is saying that the sunset provision in NAFTA which allows for the agreement to expire after 16 years is important because “It is imperative that the United States retain leverage in any of our trading relationships”.

The Liberal government wants us to rush in approving this new NAFTA. It says it will alleviate uncertainty in our economy. However, the president's son-in-law is bragging that it will do nothing of the sort. A sunset clause was originally a non-starter for the government. Why, now, would it agree to such a clause? What did Canada get in return for such a huge concession?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's questions but I do not agree with him that we suddenly agreed with the United States on the sunset clause. It was 24 years ago. Does he agree with a clause from 24 years ago and does it still apply 24 years later?

The question that we must ask is whether a free trade agreement should evolve over so many years. I think as technology finds its way and evolves, it is just a smart thing to revise agreements every so many years, whether it is five years, 10, 15 or 20. It just makes sense. If the hon. member wants to get stuck in the past, we would still be promoting horsewhip manufacturing around here.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands say that Quebec's aluminum is the greenest aluminum produced. I wonder whether my colleague opposite also recognizes that Quebec's aluminum is the greenest on the planet.

Does he realize that Chinese aluminum is the dirtiest that can be bought, especially because it is produced in coal-fired plants?

Does he realize that Mexican imports of Chinese aluminum increased by 240% last spring while, at the same time, sales of Mexican steel to the United States increased by 260%?

Does my colleague acknowledge these facts and understand that this is a bad agreement because it does not prevent imports of Mexican aluminum, but actually encourages the importation of Mexican aluminum for parts manufacturing in Canada?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Canada and Quebec produce excellent aluminum. I am fortunate to represent a riding that runs along the Quebec border. I always say that the sun rises east of Ontario.

If we ban aluminum from China or elsewhere, is my colleague prepared to say that we should ban other exports to China?

What the Bloc Québécois members are forgetting to say in their patriotic speeches is that if we ban other exports and imports to and from China, we will have to tell other manufacturers that we decided to favour a given sector and they will have to pay the price.

We protected 70% of aluminum production in Quebec and Canada.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, what an honour it is to stand in this House. I think this might be one of the first times I have the chance to actually speak at length since the election. It is always good to stand in this House.

Today we are talking about the USMCA or CUSMA—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just want to remind hon. members that one of their colleagues has the floor at the moment. If they want to continue their conversation, I urge them to do so outside the chamber.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, just before we were so rudely interrupted, I have never done that myself.

We are here to talk about the USMCA, or CUSMA, NAFTA or HALFTA, as it has been called.

It should come as no surprise to my colleagues that I am deeply passionate about my province of British Columbia and my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. The issue at hand that has not been addressed in CUSMA and has not been addressed by either the current government or the previous Liberal government is that of securing a new softwood lumber agreement.

Over 140,000 jobs in my province, whether directly or indirectly, are forestry related. One hundred and forty communities across the province of British Columbia are forestry dependent. Over the course of the last year, we have had 25 mill closures. That is 10,000 jobs lost just over the last year because we do not have a softwood lumber agreement and because accessing our fibre is getting harder, with a carbon tax on top of that. These are making it much harder for our forestry producers to compete.

More and more forestry producers have been divesting themselves of Canadian operations since the Liberals became government, whether it was in their first term in the previous Parliament or during this term. More forestry companies have divested themselves of Canadian operations and are investing south of the border. Members heard that right. More Canadian companies are fleeing our market and investing in U.S. markets. Why is that? It is because it has become easier to do business there and they have a favourable work environment or a favourable investment environment.

We talk about the familial ties between the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. is our closest trading partner. Why is that important? I always bring it down to families and how our trade agreements and our policies have their impact. The things that we do here in Ottawa or in our provincial capitals right across our country, the policies that are developed and the agreements that are developed, impact our families.

My family and so many families in our ridings are tied to forestry. My riding is a forestry riding. A lot of our jobs are cornerstone industries, such as agriculture, forestry, oil and gas, and mining, but whether it was the Speech from the Throne in 2015 or the Speech from the Throne in 2019, forestry was left off the books. There was not one mention of forestry.

I will bring the House back to the early days of our previous Parliament. The Prime Minister and his then Minister of International Trade said they were going to get the job done, that they would secure a new softwood lumber agreement. It was early 2016 when a big state dinner took place in Washington. Everybody was invited. Even the Prime Minister's mom was invited. One person was left behind, and that was the then minister of natural resources. Sadly, he did not get an invitation. I guess he did not rank high enough to be there.

One of the very first statements that our Prime Minister made in 2015 on the world stage was that under his government, Canada would become known more for its resourcefulness than for our natural resources, and boy, that is true.

We have taken a lot of hits with the Liberal government because it sidles up to third party groups like Tides Canada, WWF, and Greenpeace. The government allows these groups to permeate the highest levels of office, and that indeed then permeates our policy. They look down upon our forestry practices. They look down upon our natural resource producers, such as oil and gas.

I want to talk about forestry again. Sixty-two per cent of our provincial land base is forest. In the province of British Columbia, we harvest less than 1% of our forests. For every tree that is harvested, three are planted, yet the government continues to look down upon forestry producers.

The province of British Columbia is the largest producer of softwood in the country, and our number one trading partner is the U.S. Therefore, securing a softwood lumber agreement, one would think, would be very important and top of mind. However, here we sit five years later with no softwood lumber agreement.

I will take members back to early 2016 when a state dinner was taking place and the then minister of international trade said the Canadian government had a new-found friendship between the Prime Minister and President Obama. As a matter of fact, I believe it was called a bromance. He said that, within the next 100 days, they were going to secure a solution to the softwood lumber irritant. I believe he said 100 days back in 2016.

Here we sit, time and time again, asking the question. We are told the Liberals' hearts go out to the hard-working forestry families. This is very similar to what they said to the oil and gas workers in Alberta: “Just hang in there.” Sadly, we cannot hang in there much longer.

Time and again, the government members have stood in the House and answered questions on softwood. As a matter of fact, in June of last year, in the dying days of the session, I stood and asked about all the mill curtailments and closures and the job losses in the province of British Columbia. A member, who was a British Columbia MP, who I do not believe made it back to the House and maybe this is the reason why, stood in the House and proudly said, “Job numbers are great. Employment is up and we are doing great.” What a tone-deaf response.

The fact of the matter is that, in my province, every day people open up newspapers and see the job losses, the work curtailments and mill closures. Just before Christmas, in 24 hours, 2,000 jobs were lost. That was just in 24 hours. If that was an auto plant in Ontario, or maybe a manufacturing plant in Quebec that had ties to the Prime Minister, I bet somebody would stand and say, “Enough”, and it would get some form of bailout. However, because it is in British Columbia, which is a long way away on the other side of this country, it seems it is too far and it is forgotten time and time again.

Liberals continue to say that they stand with our forestry families. Time and again, they put their hands on their hearts, maybe wipe away a tear with a tissue, and say they stand with our forestry families.

Are they standing with them in the unemployment lines? Are they standing with them when the banks foreclose on their homes, or are they standing with them when they are facing bankruptcy? That is the reality today. That is what we are facing, and that is shameful.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government]

Madam Speaker, I do not have the experience of my colleague from British Columbia, but I have had the honour and the privilege of working in federal politics for decades.

I remember that, in 2005 or 2006, the World Trade Organization examined a softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the U.S.

After a series of rulings were handed down over a five-year period, we were about to obtain a ruling in our favour. When the Harper government came to power, it terminated this process in order to make peace with the United States, and signed an agreement that would be in force for only 10 years. As a result, we are now back to square one.

Does my honourable colleague not believe that it would have been in our interest to see the dispute with the U.S. through to the end and to ensure the free trade of softwood lumber forever?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, our previous Conservative government put to an end the longest and most costly trade dispute between Canada and the U.S.

Not only did we do that and bring some consistency and some assurances to our forestry industry, we also negotiated a one-year grace period. We got the agreement and the discussions to a certain point in 2015 where, regardless of which group became government in 2015, it should have been able to push this over the goal line.

However, all we have seen is dither and delay, and this has not been a priority from day one. The Liberals have admitted it is so, in not as many words, over the course of the last five years. Now all we are seeing is more excuses and finger-pointing.

The reality is that they have been in government for five years. For five years they have asked our forestry companies and our forestry families to wait and said that they had their backs. They do not, and we have seen that time and time again.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am noticing a general lack of focus on the fact that this trade agreement has not done a substantial job of addressing issues of gender equality. This is something that I have seen on both sides of the House today.

I am wondering what the hon. member thinks about CUSMA's failure to address gender equality in any sort of way, other than in the superficial language used in this agreement.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I'm sorry, but I did not hear the question in that.

I will echo our colleague's comments. She is new to the House, but I will echo her comments. Once again, we see another Liberal failure, lots of Liberal promises, but another Liberal failure in addressing any issues that matter most. In our riding of Cariboo—Prince George, and across all of British Columbia, we were hoping for more. Sadly we have gotten much more of the same as what we had seen in the last four years. That is too bad.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, when my colleague talks about softwood lumber, agriculture or manufacturing, the difference between the previous Conservative government and the current government is that we kept all of our stakeholders at the table throughout the negotiations. What we are hearing from stakeholders over and over again is they have been left in the dark.

I am wondering if he could talk about the response he has had from the forestry workers and companies in his riding, and if they have been kept up to date on this issue.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, our forestry producers have been somewhat at the table, but not at the table to the extent that they would like to be.

As we have heard time and again, the Liberals like to negotiate in secret and then come out and make some grand announcement as to how it has gone, but our producers, whether they are agri-food or forestry, would like to be more at the table and in charge of, or working in concert with, what the trade negotiations are.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, as it is my first time rising in the House in debate, I would be remiss if I did not thank the wonderful constituents of the riding of Saint John—Rothesay for re-electing me and sending me back to this beautiful House and this beautiful city to represent them. It was a hard-fought campaign.

I want to thank and congratulate other candidates like Rodney Weston, Armand Cormier and Ann McAlllister for offering spirited debate and great dialogue throughout the campaign. Again, it is an honour to be back here.

I was looking at some records the other day, and I have been in Ottawa almost 600 nights over the last four and a half years. Everybody recognizes the large commitment we all make and the time that we take away from our families. I want to recognize my beautiful wife Denise and my sons Khristian and Konnor for supporting me, putting up with me and standing with me over the last four and a half years.

I want to thank my wonderful campaign team: my co-campaign managers Kevin Collins and Nora Robinson; and last but not least, Jeannette Arsenault and my wonderful office staff for doing great things for the riding, representing my constituents.

It is an honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States and the United Mexican States.

I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for her outstanding work in negotiating the new North American Free Trade Agreement, known as the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, with the United States and Mexico. It is thanks to her hard work, leadership, vision and perseverance that we now have a modernized and improved free trade agreement with our North American partners.

As the member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay, I represent a riding with an economy dependent on international trade and, as a result, thousands of workers in my riding depend on their elected representatives to ensure Canada's trading agreements protect their jobs, rights and environment. This is why I am proud to stand here today to speak in support of legislation that intends to implement a modernized NAFTA, which contains unprecedented measures to protect the well-paying jobs of workers in my riding, whose jobs depend on trade with the United States and Mexico, ensure labour standards are upheld and protect the environment.

Before my previous life in hockey, I was involved for 15 years in international trade and business with an aquaculture company. I travelled the world and extensively throughout the United States. If anybody knows the value of a trade agreement, of lowering barriers, lowering and eliminating tariffs and creating an environment of free and open trade, I certainly do. It produces thousands of jobs in my riding and hundreds of thousands of jobs right across the country.

Saint John is a key node in Canada's global trade network. The port of Saint John is Canada's third-busiest seaport and eastern Canada's largest port by volume. It serves Canada's largest oil refinery, the Irving Oil refinery, and handles a diverse cargo base. It handles an average of 28 million metric tons of cargo annually, including dry and liquid bulks, break bulk and containers originating from and destined to ports all over the world.

My riding is also home to a second world headquarters, Cooke Aquaculture Inc., an international aquaculture firm that employs thousands of people, has sales in the billions of the dollars and was started by the Cooke family. Glenn, Mike and their father Gifford live literally 35 minutes from my office. It is a success story that is an example of leadership.

Our port is also in the midst of a historic expansion. It is currently undertaking a $205-million modernization of its west-side cargo terminal. This transformational trade infrastructure project was made possible by the $68.3-million investment by our federal government. In addition, CP Rail announced in November that it will begin serving the port of Saint John as it has purchased close to 800 kilometres of track which runs from Saint John deep into the state of Maine. This means that the port of Saint John will soon be connected to both of Canada's class I railways.

The new NAFTA, which our government is seeking to implement with the bill before us, would ensure that the port of Saint John is able to fully leverage its expansion and the incredible opportunity by preserving our tariff-free access to the American market and ensuring that the other North American ports it competes with comply with the same rigorous environmental standards as it does when it comes to preventing marine pollution through its enforceable environmental chapter.

I am thrilled to tell members that New Brunswick is on the cusp of becoming an international leader in manufacturing and export of small modular nuclear reactors. In 2018, ARC Nuclear Canada and Moltex Energy established offices in Saint John when the provincial government announced its nuclear innovation cluster funding for which they were both chosen as participants. With this announcement, the province of New Brunswick instantly became a climate change policy leader for Canada with the development of SMRs. Since that time, ARC and Moltex have proceeded with purpose to develop their technologies with the goal of eventually establishing a manufacturing export hub for their technologies in our province by leveraging the port of Saint John.

SMRs can employ thousands of people across New Brunswick. Also, if members want to talk about reducing a carbon footprint, SMRs could be used across the country in every province. The new NAFTA would ensure that our province is able to fully leverage this incredible opportunity to grow our economy and tackle climate change by ensuring that we continue with tariff-free access to the American and Mexican markets. As well, it would ensure that our SMR technology companies do not have to compete against companies in other North American jurisdictions that do not have to comply with rigorous environmental standards for air and marine pollution through its enforceable environmental chapter.

This agreement also includes an unprecedented enforcement provision when it comes to labour standards to address, in a timely manner, labour violations relative to collective bargaining and freedom of association. The agreement also includes innovation mechanisms for rapid response between Canada and Mexico and between the United States and Mexico.

To close, as I mentioned previously, I was in international trade for 15 years and I know what it means to have an agreement that reduces tariffs and barriers and promotes free trade. It is crucial to the success of business. It is crucial to the growth of business. It is crucial to the development of business.

I am proud to stand behind this bill. I am proud to support it. I know first-hand that Canadians appreciate what we have done. I can certainly speak for the world leaders, constituents, unions and businesses in my riding who stand with me in support of this new bill.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked quite a bit in his speech about the port of Saint John. He mentioned the refinery as well, which is one of the largest refineries in Canada.

However, there was a tremendous lost opportunity for the port in his city. We talk about trade and exports, and I know that the member had been an advocate for the export of oil and gas products through the port. There was a tremendous number of jobs at stake with the prospect of a pipeline going through his port. I wonder if the member could comment on that and on the importance of being able to export Canadian energy through the port of Saint John.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, my friend opposite is obviously referring to energy east and the history behind energy east. I do not think it is any secret that I stood in this House and in my constituency and supported energy east. That being said, the only way that project was ever going to happen was to have consultation and buy-in across the country.

The Leader of the Opposition at that time, on his own website, said that he was listening to Quebeckers and that he was going to stand in support of Quebec's jurisdiction and rights. I asked him how he squared what he said there with what he said in other parts of the country. Of course I did not get an answer.

I fully respect the fact that our port needs to export, and I stand behind that.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question that was asked by the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge was germane to the discussion because we are talking about many things within this piece of legislation including Canada's prosperity, and energy east would have led to Canada's prosperity.

Would the hon. member across the way not admit that it was his government that moved the goalposts with respect to the environmental assessment process that caused energy east to be cancelled?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I lived it. My constituents of Saint John—Rothesay absolutely agree with what I was saying because they sent me back here to represent them. That project was going nowhere under the previous government of members opposite. Everyone knew it, they knew it; the project was stalled. The Conservatives had gutted the environmental process. There was no credibility left with anything.

We tried our best to reboot. It was not in the cards. My riding has moved on. My riding is looking forward, industry in my riding is looking forward, and we are ready to turn the page.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding, one of the biggest challenges in this trade agreement, and actually cumulatively through the multiple trade agreements that have happened, is really impacting my dairy farmers. I have several dairy farms in my riding and the farmers are very concerned about when it will be and what the compensation is actually going to look like and of course, most important, that we see stronger protection of supply management, which provides us with safe milk and dairy products. I wonder if the member could speak a bit about how he sees this being lost and what that does to rural and remote communities.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, my riding of Saint John—Rothesay is 30 minutes from the town of Sussex, which has a diverse, growing, innovative and vibrant dairy industry. That industry was consulted. That industry was in the loop. We have worked with that industry to make sure that it will be protected with any changes in the agreement. That industry is satisfied with where we are. In fact, I am meeting with members from that industry this week in my office here in Ottawa, and we will continue to consult. We will continue to work with that industry and grow that industry vital to New Brunswick.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to take part in my first debate here on the floor of the House of Commons. Before I proceed, I want to take a moment to thank a number of individuals, as well as my constituents, for putting their faith in me. I want to thank the people of Fort Erie, Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake for the trust they have placed in me.

My loving wife Carol and son Daniel, as well as my entire family, have been my strongest supporters and I would not be standing here at this moment without their love and support. I thank them all dearly from the bottom of my heart. My only regret is not having my dad or father-in-law here to see it, but I know they are watching from above, with my son David, his cousin Leo, my cousins Michael and Maria, and my late aunts and uncles. They have all helped shape who I am today.

I thank those who have volunteered their time in my nomination and during my campaign for placing in me their confidence and unwavering support. I thank the Hon. Rob Nicholson, my political mentor, for his sound advice, guidance and wisdom. As many members of the House will know, Rob proudly and loyally served his constituents and our country for an incredible 24 years.

There is no greater reward in this profession than being able to help those who need it most. I thank Rob for everything he has done and will continue to do in his well-earned retirement.

When I announced my intentions to run for public office, I stated that I was doing so because I believed in building a better future for our country and for those who are fortunate enough to call Niagara their home. Now that we are here in this place as elected parliamentarians, I am looking forward to working with members of all parties to advance our country's best interests.

It is a great privilege to speak in the House today to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. It is worth noting the Conservative Party of Canada is the party of free trade. I am proud of that. It is a Conservative legacy. The original North American Free Trade Agreement originated from our party's hard work on the free trade file many years ago.

Canada's Conservatives support free trade with our North American trading partners. However, what we do not support is rushing blindly into an agreement to implement a deal, the details of which have not yet been shared.

Over a month ago, our party requested that the Liberals provide us with details of the economic impact studies of this signed agreement. To date, we are still waiting, as are many of the Canadian industries that rely on this deal.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to analyze all legislation that is brought before the House, including this bill. Canadians expect their representatives in this chamber to do this, as they should. Our party is committed to conducting this due diligence on their behalf. Therefore, we once again ask for the background documents and the economic impact studies so we can make an informed decision on this incredibly important free trade agreement.

In the federal riding of Niagara Falls, my constituents want to see us work together to create more opportunities for trade, job creation and investment. Delivering a workable free trade deal that could lead to this opportunity, and provide certainty for our manufacturers in the Golden Horseshoe and beyond, is my goal and, I hope, the goal of all members here.

The highest-valued provincial exporter to the United States is Ontario. However, we must not cheer too quickly, because the value of these exports in 2018 declined over 2017.

The uncertainty caused by the renegotiation of NAFTA and the lack of any detailed information or economic impact studies provided by the current government is worrisome. According to Statistics Canada, there were fewer Ontarians employed in manufacturing in December 2019 compared with December 2018, despite employment growing overall in the province by 3.3%.

Manufacturing had been the historical economic backbone of my riding of Niagara Falls. However, partially because of the economic uncertainty over the past number of years, manufacturing jobs have packed up and left.

We need to create certainty in our business environment. We can do it by working together to study this trade agreement, identify its benefits and its deficiencies and put in place plans to overcome the deficiencies that will negatively impact Canadian industries.

In my riding, there are residents at work in the auto sector in nearby St. Catharines. We used to have three automotive manufacturing plants by General Motors, employing thousands of employees in that city. Today, only one engine plant remains.

We do not want to see this industry get any smaller in our part of the country. These are important jobs that support hard-working families. Any negative impacts on the auto sector from the new NAFTA would cause hardship for these workers, their families and the overall local economy. Without our being supplied economic impact studies, it is very difficult to know what economic impacts there could be and how these may impact our local economies and Canadian industries.

Just going by what we know, the Liberals negotiated changes to the rules of origin for our auto manufacturing industry. Now 70% of the steel used in new vehicles must be melted and poured in North America. That is good protection for our domestic steel industry, and I do not think anyone would argue it is not a positive change.

Unfortunately, the Liberals seem to have dropped the ball during the trade negotiations by accepting concessions on aluminum production. There are no North American content rules governing the melting and pouring of aluminum used in the manufacturing of autos and parts. Does that mean Chinese aluminum could make its way into Mexican-made engines or car components? The engine plant in St. Catharines will have to compete against that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the member. Unfortunately the time allotted for debate has expired, but he will have three minutes to finish up his speech the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, when the hon. parliamentary secretary asks that all questions be allowed to stand, typically the question will be put to the House for us to provide that unanimous consent. I believe that did not occur.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed that all questions be allowed to stand?