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 Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech, as I do with so many of my speeches, with an anecdote. I am privileged to have the opportunity to be here in the House to represent the good people of Calgary Midnapore and be their voice, and I am going to tell one of my favourite stories.

Several years ago, when I was a younger and fitter woman, I won the gold award from the Duke of Edinburgh. I was very excited to achieve and receive this award. I know that many young Canadians from coast to coast to coast strive for this award and the many different levels that can be achieved. I was very motivated by this gold award. It had numerous components. It had fitness, outdoors and community-service components. I undertook going after this award with great vigour and went on to achieve it, and it was presented to me by Prince Philip. It was wonderful to have the opportunity to meet him. I wish him and his family well at this time. That was one of my major introductions to the United Kingdom and all that it has to offer.

Of course, my interest in foreign affairs and diplomacy would continue, and in the early 2000s, when I wrote the foreign service exam and fortunately was accepted, I went on temporary duty to Argentina. I then went on to be the chargé d'affaires to El Salvador, which was a very proud moment for me.

It was a wonderful time to represent Canada abroad. As the chargé, when the head of mission is out of the country, I had the honour to act as Canada's representative. My accreditation ceremony was in El Salvador at the presidential palace. We had taken the motorcade through the nation, and when I received my accreditation along with my ambassador, I was told to always remain behind the ambassador except when she was out of the country. I was very proud to take on that role.

On one occasion I had an interesting bit of fortune. When Bill C-4, the Central American four agreement, was being negotiated with Canada, one round of negotiations was going to take place at a time when the head of mission was out of the country. As such, I became the representative. I was very excited and nervous. I went to the secure room, as a diplomat did back in the day, where a fax was printed out. I took the fax and read the notes over and over again about the positions on pork and sugar. I prepared and prepared.

The big moment came and I went off to the trade minister's office in El Salvador with my papers and my positions ready. The trade minister approached me, took the envelope out of my hand and told me to tell my government that El Salvador would get back to it in two weeks. The big moment I had prepared for had come and gone.

My point here is that diplomats only do what their governments ask them to do. I would later go on to speak about this in the chamber when our current leader of the official opposition asked me to respond to a situation that unfortunately took place at our high commission in India, after the government's administration organized an event and an accused terrorist was there. I went through the process of responding to this in the House. I walked the caucus through what goes into vetting a list of individuals who are invited to an event and what that looks like.

I still remain true to the fact that a diplomat and a trade negotiator only do what their government asks them to do, as was my experience with the Bill C-4 negotiation, which unfortunately did dissolve, and I believe ended up being a unilateral agreement with Honduras. Nonetheless something came out of it.

My sentiments right now in regard to the response of the government on so many things, but also in regard to this agreement as well, is disappointment, because so much more could be done. I think about what could have been the potential response for this pandemic in terms of trade opportunities. Certainly, it has been a very difficult year. We are coming up on the one-year anniversary, when we were all sent home from this beautiful chamber.

When this was occurring and we were seeing world forces shifting, I was considering the fact that it would be an incredible time for Canada to re-evaluate its position in the world. Were I the prime minister, I would have done a complete evaluation of our inventory from coast to coast to coast of natural resources, from energy, minerals, agriculture and textile, and really looked at how markets were changing and emerging, perhaps with less reliance on China and Europe turning inward to evaluate those opportunities.

We see opportunities missed within this legislation. This is a theme, unfortunately, with the government. What I am pointing to with the unfortunate situation that happened in India and with this trade agreement is that the government has had no guiding values for foreign policy. We have seen this time and time again. We have seen this with how it is handling the situation with China and the two Michaels who remain incarcerated. We saw this with the government's lack of will and gumption to stand up to China in regard to the Uighur motion. We saw this with the current deputy minister's tweets regarding Saudi Arabia. We saw this with a stance I wish would have been more firm regarding Venezuela.

All of these indicators have shown that the government has no foreign policy values. Again, this trade agreement is just a by-product of the government's inability to have a coherent strategic foreign policy that looks out for the best interests of Canadians and for Canada.

What makes me the most sad is when I think of the opportunities missed, comparably to the previous administration, of which the previous speaker belonged, and of the greats, of Harper and Kenney and Baird. I was very fortunate at the time to be a policy adviser. I took one year away from my foreign service career to serve the current member for Thornhill who was minister of state for the Americas at the time.

We had principles which guided us. Those included among them, democracy. Are we really standing up for democracy here in Canada and acting as an example to the world currently? I do not think we are. Are we standing up for justice? I do not think we are. Are we standing up for the prosperity of the world and the prosperity of Canadians right now? I do not think we are. I am certainly not seeing it within this trade agreement.

I extend this beyond this trade agreement. As I said, I feel as though the Liberal government has been a government of missed opportunities. We have seen this with the pandemic, the opportunity to prepare better, to prepare Canadians better, to avoid so much of the hardship, illness and death that we have seen as a result of this terrible last year, a result of not preparing better for the economy and missed opportunities here. I would include this trade agreement within this the inability to look forward.

This is the crux of the opposition motion that we have had here today, the inability to think forward for Canada's economic prosperity. Finally, it is the opportunity missed for foreign policy, to stand up for strong values, Canadian values, and that includes with this trade agreement.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic Relationship

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

moved:

That, given that trade between Canada and the United States of America exceeds $1.5-billion per day, more than 300,000 people normally cross the common border monthly, the two countries have enjoyed one of the world's largest open trading blocs for the free movement of goods, services and people since 1989, the economic challenges caused by COVID-19, and the need for a serious plan for the economic recovery that recognizes the integration of the North American economy, the House appoint a special committee with the mandate to conduct hearings to examine and review all aspects of the economic relationship between Canada and the United States, including, but not limited to

(i) the expressed bilateral economic priorities of the governments of Canada and the United States,

(ii) natural resources issues, including oil and gas exports and transportation, softwood lumber exports, and related jobs,

(iii) "Buy America" procurement rules, requirements and policies,

(iv) the government's efforts with the United States' administration to ensure a stable and predictable supply of COVID-19 vaccine doses for Canada as a major border and trading partner,

provided that:

(a) the committee be composed of 12 members, of which six shall be from the government party, four shall be from the official opposition, one shall be from the Bloc Québécois, and one shall be from the New Democratic Party;

(b) the members shall be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than Thursday, February 18, 2021;

(c) membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(d) changes to the membership of the committee shall be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(e) the Clerk of the House shall convene an organization meeting of the committee on Tuesday, February 23, 2021;

(f) the committee be chaired by a member of the government party and, notwithstanding Standing Order 106(2), there shall be one vice-chair from each of the other recognized parties;

(g) quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118 and that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government party;

(h) the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders, provided that (i) the provisions of Standing Order 106(4) shall also extend to the committee, (ii) until Sunday, April 11, 2021, the committee shall not meet on a day when the House is sitting, except for (A) the meeting required by paragraph (e), (B) the committee's subcommittee on agenda, if one is appointed;

(i) the committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;

(j) the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, the Ambassador of Canada to the United States of America, and other ministers and senior officials be invited to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit;

(k) the committee be instructed to present an interim report, concerning an analysis of the importance of the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline to both countries' economies and the consequences of its possible closure, including the labour market implications caused by layoffs of unionized and other workers, together with recommendations to address and safeguard Canadian interests, no later than Thursday, April 15, 2021;

(l) the committee be instructed to present a second interim report, concerning current and proposed "Buy America" procurement rules, requirements and policies, together with recommendations to address and safeguard Canadian interests, no later than Thursday, June 17, 2021; and

(m) the provisions of the order adopted on Monday, January 25, 2021, authorizing virtual and hybrid committee proceedings, shall continue to apply to the committee and any of its subcommittees until Sunday, September 19, 2021.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I am proud today to speak on our official opposition day and bring forward a Conservative motion to create a special committee worthy of our focus, which is the economic relationship between Canada and the United States. It is long past the time when the government was being proactive rather than reactive in terms of our relationship with the United States, but the motion before the House today will allow us to do exactly that.

Trade between Canada and the U.S. exceeds $1.5 billion per day. Our partnership with the United States is of critical importance. Our two countries share more than a just a border. We share common ideals, and many Canadians and Americans work and live across our borders and have family or friends who reside on the other side of the border. Their lives are integrated. Our business relationships provide countless jobs across the country with our two-way trade.

Since the ratification of NAFTA in 1994, and more recently with CUSMA, our two nations have enjoyed the benefits of the free movement of goods, services and people. It is a strong relationship that has become only stronger over time. However, like every relationship, it takes effort and work.

I know many of my colleagues today will speak on a wide range of challenges that affect different sectors across our country, some old and some new, which highlight the need for this committee.

We have had Keystone XL cancelled and other pipeline issues, such as Line 5, which may lead to immediate fuel shortages in Ontario and Quebec, higher fuel prices and the loss of thousands of jobs; tariff issues; disputes on softwood lumber, dairy, and aluminum; low-priced Washington apples being dumped into Canada; stricter buy American policies; and investigations on several of our fruit and vegetable exports to the U.S.

We need strategic focus. Most of us on this side of the House come from the private sector. We have been entrepreneurs. We have founded and operated companies. We have been in senior leadership roles. We have been involved in strategic planning and risk management, and we have been responsible for people’s livelihoods. We have foregone pay cheques ourselves to make sure our workers, who often become our friends, get paid.

We take seriously people being able to keep their jobs and support their families. Leadership is acknowledging when there are areas that need focus. It is common practice and good governance to put extra effort into important topics.

Striking this committee would be comparable in the business environment to an ad hoc committee, which would have a specific goal or focus and exist for a set amount of time. At the international trade committee we already have several studies cued up. We are quite behind due to sitting only once between April and September 2020, partially due to the prorogation of Parliament. Other committees are in a similar position.

This Canada-U.S. committee would allow the freedom to focus on the important relationship with this partner. There is a new U.S. administration from which we have already seen some new policies that are affecting businesses and workers in Canada, and that are affecting everyday lives in important sectors.

Our economies and supply chains are integrated, and I will explain what that really means. We may have the raw materials in one country, let us say the U.S., which are shipped to the other country, Canada, where a product is made in a Canadian business, and then sent back to the U.S. and perhaps turned into another item. This is the integration of our supply chains. This happens every day across our border in multiple industries, likely in the ridings of almost every member of the House.

The Prime Minister’s response to important Canada-U.S. economic issues has been concern or disappointment. Canadian businesses and workers deserve hope and plans. Concern and disappointment are not enough, and they are neither a strategy nor a plan.

One emerging issue is the new buy American executive order signed by President Biden, which has stronger language than we have seen before. This executive order creates a new made in America office within the President’s office. It will substantially reduce the ability for Canadian businesses to participate in U.S. government procurement contracts.

We have already heard from business groups that are concerned, and there is a lot of uncertainly. A small manufacturing business in my riding explained to me that they sell through a distributor in the U.S., which sells to a department of the U.S. federal government. It is unclear if this new buy American policy will outright stop them being able to have these sales.

In 2019, Canadian companies had nearly 700 million dollars' worth of government contracts in the United States. I spoke with a representative of an industry association the other day who thought this might actually be higher due to the integration of our supply chains.

When buy America provisions were announced by the Obama administration a decade ago, the previous Conservative government got to work. They showed those on both sides of the border the importance of the integrated North American supply chain and that promoting and ensuring our mutual economic recoveries were important during the financial crisis of that time. The then Conservative government negotiated an agreement that allowed Canadian companies to be exempt from buy America policies and to continue participating in U.S. government procurement.

We need our current government to work immediately to do the same to ensure stability for our local manufacturing businesses and workers, who depend on this cross-border supply chain. We are in a vulnerable position because, while the buy America policy is addressed in chapter 13 of CUSMA, Canada did not negotiate this and it only applies to the U.S. and Mexico.

The establishment of a special committee on Canada-U.S. economic relations would allow members of Parliament to do a comprehensive dive into the Biden administration's buy America rules. This motion before us specifically addresses instructing the committee to present an interim report on this matter.

Regarding another emerging issue in the past, 31 of my colleagues in the official opposition and I sent a letter to the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food urging immediate government attention. Last September, the United States International Trade Commission began an investigation on U.S. blueberry imports. Additional investigations began on strawberries and bell peppers. Canada was the fourth-largest producer of total U.S. blueberry imports in 2019 and, according to the BC Blueberry Council, was the largest supplier of frozen blueberries. These numbers represent $750 million of our exports to the U.S., which support 8,300 farming families and thousands of direct and indirect jobs.

Our hard-working farmers play an integral role in the economy, and we urge the government for immediate action on this. Apple orchardists in my riding are selling below cost due to large quantities of low-priced apples coming in from the U.S., and many are near bankruptcy. The creation of this special committee would allow us to get ahead of these issues.

We also cannot forget that our forestry workers are still looking for stability and a resolution to the current softwood lumber dispute. The previous Conservative government successfully negotiated a softwood lumber agreement with the U.S. government providing this much-needed certainty. Unfortunately, the current government has yet to reach a similar agreement. While I welcome reduced duties on Canadian softwood lumber exports, which were announced last November, this would not have been an issue if we had been able to negotiate a new softwood lumber agreement with the United States.

When we were debating Bill C-4, the CUSMA implementation bill, around this same time last year, I recall the Conservatives raised the issue of the softwood lumber dispute not being addressed by the government then. This was a missed opportunity, as there were over 6,000 jobs lost in the second quarter of 2020 alone.

In my maiden speech of this House in 2019, I raised the issue of the only lumber mill in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, the Kelowna division of Tolko, announcing its decision to close at the beginning of 2020, creating hardship for all those families. This has been a trend in our resource sectors. It is important that we stand up for our responsible resource sectors, a backbone of our economy. We need to get the government to succeed in removing countervailing measures on softwood lumber exports and stand up for Canadian resources, agriculture and manufacturing sectors.

I know my colleagues in this House across all party lines will talk on a number of important issues. I will move this conversation forward. We are talking about food security, energy security and mutual economic recovery. With the establishment of this committee, we can strengthen our resolve when acting on the best interests of Canadians.

We must start planning to rebuild, reopen our economy and get Canadians back to work. We are focused on securing jobs, our economy and our future. I encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of this motion, so we can get to work.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Matters

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Chair, with all due respect, I have to completely disagree with the member's statement and assertion. We have been working hard for workers from the time we were elected. Right off the bat, we had the implementation of Bill C-4, repealing Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which were anti-union pieces legislation.

Let us look at some standards and enhancements that we have implemented: stronger labour standards, enhanced leaves, new leaves and flexible work hours. We have and we will continue to work hard for our workers in Canada.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

This afternoon we will continue debate on the NDP motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-4 on the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States. We hope to conclude the debate that afternoon.

When hon. colleagues return from the constituency week, we will follow up with Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, Bill C-8 on conversion therapy and Bill C-3 on CBSA oversight.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that Monday, March 23, and Thursday, March 26, shall be allotted days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

With that, I'd like to thank the witnesses for sharing their stories and educating us on the realities that are facing Canadians today.

I'd like to ask the members to stay momentarily. We need to have a quick review of the three study budgets, including the one on Bill C-4, which has already been concluded, so that we can reimburse witnesses for some of their expenses.

I will let the clerk explain the documentation in front of you with respect to the three study budgets.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, which I will be supporting, as it turns out.

I am very satisfied with the work my political party did in the spirit of openness and collaboration. However, I would say this victory was bittersweet, because an economic sector was once again left out of this agreement. I am referring to softwood lumber. The forestry sector gets no respect from the Canadian federation and is constantly overlooked. That is holding me back from fully celebrating our victory on aluminum.

At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the Canadian negotiator told me that he did not include softwood lumber in CUSMA because he had to focus on other priorities. I think the phrase “focus on other priorities” says it all. It is the Canadian mantra. What are the priorities of Canada's economy? Ontario's auto industry and western Canada's oil industry, the same as for the past 25 years.

Is it perhaps because of a power imbalance? The Bloc Québécois now has 32 seats, and I feel like things are changing. However, Quebec's economic sectors are consistently ignored. The expression “focusing on other priorities” makes me think. Negotiations with the United States on softwood lumber are always pushed back.

This makes me think of an expression I often hear among federalists: “The fruit is not ripe enough”. When we talk about constitutional negotiations, many federalists use this somewhat perverse rhetoric: “The fruit is not ripe enough”. It appears to me that the fruit of federalism is currently rotting on the tree when it comes to softwood lumber and our role within this federation.

I do not want to only play the blame game, but I would like to come back to the importance of Quebec's forestry industry. It is important to note that Quebec has 2% of the world's forests, an area of 760,000 square kilometres, or the equivalent of Sweden and Norway combined. The industry provides 58,000 direct and indirect jobs in Quebec. The forestry industry is currently the economic driver of 160 of our municipalities.

If you look at Canada as a whole, the forestry sector provides 600,000 direct and indirect jobs, which is not insignificant. I cannot stress enough that we are facing global warming, and many experts have identified the forestry sector as our best shot at fighting climate change.

Our greatest misfortune, however, is that the United States is our main trading partner in the forestry industry, taking in 68% of our forest product exports. I find that unfortunate because I have the impression that the Canadian government has never really made much of an effort to develop new markets.

I am always amazed when I go to France and I see all kinds of infrastructure, bridges and big buildings built of wood or glulam even though France lacks the primary resource that is wood. We have it, but I feel like we are not doing anything with it.

Since the 2000s, the forestry industry has gone through tough times because the pulp and paper industry has gone through tough times now that less and less newsprint is being sold. We need to find new market opportunities. All this was exacerbated by a string of crises during negotiations with the United States.

During a Standing Committee on Natural Resources meeting, Beth MacNeil, Assistant Deputy Minister for Natural Resources Canada's Canadian Forest Service, told us that the forestry industry is at a crossroads. I thought that was very interesting. If my girlfriend told me we were at a crossroads, I would definitely be afraid because that would mean I had not taken care of her and had a lot to make up for.

The Canadian government is now at a crossroads with the forestry industry because past governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have chosen to focus on the oil industry in the west and Ontario's auto industry, not on the softwood lumber industry at all.

I see two big issues here. We have these trade agreements, which sometimes create barriers for the forestry sector, but we also have research and development. I find one statistic particularly interesting: From the early 1970s to the late 2000s, Canadians collectively invested $70 billion in the oil sands because that technology was not profitable. My father would call that a pretty penny, not to mention it was a raw deal for us. Of that $70 billion, $14 billion came from Quebec.

One thing of note that is troublesome and that I want to focus on is Dutch disease. A few years ago, PricewaterhouseCoopers reported that when the Canadian dollar appreciates by one cent, there is an immediate domino effect and the forestry industry loses $500 million. It is an export industry, which requires that it be competitive. Investing $70 billion in the oil industry is a blow to the forestry industry. The circumstances are different today and I hope that the government will take action.

I would quickly like to review the impact on the forestry sector of the two main downturns. The first downturn, which began in 2003 and ended in 2008, resulted in the loss of 11,329 forestry jobs in Quebec alone. From January 2009 to January 2012, 8,600 jobs were lost. The government of the day took no action. I remember that the Conservatives promised to provide loan guarantees for the forestry industry in 2005.

What is troublesome is that the U.S. strategy is to ensure that major forestry producers are worn down. When that happens, they end up signing a cheap agreement. I believe that this happened often. There has been no agreement since 2017. Thus, I believe that this is happening again. They want to wear down the forestry industry so it accepts a cheap agreement. In the meantime, the government is not taking action. It is not offering loan guarantees. Neither Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions nor Export Development Canada has brought forward a strategy for developing new markets. There is no investment in research and development. No, the government prefers to focus on the usual sectors, the oil and automotive industries.

To sum up, from 2005 to 2011, Quebec's forestry industry lost 30% of its workforce, going from 130,000 workers in 2005 to barely 99,000 in 2011. From 2004 to 2005 and from 2012 to 2013, there was a 38% drop in jobs in silviculture and in timber harvesting, which reduced job numbers to a little more than 10,000 in those areas. It is disastrous for Quebec and again the government did not learn from its mistakes. In the CUSMA negotiation, it preferred to deliver that famous speech about the fruit not being quite ripe enough. At some point, we are going to take matters into our own hands and harvest our own fruit. We will become our own country.

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

Madam Speaker, we certainly played our cards well. We maintained the same public stance by holding the government's feet to the fire and voting against Bill C-4 at first and second reading.

We negotiated with the government behind the scenes while keeping the pressure on it publicly. Ultimately, we made a great proposal. The government had no choice but to accept it and acknowledge that it was good. The collaboration started then. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs went to Washington, and we got a commitment from the government. All in all, I am pretty proud of the strategy used by the Bloc Québécois. We proved once again that we can get the job done.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be rising in the House again, this time to speak to Bill C-4 and also the aluminum industry.

I first want to acknowledge all those who worked hard to ensure that the Bloc Québécois could support the agreement. This includes elected officials, such as the mayor of Alma, Marc Asselin; the mayor of Saguenay, Josée Néron; union representatives, in particular Éric Drolet, Sylvain Maltais and Alain Gagnon; as well as economic stakeholders.

People were indeed expecting us to vote, but they wanted us to be voting for gains. Instead of ordering us to shut up and vote no questions asked, they instead chose to work with us, which worked out really well in the end.

Indeed, it was a pretty good idea. We used the full power of our positions to ensure that the fundamental interests of Quebec and its regions were protected. We were not simply criticizing without making any suggestions.

It may have been a long shot back in December, since the House seems to have forgotten that an opposition can do more than oppose for the sake of opposing. We had to believe that it was possible to make gains. Clearly, our belief ultimately paid off.

I will come back to the steps that finally led me to say that I would vote in favour of Bill C-4. It think they are worth mentioning, mainly for those who are watching at home and who are wondering what happened between two days before CUSMA was ratified and now regarding the loss of protection for aluminum.

On December 10, we learned that aluminum was no longer protected, as my colleague from Joliette so clearly pointed out. The government abandoned the aluminum industry even though aluminum is Quebec's second-largest export. What is worse, the government considered the matter to be closed for the next 10 years. That was a disaster for us and for many stakeholders in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the North Shore and central Quebec.

On December 12, we clearly announced our intentions. We would not vote in favour of the agreement unless aluminum was given the same protections as steel. Even the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was on our side. He told the media that he planned to vote against the agreement. He issued a press release with us, which basically said the following:

There are some good things in the agreement, but the lack of protection for the aluminum industry is unacceptable...my constituents will always come first. The aluminum industry was not respected...and unless something is done to secure our place on the North American market or unless export programs are put in place, I am seriously considering voting against the agreement.

That has changed, but that is what he was saying not too long ago.

I imagine that he trusted us to do the rest. The following week, on December 19, we took part in a demonstration, without him, but with many unions, business owners, and municipal and provincial officials from all across Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. More people turned out than for LNG.

Aluminum has been a big industry for us for 100 years. What is more, the aluminum produced in my region and in Quebec is the greenest in the world.

Fundamentally, however, what everyone needs to remember is that when all this started, the Bloc Québécois were the only ones saying aluminum had not received the same protection as steel, because we were the only ones who had read the agreement carefully.

Curiously enough, the steel industry is concentrated in Ontario, and the aluminum industry, as we now know, is almost exclusively located in Quebec. In fact, 90% of Canada's aluminum is produced in Quebec, and 60% of that comes from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is no surprise, really. Quebec is starting to get used to being used as a pawn in international treaties and being sacrificed for the sake of Ontario's auto industry and western Canada's oil industry.

We were the only ones saying it, while the Liberals kept trotting out the same old convoluted talking points. After repeating our arguments and proving them in debate, we eventually got the NDP and the Conservatives on our side. However, the Liberals continued to deny the sad truth. Unlike our colleagues in the other opposition parties, we could not let down our aluminum workers. We could not vote for the implementation of the agreement. There was just no way we could do that.

I may have mentioned this before, but I stuck a little note to the side of my nightstand that says, “Who do you work for”. It is the first thing I see every morning. The answer to that question is that I work for my constituents, for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and for Quebeckers as a whole.

What do we do in this situation?

Some people said we were on our own. They did not reckon on the courage, strength and determination of our people. Our people mobilized, and we supported them politically and technically. We were not alone, and they were no longer alone. They all came here, to Ottawa, at the end of January, to air their concerns. Elected officials, workers and economic players from our regions came here to share their concerns, and they brought a study with them.

Basically, the study said that 30,000 jobs would be at risk if the expansion phases did not go through. Investments worth $6.2 billion were in jeopardy. That would have been $1 billion in economic spinoffs every year for 10 years gone if the agreement was not changed and a real solution not found. We needed a concrete proposal to provide better protection for aluminum.

Considering those massive numbers, should we have just sat there twiddling our thumbs?

We are talking about the vitality of our regions and of Quebec as a whole. We are talking about our families and our children, and that is why we all took a stand.

We did more than just criticize; that would not be our style. We also proposed a solution. Initially, no one on the other side of the House was listening to us. Life is like that, but only a fool will not change his mind. In the end, the Liberals did listen to reason. I will give them that, and I thank them for it.

The Liberals agreed to negotiate, and we finally reached an agreement. At the end of the day, some of my hon. colleagues were able to set partisanship aside and put the interests of their constituents ahead of the interests of the parties in the House.

There are many things that divide us in this place. For instance, I strongly believe that Quebec should become a country, and as soon as possible. Despite the obvious differences in our political perspectives, we were able to secure a win and ensure that aluminum would be better protected. It was a Bloc Québécois proposal, but it was the Deputy Prime Minister who brought that proposal to Washington. I thank her for that.

Imagine what would have happened if we had just remained in our seats and voted in favour of implementing the agreement without making any demands. It is not complicated. If the Bloc had acted like all the other parties in the House, our aluminum workers would have been left out in the cold. The regions in Quebec would have been abandoned. Quebec's economy would have once again been the big loser in another international treaty signed by Ottawa.

This House was then able to see the principles that guide the Bloc Québécois. Above all, we are guided by our conscience. There is no denying that we have had a positive influence on how work is done in the House. So much the better if the other parties represented here are inspired by our approach. In the end, it is the men and women we represent who come out on top.

Who do we work for? I know. Now it is up to all my hon. colleagues to answer that question.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-4, an act to ratify the new free trade agreement among Canada, the United States and Mexico, sometimes referred to as the new NAFTA. Whatever one wishes to label the agreement, one thing is clear and that is, for Canadians, it falls far short of a win.

Before I elaborate on some of the shortcomings with respect to the new agreement, it is important to provide some context in terms of the history of how we got to where we are.

In November 2016, President Trump was elected, and it is no secret that President Trump was no fan of NAFTA. Indeed, he called it the worst trade deal ever. In the face of that, it was a little surprising that the Prime Minister pre-emptively invited the President to renegotiate NAFTA. The Prime Minister, ever so confident, stated that he would get a better deal. The Prime Minister boasted about a win-win-win: a win for Canada, a win for the United States and a win for Mexico.

It is no surprise that, given the President's position on NAFTA, he took the Prime Minister up on his offer at the earliest opportunity. What did the Prime Minister do once he got his wish? Effectively, he put forward a whole series of non-trade issues that alienated the United States. During the course of negotiations, we saw punitive steel and aluminum tariffs levelled against Canada that had a devastating impact that lasted for more than a year.

The Prime Minister spent a lot of time doing what this Prime Minister does: virtue signalling while Canadians paid. The United States concluded that Canada was not interested in reaching a deal. The United States negotiated a deal with Mexico. Most aspects of this agreement were negotiated between the United States and Mexico, including steel provisions and other components of the agreement. Canada was invited in at the eleventh hour when there were few items to resolve. In that respect, it was a fait accompli. The government was left with very little choice, either to sign the agreement or walk away. In the face of that, it is no surprise that Canada signed the agreement.

As a result of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership, what we got was not the better deal that the Prime Minister promised, but a worse deal. Instead of a win-win-win, a win for Canada, a win for the United States and a win for Mexico, we have an agreement that is a win for the United States, a win for Mexico and a loss for Canada. It is no wonder that the government was so reluctant to reveal its own economic impact analysis on this agreement until the eleventh hour. It did so one day before the trade committee went clause by clause on Bill C-4.

If this trade agreement were as good as the government would like Canadians to believe, then surely the government would be very eager to reveal its economic impact analysis to demonstrate what a good deal it was for Canada. However, the government did not do that.

Why did it not do that? Very simply, despite the rhetoric on the other side, the government knows that it is not a good deal and the Prime Minister did not get a better deal as he promised.

When we saw the economic impact analysis, the government's analysis compares the new deal to no deal at all. The appropriate comparator is not between the new deal and no deal at all, but between the new deal and the old NAFTA.

While the Liberal government quite deliberately did not undertake that analysis, in terms of what it has revealed publicly, the C.D. Howe Institute did undertake such an analysis. What the C.D. Howe Institute determined was that, under the new deal, Canada stands to lose $14.2 billion in GDP. Not only that, Canada stands to see a reduction in exports to the U.S. market in the sum of $3.2 billion, while Canada stands to import more American products in the sum of $8.6 billion. That is $8.6 billion more in U.S. exports, and $3.2 billion less in Canadian exports. Again, it is a good deal for the United States, and a bad deal for Canada.

Despite the fact that this agreement falls short, we on this side of the House are prepared to support the government, support the passage of Bill C-4 and support the speedy ratification of CUSMA. We support it because, at the end of the day, this deal is better than no deal.

We have heard, as the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook noted, that the business community and premiers want to see certainty. They want to see continued access to our most important trading partner, the United States. We know there is $2 billion in bilateral trade between Canada and the United States every day, and $900 billion in bilateral trade a year. To put that in perspective, that is nine times more than with our second-largest trading partner, China. Seventy-five per cent of Canadian exports are destined for the U.S. market.

In light of that, it would be irresponsible not to support the ratification of this agreement. If we were to not do so, there would be a risk of no agreement, which would benefit no one. However, while we support the ratification, we do so on a qualified basis. We will continue to remind the government of the shortcomings of this agreement.

The Liberal government opened up 3.6% of the dairy market, and got nothing in return. The government was not able to get the same protections for the Canadian aluminum industry that are in the agreement for the steel industry. We know that the government got nowhere in terms of buy America. Mexico got a chapter on buy America, but Canada did not. The consequence is that it leaves Canadian companies out of the opportunity to bid on large government procurement projects in the United States. The government also sold out Canadian sovereignty by requiring permission from Washington to negotiate new trade agreements with non-market economies, such as our second-largest trading partner, China.

While this is a deal that we will support, let us make no mistake about it: It is better than no deal, but it is not a good deal.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this great opportunity to share some wisdom on this very important bill, Bill C-4, on CUSMA, which is the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement.

However, before I get into the bill, I will speak about the economy. Trade deals are linked to the economy, and the economy here in Canada after five years of Liberal government is very strong compared to what it was when we took office.

Let us look at what has happened. What has changed in the last five years?

We have seen 1.2 million jobs created by Canadians. We have seen over one million people lifted out of poverty, with 353,000 of those being children, which is over 20% of the poverty rate in Canada, and 75,000 being seniors, mostly women. These are big and important numbers.

As well, we are seeing the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. These are the factors that are clearly stating how strong this economy is and how strong our government is, which has been focused on tax cuts and helping the middle class and those who want to join it.

Trade deals are extremely important to Canadians, and every province and territory is very happy with this trade deal. We had a trade deal before, but this one is new and improved.

We also have the CETA trade deal, which encompasses half a billion people. In that trade deal we have seen 98% of the tariffs removed, whereas in the past it was 25%. Members can imagine how the business community feels about that trade deal today. I know what the business community has to say about it my constituency.

As well, there is the CPTPP, the trans-Pacific trade deal, which, again, encompasses half a billion people. Between the three trade deals, we have a market of 1.5 billion people. In the Asia-Pacific deal most of the tariffs have been removed and 100% of the seafood tariffs are gone. Members can imagine that in my region of Atlantic Canada and in Nova Scotia this is a great opportunity to increase our exports, and it is extremely important.

How important is CUSMA, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico deal? It is $2 billion per day, which is an enormous sum, and 80% of Canadian exports go to these countries.

Who is supporting this trade deal? It is not just us. The premiers are saying they are behind this trade deal, which is important, and I will talk more about it, but we know that Premier Moe, Premier Kenney and company, as well as Brian Mulroney, do. The business community is happy. The unions are happy.

However, they say Trump is a good negotiator. Let us look at the three things he wanted.

First, he wanted a sunset clause at five years when we would have to renegotiate or the deal would be dead. However, that is not in there. We took that out and it is now 16 years.

Second, he wanted the end of supply management. We are the party that introduced supply management, and we are the party that is promoting supply management. We will continue to support supply management because it is important to Canadians.

Third, Trump wanted a dispute resolution tribunal where there would be American judges and courts. Do members think we would have agreed to that? Maybe a Conservative would have, but we did not agree to that. We then added another important piece where the Americans could not stop and must participate in tribunal panels, where in the past they could say no.

These are three key areas where our government has been very successful in negotiating with the Americans.

Let us bring it back to Nova Scotia. What does this trade deal represent to Nova Scotia? It is extremely important because $3.7 billion is spent by Americans in Nova Scotia. That is an extremely important investment yearly, as my colleagues can imagine. That is 68% of all our trade products leaving Nova Scotia and going to the States.

That means there are 18,000 jobs directly related to this trade deal for Nova Scotians. That is 18,000 directly related jobs; I forgot to mention the 7,000 indirect jobs. Colleagues can imagine how we feel in Nova Scotia. The premier, Mr. McNeil, said that this is a great deal for Canada and a great deal for Nova Scotia. That is a very clear message.

I want to talk about a company in my riding just down the street from me, Marid Industries. It is a steel industry and today it knows that with this deal it will be able to be competitive and move their products to the States and Mexico without tariffs. That is extremely important. That is making sure that it can move forward. These are great-paying jobs for the people who work in that industry.

Catherine Cobden from the Canadian Steel Producers Association said:

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.

That shows good, strong support from the steel industry.

Of course, we are seeing the strongest amendments in this trade deal when it come to labour and environment, two major areas that Canada is pushing forward. We are making sure that we have some criteria around strengthening labour standards as well as enforcement and inspection standards. That means that wages being paid will create a level playing field. It also affects work hours and conditions. Those are essential pieces to ensure that the playing field is level which is extremely important.

In the environment, as colleagues know, we have added some obligations in the fight against marine pollution. The other piece of it is air quality.

I must also mention pharmacare because in the last amendments we were able to remove the 10-year restriction on generic drugs, which is extremely important.

We have added new chapters protecting women's rights, minority rights and indigenous rights and that provide protection against discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. These are all important chapters that are in this trade deal and are so essential.

As well, there are cultural exemptions, which help all Canadians, including those in Quebec. That is very important.

We have work to do. We know that in a trade deal there is a bit of trade here or there. The poultry and egg industries have opened up a small percentage, 2%. We are compensating them not only for loss, but also supporting them so that they can purchase better and more up-to-date equipment. The products will then be better able to be traded internationally, opening up that potential market as well.

This is a very important deal. I am extremely proud to support this. The people in my constituency are just waiting for this to be ratified as soon as possible.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, to pass this legislation swiftly, as all stakeholders and constituents had requested, so the vacuum of uncertainty would be lifted on our trade relations with the U.S., our official opposition made many suggestions as to ways we would gladly co-operate with the government.

Knowing that the federal election was coming up in October, the Conservatives offered to begin a pre-study on the original legislation, Bill C-100, in May of this year. That way the government would only have to deal with clause by clause later on, but it declined. When the revised agreement was signed in December, the Conservatives offered to come back early from the Christmas break to begin work on the bill. Again, the government declined.

The international trade committee had approximately 200 requests come in on CUSMA, and the amount of work to do on the legislation had not changed. We consistently offered to commence that work earlier, but the government declined.

The Conservatives ultimately offered to complete clause-by-clause examination by no later than March 5, under the assumption that the government would not be recalling the House of Commons during the constituency break. Again, the government declined.

A unanimous motion was passed at the international trade committee, requesting that the government release its economic impact analysis for CUSMA. It was not provided until one day before committee conducted its clause-by-clause review and the government's economic impact report compared CUSMA to not having a NAFTA deal at all.

What this said was that the government wanted Canadians to believe that any trade deal, no matter how unbalanced or restrictive, would actually be better than nothing at all.

Thankfully, the C.D. Howe Institute released a report comparing CUSMA to the old NAFTA deal on February 21. It affirmed that CUSMA would reduce Canada's GDP by $14.2 billion. Canada's exports to the U.S. would fall by $3.2 billion, while our imports from the U.S. would increase by $8.6 billion. The C.D. Howe Institute's report shed some light on why the government said it was important to support the new agreement moving quickly and then balked at every opportunity we gave to expedite the passing of the legislation.

We are here now dealing with the issues around what was not good in the agreement. With those 200 organizations and individuals who wanted to come and talk to the committee, we were able to process through 100 of those.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said, “If we want Canada to take full advantage of this agreement, the government must take steps to insure Canadian manufacturers' productivity levels are equivalent to that of other OECD countries so they can succeed on North American markets and globally.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, “The CUSMA, as signed last autumn, was in imperfect but necessary agreement to provide greater predictability in our relations with Canada's largest trading partner.” Predictability was lost to such an extent that we were to the point where people were saying that we needed to just get this done.

Last week, I met with my own chamber of commerce and also held a town hall, with the shadow minister for agriculture, in my riding with a number of farmers from the area.

Agriculture and agrifood producers, manufacturers, exporters and all the support services of small businesses in my riding are experiencing the serious impacts of uncertainty with which the government has plagued our economy: increased costs and a loss of customer base because of the punitive policies of the government: an uncertainty of our relationship with our biggest trading partner, plus the shutting down of supply routes due to strikes and lack of rail cars because oil is flowing on our tracks instead of safely through our pipelines; barricades that created dangerous situations and prevented products from being shipped; carbon taxes on heating and cooling systems that are necessary for manufacturing; and increased payroll taxes and red tape.

People feel they have been attacked and ignored by the government. They know that CUSMA is an imperfect, but necessary agreement to provide better predictability in our relationships with Canada's largest trading partner. Therefore, we are here ready to pass Bill C-4.

The Aluminum Association of Canada said, “As part of the ongoing collaboration between the Government of Canada and industry, we intend to initiate discussions with the government to encourage Mexico to implement a similar measure, which would help limit the arrival of products that do not comply with the rules of the agreement between our three countries.” Canada's aluminum industry is concerned by the government's failure to secure the same made-in-North American provision for aluminum as was given to steel. Canada is North America's largest producer of aluminum.

While the 70% rule of origin included looks good on paper, in reality the failure to include a smelted and poured definition, which is what the industry is asking of in Mexico, will leave the North American industry vulnerable to dumping from overseas, particularly through Mexico.

As well, the government needs to report on the status of the $2 billion in tariffs, the revenue that it has collected thus far, to ensure it actually was used to support Canadian businesses impacted by those tariffs. The manufacturers in my communities were very discouraged by what they saw in the government's behaviour when they were facing shut downs, including its suggestion that it help the manufacturers deal with it by giving more EI. They did not want more EI; they wanted to keep those people working.

As well, there is an urgency to develop a strategy to market Canadian aluminum as the greenest in the world to help shore up our competitiveness in existing and emerging markets. This is part of the Conservative environmental plan. It looks at showcasing and bragging to the world about what Canada already has done and how we can help to impact the global issues on climate change that have impacted so many other countries that are not as clean as Canada.

Then there are our dairy farmers.

The largest group left behind by the government during the negotiations is Canada's dairy sector. The government has managed to simultaneously shrink the opportunities for dairy producers and processors at home, while also limiting their ability to grow by exporting.

Canada agreed to place a worldwide cap on exports of certain dairy products in CUSMA, which is unprecedented in regional trade agreements. As the nation's prosperity depends on reliable access to global markets in every market, but specifically in dairy, Canada must not agree to this kind of provision in any future trade agreement. Why would the government say yes to giving the U.S. that kind of power over our sovereignty and our opportunity to trade as we wish with other countries?

This concession is an affront to our sovereignty and there is no excuse or rational argument for this capitulation to go hat in hand to the U.S. to ask if we can please have its permission to export dairy to any country with which we choose to trade.

There are so many areas that are faulty in this agreement, which stakeholders brought to the attention of the committee, and we were able to create recommendations for the government to move forward and to rectify a lot of those issues.

Regarding government procurement, we have no chapter on being able to secure Canada's access to the U.S. market.

Regarding auto, Canada's exports of motor vehicles to the U.S. will decline by $1.5 billion relative to the current trade regime under NAFTA, and imports would decrease by $1.2 billion. In light of the hardships faced by Ontario's auto sector, which were compounded by the punitive actions of the government against our competitiveness, it must fulfill the auto sector's request to delay the implementation of CUSMA for the auto sector until January 2021 to allow it to adjust to the new climate of the deal.

Regarding forestry, so many mills have closed and support services, small businesses and whole communities have been brought to a standstill by the government's indifference. They do not deserve this attitude from their Prime Minister, whom they expect to re-engage right now with the United States trade representative to find a solution to this issue.

Regarding cultural exemption, the price of protecting it in CUSMA was to open ourselves up to retaliatory tariffs not limited to that sector. For example, if Canada decides to implement a digital service tax for a company such as Netflix, the United States would be within its right, as per CUSMA, to place a tariff of equal commercial effect on any Canadian export.

These are just a few of the examples of where the government has capitulated to the U.S.. The U.S. reply to the whole document is a huge document of all of its successes. Ours, from what I understand the previous minister of trade on this side of the House said, was 72 pages long. Clearly, Canada has not come out on the best circumstances here, but as stakeholders have said, we just need to get this done and move on, hopefully in the future with better arrangements.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-4, the Canada–United States–Mexico agreement implementation act.

I would specifically like to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for his work on this file. Through extensive negotiation with the government, I am so proud that my colleague secured more openness and transparency for Canada's trade process.

Too often the opposition says that the NDP does not understand trade, but this could not be further from the truth. What we do not support is the neo-liberal trade agenda. New Democrats understand the importance of our trading relationship with the U.S., our largest trading partner, and we believe that a better NAFTA could improve the welfare of all North Americans. We believe that all trade agreements must be transparent, inclusive and forward-looking. They must address important issues, like income inequality, sovereignty and climate change. Above all, they must strengthen human rights. They must be transparent and fair for everyone.

Too many trade agreements are approached with the idea of how to make the rich richer. They focus on growing the wealth and power of those who already hold a great deal of wealth and power. They do not consider bettering the lives of all Canadians.

Certainly, people in southwestern Ontario, in my riding, know all too well what Liberal- and Conservative-negotiated trade agreements have created for them and their families. We see what were once highly productive manufacturing hubs now boarded up. One only has to drive along Dundas Street in London, Ontario to know the history of these trade agreements, and what it means to workers in my riding.

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. It seemed like we were on the cusp of a dream, and all we had to do was sell our soul to cash in.

What happened was far from that dream, and instead Canadian workers faced a nightmare. Canada lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs and its textile industry. In addition, Canada paid millions of dollars in court fees and penalties when sued by corporations under the ISDS resolution mechanism.

Despite some improvements, this NAFTA continues a disturbing trend of giving more enforceable rights to corporations in trade agreements than to the real people involved and the environment. Over the last 25 years, because of NAFTA, our North American auto and manufacturing industry has become highly dependent on the integrated supply chain. In fact, automobiles and parts will often cross our borders hundreds of times before a vehicle is completed.

Since 2001, after we lost the Auto Pact, 44,000 Canadian auto jobs were lost. After this devastating announcement at GM in Oshawa a few years ago, Canadians are learning that no amount of language in free trade deals, including the new NAFTA, will stop corporations from leaving Canada and heading to Mexico, where they are taking advantage of a low-wage economy and a country that does not respect the environment.

Workers are left to fend for themselves, despite the fact that the Liberals will say that this agreement is good for the automotive sector. In fact, Liberals also ensured that GM Oshawa had no ties to Canada once they provided a multi-million dollar bailout, and let the corporation off the hook from ever paying Canadians back.

The Liberals were nowhere to be found when those GM auto workers were fighting for their jobs in Oshawa. They were certainly not on the front lines, desperately searching for answers about their future or their livelihoods.

Interestingly, the Liberals claimed they were working hard for auto workers by signing the new NAFTA last spring. They insisted that the deal was fantastic and no improvements could be made. Funnily enough, the American Democrats proved them wrong. It would seem that the Liberals were not the skilled negotiators they claimed to be.

At every step of the process, the Liberals have said the same thing, that this trade agreement is a great deal. First, they said they were happy with the original NAFTA and did not want to renegotiate. Then they said the first version of CUSMA was the best we could get, and now they say this latest version is the best that they can get. Well which one is it?

When the NDP called on the government to wait to ratify the first version of CUSMA so the Democrats in the States could improve it, Deputy Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, what the NDP needs to understand is that reopening this agreement would be like opening Pandora's box ... It would be naive for the NDP to believe that Canadians would benefit from reopening this agreement.

However, the Liberals are now keen to brag about improvements made by Democrats in the United States.

Income and wealth inequality in Canada today is at a crisis level with 46% of Canadians $200 away from financial trouble. Working people, like people in London—Fanshawe, are struggling to get by and the wonders of this new NAFTA, like the old NAFTA, will not materialize for the majority of people in my riding. The fact of the matter is, neo-liberal trade agreements do not work for workers.

New Democrats have been consistent in our calls for a transparent trade process in Canada that makes the government more accountable and allows Parliament to play a greater role than that of a simple rubber stamp.

The Liberals over-promised and under-delivered on holding meaningful public consultations on this agreement.

The NDP believes that in all trade negotiations, the government should consult Canadians and their members of Parliament from all parties in a meaningful, comprehensive and public way.

I would like to address some of the concerns that I have about chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. We are pleased with the elimination of chapter 11, there is no doubt about that. However, it has been replaced with mandatory regulatory co-operation, and further influence has been given to corporations. While, in principle, international regulatory co-operation has the potential to raise standards, experts argue that under the new terms, corporate influence has increased at the expense of public protections, and limits government's ability to regulate in areas such as toxic chemicals, food safety, rail safety, workers' health and safety, and the environment.

This agreement would give corporations advance notice of new regulations and ensure that they are allowed a consultation process before any regulation goes through a legislative process.

Regulatory co-operation is subject to dispute resolution. This means corporations can still directly challenge government actions, which is the highest form of regulatory chill. Regulators have to vigorously defend proposed regulations and are even required to suggest alternatives that do not involve regulating. They have to provide extensive analysis, including cost benefits, to industry. This makes governments accountable to industry, not to people.

I would also like to address the gender concerns that I have in this agreement. The Liberals promised an entire chapter to promote gender equality, and this was not delivered in CUSMA. The Liberals appear to have abandoned their promise before it could take root. Their limited language regarding the importance of gender equality does not exist as there is no gender chapter.

Experts testified at the international trade committee that these agreements should not just have a gender chapter, though, but that they must also mainstream gender rights throughout the entirety of an agreement, and that gender equality does not concern only the issues of women entrepreneurs and business owners.

The only chapter that addresses the links between gender and trade in any substantive fashion is the labour chapter. Otherwise, the addition of gender equality language is more superficial than substantive. Labour rights must also address injustices to women, like pay inequity, child labour and poor working conditions. The NDP believes that for an agreement to be truly progressive when it comes to gender rights, it must address the systemic inequalities of all women. The NDP believes that both a gender analysis and a gendered impact assessment must be applied to all trade agreements.

A professor in my hometown of London, Dr. Erin Hannah, testified to the international trade committee:

Overwhelmingly we've put attention on women entrepreneurs in the gender in global trade agenda. That's important.... But the lion's share of women in the developing world work in the informal economy.

We don't have very good tools for assessing the impact of all sorts of things in the lives of women working in the informal economy, but particularly trade....[There are no] methodological tools to study the impact of proposed trade deals on women who are not in the formal economy.

That raise much bigger questions, though, about whether the objective of these initiatives is to bring women into the formal economy, to transition women out of the informal economy into the formal economy. It raises a whole host of other issues. I think it's important to think about how that would change these women's lives. We have a data problem, but we also have an ideological problem.

The NDP believes that, like other socially progressive ideals that can be brought forward in trade agreements, words are not enough. For gender, labour, indigenous, environmental or human rights to be truly advanced, there must be tools in place to achieve that progress. As Dr. Hannah rightfully pointed out, Canada has a lot to do itself on the gender agenda. We do not have pay equity. We do not have universal child care. It is clear that to move forward globally and negotiate progressive trade agreements internationally, nationally we must have domestic tools in place that work effectively.

In conclusion, I would like to talk about indigenous rights. My colleague across the way mentioned that again this deal is absent of any mention of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We believe, in the NDP, that the government must abide by article 19 of the UN declaration and obtain free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people before adopting any measures that may affect them.

As was noted by Pam Palmater at the international trade committee during the conversations about Mercosur, indigenous rights should be addressed throughout the entirety of a trade agreement, not only related to one chapter. She also noted that throughout the Pacific Alliance nations, there are large numbers of indigenous people who experience a great deal of violence from transnational corporations involved in trade. That is certainly something we see in NAFTA.

These are some of the concerns I have about the trade deal, and I appreciate the time that this House has given me to discuss them. I appreciate any questions.

The House resumed from March 10 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 third time and passed.

International Trade

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague again for his support and also for raising this important issue, because I know that it is very important to many Canadian businesses and workers.

I want to take a moment to remind the member and colleagues here in the House that we were negotiating with an American president who wanted to limit trade and make it very difficult to access a free flow of products and services between our two countries. It was a challenge at times, but we persisted. We insisted on protecting the interests of Canadian businesses and workers, and we reached a good deal.

That said, there is still a lot of work to be done, and just as we have collaborated on Bill C-4, I look forward to continuing to collaborate with our colleagues in the NDP to achieve an even better agreement in the future.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the question my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona asked is timely because today we started debating third reading of Bill C-4. Hopefully the bill will be passed in this Parliament with the support of all political parties in the House, including the NDP. I want to thank the member and his colleagues for their support.

The issue of buy America is very important. Our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister, who at the time was Minister of Foreign Affairs, have been very public and vocal about our intent and desire to resolve this issue with our American friends. There has not been a public or a private opportunity that the Deputy Prime Minister has not raised this issue. In fact, we utilized the support we have from team Canada, which includes provincial premiers, legislators in the House of Commons, senators, and governors in the United States, to make sure we sent a strong message to our friends in the United States.

Last summer I attended the National Governors Association conference in Utah and I had a chance to meet with several governors. Some of them were surprised to learn that 34 out of the 50 states have Canada as their number one customer. In fact, all 50 states have Canada as their number one, number two or number three customer. We made every effort to remind our friends in the United States that it is important to treat Canadian businesses with equal access to economic opportunities, because doing so is not only in the best interest of Canadian workers and Canadian businesses; it also serves the interests of American businesses and American workers.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when we are sitting around a negotiation table, it is not like there is the opportunity to say, “Here's my list and the lists for the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc of everything we want”, and then expect the United States and Mexico representatives to say, “Okay, no problem, you have it.” That is not the way negotiations work.

At the end of the day, we achieved a deal that is in the best interests of Canadians in all regions of our country. I would point out to members opposite that over the last couple of years we have had a significant amount of discussion and debate inside the chamber, and equally as important, outside the chamber, dealing with a wide spectrum of individuals, different types of stakeholders, different levels of government and different groupings, if I could put it that way, in order to ultimately pull it all together into what we now have today, which is an agreement we can all be very proud of.

The member for Yukon made reference to the Bank of Nova Scotia. The idea that we did not have to do anything is false. There was a presidential election, and it became very clear that Canada needed to be at the table to negotiate a renewed NAFTA. There were some members of the opposition who ridiculed the government of the day, saying that we should not have indicated to the U.S. that we were okay with sitting down at the negotiation table. We recognized how important it was to actually be there to ensure that Canadians' best interests were being served.

We can look at the final product, Bill C-4, and see the support it has generated. I just made reference to the opposition parties and the government, but different levels of government here in Canada, from the Premier of Quebec to the Premier of Alberta and many other premiers, are talking about how good this deal actually is for our country and for individual provinces.

We have heard unions, including trade unions, being very supportive of many of the gains made in this legislation. Both big and small business communities recognize the value of this particular agreement. Canadians as a whole recognize just how important trade is to our country and they are getting behind this.

For all intents and purposes, even though our Deputy Prime Minister has led the charge on behalf of Canada, it has really been an effort by so many individuals and they can take credit for what we have today.

I want to make reference to the negotiators. We have heard this in the past from other members. We are very fortunate to have some of the best negotiators in the world who are there to protect our interests. I suspect they continue to improve upon those skills because of the number of agreements that have been achieved.

Over the last five years, we have witnessed a government that has been very proactive in picking up where the former prime minister left off. We have been able to sign off on a number of critically important agreements.

From a different perspective, I listened to other members talk about what it means when we talk about trade. When I sit down with my constituents at the local McDonald's and they want to talk about trade, I will often provide tangible examples. In Manitoba we have a number of different industries. I often talk about our pork industry, as I have done in the House.

The pork industry in the province of Manitoba is doing exceptionally well. The vast majority of pork that is produced in Manitoba does not stay in Manitoba. A producer called HyLife is located in the beautiful community of Neepawa. Well over 90% of its products go to Asia. The jobs are into the hundreds. Those individuals are buying products, using services, living in that beautiful community and contributing to the economic and social well-being of Neepawa and the surrounding area. That would not be possible without trade.

Manitoba's pork industry processes millions of pigs every year that are sold around the world. We could talk about whether it is Maple Leaf in Winnipeg or Maple Leaf in Brandon. We could talk about the hundreds of farmers that are engaged in the process, from raising the pigs to ultimately having them delivered to factories or processing plants by truckers. It is a major industry in Manitoba. If it were not for international trade and to a certain degree some domestic trade, that industry would not be anywhere near what it is today. We all benefit, not only immediate communities but the entire country as well.

I often talk about New Flyer Industries, which produces some of the best hybrid buses in the world. The company is thinking into the future. It produces more buses than we could ever use in Manitoba. We need trade.

Our government has been able to achieve a significant number of agreements in the last four or five years.

We can talk about the internal trade agreement that was achieved with the provinces a few years back. Canadians will often say international trade is good but we need to work on interprovincial trade, and we have done that. Our government has been able to move forward on that particular file.

There has never been a government that has been as successful at signing off on international trade agreements as this Liberal government has been in the last five years. We can talk about the European Union. We can talk about the trans-Pacific agreement. We can talk about Ukraine, not to mention the World Trade Organization. A few years back a bill was introduced that dealt with well over 100 countries around the world.

This government and our Prime Minister understand. From day one, our priority has been to enrich Canada's middle class and those who are striving to be a part of it. One of the best ways to do that is to provide opportunities through trade. It is not just what is released in a budget or other legislation. A government has to do a multitude of things in order to achieve success at serving Canadians.

The types of agreements that our government has been able to sign off on have made a tangible difference in Canada.

We often hear about children and seniors having been lifted out of poverty over the last number of years. We have been very successful at doing that.

We do not hear much about the number of jobs that have been created by this government, and it is a wonderful story that needs to be told. I am talking about full-time jobs in most cases, well over one million jobs. It might be 1.1 million net new jobs. That is a significant number of jobs.

We talk about how we can try to grow the economy, provide more choice for consumers and add more value for businesses and entrepreneurs, and Canada has some of the best entrepreneurs in the world. One of the best ways we can achieve that is to look at ways we can secure markets into the future. Because of this government, we are now in a position in which we have agreements with all of the G7 countries. I invite members to name another country in the world that can say the same. We have recognized the value of trade as being one of those critical aspects of development required in order to advance the interests of Canadians in all regions of our country.

I am sensitive to the fact that, whenever we have a trade agreement, there are always going to be areas in which it would have been nice to have been able to achieve something a bit different, but as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, it would be absolutely naive to believe that we could go in and win on all counts and get everything that we want.

President Donald Trump wanted Canada to dismantle, get rid of, supply management. He is the individual who made it very clear that his administration was not prepared to accept the old agreement. They wanted a new agreement, or they would get rid of the old agreement. A part of that also incorporated the thought that they wanted to see the ripping apart or taking down of supply management.

I am very proud of the supply management system. We have production controls, import controls and price controls. As a direct result of that, we are able to produce things such as the best milk in the world, dairy products and much more. Supply management has been very effective. It is a tool that was actually put in place many years ago by another Liberal government, and I can tell members that it is this government that is protecting the future of supply management.

That is absolute, because there is very little doubt in my mind. I think it was the leader of the People's Party, who had been a member of the Conservative Party not that long ago, who was espousing that we should get rid of supply management. I suspect he was not alone among the Conservative benches. I sat in opposition a number of years ago when there was always the thought that the hidden agenda of many Conservatives was to get rid of supply management.

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

Madam Speaker, it has now been several weeks since Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, was introduced.

It is becoming increasingly clear that this agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico has some serious consequences for Canada's and Quebec's economies. It is simple. Under this agreement, our exports to the United States will decrease and our imports from our neighbours to the south will increase. As a result, the United States will diminish Canada's industrial activity, shifting this activity to its own cities and towns. The C.D. Howe Institute's most recent study estimates that Canada's GDP will take a $14-billion hit. That is worrisome.

Agriculture in Canada, and especially in Quebec, will be one of the hardest-hit sectors of the economy. It will lose a significant portion of its market share to the United States. This is not to mention all the other trade benefits and legal advantages in terms of copyright, intellectual property, trademarks and data protection that the United States gained over Canada in these negotiations.

I even heard Canada's chief CUSMA negotiator say that the Government of Canada negotiated with the United States without analyzing the consequences of its decisions. Negotiating that kind of free trade agreement usually takes three years. Canadians should have been invited to submit studies that should have been debated to gain a better understanding of the long-term benefits for our economy. In this case, the United States forced negotiations and Canada was left scrambling.

The Government of Canada also rushed the study of Bill C-4. After finalizing the agreement last year, the Liberal government, which had a majority at the time, rejected the House of Commons' requests to examine the ins and outs of a future CUSMA implementation bill. That was last May. Then a general election was held on October 21. The House could have convened sooner, but that is not what happened. We finally opened the parliamentary session in December, but we did not discuss the agreement. We could have discussed it back in January, but that did not happen either. We could even have scheduled time for it in March during break last week, but it was all done in a rush in committee.

Fortunately, now that we have a minority government, the tone has changed, which has translated into some gains for Quebec. The Liberal government's haste was concealing some things. The Bloc Québécois insisted and managed to make the government aware of the consequences that its decisions and actions have on Quebec.

Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois was able to intelligently intervene to make this agreement a little more favourable for Quebec. If the Bloc Québécois had not done so, the Liberal government would have hurt Quebec's aluminum industry, even though it is the cleanest in the world. Indeed, CUSMA would have driven away more than $6 billion in investments in Quebec's aluminum industry. The Bloc Québécois salvaged something from the wreckage. The negotiations with the Liberal Party on Bill C-4 proved once again the importance of the Bloc Québécois in Ottawa.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that CUSMA does nothing to address the softwood lumber crisis. Once again, it lets the United States dictate the market.

I now want to come back to the impact the agreement will have on rural life. In Quebec, over two million people live in rural areas. Eighteen percent of Quebeckers live in a village like Saint-André-de-Kamouraska or in a small urban community like Macamic in the west of Abitibi. Over 40% of the revenue in Quebec's agricultural regions comes from the dairy industry. The weakening of supply management directly undermines the economic and social development of Quebec's rural regions.

Last weekend, I attended the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec convention in my home town of Rouyn-Noranda. I spoke with many next generation farmers who are very concerned about the impact of the changes to supply management because a stable, predictable income is important.

In CUSMA, as in previous agreements, Canada failed Quebec's dairy farmers. I would like to remind members that most of Canada's dairy farms are in Quebec. CUSMA gives up more than 3% of our dairy market, which amounts to an annual loss of $150 million in revenue for the two million people who live in the rural regions. Our agricultural community, which is at the very heart of our villages' vitality, continues to grow weaker every year.

I therefore expect the government to think about our towns and villages in the various compensation programs. That is why the Bloc Québécois, dairy producers and farmers in general are asking for a direct support program to compensate for losses, starting with the next budget—and that means very soon—to ensure that the economic vitality of our rural regions is not undermined.

Canada seems to have no regard for the reality that farm life and supply management create jobs and investments that contribute to the existence of a strong middle class in Quebec's rural areas.

Fortunately, a few days ago, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to protect supply management in Quebec in future trade negotiations.

Under this bill, the federal government will not be able to make an international trade commitment through a treaty or an agreement that would have the unfortunate effect of undermining supply management in Quebec. Our farmers and producers will finally have the protection they deserve to deal with the politics of free trade in the world. Circumventing supply management needs to stop. This bill is essential. I invite all my colleagues in the House of Commons to support it because, in addition to being an easy target in negotiations, supply management can also be circumvented with the right strategies. It is no secret that the United States has been using milk protein as a way of getting around supply management for years. It used to be a way for them to offload their surpluses onto Canadian markets at a lesser price than what our producers were asking. Now, they use it as a weapon to destroy supply management.

With the last agreement, the Canadian milk solids industry has literally been put under third-party management by the United States. Washington can limit the amount of protein our producers are entitled to sell in the rest of the world. The Americans will be able to squeeze Quebec out of global markets. That is a direct attack on our sovereignty. In other words, our producers could end up with huge surpluses and the surpluses could disrupt and jeopardize our family farm model.

Even worse, CUSMA also requires that we consult the United States about changes to the administration of the supply management system for Canada's dairy products. To force a Canadian industry to consult its direct competitor in another country about administrative changes it could make in future on the national level challenges our sovereignty.

For that reason the Bloc Québécois is recommending that Bill C-4 be accompanied by the following measures: that supply-managed producers and processors be fully compensated for their losses resulting from the trans-Pacific agreement, CETA and CUSMA and that this be clearly indicated in the next budget; that import licences resulting from breaches in supply management be issued first to processors rather than distributors and retailers; that, before ratifying CUSMA, the government consider the fact that if the agreement comes into force before August 1, 2020, milk protein export quotas for 2020-21 will be 35,000 tonnes rather than 55,000 tonnes if the agreement comes into force after August 1; that the government establish a permanent forum with producers and processors to ensure that the export tariff quotas are implemented in such a way as to cause the least possible harm to the dairy sector.

I was talking about the importance of income stability, which will have huge implications for the next generation of farmers in particular. Access to land, all of the bank loans and other programs are made possible through guarantees. The quota system and supply management were the main guarantees that farmers could offer. The implications are still being downplayed and they affect the cities, towns and regions of Quebec especially. All of Canada's concessions to our trade partners in recent agreements will have a direct impact on Quebec's rural economy. The latest trade agreements negotiated and signed by Ottawa have done nothing but create uncertainty in Quebec's towns and regions, in particular among farm owners, who are generally the ones who stimulate economic growth in their communities.

The principles of CUSMA will clearly have huge implications on investments in farms and processors, not to mention the job losses in cities and towns. The impact on agricultural producers goes beyond dairy farmers. We are talking about other farmers, veterinarians, equipment manufacturers, equipment vendors, truck drivers and feed suppliers. These financial losses will be felt by the various SMEs that remain in these towns. What is worse, the towns' social development will be affected. Services could be lost, schools could be shut down, and so on.

I invite all my colleagues in the House to visit the riding of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, particularly east of Témiscamingue, to understand the impact of a school closure or even the closure of a single retail store. In order to reduce the impact of all these losses, especially on rural Quebec, would it be possible for Ottawa to finally accede to Quebec's request that Quebeckers be put in charge of regional development programs? In the wake of the disastrous outcomes for rural Quebec, federal programs should be tailored to rural Quebec instead of being Canada-wide programs designed by Ottawa. If Ottawa is not in a position to protect and develop rural Quebec, if Ottawa does not care about Quebec's regions, then it should let Quebec manage the programs in a way that is more effective and beneficial for Quebec.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

It is a great pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-4, the implementing legislation for the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, otherwise known as CUSMA.

This agreement brings about the continued economic benefit to all parties and secures economic development and job opportunities by maintaining economic security, investment confidence and our dispute resolution and retaining existing access. The agreement provides key outcomes for Canadian businesses, workers and communities in areas such as labour, environment, automotive trade, dispute resolution, culture, energy, and agriculture and agri-food. Importantly, CUSMA also includes language on gender and indigenous peoples' rights.

The new and modernized agreement includes Canada's most ambitious environmental chapter to date, completed by a new environmental co-operation agreement. The environment chapter of the new NAFTA introduces key measures, such as a new enforceable chapter on the environment that replaces the separate side agreement. It provides assurances to workers and businesses by ensuring that all three state parties are held to account. It makes dispute resolution more accessible by reducing the burden of proof for the complainant, and clarifies the relationship between the new trade agreement and domestic or multilateral environment agreements. Moreover, the amendments agreed to in December of last year strengthen the act's dispute settlement provision to make a good deal even better and ensure that robust obligations on the environment will be fully enforceable.

It is the Government of Canada's priority to ensure that Canada's trade agreements not only advance our commercial interests, but also bring real benefits to all Canadian stakeholders. The environmental provisions support Canadian businesses by ensuring that trading partners enforce their environmental laws so that all parties operate on a level playing field.

When NAFTA came into effect in 1994, it was the first free trade agreement to link the environment and trade through a comprehensive agreement. This agreement was called the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Over the past quarter-century, officials and experts from all three countries have carried out co-operative projects through this agreement. By doing this, we have enhanced our shared capacity to address environmental challenges.

Continuing with this tradition, the new NAFTA, or CUSMA, integrates comprehensive and ambitious environmental provisions directly into a dedicated environment chapter within the agreement, which is subject to provisions on dispute settlement that were not there before.

The new NAFTA preserves the core obligations on environmental governance that were present in the original agreement. This includes commitments to pursue and maintain environmental stewardship, effectively enforce environmental laws and promote transparency, accountability and public participation. These measures reflect the importance we place on ensuring that open trade and environmental conservation go hand in hand.

The new environment chapter includes commitments that go beyond what the original environmental co-operation agreement envisioned. State parties are no longer permitted to ignore environmental law to attract trade or investment and must also ensure that proper environmental impact assessments are carried out for projects with potential risks to the environment.

The new NAFTA creates new commitments on a wide range of global environmental issues, such as illegal wildlife trade and illegal logging, management of fisheries, protection of the marine environment and the ozone layer, sustainable forestry, and the conservation of biological diversity and species at risk. It also includes new commitments aimed at strengthening the relationship between trade and environment, including the promotion of trade in environmental goods and services, responsible business conduct and voluntary mechanisms to enhance environmental performance.

For the first time in a free trade agreement, the new NAFTA includes articles on air quality and marine litter. It includes binding commitments prohibiting the practice of shark finning. It also recognizes the important role that indigenous people are playing in the ongoing stewardship of the environment, sustainable fisheries and forestry management, and biodiversity conservation.

This agreement also provides for an environment consultation mechanism. Should state parties fail to resolve any environmental matter in a co-operative manner through various levels of consultation, including consultation at the ministerial level, a complainant may seek recourse through a broader formal dispute settlement. Additionally, trade sanctions may be imposed by an independent review panel, if needed, to ensure compliance with environmental obligations.

Although 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 not only the federal level but also the provincial level.

I mentioned earlier that the new NAFTA contains enhanced provisions to ensure enforceability. In December 2019, Canada, the United States and Mexico agreed to update certain elements of the agreement, including stronger environmental obligations. For example, state parties have committed to doing their part to implement multilateral environmental agreements that have been ratified domestically. The new NAFTA also provides better clarity on its relationship to these other environmental agreements.

Canada, the United States and Mexico have negotiated a parallel environmental co-operation agreement that ensures a continuation of a trilateral co-operation, ministerial-level dialogue between parties and public engagement. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation will continue to operate with the support of a secretariat based in Montreal, a ministerial council that will continue to meet on an annual basis and a joint public advisory committee.

The environmental co-operation agreement also allows the three countries to establish a work program in which they can develop co-operative activities on a broad range of issues. These include strengthening environmental governance; reducing pollution and supporting strong, low-emission and resilient economies; conserving and protecting biodiversity and habitats; supporting green growth and sustainable development; and promoting sustainable management and use of natural resources.

Furthermore, 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. This committee's membership will be diverse and gender-balanced, and will reflect all segments of society by including representatives of non-governmental organizations, academia, the private sector, indigenous peoples, private citizens and youth.

These measures highlight the importance of honouring our role as environmental stewards and upholding multilateral environmental standards.

The issue of environmental conservation is of the utmost importance to the residents of my riding of Richmond Hill. While I was knocking on doors last summer, resident after resident raised the issue of environmental action and compliance as something that our government should prioritize. In fact, concern over the environment was second only to affordability as a key voter issue.

In response to this feedback, my team and I have collaborated with environmental stakeholders and community groups, such as Blue Dot and Drawdown, and have held town halls to encourage public participation and give residents the opportunity to comment on how we can improve government programs and services.

The Government of Canada is committed to bringing Canadian goods and services to international markets while maintaining our highest standards of environmental conservation and stewardship. We know this is possible, and we have a responsibility to do both at the same time. Under the new NAFTA and the parallel environmental co-operation agreement, Canada, the United States and Mexico have come together to ensure we are protecting our shared environment now and for future generations.

I encourage all members of the House to support the bill so we can move it toward implementation.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the new NAFTA agreement and the repercussions of this important agreement. Of course, it is always a pleasure, and indeed my duty, to rise in this place and defend the interests of my constituents and those across Canada.

I want to thank all those involved on both sides of the House and all our neighbours and friends in the United States and Mexico for working on this agreement. As we all know, there was an incredible effort to get a deal on the table and that effort was a testament to how everybody understood how important this deal really was.

The Conservatives are in support of a trade agreement with the United States and with Mexico. It is good for business and it will provide the certainty for which all are looking.

The Conservatives, of course, are the party of trade. Our party is responsible for negotiating some of the largest and most important trade agreements in Canadian history. It was also under the previous Conservative government that we signed 40 trade agreements with countries all over the world. It was also under a Conservative government that NAFTA was first created. It was a historic agreement that propelled the Canadian economy into the future and provided unequalled opportunities for Canadian manufacturing, industry, energy, agriculture and other sectors.

The previous Conservative government was very forthcoming with information on the free trade negotiations that were taking place. The member for Abbotsford, as the then minister of international trade, provided many opportunities for parliamentarians to ask questions, take part in briefings and see documents. Unfortunately, we have not seen the same from the Liberal government. It prefers that the opposition just trust the government and not worry, that it got the best deal possible.

Over the past few weeks, the Liberal Party has claimed that it is the Conservatives who have delayed the implementation of the new NAFTA deal. Conservative members on the Standing Committee on International Trade sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, outlining the concerns the Conservative Party had heard with a new NAFTA deal and to correct the record that outlined how it was, in fact, the Liberal Party who had been delaying the implementation of this new NAFTA deal.

Knowing that the federal election was coming up in October of 2019, the Conservatives offered to begin a prestudy on the original trade deal. It was originally called Bill C-100. That happened in May of last year. When the government was ready to move the legislation through the House of Commons, the work would already have been done in committee. However, the Liberals declined.

When the revised agreement was signed in December 2019, the Conservatives offered to come back early from the Christmas break to begin work on that bill. The Liberals declined that as well.

The Liberal government waited until January 29 to introduce the implementation legislation in the House of Commons, even though the revised agreement was signed in December. The Conservatives moved that legislation through the House of Commons in just six sitting days compared to the 16 days it took to move the original implementation legislation, Bill C-100, through the House of Commons and to committee.

The international trade committee had approximately 200 requests to appear on that new trade deal. The amount of work to do on the legislation had not changed and the Conservatives consistently offered to commence that work earlier. The Liberals declined.

The Conservatives ultimately offered to complete a clause-by-clause examination by no later than March 5, under the assumption that the government would not be recalling the House of Commons during the constituency break week to conduct report stage and third reading of Bill C-4. The Liberals declined that too.

The Liberals released their economic impact analysis for that trade deal only one day before the international trade committee had to conduct its clause-by-clause review and the first formal briefing that parliamentarians actually received on the new agreement was on December 11, 2019.

Canada's Conservatives sought a unanimous consent motion in the House of Commons to speed up the ratification of that new trade deal. The Liberals declined that too.

Those are the facts.

I want to turn now to the substance of that agreement. The deal is not perfect. We have said that many times on this side of the House and so have some of our other opposition colleagues. There are a number of shortcomings that I would like to put on record.

The Liberal government has left our great aluminum industry vulnerable to backdoor imports from China. While steel was protected with rules that steel must be melted and poured by primary steelmakers in North America in order to receive preferential tariff treatment, no such provision was added for aluminum.

Jean Simard, president and CEO of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said the following:

The advantage thus conferred to Mexico makes it more or less China's North American backyard to dispose of the products of its overcapacity, thereby generating the gradual relocation of North American transformers to Mexico.

The Liberal government also failed to secure a new ISDS, leaving Canadians and their businesses unprotected by unfair laws, tariffs or trade practices of our partners. This will leave many Canadian industries open to abuse, with little to no recourse.

In the early 2000s, the softwood lumber industry was devastated by unfair trade practices and it was only because of arbitration panels ruling against the U.S. that we eventually worked out a settlement.

In a statement, the president of the BC Lumber Trade Council said:

Having a robust and fair dispute resolution mechanism is absolutely critical to maintaining a rules-based trading system and providing an avenue for Canada and Canadian companies to appeal unwarranted duties.

The CUSMA deal, the new NAFTA, fails to include a fair dispute resolution process.

Another huge problem is CUSMA's sunset clause. The sunset clause sets out formal reviews every six years and a termination clause in 16 years unless it is renegotiated. I, among many other Canadians, would like to know why we are not protecting long-term stability for our Canadian business.

Dennis Darby, chief executive of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said, “With a five-year potential sword hanging over your head, I think what it's going to do is cause manufacturers to not invest and be really, really risk-averse."

I would like to have on the record the shortcomings we see in the dairy section of this agreement. It would reduce Canadian dairy producers' access to the U.S. market at the same time opening the Canadian market to more U.S. milk products. This agreement dictates specific thresholds for Canadian exports of milk protein concentrates, skim milk powder and infant formula. If export thresholds are exceeded, Canada would add duties to the exports in excess to make them more expensive. It would also eliminate milk class 6 and milk class 7, which would affect dairy farms across Ontario and the country.

Pierre Lampron, president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, said, “[T]he message sent to our passionate, proud and quality-conscious farmers and all the people who work in the dairy sector is clear: they are nothing more than a bargaining chip to satisfy President Trump.”

I would like to take a minute to express my concerns with how the government is also handling the coronavirus crisis.

When is the Liberal government going to start to outlining its plan to Canadians in the case of a possible pandemic? Expecting Canadians to stockpile supplies is simply not enough. All Canadians deserve to be reassured that the government is prepared to assist and support those affected by the virus. We need much more vigorous screening processes upon entry, mandatory quarantine for those who do enter from high-risk countries or potentially stopping incoming and outgoing flights from high-risk areas. The health and safety of all Canadians needs to be a top priority.

Canada's Conservatives have offered repeatedly to expedite the new NAFTA deal in order to ensure swift ratification, but again, at every stage, the Liberals have chosen to play politics.

The committee heard from a number of sectors that would be negatively impacted by CUSMA, and it is important the government is aware of those negative impacts so it can work to mitigate them.

I want to reiterate for my friends on all sides of the House that the Conservatives support this legislation. We are the party of trade and we hope to see that continue.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise this afternoon and speak to the tripartite agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. I will be sharing my speaking time on this important issue with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

It is always a privilege to rise in the House in support of trade with our partners, as trade is one of the pillars of our economy. This afternoon, we are not talking about just any partner. We are talking about our American partner. As members know, our shared relationship and border go back a long way.

I will start by saying that I plan on supporting Bill C-4 because this agreement is in keeping with a long tradition that we established. In 1994, Brian Mulroney signed the first agreement, NAFTA, with the United States and Mexico.

This fundamental agreement helped Canada triple its exports to the U.S. and Mexico and also helped stimulate our economy. As a proud representative of a vibrant manufacturing region, I can see first-hand how this free trade agreement benefits our manufacturers in Bellechasse—Les Etchemins, such as Rotobec, and in Lévis.

I just want to remind my colleague that, like him, I plan to support this important bill to maintain our trade relationship with our most important partner. The United States takes in three-quarters of Canada's exports, a significant amount considering that Canadian exports totalled nearly $400 billion U.S. in 2016.

However, we are less pleased about the fact that the current government did a poor job of negotiating this agreement, as it does with most things. The Liberal government does not know how to negotiate agreements for Canada, and that has a negative impact on businesses such as those in the dairy industry in my riding. Nevertheless, we are better off with a bad agreement than with no agreement, which is why I have already voted in favour of this bill and why we hope it passes quickly.

For some time now, the Conservatives have been telling the government to hurry up and approve the deal. I worked in consulting engineering, where people say that a deal is not done until it is signed. It is not a good deal, but we need to get it approved ASAP.

That is why, in spring 2019, before the October federal election, we proposed a preliminary study of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement so that it could be passed as soon as the government introduced it in the House, but the Liberals refused.

The day after the election, we asked the Liberals to consider the possibility of sitting in December between Christmas and New Year's because we thought it was important to ratify this agreement. Once again, the Liberals ignored our request.

We had to wait until the end of January before they finally bothered to table the agreement here in the House so that we could begin the legislative process. Once again, we asked for things to be done more quickly because people wanted to have their say about the problems with this important agreement. The Liberals refused.

That brings us to where we are today. We are making progress, and I can say that we intend to support the ratification of this agreement every step of the way. The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most solid relationships that can exist between two countries. It plays an important role in our manufacturing jobs. A number of agreements and several billion dollars are at stake.

I want to take this opportunity to remind members that there is a border between Canada and the United States. Of course, it is important to ensure the free flow of goods between the two countries, but it is also important to ensure that our borders remain secure. I am referring to the beyond the border action plan announced in December 2011 by then U.S. president Barack Obama and then Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. We recognize the importance of maintaining a strong trade relationship while keeping our borders secure.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the Liberals did not negotiate a good deal in this case. As we have seen, many groups were left out in the cold. Overall, the agreement that was signed and that we are going to approve is not as good as the previous agreement that was negotiated by the Conservatives. That is unfortunate, but, as I said, we would rather have a bad deal than no deal at all.

Why are the Liberals such bad negotiators? When we look at their record on negotiating, we have to remember that the agreements collectively provide the big picture.

Take the dairy sector. This sector plays a very important role in the Chaudière-Appalaches region, especially in Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, where businesses are handed down from one generation to the next and are an economic mainstay in our region. These businesses have had to deal with not one, not two, but three agreements.

The first agreement, which was negotiated by our government, is the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. That agreement made some accommodations with regard to supply management to allow European products to enter our market. On October 18, 2013, an agreement in principle was signed with the European Union, and the agreement came into force in September 2017.

The trans-Pacific partnership is now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This happened during the transition from the Conservative government to the current government.

At the time, when we were in negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership, the U.S. was involved, but it withdrew from the agreement in January 2017. The other members of the initial agreement picked up where they left off and renamed the agreement. However, the concessions that were made in the Canada-Europe free trade agreement and then in the trans-Pacific partnership were renewed. This left the dairy sector vulnerable, because there was no agreement with the U.S. when it came time to renegotiate the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. In a way, we had already made two concessions. Even more damaging was the fact that the concessions were cumulative. The Liberals made more bad decisions on cheese imports.

Under the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, 16,000 tonnes of imported cheese from Europe was to enter our markets. The Liberals made the mistake of granting the power to import these cheeses not to those who were affected, namely manufacturers and processors, but to distributors, who received half of the import quota. This was even more detrimental than a simple reduction in volume because Quebec's entire cheese sector was undermined.

Mr. Letendre, the chairman of Les Producteurs de lait du Québec, stated that it made no sense to allocate 50% of the quota to distributors. He said that it is expensive to develop new products in order to compete and that this would hurt Quebec's industry.

I wanted to cite the example of the three agreements that were negotiated. Every time the Liberals were involved in the negotiations, it hurt the dairy industry and Canadian industries. Ultimately, our businesses are being penalized, and we have yet to see any compensation. That is unfortunate, because had Canada's interests been considered in the negotiations, we would not have had to make concessions.

I had many things to say, but I realize that my time is running out. I made my point at the outset. We intend to support the agreement despite its weaknesses because it is important to maintain the relationship with our most important partner, the United States.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

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

I am pleased to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-4, an act to implement the new NAFTA and, in particular, the agreement's intellectual property provisions. Canadian creators and innovators make an important contribution to the North American knowledge economy. For instance, in 2017, 68% of the patents filed by Canadians internationally were filed in the United States, more than at any foreign patent office. The new NAFTA would allow Canadian creators and innovators to continue to conduct business with our U.S. and Mexican partners, ensuring that they would continue to receive a clear, predictable and transparent framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property, or IP, rights in all three markets.

IP rights provide Canadian innovators and creators with a period of time during which they can expect to hold exclusive rights and be entitled to receive compensation, such as royalties for the use of their creations and innovations. With the new NAFTA, Canadians can be confident that their IP rights will receive a minimum standard of protection and enforcement across the entire North American marketplace.

Since the original NAFTA was negotiated, a number of key technological and multilateral developments have taken place that have presented novel challenges, such as with respect to the protection and enforcement of copyright in the digital environment. These include significant advances in the digital economy, including the further development of modern digital technologies that, since NAFTA, have been addressed in multilateral frameworks like the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The updated IP chapter builds upon those international IP treaties, like the WTO agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as well as the multilateral treaties administered by the WIPO with a view to establishing minimum standards on IP rights protection and enforcement for the North American marketplace.

Under the new agreement, all three parties agreed to an updated comprehensive chapter on IP rights protection and enforcement. This chapter includes obligations on copyright-related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents and pharmaceutical IP; data protection for agricultural chemical products and trade secrets; and IP rights enforcement in the civil, criminal and border contexts.

The modernized agreement also reflects several recent reforms to Canada's IP regime, such as those under the Combating Counterfeit Products Act and the Copyright Modernization Act, Canada's recent accession to several multilateral treaties under the WIPO, and initiatives undertaken through the government's recent intellectual property strategy.

For instance, further to reforms to Canada's copyright regime under the Copyright Modernization Act, the new NAFTA contains rules with respect to Internet service providers' liability that recognize Canada's notice and notice framework in this area as an effective approach to addressing online copyright infringement. The new agreement contains rules concerning legal protections for technological protection measures, or the digital locks on copyrighted works, which align with Canada's existing law and policy.

Regarding geographical indications, or Gls, the signs used on products to show that they come from a particular place with distinctive characteristics or qualities related to that place, the new NAFTA outcome is in line with Canada's open and transparent system for the protection of Gls. This means wines, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs remain eligible for GI protection in the Canadian marketplace, in line with Canada's current framework.

The agreement also contains provisions that require the parties to provide that judicial authorities can, where appropriate, order the award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in civil proceedings. This is a valuable tool that often serves as a disincentive against bad actors who pursue bad faith litigation tactics, which can otherwise stifle innovation.

The agreement is not the end of the conversation among the three partners. It also includes a commitment from all three parties to co-operate in discussions on a range of IP issues of interest, such as on enhancing procedural fairness in IP litigation, including choice of venue, an issue of particular concern for some Canadian business owners operating abroad.

Building upon Canada's already strong IP regime, the new agreement would require changes in certain areas of Canada's existing IP legal and policy framework. For example, on border measures, Canada already provides officials at the border with the authority to act on their own initiative, as appropriate, to detain suspected counterfeit trademark or pirated counterfeit goods on import and export. The new agreement would require Canada to extend this authority to such goods transiting through Canada destined for another marketplace.

Regarding copyright, the new agreement requires a change in the general term of copyright protection from “life of the author plus 50 years”, to “life of the author plus 70 years”. With respect to patents, Canada would be required to provide for a patent term adjustment in respect of unreasonable delays in the issuance of a patent.

To implement these two obligations, Canada has transition periods of two and a half years for the general term of protection for copyright and four and a half years for patent term adjustment. These transition periods would commence following the entry into force of the agreement and would enable the government to thoroughly consider and consult on how best to implement these new commitments.

On December 10, 2019, Canada, the United States and Mexico agreed to update certain elements of the new NAFTA to improve the final outcome and clear the path toward ratification and implementation. With respect to IP, agreement was reached to delete or amend certain provisions dealing with patent and pharmaceutical IP. Most notably, the parties agreed to delete the commitment on data protection for biologics, which means that Canada would no longer need to amend its domestic regime to provide 10 years of data protection in this area.

The parties also agreed to remove a provision on the availability of patents for new uses, new methods or new processes of using a known product, as well as provisions on data protection for new indications of existing drugs. Last, language was also added on an exception related to regulatory reviews on how the three countries may meet obligations dealing with patent term restoration, patent linkage and data protection for small-molecule drugs.

These amendments clarify that Canada, the United States and Mexico would remain flexible under the new agreement to pursue domestic policy priorities in these areas. Notably, Canada would be required to make changes to domestic patent or pharmaceutical IP regimes in order to implement the amended provisions. For many Canadian creators and innovators, one of the key barriers to exporting abroad is uncertainty over IP rights and whether they will be protected and enforced when operating in foreign markets. That is why Canada worked tirelessly to ensure that the new agreement establishes clear standards on IP rights and is enforced across North America.

Ratifying the new NAFTA is not just about securing economic benefits for Canada today, but also ensuring our continued prosperity in the future. The agreement would ensure that Canada continues to have a strong and vital relationship with our closest neighbours.

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 third time and passed.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am here to discuss the benefits that the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement will bring to Canadians.

Over the last few weeks, my colleagues and I on the international trade committee had the opportunity to hear from over 100 witnesses from across industries and from across the country as part of our study on Bill C-4. We presented the report back to the House on February 27 without amendments.

The new NAFTA, or CUSMA as it is also called, marks a new milestone in the mutually beneficial trade relationship between Canada, the United States and Mexico. We understood from the start that this achievement would not have been possible without the support, contribution and dedication of Canadians across the country.

Before the negotiations started, we began speaking with Canadians across the country. We listened to their views on the original agreement's benefits and challenges, and what could be done to improve Canada's trading relationship with the United States and Mexico.

Guided by Canada's inclusive approach to trade, we worked very hard from the beginning of the negotiations to secure outcomes that would advance the interests of provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, business and business associations, labour organizations, civil society organizations, women and youth, among others.

From February 2017 to December 2019, the government engaged with over 1,300 stakeholders through nearly 1,100 interactions on NAFTA modernization. Over the same period, we received over 47,000 submissions from Canadians on NAFTA modernization. Canadian stakeholders have been largely supportive of the new agreement and have underlined the importance of securing stability and predictability in our commercial relationship with the United States and Mexico. Their views informed Canada's negotiating positions in this modernization process.

From the outset, the government worked closely with the provincial and territorial governments. Their representatives were invited to travel to the location of each negotiation round and received daily debriefs from the chief negotiator and the members of the negotiating team. We also worked very closely with representatives of indigenous people. In fact, an indigenous working group was formed to work collaboratively on elements of importance to indigenous people in the NAFTA modernization process. In total, the Government of Canada met with representatives of 49 different indigenous groups, including self-governing nations, tribal organizations, national organizations, development corporations, business and lending organizations, legal advisers and policy experts.

We sought and received input and insight from across party lines. We reached out to current and former politicians, premiers, mayors, and community and indigenous leaders for help not only in shaping Canada's priorities, but in championing them. We created a NAFTA advisory council that included representatives of other political parties, as well as business, labour and indigenous leaders. All contributions and advice helped guide our way forward.

Since early 2017, fellow federal, provincial and territorial ministerial colleagues and their teams have cumulatively undertaken over 530 visits to the United States, including parliamentarians here who engaged on similar bilaterals with congressmen and governors in the United States. Others, including many members, have contributed to these efforts. Together, team Canada has collectively engaged with over 750 influencers and decision-makers across the United States.

The new agreement was made possible because we acted together and we acted with resolve at the negotiating table to uphold the interests and values of Canadians in seeking a workable and progressive trade agreement. We sought and obtained consensus on the key issues at home. That helped us prioritize Canada's interests and develop Canada's negotiating positions. In spite of the many hurdles, we worked tirelessly and remained steadfast in our principles and objectives in reaching agreement with the United States and Mexico.

The benefits of the new agreement for Canadians are concrete and considerable. They reflect Canadians' views expressed in the engagement process. Most Canadians viewed the modernization process as an opportunity to preserve key elements of the original NAFTA, modernize and improve the agreement where possible, and ensure the stability and predictability of the North American market. We delivered on these key priorities.

The new agreement preserves key elements of the original NAFTA, allowing for our continued regional prosperity and stability. It reinforces the strong economic ties between Canada, Mexico and the United States, while also recognizing the importance of progressive and inclusive trade by including key components in areas such as labour and environment, as well as language on gender and the rights of indigenous peoples.

In particular, Canada was successful in preserving the NAFTA chapter 19 binational panel dispute settlement mechanism for anti-dumping and countervailing duties, the cultural exemption, NAFTA duty-free access into the U.S. and Mexican markets, and the provision of temporary entry of business persons.

We preserved Canada's system of supply management, despite U.S. attempts to dismantle it.

We modernized and improved the agreement to address the modern-day trade realities and enhanced business opportunities in North America.

CUSMA has nine chapters, including chapters on digital trade, anti-corruption, and small and medium-sized enterprises.

We eliminated the investor-state dispute settlement and the energy proportionality clause. We brought the labour and environmental chapters into the agreement and subjected them to a more effective and efficient dispute settlement procedure.

CUSMA improves the dispute settlement mechanism in a manner that strengthens enforcement, including the areas of labour and environment. This is an outstanding achievement for Canada.

The agreement streamlines customs procedures to facilitate trade, reduce red tape and lessen the administrative burden for Canadian exporters and investors. It also includes outcomes that advance the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, women and indigenous peoples in line with Canada's inclusive approach to trade.

Overall, CUSMA provides key outcomes for Canadian workers, businesses, communities and families.

In the new agreement, Canada was successful in achieving priority outcomes with respect to indigenous peoples, in line with the government's efforts to advance indigenous rights, prosperity and sustainable development in Canada and around the world.

There are also outcomes that reflect the important role of indigenous peoples regarding the environment, including the conservation of biodiversity.

Canada has made gender equality and women's economic empowerment a key priority in recent trade negotiations, including playing a leadership role to integrate gender-related provisions in the agreement. This is the first international trade deal to recognize the discrimination of gender and sexual orientation-based discrimination. This includes labour obligations regarding the elimination of employment discrimination based on gender, as well as other provisions related to corporate social responsibility and small and medium-sized enterprises.

The inclusion of language on indigenous peoples and gender rights is an important step in our government's commitment to reconciliation and gender equality. What we learned throughout the consultation and negotiation period of this agreement will be beneficial to apply to negotiations for future trade agreements.

With the stability CUSMA brings to Canadian producers and industries, we hope it will help Canada take advantage of our unique position of having free trade agreements with so many other regions around the world, including CETA with Europe and CPTPP with Asia and the Pacific. While the United States is our largest trading partner, Canada has the opportunity to become a hub for trade, being the only North American nation with free trade agreements in so many regions that reach over 1.5 billion people around the world.

It is amusing to hear members from across the aisle critique Prime Minister Trudeau or our government's handling of CUSMA and NAFTA, but what the most experienced expert on this issue said is in stark contrast. To quote someone who is considered the architect or originator of the first free trade deal and the second one with the U.S., former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney said this about our government, “I told Trudeau he did a really good job with this renegotiation—”

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 third time and passed.

Speaker's Ruling

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

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

I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-4.

Over the generations, Canada, Mexico and the United States have established an economic relationship that is a model for the entire world. Since 1993, trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico has more than quadrupled and was valued at $1.2 billion U.S. in 2018.

In 1994, NAFTA created the largest free trade zone in the world. The continental North American economy, which is currently estimated to be worth $23 billion U.S., encompasses a regional market of nearly 490 million consumers.

Under this proven, rules-based free trade system, key sectors of the North American economy have developed into integrated production platforms that strengthen the innovative and competitive economic backbone of North America.

The new agreement will enhance the strong economic ties between the three countries and improve North America's ability to remain competitive globally. This agreement also restores the predictability and stability of economic relations between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

The U.S. took several trade actions that contributed to economic instability for Canadian businesses and their workers. Canada had to choose between either renegotiating NAFTA or seeing the United States withdraw from the agreement. I am pleased that we now have a modern trilateral agreement that turns the page and focuses on the three pillars that make our economic relationship so successful: stability, economic integration, and clear, transparent and enforceable rules.

From the start of the negotiations, Canada set out to achieve key priority outcomes: preserve important NAFTA provisions and market access into the U.S. and Mexico, modernize and improve the agreement as much as possible, and reinforce the security and stability of market access into the U.S. and Mexico for Canadian businesses. We are proud that we achieved those objectives.

It is particularly important to note that the preferential tariff treatment under NAFTA is preserved in CUSMA, which helps consolidate our most important trade relationship. Canada's preferential access to the U.S. and Mexican markets is vital to the continuing prosperity of Canadian workers whose livelihoods rely on this trade.

During consultations with stakeholders, we heard repeatedly about the importance of preserving the benefits of NAFTA and the integrity of North American supply chains. We understand how vital it is to Canadian companies and exporters.

As an annual average from 2016 to 2018, Canada exported $412.2 billion worth of goods to the United States, our top export market. Over the same period, Canada exported an annual average of $9.2 billion worth of goods to Mexico, our fifth-largest trading partner. The new NAFTA ensures continued preferential access to these key export destinations.

Maintaining these tariff outcomes provides Canadians with an advantage over countries without a preferential trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. The agreement ensures predictability and continued secure market access for Canadian exporters to our largest trading partner.

The preserved tariff-free environment also safeguards the integrity of integrated North American supply chains. Other key elements of the original NAFTA have been preserved, including the chapter 19 binational panel dispute settlement mechanism, the state-to-state dispute settlement process, the cultural exemption and temporary entry for business persons.

The new NAFTA also helps open new market access opportunities in the United States for Canadian companies and improves access to existing markets. The new modernized agreement includes new customs measures and will also make it easier for companies to move goods across the border by reducing paper processes and providing a single portal for submitting import documentation electronically.

In particular, the new agreement moves away from the traditional certificate of origin to a new certificate of origin that allows companies to use existing documents in their business process, such as an invoice, to certify origin.

The new NAFTA also includes a new stand-alone chapter on rules of origin and origin procedures for textiles and apparel goods that will support Canada's textile and apparel sector. The agreement preserves the existing market access that Canada has under NAFTA to the U.S. and Mexican markets in these sectors and ensures that the benefits of the agreement go primarily to producers located in North America.

Furthermore, the agreement expands a provision from NAFTA to set out a special procedure to more easily establish the origin of indigenous textiles and apparel. Under this provision, a textile or apparel item that the parties agree is an indigenous handcrafted good will be eligible for duty-free treatment, even if the good does not satisfy the applicable product-specific rule of origin.

The new NAFTA includes provisions that will provide added assurance for exporters that their goods will not be delayed by unjustified or unclear measures at the borders. The section 232 side letter provides added security and stability for Canadian automotive and parts companies that export to the U.S. market and will reaffirm Canada's attractiveness as an investment destination for this sector.

With respect to trade and indigenous peoples, and for the first time in a Canadian free trade agreement, the new NAFTA includes a general exception that clearly confirms that the government can adopt or maintain measures it deems necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to indigenous people. An indigenous working group was established to further the dialogue between the government and indigenous people, to share ideas and work collaboratively on solutions.

We are pleased to have concluded an agreement that incorporates new and modernized provisions that seek to address 21st century trade issues and support opportunities for Canadian businesses and workers. This includes bringing obligations on labour and environment into the agreement and subjecting them to dispute settlement.

It also includes important outcomes for inclusive trade, including with respect to gender equality and the interests of indigenous people. In particular, the new labour chapter includes commitments to protect and promote internationally-recognized labour rights and principles in North America.

This chapter also includes unprecedented protections against violence and gender-based discrimination with regard to sexual orientation, sexual harassment, gender identity, caregiving responsibilities and wage discrimination. It is worth noting that the new chapter also includes a non-derogation clause that prevents the parties from weakening their labour laws to encourage trade or investment.

To address labour violations related to collective bargaining and freedom of association in a timely manner, the agreement also includes new mechanisms for rapid response between Canada and Mexico and between the United States and Mexico.

In the event that, in a state-to-state dispute settlement, one party is found to have violated its obligations with regard to child labour, the other party could trigger the rapid response mechanism to remedy the violation of the child labour obligations.

The full environment chapter, which is subject to the dispute settlement mechanism, includes measures for implementing the parties' obligations under multilateral environmental agreements and responding to global environmental problems, such as illegal wildlife trade, illegal fishing, conservation of species at risk, protection of biodiversity, ozone-depleting substances and marine pollution.

This modernized agreement is good for Canadians because it provides the predictability and stability that businesses and workers sorely need.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-4, the new free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, at third reading.

Perhaps I should say that I appreciate finally having the chance to speak to this agreement, as Conservatives have tried time and again to move this deal forward.

It is that clear we need economic stability, and an unsigned free trade agreement with our largest trading partner is anything but stable. In 2016 alone, Canada exported approximately $425 billion in goods and services to the United States while importing approximately $407 billion.

I will be speaking about how this deal will impact my riding and my province, but first I want to reflect on how we got here.

For over 30 years, free trade in North America has been a cornerstone of the Canadian economy. Negotiated by a Conservative government in the early 1990s, NAFTA made tangible, positive impacts on the lives of millions of Canadians. It helped propel us to becoming one of the most prosperous countries in the world, a country that weathered the 2008 recession better than any of our G7 counterparts. This is a Conservative legacy, a legacy of prosperity.

However, for some time during the previous Parliament, it appeared that this legacy of prosperity was in jeopardy as a result of the actions of the Liberal government. Still, the Liberals managed to pull a deal out of the fire. Of course, it would have been better not to have started the fire in the first place.

This deal is likely the best the Liberals could do, but it certainly was not the best deal possible. When negotiations began, President Trump was concerned about what were perceived as unfair trade practices from Mexico. Canada was not his target, nor was there any reason to expect that we would be, yet the Liberals squandered much of the goodwill we had with the United States almost as soon as the negotiations began by presenting a list of priorities that had essentially nothing to do with free trade, a list not, I would note, dissimilar to the list the Liberals presented in their initial discussions with China, who quickly sent them on their way.

Within months, the United States placed the removal of the dispute settlement mechanism and supply management on the table. There had been little indication that these were issues with Canada. The United States went further by imposing tariffs, no doubt unfairly, on Canadian steel and aluminum. We were then left on the outside looking in as the Americans negotiated and agreed to a bilateral trade agreement with Mexico. Canada was forced to play catch-up in negotiations and needed every ounce of goodwill to save a deal.

How did the now Deputy Prime Minister respond to this precarious situation? She responded by using her platform while accepting an award to imply that the president of the country we were trying to sign a free trade agreement with was a totalitarian. That is what I mean by starting the fire.

It is remarkable, and I say this with all honesty, that the Liberals were able to salvage any deal out of that house fire, let alone one that contained a dispute resolution mechanism and did not do away with supply management entirely. Still, the question must be asked: How much better would this deal be if the Liberals had not undermined themselves time and time again? Unfortunately, we will never know what deal we could have had, but we do know what deal we have.

Now I would like to take some time to speak about how this agreement would impact my riding and my province.

As many in the House may know, I represent a large, mostly rural riding which is home to the majority of Saskatchewan's supply-managed farms. However, most of my colleagues would be unaware that I also represent a large area that is referred to as the “iron triangle”, a cluster of municipalities with metal manufacturing as a primary or major industry. Communities like Humboldt, Annaheim, Englefeld, St. Gregor, Vonda and many others punch well above their weight in the design, development and manufacture of high-quality, world-leading agricultural equipment.

They make up an important part of Saskatchewan's growing manufacturing industry, which is an industry that exports over $300 million in products each and every year. One can imagine how much of an impact the tariffs placed on Canadian steel and aluminum had on these communities and the companies that call them home.

The trade war that resulted had real consequences for the constituents in my riding, many of whose livelihoods rely on the free movement of manufactured metal equipment throughout North America. Understandably, it came as a relief that the tariffs on steel were removed in the negotiation process. However, that good news has been tempered by the ongoing tariffs on Canadian aluminum. Given what I have already outlined, I think there can be little doubt that a better approach in negotiations would have seen these tariffs removed completely.

Similarly, Canada was in a good position at the beginning of these negotiations to finally bring an end to the long-running saga of softwood lumber disputes. Now, as luck would have it, the United States Department of Commerce recently announced that there would be a significant decrease in the tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, yet there is still no agreement in place going forward, leaving lumber producers in Saskatchewan in limbo for long-term planning. This was another missed opportunity.

Supply management, as I mentioned earlier, is a part of our economy that likely only came under scrutiny because of the Liberals' poor strategy in the early days of negotiations.

First, let me be clear that I am very happy to see that the Liberals did not literally give away the farm, although whether they figuratively did is up for debate. This new agreement would open up 3.6% of the Canadian dairy market to imports, significantly more than was agreed upon by the previous Conservative government in the TPP. It would also impose a threshold on Canadian exports of milk protein concentrates and other similar products to the United States and Mexico.

But there is more: Not only would CUSMA limit dairy exports to the signatory countries, but it would also limit exports to other countries not party to this agreement. What is more, we would now be required to report to the U.S. dairy commission before we begin negotiations with other countries. This would further limit the ability of Canadian dairy farmers to replace market share lost in Canada by sales to the signatories of CUSMA, and would handcuff us in other free trade negotiations going forward.

The losses to our dairy sector arising from these concessions will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and this comes at a time when dairy farmers are seeing increased costs from the carbon tax, costs they cannot recover either through rebates or through the market. The government must realize that our dairy industry, especially the many family farms in my riding, cannot continue to see their margins shrink and still remain in business.

There is more I could say on this deal, but in truth, Canada needs a free trade agreement going forward. We recognize that. Our already weakening economy cannot handle further trade uncertainty. Industry groups, chambers of commerce and provincial premiers understand this, and the majority have therefore asked the House to ratify CUSMA.

Faced with this reality, the questions of what could have been must give way to what is, and so, while far from perfect, CUSMA is better than nothing.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, CUSMA validates my private member's bill, Bill C-222. It naturally follows that Bill C-4 also supports the same principles found in Bill C-222. That is why I am supporting this CUSMA agreement.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the great work he did on the committee. He was a great member to work with, as were all the members on the committee.

Not everything goes the way we all want it to go. At the committee level, in reference to the economic report we were waiting for, we did receive it quite late in the process. All of this has been very difficult to ensure that this NAFTA and Bill C-4 get through the committee and that we recognize all of the pluses, such as the thousands of jobs we are protecting in Canada as well as the opportunities for growth that need to happen.

We always learn in everything we do as parliamentarians, and I hope we will learn from this experience as well to move forward.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues today as we deal with Bill C-4, which is extremely important for us. We call it the CUSMA, or the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

I am pleased with the work we did at committee on this particular issue. My committee colleagues from all parties showed their dedication to their constituents and their country while we did this study. Every member made it clear to me that it was their sincerest intent to collaborate, co-operate and come together as a committee to make sure that we did the job we were elected to do and worked in a non-partisan way on something that is critically important to Canada.

With our intensified schedule, our committee analyzed this bill for a total of 38.5 hours. The hard work that took place at committee ensured that Bill C-4 was returned in a timely fashion. Over 117 witnesses were invited, and we heard from a large range of individuals, organizations and businesses.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard work of the staff of the House of Commons who were present during these extended meetings. None of this could have been possible without the work of our committee clerks, analysts, translators and the House of Commons staff, who carried out their duties with utmost professionalism. A huge thanks goes out to everyone involved.

This new agreement will help reinforce strong economic ties between Canada, the United States and Mexico. It will improve North America's ability to compete on the global stage. This agreement will also bring back predictability and stability to the economic relationship between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, which we heard a lot about from various businesses and presenters.

We have seen several actions from the U.S. on trade that had contributed to economic instability for Canadian businesses and their workers, and they were clearly concerned. Canada was confronted with the option of either renegotiating NAFTA or facing the possibility of the United States withdrawing from the agreement. I am pleased that we now have a modern trilateral agreement that turns the page and focuses on the three pillars that make our economic relationship so successful: stability, economic integration and clear, transparent and enforceable rules.

From the start of the negotiations, Canada set out to achieve key priority outcomes: preserve important NAFTA provisions and market access into the U.S. and Mexico, modernize and improve the agreement, and reinforce the security and stability of market access into the U.S. and Mexico for Canadian businesses. We are proud of the fact that we have achieved all three of those objectives.

It is particularly important to note that the preferential tariff treatment under NAFTA is preserved in this new agreement. Canada's preferential access to the U.S. and Mexican markets is vital to the continuing prosperity of Canadian workers whose livelihoods rely on this trade. During consultations with stakeholders, we heard repeatedly about the importance of preserving the benefits of NAFTA and the integrity of North American supply chains. We understand how vital they are to Canadian companies and exporters.

As an annual average from 2016 to 2018, Canada exported 412.2 billion dollars' worth of goods to the United States, Canada's top export market. Over the same period, Canada exported an annual average of 9.2 billion dollars' worth of goods to Mexico, Canada's fifth-largest trading partner. These are very significant numbers, and the new NAFTA ensures continued preferential access to these key export destinations.

The new agreement preserves the market access outcomes that were achieved in the original NAFTA. This means that NAFTA's duty-free access for all non-agricultural goods will be maintained. For agricultural goods, Canadian exports will also continue to benefit from duty-free access for nearly 89% of U.S. agricultural tariff lines and 91% of Mexican tariff lines. The new NAFTA will help farmers to be more competitive and will make it easier for them to export their products and continue to feed North America and the rest of the world.

Maintaining these tariff outcomes provides Canadians with an advantage over those in countries without a preferential trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. It also ensures predictability and continued secure market access for Canadian exporters to our largest trading partners. The preserved tariff-free environment also safeguards the integrity of the integrated North American supply chains. Other key elements of the original NAFTA have also been preserved, including the chapter 19 binational panel dispute settlement, a state-to-state dispute settlement, the cultural exception and temporary entry for business persons.

The new NAFTA also helps open new market access opportunities in the U.S. for Canadian companies and improves existing market access. The new modernized agreement includes new customs and trade facilitation measures that will make it easier for companies to move goods across the border, including by eliminating paper processes and providing a single portal for traders to submit import documentation electronically. In particular, the new agreement moves away from the traditional certificate of origin to a new certificate of origin that allows companies to use existing documents in their business process to certify origin.

The new NAFTA includes a new stand-alone chapter on rules of origin and origin procedures for textiles and apparel goods that will support Canada's textile and apparel sector. The agreement preserves the existing market access that Canada has under NAFTA to the U.S. and Mexican markets in these sectors and ensures that the benefits of the agreement go primarily to producers located in North America. The new agreement provides greater flexibility for producers to use small amounts of materials from outside the region without losing their preference.

Furthermore, the agreement expands a provision from NAFTA to set out a special procedure to more easily establish the origin of the indigenous textiles and apparel. Under this provision, a textile or apparel item that the parties agree is an indigenous handcrafted good will be eligible for duty-free treatment, even if the good does not satisfy the applicable product-specific rule of origin.

Given the importance of predictability and transparency in international trade, the new NAFTA includes provisions that will provide added assurance for exporters that their goods will not be delayed by unjustified or unclear measures at the borders. Companies will have enough time to adjust to new regulations and other requirements. The agreement also ensures Canada's agricultural and processed food exports can rely on sanitary and phytosanitary measures that are risk-based and that increase predictability of market access so that products make it to market in a reasonable amount of time.

The section 232 side letter on autos and auto parts achieved as part of the overall outcome provides added security and stability for Canadian automotive and parts companies that export to the U.S. market. It will reaffirm Canada's attractiveness as an investment destination for this sector.

On trade and indigenous people, for the first time in a Canadian free trade agreement, the new NAFTA incorporates a general exception that clearly confirms that the government can adopt or maintain measures it deems necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to indigenous peoples. An indigenous working group was established to further the dialogue between the government and indigenous peoples, share ideas and work collaboratively on solutions.

We are pleased to have concluded an agreement that incorporates new and modernized provisions that seek to address 21st century trade issues and support opportunities for Canadian businesses and workers. This includes bringing obligations on labour and environment into the agreement and subjecting them to dispute settlement. It also includes important outcomes toward inclusive trade, including with respect to gender and the interests of indigenous peoples.

In particular, the new labour chapter includes commitments to protect and promote internationally recognized labour rights and principles in North America. It also includes unprecedented protections against violence and against gender-based discrimination with regard to sexual orientation, sexual harassment, gender identity, caregiving responsibilities and wage discrimination.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that 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.

We must ask parliamentarians to come together and join our partners in the United States and Mexico and ratify this agreement. We need to ratify it expeditiously and ensure certainty for businesses and, more important, ensure certainty for employees across this beautiful country we call home. It is of paramount importance.

I recommend all my colleagues and all Canadians watching read the economic impact assessment on the new NAFTA, the CUSMA. I will read some of the preamble, which states:

The final CUSMA outcome effectively achieved Canada’s overarching objectives by preserving key elements of NAFTA, modernizing and updating the Agreement to support Canada’s access to and integration with the North American economy, providing important stability and predictability with respect to overall market access, and addressing the harmful impacts of U.S. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as threats of similar tariffs on automobiles and auto parts.

I am sharing my time today with my hon. colleague, friend and mentor, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

Two aspects of the agreement need to be highlighted as we begin the debate in the House. These are of paramount importance to the New Democratic Party, the Conservatives, the Greens, the Bloc and the Liberals.

The first is that this would ensure Canada's trading partners in North America would maintain high levels of labour and environmental protection. This agreement has bipartisan support in the United States between Democrats and Republicans. It has been ratified already by the United States and Mexico. It has support from our major unions in Canada, Unifor, Canadian Labour Congress. The agreement is a win for the environment. It is a win for labour. It is a win for hard-working middle-class Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is a win for our businesses to help grow our economy and keep it moving forward.

Second, the agreement would strengthen the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism between parties and would ensure that disputes would be settled in an effective and efficient manner. This is all contained in the impact assessment that was done by Global Affairs. It is a great read, is quite insightful and it provides an overview of where we will go with this agreement and how it will benefit all three trading partners and their workers.

We all know we live in a world that is currently seeing a lot of uncertainty with COVID-19. I want to express my sincere appreciation and full support to our health professionals in Canada and across the world who are on the front lines of the situation we are facing. I pray for them and thank them again for what they do.

Many of my colleagues will know that I am economist by training. I worked globally in Toronto, New York City and spent time in Europe before I entered politics. In my view, Canada, its workers and businesses are well positioned to handle the evolving economic environment or landscape. As a country, we will continue to succeed and grow as a people and our economy. We will continue to create jobs.

I witnessed first-hand the tech boom and bust, the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, which at one point our U.S. neighbours to the south were losing several hundred thousands jobs a month. Thankfully coordinated action by the Federal Reserve, under Ben Bernanke, central bankers everywhere and policies pursued by the Obama administration staved off what I believe would have been a second global depression.

As parliamentarians, we must understand how interconnected the global economy is and with that how interconnected the global energy sector is. We have all read the headlines. There are many forces at work currently in the global energy markets, and I wish to begin part of my speech and speak to the importance of Canada's energy sector to Canada's economy today and in the years and decades to come.

CUSMA guarantees access for Canadian products and services to the United States, keeps barrier-free from happening and is good for our energy sector among all other sectors, such as auto, aluminum, steel, dairy, services, intellectual property, etc.

I would like to express my thanks to all of Canada's energy and mineral mining sector workers, whether it be those in the oil sands sector, those working in the western Canadian sedimentary basin, those mining uranium, those maintaining our nuclear plants in Ontario and those working on the TMX pipeline or on the Coastal GasLink, which will supply LNG to the Asian markets, displacing coal and thus reducing the world's global greenhouse gas emissions.

We speak about climate change. We speak about saving our planet. We speak about moving forward. One of those aspects is displacing coal through LNG and that needs to happen so we can get to where we need to be.

CUSMA provides the energy sector, auto sector, our tremendously hard-working dairy farmers, steel and aluminum sector workers and the entire Canadian economy with certainty. However, again, let us focus on Canada's energy sector, which accounts for a very large portion of the two-way trade between Canada and the United States and for a very large portion of the trade between all three countries.

Here are a few facts about how important the energy sector is to the Canadian economy.

As of 2018, Canada's energy sector directly employed more than 269,000 people and indirectly supported over 550,500 jobs. It is all on Enercan's website and I encourage Canadians who want to analyze how important this sector is to take a quick look. That is over 800,000 good, middle-class jobs, with the overwhelming majority providing good wages and benefits to families across Canada.

According to 2018 statistics, the energy sector accounts for over 11% , or $230 billion, of Canada's nominal GDP. Direct revenues from energy to governments totalled over $14 billion in 2018.

As an economist, one measure I like to see is our merchandise trade statistics that are published monthly. In 2019, the Canadian oil and gas sector generated a trade surplus of $76 billion for our economy. That is money flowing into our economy to pay for schools, bridges and roads and to maintain our high standard of living. We can compare this to the auto sector, which is so important for Ontario, that has a trade deficit of $20 billion.

Behind that $76 billion trade surplus, Canada is the sixth largest world's energy producer, the fifth largest net exporter and the eighth largest consumer of energy. Frankly, energy drives our economy, our daily lives and our standard of living.

Total energy exports in 2018 were $132 billion versus $55 billion of imports, with oil and gas exports at $118 billion of which 95% were to the U.S. Notably, we export energy products to approximately 148 countries and 90% of that goes to the United States.

Human capital is a paramount strength of Canada, its people, its diversity, the ability to be an inclusive society and strengthen our economy. That is what makes our country a blessed place to live. When we also include Canada's natural capital resources, whether it is our agricultural sector, our forestry sector, hydro-electric power driven by our rivers and waterways, the mineral and energy wealth our country, Canada and its citizens are blessed and our potential when we work together is endless.

The new free trade deal between the three countries provides certainty to over $1.4 trillion, and growing, in trade volumes. Trade generates jobs, grows our economy and ensures a bright future for all children, including my own.

The world is becoming more interconnected. Our trade deals, CETA, CPTPP and CUSMA allow us preferential access to 1.5 billion individuals across the world. They allow us to continue to export our goods and services. Canada is a magnet for immigration. The best and brightest want to work here. They want to invent. They want to raise their families here. They want to call Canada home, and we welcome them.

On that front, CUSMA will allow us to move forward. When I read the economic impact assessment produced by Global Affairs, I saw what we have done, what the team under Steve Verheul has done. I applaud them. I applaud the Deputy Prime Minister for her steadfast commitment to ensuring a great deal for Canadian workers and businesses.

I have heard from all sectors and stakeholders in our economy and they all want this deal to pass. Whether it is the Chamber of Commerce, both locally and Canada-wide, or Unifor or the Canadian Labour Congress, they all want certainty. In this period of time, we need certainty for our economy. This deal would deliver it.

I look forward to debate this week and participating in it, commencing with today's speech. We know we need to provide certainty for our workers and literally the millions of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on trade with the United States and Mexico.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as this is my maiden speech, I would respectfully ask for the traditional maiden speech consideration to acknowledge those who have helped create this opportunity to address the House today.

As a colleague stated several weeks ago, cats have nine lives, but members of Parliament who do not acknowledge their families and forget them have only one, so I want to begin by thanking my wife, Charlene, for her support as we began going down this road several years ago. Charlene is a relatively quiet, private individual, so when she joined me knocking on doors in an unfamiliar part of our riding on our 34th wedding anniversary, I knew I had her full backing. I am thankful for Charlene's love and support.

We are blessed with four daughters, aged 23 to 30, who are presently scattered across Canada, and I also enjoy their support. Kiana is pursuing her master's degree in economics at Waterloo; Brenna is articling for the Bar in Vancouver; Carina is a registered nurse working in long-term care, pursuing her master's degree in gerontology and living in Kamloops, B.C., with her husband Adam, and this June will give us our first grandchild; lastly, our oldest daughter, Alyssa, lives closest to us near Leamington and continues to pursue her dream career as an operatic lyric soprano while teaching music.

I am very proud of my four daughters and I will continue to work to ensure that their lives have no glass ceilings above them.

I am fortunate that my parents, Abe and Susan Epp, who are in the mid to late 80s, were able to join us here in Ottawa in November as I accepted the responsibilities of this office. I thank them for a lifetime of love and support.

I also want to thank my brother Peter and his family. They are the business partners of Lycoland Farms, a family farm business founded by my grandfather, who purchased the home farm in 1949. I have the privilege of being the third generation living on that property today, with my brother and his son providing the day-to-day leadership in that business. We pride ourselves on maintaining this farm along with other lands now under our stewardship in a better environmental state than when my grandfather first purchased this property.

It is my privilege to represent the riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CKL for short, which is Canada's most southerly riding. I want to thank our EDA, along with all the volunteers who joined our campaign last fall.

With two major centres, Chatham and Leamington, and more than 20 smaller towns and villages, providing a better future for our community of communities is a shared goal. Historical communities such as Comber, Blenheim, Morpeth, Highgate, Ridgetown, North Buxton, south Buxton, Charing Cross, Erieau, Wheatley, Stoney Point, Lighthouse Cove, Rondeau, Merlin, Erie Beach, Clachan, Duart, Shrewsbury, Guilds, Rushton Corners, Prairie Siding, Sleepy Hollow, Coatsworth, Jeannette's Creek, Port Crewe, Port Alma, Dealtown, Cedar Spring, Fletcher, and Muirkirk provide a rich, unique legacy in Canada, and I sure hope that I did not forget one.

Chatham—Kent—Leamington is one of the earliest settled areas in Canada. It is largely surrounded by water, which is why it was settled early, as water was one of the most efficient means of travel and trade two to three centuries ago. That same water still has a profound effect on our riding today.

As Canadians, we describe our country as stretching from shore to shore to shore. The north shore of Lake Erie forms the southern boundary of the riding, with Pelee Island and Middle Island's shores entirely within that lake. With additional shoreline on Lake St. Clair also adding to the over 150 kilometres of shoreline, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, along with other ridings across approximately one-third of Canada's southerly border, truly belongs in our national maritime boundary description. These shorelines provide sources of employment and enjoyment, but they also provide challenges as we grapple with record-high Great Lakes water levels.

However, for the moment, I want to focus on the hard-working folks who work some of Canada's most productive soils that are surrounded by these shores, and the people who add value to the products from our farms in the food sector.

Agriculture and food processing are the traditional bedrock of our local economy. With the 42nd parallel running through the riding about two kilometres south of my home farm, we enjoy one of the longest growing seasons in Canada.

Along with very fertile soils, our microclimate, buffered by the Great Lakes, allows the production of grain and oilseeds and a whole range of fruits and vegetables that make an important contribution to Canada's food security.

This vegetable production on some of our sandiest soils also spawned a greenhouse industry that today is a world leader. It is an honour to represent some of the most advanced greenhouses in the world. They utilize the most modern technologies, thereby reducing negative effects on the environment and considerably improving the energy efficiency of crops, and thus remaining competitive both in national and international markets.

Similarly, our manufacturing sector, with geographic proximity to the historical birthplace of the North American auto sector, has developed into a world leader, not only in the tool and die sector for auto but also for aerospace, automation, food processing and handling, greenhouse technologies, and a host of other industrial sectors.

We have a talented, industrious workforce led by entrepreneurs whose imagination drives their initiatives, both in their businesses and in our communities. Agriculture and agrifood, as well as the manufacturing sectors, are solid, competitive local industries ready to serve both domestic and export markets.

Therefore, Bill C-4, the Canada–United States–Mexico agreement, CUSMA, which is being debated today, is highly significant to my riding. We have a long history with trade, with many businesses having grown to service the logistics of trade and participating both domestically and in export markets. Our riding is well positioned geographically to serve Canada's interests by being ready, willing and capable of adding to Canada's exports, one of the stated goals of the government.

Let me add my voice to those who say the Conservative Party of Canada is the party of freer and more liberalized trade. We were party to the original North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA 1.0. Let me state that this agreement before us today is certainly not NAFTA 2.0; NAFTA .7 might be more accurate.

Nevertheless, we have been clear from the outset that the Canadian business community needs certainty, and we will support this bill. In fact, we have been pushing the government, as the previous speaker stated, to expedite the passage of this bill, but coupled with a proper examination of its implications. A closer look revealed several flaws that will cost our country. For example, and as previously mentioned, softwood lumber issues related to the buy American policy were not addressed.

Let me focus some comments on two areas of the economy that are important to my riding. While the horticulture and grain and oilseeds sector of agriculture were largely unaffected by the negotiations, our supply-managed sector was not. An additional 3.6% of our dairy market was opened up to imports, which was more than what was intended under the TPP, the trans-Pacific partnership.

Originally, with Mexico and the U.S. as planned signatories to the TPP, the new TPP thresholds were intended to be updated to NAFTA levels.

In addition, this agreement eliminates class 6 and class 7, and establishes export thresholds for milk protein concentrates, skim milk powder and infant formula. Other supply-managed industries also had similar outcomes, with imports given additional access to domestic markets.

Canadians are wondering what Canada got in return for these concessions. Would the opportunities for other agriculture sectors, such as our grain and oilseeds and horticulture sectors, be enhanced? Not that I have heard.

At the last minute, another concession was given. Aluminum was not afforded the same protection as steel, which was that 70% of steel used in auto production must be North American, defined as melted and poured in North America. Aluminum was not afforded the same consideration.

With increased interest in the electrification of vehicles and the replacement of steel with aluminum parts to lessen vehicle weight and increase fuel efficiency, it is expected that aluminum content will only increase in future automobile manufacturing. This development directly impacts a business in my riding. Dajcor Aluminum began 10 years ago in Chatham, and in the last decade has grown from nothing to over 250 employees. They extrude aluminum into various parts, mainly targeted to North American auto manufacturers.

Mike Kilby, president of Dajcor, testified at the trade committee hearings into Bill C-4. He concluded his submission with the following:

To summarize, this is a terribly bad deal for NA aluminum producers, extruders and for manufacturers of aluminum automotive components in Canada and the U.S. Mexico already has a labour advantage and now they get to add a subsidized commodity to that advantage.

The Conservatives support freer and fair trade. We will support this bill, despite its many shortcomings, because of the certainty that investment demands. There must, however—

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the fabulous work that the vice-chair did at the international trade committee. He was very helpful making the points that were necessary and with getting it through committee and back to the House now. We heard him mention the number of jobs that he was concerned about, as we all are. I guess there were some things we were not necessarily crazy about, but it was a question of other areas that had some improvements.

Can the hon. member elaborate a bit on some of those areas that are actually improvements with Bill C-4?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, it will be that member's maiden speech so I think we are going to hear a really good speech from him today. I cannot think of a better topic for him to speak to, because trade is an important issue to the people in his riding. I look forward to hearing his comments. I am sure they will be wise and worth listening to, unlike some of the other comments we have heard here today. No offence intended.

We are getting through Bill C-4. There is no question about that. We kept our word. We said we would not hold this up. We said that we would do everything we could to properly see this go through the committee stage, which we did. We heard some 200 submissions from people who wanted to appear before the committee.

Even though the Liberals shortened the time, with agreement from the NDP, and made it tough to hear from all of those witnesses, we managed to get through the bulk of them by having extended sittings. I want to thank all members of the committee for sharing their time in the evenings and the staff who were involved so that we could listen to these people. They had serious concerns, and I want to talk about some of those today and get them on the record.

I will start off with dairy. During the TPP negotiations, we were going to give roughly 3.5% market access for dairy to the U.S. and all of the other countries involved in the TPP. When the Liberals pulled us out of the TPP and held us back for a year and a half, and Obama lost the ability to move it forward in the U.S., TPP was going to be the replacement. By the Liberals not moving forward here in Canada, and not creating a window for Obama to move forward in the U.S., we lost that window of opportunity for a period of time, thus a new election in the U.S.

We did the TPP. We still gave up 3.5%, and now we had to negotiate a new NAFTA deal with the U.S. What did we do? We gave up another 3.5%. Dairy producers have been hit twice, which they feel is unfair, and I can understand where they are coming from.

What makes it even more disturbing is what else the Liberals gave up. They gave up their ability to market things like powdered milk around the world, things that we have a surplus of here in Canada. When they were being consulted through the negotiations, they told us in committee that they were under the impression that it would be limited to North America. The text of the agreement indicates that it is global.

Why would the Liberals let another country determine the amount of exports a sector is able to do? That is what the Liberals agreed to in this agreement. The dairy sector has some serious concerns and complaints about that, and this is something the minister will have to address.

Aluminum and the 70% rule are another issue with respect to this agreement. There is still a lot of concern in the aluminum sector in Quebec about why that was different from the steel industry. Why was the aluminum industry not given the same considerations as steel? If we wanted to have North American content, it should have been that way.

What is concerning here is that there could possibly be a back door through Mexico for a pile of cheap aluminum to be dumped into the North American market based on how that country goes through the process of identification. I understand our officials have said they are going to monitor it, along with the U.S., to make sure that does not happen, but the same thing could have simply been done for aluminum as was done for steel. We would have been fine.

Another opportunity that the Liberals missed out on, and which the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord brought up in one of our meetings with Steve Verheul, our trade negotiator, is the fact that green aluminum is produced in Quebec and in other parts of Canada. It is all based on hydro power. The facility in British Columbia is based on hydro. The facilities in Chicoutimi are based on hydro. Canada probably produces the most environmentally friendly aluminum in the world.

Why would that not be put into the agreement? Why would we not say that if we want to have green vehicles, environmentally friendly vehicles, let us use environmentally friendly products like Canadian aluminum?

There were opportunities to say that was the way the implementation should be, so that we were not renegotiating the deal. Instead, all three countries said they wanted to do more for the environment and this was one way, so let us put it in our implementation act that we do just that. There was an opportunity there again, an opportunity we would not have known about unless we did some due diligence in committee.

Government procurement is very disturbing. The Liberals did not even touch on it in this new agreement. They said they would leave it up to the WTO. Then we found out the U.S. was talking about pulling out of the WTO government procurement program. We have no protection with respect to government procurement. We have no provisions to fight off buy America. We have nothing in place.

I would strongly encourage the government to go back to the table on this part, especially if we see the U.S. pull out of the WTO agreement. It should get a deal on procurement and deal with buy America, because the Liberals did not do that in this agreement.

Then there is the auto sector. We feel that Canada's auto sector is going to be hit by a decline of almost $1.5 billion when we look at the impact of the changes in the auto rules.

I understand that the U.S. was very tough on these negotiations. There are some wins in it for our guys here in Canada, there are some wins in the U.S. and some concessions made out of Mexico on that. When it comes down to the auto part of the deal, that was actually done in Mexico between the U.S. and Mexico and we took what was left. We did not have a lot of input into the auto part of this deal.

I have some concerns about longevity when it comes to the competitiveness of our auto sector. With these new rules, we are going to have more expensive cars and they are going to be more expensive in the global marketplace. We did nothing to improve the competitiveness of the auto sector within the three countries, which is a really huge missed opportunity.

We also need to talk a little bit about de minimis rates. I know the U.S. wanted us to go up to a higher number. We kept it at a lower number, which is good, but then they put in a strange amendment. They left Canada Post out as being one of the carriers. Looking at it, all of the commercial carriers can handle any packages across the border and get the new de minimis rate, except for Canada Post.

I live in rural Canada. Canada Post delivers my parcels. Why would we have a deal leaving out Canada Post? It is a Crown corporation, and parcel delivery is probably the most lucrative part of Canada Post. Again, this is an area that I think the government needs to look at and fix, because it does not make a lot of sense.

We tried all along to see this piece of legislation go forward. We knew the importance of the deal. We did not like it. We knew it stunk, but I want to get it on the record that we were being progressive and trying to be proactive in moving this forward. This goes back to before the election.

Before the election, we made a motion at the standing committee, once the original deal was signed, to do a pre-study. There were concerns at the time that we would not have the U.S. moving at the same speed as us and we would be ahead of them. Mexico was actually moving very fast. We said that we should have all the pre-studies done and then we would just have to deal with it in the House. The Liberals declined. In December 2019, we offered to come back early and deal with this. The Liberals declined.

It was not until the end of January that the Liberals actually brought it into the House and we managed to work with the other opposition parties and everybody here. Instead of taking the normal 16 days, we did it in six days. At committee, all we wanted was to do thorough research, so we were willing to get it done in the last week of sitting. That last Thursday we put forward an unanimous consent motion, which the Liberals declined, to start this process basically two weeks ago. The member across the way said no. I want to make sure that everybody understands in the House that we have never been the ones holding this up, but we did say that we wanted to have a good thorough look at it.

One of the things that happened at committee, which I think committee members and all members of the House should be very concerned about, is that 20 minutes before our last meeting the Liberals dropped off their economic analysis. They gave us not even an evening, not even an hour to go through it, only 20 minutes. We quickly went through it and started looking at the announcements and the benchmarks, which were compared to nothing. Instead of taking this agreement and comparing it with what we have today, which is what was done on TPP and other trade agreements, it was compared to nothing.

It was a horrible assessment. It was just unusable to help us talk to people who were going to be negatively impacted to find a way forward. It was just incredible.

When C.D. Howe did its assessment, it found this deal is going to cost our economy $14 billion a year. For the Liberals to say this is a win-win-win, no it is not. It is plug our noses and be thankful we got something, because something is better than nothing.

As I sum this up, there is more that I could probably talk about with regard to the committee, but I want to thank all the companies that came forward and all the individuals who gave evidence.

I want to challenge the government because you got a lot of really good information. Do something with that information, mitigate the losses and make sure they are not left out, because it is your responsibility to come up with a game plan. We would be glad to help.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-4, an act to implement the new North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, formally known as the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. This agreement is extremely important to Canada, Canadian businesses and workers, and I can say, as a representative of a Mississauga riding, that the bill, this agreement, is very important for my constituents and the businesses in Mississauga.

Our government has embarked on a very aggressive trade agenda because trade is extremely important to Canadian businesses and workers. Members will be interested to know that one out of six jobs in Canada depends on trade. It is because our country produces some of the best products and services in the world, and the world needs more Canadian products and services. We know that with our agenda to grow and support the middle class and create more jobs for the middle class, we need to encourage Canadian businesses to trade, export and import more.

Our government maintained an aggressive trade agenda, and over the last few years we have signed and ratified CETA, a free trade agreement with the European Union, and the CPTPP, a free trade agreement with Asia-Pacific nations. Today, Canada is the only G7 country that has a free trade agreement with all other G7 nations. This is a competitive advantage that our friends and competitors in the United States do not have. We have a great environment in Canada for businesses and workers to export our products and services around the world.

Over the last few years, after the U.S. election, President Trump has campaigned on the issue of revamping and reviewing NAFTA. Our government took that very seriously and engaged with the U.S. administration to make sure that we protect Canadian interests, particularly the interests of Canadian workers and businesses. Access to the United States market is extremely important for businesses. Every day, almost $2 billion of products and services cross the border into the United States, so we know how important maintaining access to U.S. customers and businesses is for our businesses and workers.

At a time of increased protectionism, when, as we all know, the U.S. administration was adamant about increasing protectionism and building barriers, it was very important for our government to protect the interests of Canadian businesses and workers. What did we do? We assembled a strong team of industry, labour and stakeholders, a team that transcended partisan lines, with representatives from different parties and groups, to make sure that a complete voice for Canadian businesses was at the table as we were negotiating and protecting Canadian interests.

Canadians will recall the process that we engaged in over the last few years. It was at times very difficult, as most trade negotiations are, and there were moments of challenges and difficulties. In assembling a great team, engaging the provinces, premiers, stakeholders, legislators in the House of Commons and senators, we took an excellent team Canada approach as we embarked on this negotiation process with the United States, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other ministers. We made sure that Canada's voice was strong and firm at the table, as we were very interested in maintaining access to Canadian businesses, markets and workers.

There were some challenges. As members may recall, there was a period when the U.S. administration imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on Canadian businesses. We were very firm and clear in our opposition to those tariffs. We fought very hard for businesses and workers to have those tariffs lifted. There was a regrettable time when some opposition voices were asking us to lift the countervailing duties that we had imposed on American products, but we knew it was the right thing for Canada. It was the right thing for Canadian interests.

The outcome of the negotiations was very good for Canada. We ensured that 99.9% of Canadian businesses, products and services maintained tariff-free access to U.S. markets. It was really important for business certainty, for business continuity and for workers to know that that access would be maintained.

For the automotive sector, we have increased the rules of origin to 75%, and that is good news for Canadian workers and businesses. We all know how important the auto sector is to the Canadian economy. It is very important for businesses in my riding of Mississauga Centre.

We have also preserved the state-to-state dispute resolution mechanism. That was something the U.S. administration was intent on removing, but we knew it was really important to continue to have an independent adjudicator for the dispute resolution mechanism, and we were able to preserve it.

We were also able to preserve the integrity of our supply management system. Again, the U.S. administration came to the table intent on completely dismantling our supply management system. However, we stood our ground. We stood firm behind our farmers and producers, and we protected the integrity of our supply management system.

We also preserved the cultural exemption that existed in NAFTA. That was very important for our cultural industries. Canada, compared to the United States, is a relatively small market, but we have our own unique identity. We have the unique identity of bilingualism and multiculturalism. We were able to protect an inclusion for our cultural industries, so that we could maintain our policies to nurture and support Canadian culture here at home.

We created provisions or chapters for rules of labour, for the environment and for making sure that we maintained our policies for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We wanted to make sure that we retained sovereignty over our policies as we were embarking on this journey of reconciliation with our indigenous peoples.

The agreement preserved important access to the United States and Mexican markets. Today, businesses are seeing a lot of uncertainty, especially during this difficult time of dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak around the world. It is very important for businesses that are investing in Canada, and for businesses that rely on access to the United States, that they know that access to the U.S. market is preserved and supported, and is there for the long term.

It is really important to thank all the stakeholders who were involved throughout this difficult and long journey to reach this agreement with our friends, the United States and Mexico.

It was important to have their voices at the table. It was important to have their insight at the table and our government made sure that we took their input into account.

I want to take a moment to thank our colleagues in the House, the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP, for offering support to help us ratify the bill in front of us today. It is a sign for all of Canada that we can set aside partisanship when we know that we are working on something that is in the interests of all Canadians and Canadian businesses. Even at a time when people are saying minority parliaments may be more difficult to work in, this is a great moment for all of Canada to see that we are able to set aside partisanship interests because we know what is in the interests of Canadians is in the interests of all parties in the House.

I am grateful to the Standing Committee on International Trade for doing its job in studying the bill. I know the members worked tirelessly around the clock to make sure that voices who wanted to offer their opinion on the bill were able to testify at committee. Experts were able to come and present their testimony before the committee. Members of the House who sat across from each other at the committee were able to work collaboratively and pass the bill at second reading and send it back to the House of Commons.

This is a moment for us to acknowledge that we are able to work together for the benefit of all Canadians. I look forward to our colleagues in the Senate studying the bill in an expedited fashion. I know they understand the importance of the bill. We know that our friends in the United States and Mexico have already ratified the agreement, so Canada is on its way to finalize the ratification process.

Businesses know that it is very important for them. It is very important to note that businesses are breathing a sigh of relief today when they see the House of Commons about to ratify this NAFTA and they are comforted by the fact that there are so many upgrades to this agreement that benefit them.

I talked about the protection for labour standards, environment, indigenous policies and cultural exemptions, and about increasing the rules of origin for our products. I also want to take a moment to recognize how we were able to deal with the steel and aluminum tariffs that were imposed on Canadian products by the United States.

We were able to stand firm. Today not only have we been able to lift those tariffs, but now we have a side letter with our friends in the United States that ensures that, if at any point in the future the United States decided to impose tariffs under the guise of national security, we were able to get Canadian businesses an exemption from those tariffs. Those exemptions are at a greater level than the levels of our current production and current exports to the United States. Not only were we able to lift those tariffs, but we were able to get guarantees and exemptions from the United States that if at any point in the future, for some reason or another the United States decided to impose those tariffs again, Canadian products and services from steel and aluminum will be exempted.

When we tabled Bill C-4, I know our friends in the NDP and the Bloc had some questions about the bill. I am happy to talk about the process of our discussions that took place, ensuring that we listened to their concerns and we found a way to address their questions so we could reach consensus on the bill.

Let me take a moment to thank my colleagues in the NDP. We were able to reach an agreement that, with future trade agreements, we will declare our intentions and objectives of those negotiations here in the House of Commons where all MPs and Canadians will see up front what the objectives of those negotiations are.

In discussions with the Bloc, we were able to come to an agreement that on behalf of Canadian workers and producers of steel and aluminum, Canada will work with our friends in the U.S. and Mexico to encourage them to implement some monitoring measures the way we have in Canada on the production of steel and aluminum.

This is a great example of how our government is able to work with the other parties in the House to respond to their needs and address their legitimate questions.

I know the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and entire government are all looking forward to ratifying this important legislation. It will mean stability and increased exports for our businesses and workers. It will mean increased and growing prosperity for the middle class. It will mean growing jobs for the middle class in Canada. I am grateful to my colleagues in the House of Commons for supporting us and I am looking forward to the debate.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

moved that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-4.

Motion No. 1 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Opposition Motion—Additional Allotted Days

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about having a debate off campus about important issues of parliamentary procedure. He also talked about the importance of being willing to work on Friday afternoons.

I took the member up on the challenge of wanting to have a debate. I would love to debate the hon. member on parliamentary procedure in Ottawa at my alma mater of Carleton University and in Winnipeg. I suggest we do the Winnipeg debate closer to the summer, with all due respect, but we can do the one at Carleton right away. My staff has already called the member's staff. Unfortunately, nobody was answering the phone on a Friday afternoon, but we will continue to make those calls and hopefully we will be able to get through and schedule that.

The member made a choice of denying unanimous consent in the House when a proposal was put forward by our party to debate Bill C-4 today, which would have been a show of good faith and allowed us to move forward more quickly. Conservatives at no point rejected moving forward with that. That is what we wanted to be debating today. The government chose to stall the ratification of the new NAFTA instead, because it wanted to give this narrow time slot to the opposition day.

Why is the government stalling NAFTA?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, that question in and of itself shows how disingenuous and disrespectful these Liberals are. Yesterday, I stood in this place and I asked that we pass a motion that would mean Bill C-4 could be before this place today. Who said no to that? The member for Winnipeg North, a Liberal.

The Liberals shut down the opportunity to bring Bill C-4, the new NAFTA agreement, to the House today. Why? They would rather politicize it and punish all of us because we dare stand up to the Prime Minister.

We will take no lessons from the Liberals. They are delaying NAFTA and they are being disingenuous and politicizing this important agreement. We are the ones who tried to get it through, and get it through today.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, by giving the opposition more government time to debate their motions, this will negatively affect the government's legislative agenda.

Let me remind the House that this motion will delay several important bills, such as Bill C-4, the bill to implement the historic trade agreement between our great country, the United States and Mexico. Let us remember that the United States, Mexico and all premiers want this bill to be passed, and passed quickly.

Will the member comment on how this will delay very important legislation before the House at this time?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

moved:

That, notwithstanding Standing Order 81, for the supply period ending March 26, 2020, three additional allotted days shall be added for a total of 10, provided that one of the additional days is allotted to the Conservative Party, one of the additional day is allotted to the Bloc Québécois, and one of the additional days is allotted to the New Democratic Party, and, if necessary to accommodate these additional days, the supply period may be extended to April 2, 2020, and no allotted days shall fall on a Wednesday or a Friday.

I am very happy to rise today in my capacity as the House leader for the official opposition to speak to the motion that we have put forward today.

I will be honest. I wish we were not talking about the Standing Orders today. I think there are a lot of issues gripping this country, including illegal blockades. We have seen individuals set fires and put up barricades on railroads, causing our economy to come to a halt. We have seen absolute weak leadership and no leadership from the government. Today would be a good day to talk about things like that.

We also have seen issues around investment leaving this country. As we have just seen this week, Teck has taken out its application for a very important project that we wish had been built in Alberta. It would have helped jobs right across the country. The Liberals and their policy are driving investment away. That is something we could be talking about today.

We also have the coronavirus, which is gripping world. We do not know if it is contained. Could it be a pandemic? That is an issue Canadians are thinking about.

However, today we are talking about changes to the Standing Orders. I will get to the fact that we only have four speakers today, but for now I will say that I am sharing my time with one of the next three speakers, the member for Perth—Wellington.

I will start by giving a little background and then will quickly let my colleagues know, as some may not be aware, how a minority Parliament operates. I want to give some context about opposition days and why they matter.

Throughout the run of a full year, the government must devote 22 days for the opposition parties to raise topics of their choosing. The rules spread those out over winter, spring and fall, and from there the opposition parties agree on how to carve them up. It is up to the government to decide which days are used for opposition motions, but on those days, the opposition gets to bring forward any topic it chooses as long as it falls within Parliament's jurisdiction. Today, the Liberals decided to give Conservatives a Friday as their opposition day.

On Fridays, as we all know, the House has a much shorter sitting period, because we all want to get back to our ridings for the important things going on in our constituencies. To be blunt and very clear, for all of us who have been here for a while and know this and for the newer MPs, giving an opposition party, any one of us, a Friday as an opposition day is a full-out slap. It is a full-out insult. It is a full-out, 100% punishment.

That is what the Prime Minister is doing right now. He is punishing Conservatives. Why? It is because we have been standing up to him, because we have been pointing out his weakness and calling out some of the ways the government has not recognized that it is in a minority, not a majority, Parliament.

We have seen a number of things that we are very concerned about. We have raised them with you, Madam Speaker. They include things like the government's leaking bills to the press before they have been brought to the House. We had to rise on a point of privilege. As we saw, the Minister of Natural Resources had to stand and apologize. We accept that apology, but it was pretty disrespectful to all of us in this place for the government to leak contents of a bill to the press before we saw it.

We have also seen the government give incomplete and inaccurate responses to Order Paper questions. Actually, this is what the Minister of Natural Resources had to apologize for. No one has apologized yet for the leaking of the bill.

In responses to the Order Paper questions, misleading answers have been given, and then even in defence of those misleading answers, we have seen misleading answers given again. It is totally unacceptable, and as Conservatives, we are going to call that out.

There are the two issues on which I have seen such a high level of disrespect. First is the new NAFTA agreement and how the Liberals have worked with us on that. As Conservatives, we are the party of free trade. We believe that many Canadians and many Canadian sectors need an agreement. It is not a great agreement, but we have been supporting it, while asking tough questions.

One of those questions has been about the economic impact to Canadians, and the Liberals have refused to give us that. Instead, they are getting up, as we saw when the Deputy Prime Minister stood in this place, to completely mislead and try to poke a stick in our eye, saying that we were somehow blocking the new NAFTA deal, which is completely misleading, completely disingenuous and insulting.

To add insult to injury, yesterday when I tried to expedite Bill C-4, to get it through in a much faster way, the Liberals opposed it. In fact, it was the member for Winnipeg North, a Manitoban, who said no.

The Liberals are sucking and blowing at the same time, and in doing that they are insulting us. They are not recognizing that we are in a minority Parliament.

The really insulting thing they did occurred last week, when the Prime Minister excluded our leader from a meeting of all opposition and government leaders on the topic of the rail blockades simply because our leader spoke the truth as to how to approach the illegal blockades. He was called names and excluded by the Prime Minister. Then three days later, the Prime Minister basically repeated verbatim what our leader had said. That was disrespectful and disingenuous, and not at all the way a minority Parliament should work.

Last Parliament, we said this often: The Prime Minister wanted an audience in this place; he did not want an opposition. I am afraid that has not changed. He did not get the voters' message in the election. He did not get the memo that his majority has been taken away. He needs to recognize quickly that Conservatives are going to stand up for the interests of the millions of Canadians who voted for us, who did not vote for the Liberals, and the growing number of Canadians who see a country and an economy paralyzed by the weak Liberal government.

Conservatives are not afraid to give voice to Canadians who disagree with the Liberals and the Prime Minister. Conservatives will demand that Liberals be open and transparent. They will be honest in this Parliament. Conservatives will hold the Liberal government to account.

In 1979, Joe Clark and his government fell after just 49 sitting days. It is often said it was because they could not count, but really it was because they had miscalculated badly. Today is just the 26th sitting day of this Parliament, and sadly the Liberals and their growing pattern of disrespect are hurtling us toward one unnecessary political disaster after another.

We are going to give the Liberals a chance to work collaboratively with opposition parties and work with Parliament by dedicating three additional days for each of the opposition parties. Members will notice that we are working collaboratively. Members will notice that we put the opposition parties in our motion. We are not looking just for our gain. We want to see all of us work together.

The motion would give three additional days for each of the parties to put forward an idea for debate and propose solutions for the many difficulties that Canadians face. We are giving the Liberals a chance to right their wrongs toward the opposition parties. We will give the Prime Minister a chance to correct his course. Today is a chance to press reset.

Recently I read an article in which the Liberal House leader, talking to a member of the press in the context of a minority Parliament, said, “Never take one day for granted. Anything can happen.” This may be a lesson for the Liberals and the Prime Minister: The things he does affect all of Parliament. This is also, with respect, a lesson for the Liberal House leader that he should never take one day for granted, because anything can happen.

Today, with the amount of time that we have, we will talk about giving additional days to the opposition. We are hoping this will result in a reset and that the Liberals will respect that we are in a minority Parliament, will tell us the truth, will not exclude people who disagree with them, will not mislead this Parliament and will be open, transparent and respectful. Then we can continue to work, as we should, as the official opposition and as opposition parties to hold the government to account and do the very best we can for this great country that we serve.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying.

Tomorrow will be an allotted day for the Conservative Party.

The House will then adjourn for one week, during which we will be in our ridings doing incredibly important work with our constituents.

Upon our return, we will deal with Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, and Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I apologize to the member for interrupting his questions and answers.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and, if you seek it, I am hopeful that you will find unanimous consent for the following: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, reported back earlier today, be permitted to be considered by the House tomorrow at report stage.

National Framework for Diabetes Act

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding the Standing Orders or usual practices of the House, Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, reported back earlier today, be permitted to be considered by the House tomorrow at report stage.

International Trade

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment. It has been an honour for all of us as parliamentarians to work on a bill that is going to create thousands of jobs and provide lots of opportunity for growth in our country and to ensure that we continue to work in a very positive way with the United States and Mexico as we move forward.

I want to thank the committee members and all of the staff who worked with us. We had over 102 witnesses. The clerks did a great job. My thanks as well to our deputy prime minister, Ms. Freeland, who did a tremendous amount of work along with our Prime Minister and all of the other witnesses.

It is a great honour to present this report to you, Mr. Speaker.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Further to some discussions that were had last night at the end of our committee meeting, I would like to put forward a proposal for discussion and vote, if my colleagues so wish this morning. That is, further to the hearing of testimony these past two weeks:

That the committee tasks the analysts to prepare a letter from the committee to the Deputy Prime Minister for release after the Royal Assent of Bill C-4; and that the letter briefly summarize the testimony of witnesses and the recommendations made by witnesses for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Today we are going to be doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-4.

We are joined by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, with Nicola Waterfield, deputy director, trade negotiations, North America division; Steve Verheul, chief negotiator and assistant deputy minister, trade policy and negotiations; Robert Brookfield, director general, trade law, deputy legal adviser; Andrew McCracken, director, trade negotiations, North America division; and Vickie Iacobellis, counsel, trade law bureau.

Thanks to all of you for coming this morning. Before we commence our clause-by-clause consideration, we will hear from Ms. Bendayan.

[Francis Schiller]

I think what's wonderful about the opportunity you have before you is that softwood is in Bill C-4. The reference to softwood offers the opportunity to amend that reference to include, in the case of Mr. Young, an independent study of the finished products that are not intended in the scope of the dispute. So we're not talking—

[Mike Beck, Operations Manager, Capacity Forest Management]

Thank you.

I'm Mike Beck with Capacity Forest Management. I'm their operational planner. We have managed over 20 first nation clients in B.C. We help gather tenure through government to government as well as licencee negotiations. We've also been instrumental in two foundation agreements that have taken place in B.C. with the shíshálh Indian band as well as Lake Babine Nation.

I've been invited to discuss the impacts of the softwood lumber dispute and how it is creating issues with first nations businesses and collaborations with forestry licensees, businesses and lumber mills in B.C.

As you know, a few people have already noted that the softwood lumber agreement has basically been a long outstanding issue between Canada and the United States. Basically, this agreement that we've been sitting on has been expired since 2015. The current government hasn't seemed to place the softwood lumber agreement as a top priority to settle during the negotiation processes and ratification of NAFTA between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The softwood lumber issues around the competition between Canada and the United States lumber companies are a major problem resulting from differences in their respective forest management principles.

The dispute is based on the U.S. lumber industry opposing the low Canadian stumpage rates and transportation costs, perceived by the U.S. as an unfair advantage that subsidizes our lumber industry. The U.S. has been imposing duties and tariffs on Canada since the early 1900s, and the softwood lumber dispute is not going away any time soon.

Canadian forest management principles are vastly different, and to compare one against the other is very onerous and well documented. A healthy Canadian log and lumber business requires certainty and fair market pricing. In order to achieve this, the Canadian government needs to bring the softwood lumber agreement to the forefront and finalize a long-term deal that avoids protectionist measures on both sides of the border.

Canadian logs and lumber require unencumbered access to world markets in order to return the highest possible pricing. Protectionist measures in this case create an unnecessary cost to Canadian sawmillers, and these costs are passed on to the log sellers, which pushes log prices down domestically. Recent court decisions and reconciliation agreements for first nations are providing control of their timber resources within their unceded territory. The federal government needs to create forestry policies that will ensure success, sustainability and create long-term, meaningful jobs in the industry as well as first nations businesses and ventures.

Imposed U.S. countervailing duties and tariffs have denied the maximum price on logs, which has impacted profit margins for first nations businesses that sell to Canadian mills. There's a requirement for major reforms and policy to remove restrictions on log exports in order to eliminate uncertainty in the Canadian forest industry and allow the highest return and highest prices for our renewable resource.

Duties and tariffs need to be eliminated and a long-term softwood lumber agreement needs to be ratified to ensure a healthy, sustainable and stable forest industry in Canada. The impacts for first nations forestry businesses are, again, another vital component. It's impacting negatively with our first nations businesses, agreements and collaborations with Canadian forest industry partners.

Canada is required to challenge and amend the Export and Import Permits Act that would ratify the softwood lumber agreement, as there are significant impacts. The current U.S. countervailing duties and tariffs are affecting the economic success of the Canadian forest industry, including first nations businesses that are selling their logs to local Canadian lumber mills.

Some Canadian first nations bands, as part of the ongoing reconciliation process such as foundation agreements, are receiving timber rights to harvest Crown timber within their unceded territories. These first nations forestry opportunities, timber tenures and licences provide economic benefit and stability, long-term employment and training opportunities for first nations communities and future first nations business investment opportunities. The impacts of the current softwood duties and tariffs on the Canadian first nations forestry business is that Canadian local sawmills are basing their log purchase pricing on current log markets but factor in the percentage of the tariffs and duties so that the mills pay to reduce the log prices, which impacts first nations businesses and projects negatively.

As well, the U.S. countervailing duties and tariffs impact the bottom line for first nations businesses and ventures. They're looking for the highest economic benefit for their timber resources within their unceded territory.

Currently, with the economies of scale of first nation forestry businesses being upstream log sellers, they are additionally impacted financially as their businesses will not see any reimbursement of duty deposits from the United States once a dispute is settled, as these costs are typically factored into the local mill log purchase pricing agreements at the beginning of the projects.

Ultimately, I'm drawn back to the current government mandate, in which one of their top priorities is reconciliation with Canadian indigenous people, as well as wanting to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to allow government to bring federal laws and policies for Canadian first nations to pursue economic, social and cultural development needs. Based on the government non-action to settle the long-standing softwood lumber agreement, it is not placed in value for Canadian first nation forestry businesses and the Canadian forest industry. Again, there is a requirement to ratify in NAFTA, Bill C-4, regarding the long-standing softwood lumber agreement, to remove the tariffs and duties. If that is not in place and there's no agreement, this will create considerable adverse effects and restrictions for the first nation forestry businesses.

As for some of the impacts that we're currently seeing with the softwood lumber agreement, some first nations forestry businesses are having a hard time being successful and sustainable. As well, first nation business-to-business agreements and collaborations with other Canadian forest industry partners, ultimately impacting forest economic earnings to the nations and bands, are also creating some issues. Lower lumber market pricing and duties and tariffs, creating mill closures or curtailments, are creating some issues as well around the nations and territories. We're also seeing major licensees establish more mills in the United States than Canada due to the additional duties and taxes, to ensure market competitiveness and balance their dependence on local Canadian log supply. These moves create fewer good-paying jobs for Canadians, as well as first nation band members, and limit log-pricing competition to sell logs at lower market pricing, or better, with these mill closures.

In closing, I want to ensure that the softwood lumber agreement stays at the Canadian government's top priority for settlement and is ratified in some way that will make first nation businesses stay competitive and not be penalized any longer by the unfair and unjust United States' lumber tariffs and duties.

We need our Canadian government to defend our forest management systems and challenge the subsidy, to remove the tariffs and countervailing duties, since wood is used in a wide range of industries and doesn't qualify as a subsidy under U.S. law. As well, the actions of the U.S. are driven by protectionism rather than unfair management practices and stumpage rate determination.

Again, it will be vital to have collaborative discussions and engagement between government, first nation forestry businesses, and the Canadian forest industry to ensure a fair ratification of the softwood lumber agreement to make certain first nation businesses and ventures, and the Canadian forestry industry, economically successful and sustainable in Canada.

That is all I have to say. If you have any questions, I'll look forward to responding.

[Kevin Young, Chief Executive Officer, Woodtone Industries]

Madam Chair, committee members and staff, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about Bill C-4, softwood lumber, and Woodtone. I think there are some commonalities in some of the presentations here this evening.

I am Kevin Young, and I serve as chief executive officer of Woodtone Industries, a family-run company with facilities in Chilliwack, B.C.; Armstrong, B.C.; and Everett, Washington. We employ over 300 people across our operations, which are built on a 40-year legacy of excellence and integrity.

At Woodtone our overarching belief is that everybody should live in a great-looking home that lasts a lifetime and doesn't sacrifice the environment to achieve this goal. Our teams design, manufacture and market Woodtone's finished building products for home interiors and exteriors. Our family at Woodtone is proud to offer some of the finest finished building products available anywhere in the world.

We don't cut down trees, and we don't make commodity two-by-fours, but we respect and appreciate the primary producers that do. Our specialty at Woodtone is high-value finished wood products. Our products are unique in that they have no grade stamps and are not intended for structural construction purposes. All of our products are prefinished—either pre-stained or pre-painted—and are ready for installation in new home construction.

Although our products can be found around the world, the United States and Canada remain our key markets. We welcome and embrace future efforts by governments to address the softwood lumber dispute in earnest after CUSMA is concluded.

The asymmetrical impact of the softwood dispute has been uniquely devastating for Canada's value-added sector and workers. At Woodtone we've had to make tough choices, like many others, including relocating technology, processing knowledge, and moving jobs south. In January 2018, we announced the move of 20 direct jobs and over $1 million in technology from our Canadian operation to our facility in Everett, Washington.

While primary producers have enjoyed sustained demand and record prices during the dispute, processors down the value chain have not. We've lost exports and we've lost jobs. This dynamic still exists. We believe that, when you consider spinoffs including transportation and other suppliers, up to 120 direct and indirect jobs are in play in our operations. We want to recalibrate before it is too late. That is why we are here today.

We don't want to lose the opportunity to repatriate some of this work for finished products not at the core of the softwood dispute. Our products fall outside the intended scope of the softwood lumber dispute. They can be readily differentiated at the border at the time of export. At the border we need a solution that works for authorities; a solution that is feasible, administrable and enforceable well into the future.

This brings us to Bill C-4. We support members of the committee amending Bill C-4 to provide for an independent study mechanism on finished exports outside the dispute. Specifically, we seek a review by a panel of experts for finished wood products that is consistent with past Canada-U.S. trade precedents. This, we believe, could be done by amending the reference to softwood in Bill C-4. This will provide reassurance to U.S. authorities that the scope language is enforceable, administrable, and will reduce circumvention.

Possible positive outcomes here include hyphenating the product codes 4407 and 4409, which can be done to assist local border agents in processing our exports with confidence. This is similar to efforts to accommodate U.S. plywood manufacturers back in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

With a simple majority vote at clause-by-clause, committee members can make an independent review happen by amendment. I'm not here to ask members of the committee to renegotiate NAFTA or the new CUSMA. It would not be wise to reopen negotiations with either Mexico or the United States. Enhancing Bill C-4 as it relates to softwood lumber is not changing the trade deal. You can take or leave the deal, but the legislation can be improved in this one area.

We want to work with committee members on appropriate language for an amendment. We encourage the members of the committee to act with confidence, supported by past precedent and sound public policy in the public interest. Our approach is collaborative and is achievable. Not only will it benefit Woodtone, but other operations in B.C., Quebec and the Maritimes will also benefit.

The Woodtone approach is not a cure or a solution to the softwood lumber dispute, but it is an effort to help a volume of exports that should not otherwise be in the dispute. We want to take the steps necessary to address the concerns. What we are talking about does not impact Mexico. It is specific to local border entry points to help local officials process our finished products.

We commend the co-operation of members on the committee and the positive initiatives to use Bill C-4 to improve Canada's future trade deals and arrangements.

We thank our local MPs and all members of the committee for this chance to be heard. By working together now, we can improve Bill C-4 moving forward and improve cross-border trade in finished wood products not in dispute.

Thank you, and I welcome questions and comments and wish the committee good luck and wisdom in your continued work.

[Bob Fay, Director, Global Economy Research and Policy, Centre for International Governance Innovation]

Thank you very much.

Good evening, and thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present the views of the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

By way of introduction, we go by “CIGI”. We're an independent, non-partisan global governance think tank based in Waterloo, Ontario, and we conduct policy-relevant research exploring global economics, security, politics and international law, with a focus on digital economy issues. Given this background, my comments will relate to Bill C-4 and data and intellectual property.

Canada has focused substantial resources and effort on new trade deals to reinforce the rules of the game in international trade, and rightly so. Trade is at the heart of our prosperity. New trade agreements are necessary to open up new markets and preserve old ones, and revised rules are necessary as economies change and to minimize trade frictions.

We fully understand that trade-offs were necessary in negotiations of CUSMA and that hard choices had to be made. We believe that the ratification of this agreement will remove some of the trade uncertainty that has dampened economic growth, and my remarks are not designed to hold up ratification.

Rather, my objective tonight is to highlight how commitments made in CUSMA related to data and intellectual property may inhibit Canada's ability both to innovate and to develop our own domestic policies. Then I'll offer some suggestions on the way forward.

In particular, CUSMA fails to consider the implications of how the nature of trade is changing, moving away from scale and cost efficiencies to, first, intellectual property creation; second, the rise of big data as an economic and social asset; and, third, the resulting imperative of asset protection.

What Canada agrees to in these areas has very wide-ranging repercussions for Canada in many forward-looking areas, including our ability to harness data in new technologies such as artificial intelligence, as well as fundamental domestic policies related to privacy, security, intellectual property, foreign direct investment, competition and innovation.

Yes, that list is long, and it touches upon all aspects of our economy, and indeed our daily lives, yet we are dealing with these issues currently largely through a trade lens, via a trade agreement that is dominated by U.S. interests. I would also note that the recent mandate letters charge the ministers for ISED, Heritage and Justice with the main task of coordinating new digital and data rights, which recognizes that there are substantial societal issues related to the use and monetization of personal data.

Indeed, data is an extremely valuable resource. Statistics Canada—and very good for them—has placed the value of Canadian data at over $200 billion, which is about two-thirds of the value of our oil assets. This number is extremely large, but it pales in comparison with other countries, namely, the United States. For example, the market cap of U.S.-based Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google is about $4 trillion U.S., and that high valuation results from their monopoly positions and huge data stores.

Further, these companies are cementing their market positions each and every minute with their continued acquisition of all varieties of data through user engagement with their platforms and fierce protection of their assets by a combination of the de facto rule-setting in the absence of national regulations; trade deals that enshrine open data flows; strong intellectual property protection of their data and AI assets; takeovers of innovative firms through their vast reserves of cash; the acquisition of top talent; and, the powerful information asymmetries that they gain with their data and their technologies.

The bottom line is that the data is their intellectual property, and their interests are behind the digital chapter in CUSMA.

We have three examples of some of the commitments in that trade agreement that favour them.

The first is the treatment of data localization. This part of the agreement is short and not so sweet. It says, “No Party shall require a covered person to use or locate computing facilities in that Party's territory as a condition for conducting business in that territory.” From a commercial perspective, that makes a lot of sense, but this is problematic for many non-economic dimensions. For example, if we took the smart city partnership in Toronto that's proceeding right now with Sidewalk Labs, which is a subsidiary of Alphabet, Canadians may well desire that their detailed data that will result from that city remain in Canada and not be transferred to the U.S., but Canada may be limited in its ability to do so.

Second, under CUSMA, localization is permitted if organizations collect, hold or process that information when those activities are undertaken for or on behalf of a government. However, for national security reasons, if the data were held by a private organization, then CUSMA would technically require the government to allow those data to be released to the other two partner countries.

Third, CUSMA contains a safe harbour provision to liberate digital platforms from responsibility for the content that they carry. On the one hand, free speech advocates see this as desirable. On the other, some see the weaponization of platforms like Facebook and YouTube during recent votes such as the 2016 U.S. presidential election as indications of the unwillingness and/or the inability of the digital platforms or governments to regulate content. This is a trade issue because the platforms' business model is supported via massive cross-border data flows.

ln summary, it is not clear how much policy flexibility CUSMA will ultimately allow the federal or provincial governments in adopting new laws and regulations to achieve objectives like those to protect people's privacy, prevent algorithmic bias, protect critical infrastructure, ensure national security or promote domestic innovation.

Let me now conclude with three recommendations on the way forward. First, trade negotiators need to be more fully briefed on the wide-ranging implications of the data-driven economy and the implications arising from existing digital measures in CUSMA and those that could arise going forward with the negotiations that are about to begin at the WTO on e-commerce. We need to be mindful that there are vested interests pervasive in the digital realm and that regional trade agreements are an entry point to manage policy space for areas that go well beyond digital trade.

Second, we need new international rules of the game for trade, for foreign direct investment and for intellectual property. As part of this, what Canada could do is push for the creation of a new global organization to set international governance in these areas. Drawing on the experience of the Financial Stability Board that was created in the aftermath of the financial crisis, we have put out a proposal to create a digital stability board. Such an organization would develop standards, regulations and policies across the many realms that digital platforms touch; advise on policy actions needed to address vulnerabilities in a timely manner; and ensure that this work feeds into other international organizations such as the WTO.

Finally, we should use the six-year review built into CUSMA to rectify some of these issues that I have outlined.

Thank you for your time and attention, and I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

To our panel of witnesses, welcome to all of you this evening. Thank you for coming. I guess I could ask what the weather's like outside because most of us have been inside, but at least you managed to make it, no matter how much snow is out there. We appreciate your being here.

From the Centre for International Governance Innovation, we have Bob Fay, director, global economy; from Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd., Ken Kalesnikoff, chief executive officer; from Woodtone Industries, Kevin Young, chief executive officer, and Francis Schiller, adviser.

By video conference from Guelph, Ontario, we have Linda Hasenfratz, chief executive officer for Linamar Corporation, and from Vancouver, British Columbia, via video conference, Andy Rielly from Rielly Lumber Inc.

Welcome to all of you. We appreciate your being here.

Mr. Fay, I will turn it over to you for five minutes of comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I will call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference from Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are here to study Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

We have Brian P. McGuire, president and chief executive officer of Associated Equipment Distributors, by video conference from Illinois; and from Toronto, we have Greg Johnston, President of the Songwriters Association of Canada, by video conference as well.

Here with us at the committee are Garry Neil, cultural policy consultant from Neil Craig Associates, and from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Angella MacEwen, senior economist, national services.

We will start with Mr. McGuire via video conference.

The floor is yours, sir. Go ahead, please.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference for Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Welcome to our witnesses who are here by teleconference and those with us in the meeting room. By video conference from Niagara Falls, we have CanadaBW Logistics, Kevin Jacobi, executive director; and from Tanzania, Eddy Peréz, international policy analyst with Climate Action Network Canada.

Here with us in Ottawa, from DECAST, we have Jim Tully, executive vice-president. We are expecting Bob Benner, from Hamill Agricultural Processing Solutions, shortly.

We will go with the video conference. Mr. Peréz, you are in Tanzania and I understand that you don't have the best connection in the world, so we will open with your comments, sir.

Please go ahead.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order the Standing Committee on International Trade.

We are meeting today, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, on Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Welcome to all the members. I appreciate your finding the time over your lunch-hour to come for this important meeting.

The witnesses today from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development are Steve Verheul, the chief negotiator and assistant deputy minister, trade policy and negotiations; and Dr. Marie-France Paquet, chief economist at Global Affairs Canada.

Thank you both very much for finding the time to be with us today.

I will turn the floor over to both of you for your comments.

[Bridgitte Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to speak and for all of the hard work you are doing to make this important agreement as robust as it possibly can be.

My name is Bridgitte Anderson. I am the president and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade.

I would also like to recognize that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

For over 130 years, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has worked on behalf of our region's business community and our over 5,000 members to promote prosperity through commerce, trade and free enterprise. Our mission is to work in the interests of our members to promote, enhance and facilitate the development of the region as a Pacific centre for trade, commerce and travel.

British Columbia's economy relies on its trading relationship with the U.S. Our natural resources, including lumber, oil and gas, and metals and minerals, are some of our largest exports. The value of B.C.'s top five exports to the U.S. is $22 billion a year.

A wide spectrum of industries benefit from our trading relationships in two B.C. examples. B.C.'s tourism industry employed 138,000 people in 2017. It generated $5.4 billion in export revenue, an increase of 7% from 2016.

Film and television is another bright spot in our economy that is experiencing rapid growth. B.C. is now the third-largest motion picture production hub in North America. The sector's GDP increased at an average annual rate of 15% between 2010 and 2018, five times the economy-wide pace. The creative sector contributes over $6 billion to the B.C. economy, with a workforce of nearly 110,000.

B.C. has the most diversified trading relationships in Canada, but the U.S. is still our largest trading partner. As of 2017, just over 50% of our exports in goods went to the U.S., followed by China, Japan, South Korea, the EU and India.

Our country is a small trading nation that relies on access to other markets. Our economy depends on trade and on the trade agreements that help bring our Canadian goods to international markets. International trade is especially important to B.C., where we experience a double benefit from trade from selling Canadian goods and from moving the goods by means of our gateway sector, including port, rail, air and road.

Our gateway sector in greater Vancouver alone contributes $20 billion to the national GDP, supports nearly 185,000 jobs and contributes $2.4 billion to the Canadian government in taxes.

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade supports the ratification of CUSMA and the passage of Bill C-4 and offers the following reasons for support and recommendations for the committee to consider.

First is certainty. The new agreement will bring much needed certainty to Canada's business community. Over the last few years, global trade has been disrupted by the rise of protectionist measures, particularly from our most important trading partner.

The uncertainty has only been intensified by the protests and blockades we've seen across the country over the last few weeks. Shutting down rail access, roads, ports and bridges has hurt and continues to hurt the livelihoods of thousands of people, communities and virtually every sector of our economy. In greater Vancouver alone, right now there are 60 to 70 ships sitting in port waiting to move Canadian goods. It will take weeks, if not months, to recover.

In addition, the effects that coronavirus, or COVID-19, will have on our small trading economy are still yet to be seen. These examples emphasize the importance of a predictable supply chain.

In light of these unfortunate and disruptive circumstances, our businesses need certainty so they can take the lead and propel the economy forward through commerce and trade. Above anything else, CUSMA would avoid the breakdown of our trade relationship with our most important trading partners and thereby help to remove much of the uncertainty facing Canadian businesses.

CUSMA will continue to guarantee tariff-free market access to our most important trading partner, to provide preferential access to commercial opportunities and to allow our businesses to sell more goods. This means more business, more jobs and the movement of more goods. When we move more goods across borders, our businesses can thrive. Ratifying CUSMA in a timely manner to lock in guaranteed market access with the U.S. is more important than ever in light of recent claims that suggest the U.S. is considering raising its WTO-bound tariff rates.

If implemented properly, CUSMA will unlock vast potential for greater Vancouver and Canadian businesses to compete effectively for jobs. These benefits can only be achieved if there is a similar amount of attention paid to non-tariff-related trade barriers.

CUSMA includes provisions on customs administration and trade facilitation to standardize and modernize customs procedures throughout North America to facilitate the free flow of goods, but we cannot stop there. We recommend that government continue supporting and working with industry on initiatives such as the beyond preclearance initiative, which is doing important work around ensuring Canada's gateway cities can build improved processes and border policies to take full advantage of CUSMA.

We also recommend that government continue with initiatives to reduce and remove red tape, and regulatory burdens more broadly, to help business thrive. There is a growing perception in Canada that it is difficult to get things done, especially with jurisdictions in the U.S. that are routinely removing barriers and making access for business easier and simpler. Efforts like this will help ensure we increase competitiveness.

This brings me to my third point. The new agreement will help underpin North Americans' competitive advantage through its new chapter on competitiveness and its chapter on good regulatory practices. The preferential market access and integration with the American and Mexican markets will open opportunities for growth and foster robust supply chains and fair competition that will sharpen the competitive edge of Canadian businesses.

The fourth point is that the new CUSMA modernizes NAFTA by including provisions for digital trade, which reflects the rise of e-commerce and other aspects of the digital economy that didn't exist when NAFTA was negotiated. In addition, CUSMA includes language on protecting gender and indigenous peoples' rights, which is an economic imperative.

The provisions for digital trade and cross-data flows included in CUSMA are based on the provisions in our most modern trade agreement, the CPTPP. This makes CUSMA a trade agreement of the 21st century and prepares us for what will become an increasing part of our economy.

CUSMA supports Canadian SMEs that want to tap into international markets. The World Trade Centre Vancouver finds that 95% of SMEs that go through its trade accelerator program choose the U.S. as one of their first export markets. The U.S. is particularly important for SMEs for its size and its geographical and cultural proximity. Many Canadian SMEs use the U.S. as their export beta market where they test and grow their export capacity before targeting other markets.

Last, we recommend the following keys for success.

First, B.C. is the largest Canadian exporter of softwood lumber to the U.S. As you all know, it is a challenging time for B.C.'s forest industry, which supports approximately 140,000 direct and indirect jobs. Thousands of jobs have been lost to mill closures and layoffs due in large part to high tariffs. Bringing CUSMA into force will ensure that the continued chapter 10 protections are available to the B.C. forest industry as it stands up for fairness and ensures that the trade of softwood lumber can continue to support B.C. jobs. We recommend that the government continue working towards achieving a negotiated softwood lumber agreement and defending the industry against any potential trade sanctions brought by the U.S.

Second, there is a critical need for continued investments in trade-enabling infrastructure in Canada, such as container capacity at terminals. In addition, greater Vancouver has a unique challenge in availability of industrial land to support trade-enabling activities. Our vacancy rate is at a record low of 1.2%. Collaboration and leadership is required to ensure growth of our region.

As the Canadian economy becomes more weighted towards services, we should consider a plan to grow Canada's service exports, including making it easier for professionals to work across borders. Our 2018 regional export framework report shows that global demand for service sectors will continue to grow.

Ninety-eight per cent of all businesses in B.C. are small businesses. In order to leverage the benefits of trade, we need a plan to support small businesses as they start to export and grow their exports.

Finally, another important item will be the uniform regulations, which is the fine print of the agreement, including the details that companies must follow to facilitate trade on a daily basis. Businesses are eagerly awaiting these details, especially given the 90-day implementation phase. We hope they can be made available as soon as possible.

I would like to conclude by imparting a sense of urgency to the committee to lock in the benefits I have listed. We recognize that no trade agreement is perfect and that no trade agreement is made without compromise. We support the passage of CUSMA and hope all parties vote in favour of ratification.

Thank you for your time today and for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I welcome any questions you may have.

[Tabatha Bull, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business]

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa and provided the following text:]

Aanii, Tabatha Bull n'indignikaaz, Nipissing n'indoonjibaa, Migizi dodem.

[English]

Hello. My name is Tabatha Bull. I am from Nipissing First Nation, and I belong to the Eagle Clan.

Thank you, Madam Chair and all the distinguished members of the committee.

I want to begin by acknowledging the Algonquin peoples for hosting this meeting on their ancestral and unceded lands.

I am the chief operating officer for the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, CCAB. I'm honoured to speak here on behalf of our association regarding Bill C-4.

CCAB supports corporations and governments to engage directly with indigenous businesses so that they may take advantage of mutually beneficial opportunities. Our work is backed by data-driven research, recognized by the OECD as the gold standard on indigenous business in Canada, on the barriers and opportunities for indigenous businesses, business capacity and supply chain analysis that has informed both government and corporate policy.

Through our research, programming and events, CCAB has earned the confidence of both indigenous and non-indigenous businesses in Canada, established a leading procurement platform and achieved meaningful results for indigenous companies over the past 37 years.

Our research work has led to a threefold increase in corporate commitments to improve indigenous relations and procurement—over $100 million in provincial government funding commitments to indigenous businesses.

We currently have close to 1,000 indigenous and non-indigenous business members working toward a more prosperous and diverse Canadian economy.

We were very pleased to be invited to participate as a member of the Global Affairs indigenous working group on trade.

We were also extremely pleased to see the involvement of National Chief Perry Bellegarde in the renegotiation of NAFTA and in the invitation to us here today.

As a result of this inclusive approach to trade negotiation, this work resulted in the most inclusive international trade agreement for indigenous peoples to date.

I echo the comments by National Chief Perry Bellegarde, when he testified on June 18, 2019, and those of Judy Whiteduck and Risa Schwartz, when they testified on February 20, 2020, that this agreement is not perfect but to date it is the best we have in Canada.

With the ratification of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, we would take a step to make international trade more aware of and more equitable in its treatment of indigenous peoples, and especially indigenous women entrepreneurs.

The aboriginal trade interest is not presumed but instead strongly asserted through the positive economic trends that have been observed by the CCAB within the aboriginal private economy.

ln 2016, aboriginal peoples contributed over $30 billion to Canada's GDP, $12 billion of which was generated by aboriginal businesses.

Through trade agreements and treaties, the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business finds immense value in promoting and supporting the distinct demand of the aboriginal private economy to facilitate and substantiate economic growth.

By reducing barriers and creating fair, equitable and inclusive trade conditions, the aboriginal private economy will be provided with equal footing to Canadian and North American business and service providers through trade exclusions, intellectual property and provisions and by expanding labour mobility policies to honour the unique barriers and operations of aboriginal service providers and enterprises.

With the levelling of the economic playing field through targeted trade policies, aboriginal enterprises and service providers can benefit from increased market access, procurement and investment opportunities.

Importantly for the CCAB, we believe that with specific preferences to carve out procurement benefits and other opportunities for indigenous businesses and service providers, there is also a promise of future co-operation to enhance indigenous businesses.

Procurement is of interest for the CCAB, as our research has found that indigenous businesses can supply 24.2% of the goods and services purchased by the federal government annually.

We appreciate that the Government of Canada has committed, through the mandate letter to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada, to have at least 5% of federal contracts awarded to businesses managed and led by indigenous peoples. This target is achievable, and the CCAB wants and is willing to work with the Government of Canada to meet and exceed this target.

CCAB believes that trade with the United States is directly tied to the future economic success for aboriginal business and hence directly tied to the prosperity of indigenous peoples across Canada.

Our research with Global Affairs Canada showed that indigenous businesses are twice as likely as non-indigenous businesses to export. Of indigenous companies, 24% export today, which means more than 13,000 indigenous firms are exporting. As well, indigenous women are more likely to export than indigenous men.

While the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is a new example of the difference it makes to engage with indigenous people at an early stage, there must be increased opportunities for participation of indigenous peoples not only in international trade negotiations in decision-making as per UNDRIP but also in trade missions.

Programming and support need to be provided to indigenous communities and leaders to build capacity in trade to ensure that their participation is meaningful and resourced appropriately. The CCAB looks forward to continuing our important work on the Global Affairs indigenous working group to support the inclusion of language in Canada's current and future trade agreement negotiations, including with Mercosur and the Pacific alliance countries.

The CCAB also welcomes the opportunity to be more actively involved in the planning and execution of trade missions to increase indigenous exports.

Thank you for the time. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

With us in this next short while we have, from the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, Tabatha Bull, chief operating officer; and from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, Bridgitte Anderson, president and chief executive officer. By video conference from Halifax, we have the Toronto Region Board of Trade, Leigh Smout, executive director, World Trade Centre Toronto.

I will open with Mr. Smout.

Please, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we continue our study of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. We're going into, I think, the seventh panel today.

Welcome to all of you.

We have, from Honey Bee Manufacturing Ltd., Jamie Pegg, general manager, and Scott D. Smith, manager of components, systems and integration. From Northern Cables Inc., we have Shelley Bacon, chief executive officer, and Todd Stafford, president.

Mr. Pegg, I'll turn the floor over to you.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I am calling the meeting to order of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Welcome to our fourth session.

The witnesses with us this afternoon for this panel are, from Dajcor Aluminum, Mike Kilby, president and chief executive officer, by video conference from Chatham, Ontario.

From KTG Public Affairs, we have Brian Topp.

From Syndicat National des Employés de l'Aluminium d'Arvida Unifor-Local 1937, we have Donat Pearson, president, and Éric Gilbert, vice-president.

Monsieur Pearson, I will turn the floor over to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Let's resume our meeting. We are doing a study of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

We have a number of witnesses with us today: as individuals, Darren Erickson, pharmacist and owner of Tofield PharmaChoice, and Gayleen Erickson, business owner of Guardian Pharmacy, Tofield Medical Clinic; from the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba, David Wiens, chair; from Prima Dairy Farm, Joel Prins; and from the Saskatchewan Milk Marketing Board, Matthew Flaman.

Welcome to all.

Mr. Wiens for the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba, please go first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting back to order.

We are continuing our study of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

With us for this segment, we have the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Stuart Trew, researcher and editor; the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Michel Leblanc, president and chief executive officer by video conference; and the Dairy Processors Association of Canada, Mathieu Frigon, president and chief executive officer, and Dominique Benoit, treasurer and member of the board of directors.

Welcome to you all. We're going to start with the video conference.

Mr. Leblanc, the floor is yours, sir.

[Gilles Daigle]

In respect of the particular issue that is of concern to us, which first and foremost is term extension, CUSMA does; the implementation legislation, Bill C-4, does not, or at least it does not today. It is not acceptable to our constituency that we have to wait perhaps as long as two and a half years, because, as I don't have to tell this group, in politics and in government a lot could happen that could potentially change that obligation.

In a response to Mr. Hoback, I started talking about the fact that we've been told on so many occasions that the extension was going to be implemented. In 2012, it didn't happen. For the TPP, the extension was in the draft text. Canada pulled it. We now get to the new NAFTA. It's in CUSMA, but not right away. We're going to take as long as two and a half years to implement it. Why?

The message it sends to our members and to Ms. Mitchell as a publisher is “Your music is not as worthy of protection, the longer protection, as that of your peers.” In the U.S., Bruce Springsteen's works are protected for 70 years. For Bryan Adams and Jim Vallance, it's 50 years. In Canada, we are not prepared to make that change today. We're going to see if we can do it in the next two and a half years. That's not good enough for our members anymore. We've heard that too many times. I'm sure that Ms. Mitchell, as a publisher, would probably have some thoughts on that as well.

[Gilles Daigle, Consultant, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada]

To be clear, our request would not require a change to CUSMA. It's Bill C-4, the implementation act, and we're talking about changing the number five to the number seven in about half a dozen places or fewer. This is as simple as can be. We could do it here in less than five minutes.

I would hope that this committee, taking that fact into account, will do everything it can to change those few numbers. I have to say that our organizations have been told many times that this change was coming. I've been in this industry for 30 years now. That's where the grey hair comes from.

[Andrea Kokonis, General Counsel, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Andrea Kokonis, and I am the chief legal officer and general counsel at the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN for short. With me is Gilles Daigle, a lawyer with more than 30 years of experience in Canadian copyright law.

SOCAN is Canada's largest music rights society and administers public performance, communication and reproduction rights of authors, composers and publishers of music. We currently have more than 160,000 Canadian members and clients, and we also represent the repertoire of all foreign performing rights societies and several reproduction rights societies in the Canadian territory.

SOCAN is deeply committed to fair compensation for Canadian music creators and their business partners for the use of their work, under a protective regime in Canada that is in line with that of its biggest trading partners.

The new NAFTA has opened the door to implement an important and long-awaited change in the term of copyright—extending it from 50 to 70 years after the life of the author—and to do so immediately. Yet, despite the clear intention and wording in the new NAFTA, Bill C-4 as it now stands does not address basic term extension.

There is no valid reason for Canada to delay, yet again, term extension of copyright in our country. We therefore urge this committee to recommend, in the strongest possible way, that the necessary term extension amendments be added to Bill C-4.

As it stands, Canada's copyright protection term is not meeting the current international standard. This places our members and all Canadian creators at a disadvantage compared with our major trading partners. An extension to copyright term would increase Canadian investment and business in copyright-based industries located in Canada by removing disparities between Canada and other major economies.

The current term of copyright protection in Canada—life plus 50 years for creators of musical and other works—is out of line with modern copyright law. After the original NAFTA was ratified, the United States, in 1998, increased its term to life of author plus 70 years. In 2003, Mexico increased the term of protection to life of author plus 100 years. As part of the NAFTA renegotiation, we asked for provisions that reflected this new reality, recommending that the minimum term of copyright protection be life plus 70 years. Our position was supported by all major organizations in the North American music ecosystem.

While in Canada protection for musical works is life of the author plus 50 years, by contrast the majority of Canada's largest trading partners recognize a general standard of the life of the author plus at least 70 years. These countries include all of the European Union members, the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Norway, Switzerland, Peru, Brazil, Iceland, Japan and even Russia. Canada's current law is consistent with only the minimum protections set out over a century ago in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The intention at that time was to establish a term of protection that was enough to benefit two generations of descendants of the creator of the work. With longer life expectancies, a term of life plus 50 years no longer reflects the underlying intention of that treaty. Around the time that Canada joined the Berne Convention, in 1928, the average life expectancy was 60 years. It rose to about 81 years between 2007 and 2009.

As a result, the current term of protection afforded under the Canadian Copyright Act is insufficient to cover two generations of descendants of a songwriter, and the current term is therefore out of line with the policy objectives of the Berne Convention. As mentioned, this has been recognized and remedied by Canada's major trading partners. Canada's shorter term is also out of step with the emphasis and value that Canada has otherwise placed on the creation of works, both domestically as part of our heritage and internationally as leaders of cultural exports.

Canadians authors and composers of music, and their publishers, can be at a disadvantage as cultural exporters because their works may be subject to lesser protections internationally because of Canada's outdated term of protection. This is unfair and most unfortunate, as Canada's laws should not place limits on the ability of Canadian creators to exploit their works around the world.

A longer term of protection in Canada would better allow music publishers to reinvest the revenues they derived from the exploitation of copyright-protected works in the discovery, support and development of songwriters and composers. Additionally, from a multinational perspective, longer terms of protection in a market provide incentives for foreign companies to invest in repertoire in that market. In both cases, providing for a longer term of copyright protection in Canada would strengthen domestic reinvestment in cultural development and diversity, as well as foreign investment in Canada's substantial local talent. There is no justifiable reason to further delay the implementation of the extension. The government should fulfill its commitment immediately.

When Bill C-100 was introduced in the House last year, replaced by Bill C-4 in this Parliament, SOCAN and other music organizations were disappointed to see that, while some copyright modifications were made in the implementation bill, the term extension was not modified. It is our understanding that Canada has two and a half years to fully implement all of CUSMA, but we strongly believe the term extension was—and remains—a key piece of the renegotiation in light of the same extensions that our trading partners have implemented in their own home copyright laws.

The embarrassing reality at the moment is that Canadian authors have the same limited copyright protections as creators from countries such as Iran, Liberia, Pakistan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Angola and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Our members deserve better than that. All Canadian creators deserve better than that.

SOCAN, therefore, recommends that Canada amend the Copyright Act to extend the term of copyright protection for musical works to the life of the author plus 70 years, in recognition of current international copyright norms as well as the underlying intention of the Berne Convention and other such benchmarks for valuing intellectual property. Specifically, SOCAN recommends that the basic term of copyright be extended under section 6 of the Copyright Act, as well as the very few other provisions that need to be added.

As part of the submission that we have handed out, we have also included with the speaking notes the chart that Music Publishers Canada created to show where the amendments should be made.

Thank you very much.

[Jennifer Mitchell, Director, Board of Directors, Music Publishers Canada]

Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members, for this opportunity. I'm sorry I'm not available to be there in person.

I've had the pleasure of owning and running a Canadian-owned independent music publishing business for almost two decades. I'm here today with Casey Chisick of Cassels, who is external legal counsel to both Music Publishers Canada and my companies.

I'm here to talk to you about the need to fully implement copyright term extension, in accordance with CUSMA, immediately, completely and with no conditions. This will allow songwriters to succeed and small businesses like mine to thrive. Quickly ratifying CUSMA and implementing copyright term extension goes straight to the heart of their and our creative and business efforts.

Bill C-4 would extend the term of copyright for a few works but would leave out musical compositions—otherwise known as songs. On behalf of Music Publishers Canada and the songwriters and composers I work with, I urge committee members to amend Bill C-4 to align Canada with its global trading partners by including all musical, literary, dramatic and artistic works.

Canadian music publishing is a $329-million industry, just one sector of the $53-billion creative industry. Music publishers are innovators. Their strong export strategies have allowed entrepreneurs like me to better compete internationally. A total of 67% of music publishers' revenue now comes from foreign sources, a dramatic increase from 28% in 2005. The key to dealing with changes in technology has been our ability to expand globally. In order to do so, we take financial risks and invest our time, energy and money in building the international careers of songwriters, including emerging songwriters.

For example, we signed 23-year-old Tom Probizanski, which allowed him to move to Toronto. We then paid for him to go to L.A. and Denmark to co-write, and we set up his co-writing sessions. We also paid for his blog and playlisting promotion so that he was featured in Clash magazine, Earmilk and various Spotify playlists. We were able to take these risks and invest that money only because I could rely on the income of several songs for which my companies hold the copyright—for example, Imagine by John Lennon; What a Wonderful World; My Way; Y.M.C.A.; Start Me Up by the Rolling Stones; Skinnamarink by Sharon, Lois and Bram; and even the theme to The Simpsons. But a number of songs will soon fall into the public domain because Canada's copyright legislation is not aligned with international standards.

Holding on to these valuable copyrights for an extra 20 years would translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for good middle-class jobs, reinvestment in the Canadian economy and Canadian songwriters, and the ability to scale our business and export our music to international markets. Immediate action should be taken to prevent countless valuable works from falling into the public domain between now and the end of 2022. Otherwise, we risk stifling innovation, creativity, export potential and growth for small businesses like mine. We also risk creating more confusion, as remaining out of step with our international trading partners continues to complicate licensing for users instead of providing any relief.

I would like to quickly speak about the industry committee's report on its review of the Copyright Act in the last Parliament. Some believe that copyright registration is needed in order to have a seamless transition. I respectfully disagree. Publishers and songwriters already register all of their works with SOCAN and CMRRA in Canada in order to be paid. A second government registration system would create nothing more than an unnecessary burden for copyright owners and the potential to introduce abuse into a system that already works very well to the benefit of creators, users and the public. Mandatory registration would also violate Canada's international treaty obligations, even if it only applies to the last 20 years of an extended term. It is a basic tenet of copyright law internationally that protection must be granted without formality.

In conclusion, adding another 20 years to the life of a copyright means a robust creative sector, more Canadian cultural exports, and the growth of many innovative businesses that have embraced the digital market.

It is long past time for Canada to catch up to its international trading partners in this respect. We urge committee members to amend Bill C-4 to include immediate implementation of copyright term extension, with no conditions. Music Publishers Canada has prepared draft legislative language to accomplish this, which we've submitted to the clerk for the committee's consideration.

I understand that SOCAN will be presenting shortly. We've read their submissions and are in full agreement with them.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to this important issue. Casey Chisick and I are happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

For witnesses this morning, we have Maryscott Greenwood from the Canadian American Business Council, by video conference from Washington. Welcome and thank you for joining us.

Then we have, by teleconference, Jennifer Mitchell, a director on the board of directors at Music Publishers Canada.

From the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, we have Andrea Kokonis, general counsel, and Gilles Daigle, consultant.

We are waiting for some folks from the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec who have not arrived.

We will start now with Maryscott Greenwood from the Canadian American Business Council.

Please proceed.

[Janice Tranberg]

Trade in beef and live cattle between the U.S. and Canada has created a highly integrated North American market that benefits the beef sector on both sides of the border. For all practical purposes, Canadian and U.S. beef industries operate within a single North American market where processed beef and live cattle move across the border in a relatively unimpeded and tariff-free manner.

Cattle feeding is the most valuable production component within the Canadian and U.S. beef value chain and both countries enjoy a tremendous benefit from a very high level of integration.

Even though the Canadian beef industry is approximately one-tenth the size of the U.S. industry, there is still a tremendous amount of reciprocal trade that occurs between the two countries in terms of processed beef, and even more with respect to live cattle.

The U.S. is Canada's largest export customer and Canada is the single-largest import supplier. Canada consumes about one-tenth of the U.S. exports and satisfies one-fifth of the U.S. required imports.

Each year, Canada processes three million head of cattle and yields about one million tonnes of beef. Canada exports 45% of all beef production annually, and about 75% to 80% of these exports are destined for the U.S.

The NCFA supports a swift ratification of this agreement and calls upon all MPs to ensure the quick passage of Bill C-4.

Our sector is not in a position to sustain any further trade disruptions with any of our trading partners, and the U.S. in particular. There is no room for reopening or amending the CUSMA at this stage if agriculture is to have any hope of growth and sustainability.

The FTA that occurred in 1988 and then NAFTA in the 1990s show beef as a good example of how free trade has strengthened industries on both sides of the border. These agreements inject a high degree of competition in the industry and have made North American industry a truly integrated market. Competition drove down input costs and increased productivity. This has allowed the North American beef industry to compete globally.

Going into CUSMA negotiations, the Canadian cattle feeders had four priorities: first, do no harm; second, improve market access where possible; third, include a specific commitment on regulatory co-operation; and fourth, no return of country-of-origin labelling, or COOL, in any form.

CUSMA builds on the success of NAFTA and restores long-term predictability to the North American supply chain. This is exceedingly important during this time of ongoing unpredictability in global markets.

Key benefits to CUSMA for the cattle feeders include no new tariffs or trade-restricting measures, meaningful progress on regulatory alignment and co-operation, and modernizing elements that will help bring NAFTA into the digital age.

CUSMA preserves and secures duty-free access upon which the North American beef cattle sector has been built over the past quarter of a century.

Producers appreciate that there is nothing in the agreement on mandatory U.S. country-of-origin labelling for meat or livestock, and that there is ongoing interest to address regulatory matters affecting cattle and beef trade, and to continuously improve the competitiveness of the North American beef sector.

In conclusion, our message is simple. We call on members from all parties to facilitate the timely ratification of CUSMA. Please pass Bill C-4 and bring CUSMA into force so that cattle feeders can capture the economic and competitive benefits as soon as possible

Thank you.

[Michel Daigle]

NCFA represents Canadian cattle feeders on national issues and

Les Producteurs de bovins du Québec also belongs to the association.

NCFA works in collaboration with stakeholders and government to strengthen and improve the cattle feeding sector. Through NCFA, Canada's cattle feeders speak with a unified voice. NCFA is a business-oriented organization focused on growth and sustainability, competitiveness and industry leadership. We work to create a business and trade environment that is conducive to the growth and sustainability of cattle feeding, focusing on enhanced access to existing export markets and the opening of new markets.

We support a regulatory system that better positions our industry for future growth and prosperity. The National Cattle Feeders' Association is a member of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and has a strong partnership with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, both of which appeared before this committee last week on Bill C-4.

Agriculture and agri-food in Canada is a $100-billion industry that employs over two million Canadians. Both the Barton report and the agri-food economic strategy table identify agriculture and agri-food as a high-growth economic sector with significant potential to increase its contribution to the Canadian economy. However, to do so, we need to proactively harness opportunities such as CUSMA.

Canada produces some of the most affordable, nutritious and safest beef in the world. The Canadian beef industry represents farm cash receipts totalling $9.4 billion annually, contributing $18 billion to the GDP annually. The Canadian beef industry generates an estimated 228,000 jobs in Canada, with every job in the sector yielding another 3.56 jobs elsewhere in the economy.

In Canada, there are approximately 82,665 Canadian farms, ranches and feedlots.

[Michel Daigle, Chair, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

On behalf of the National Cattle Feeders' Association, we thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-4.

To begin, the National Cattle Feeders' Association supports the swift ratification of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, and calls upon all MPs to ensure the quick passage of Bill C-4.

My name is Michel Daigle and I am the chairman of the National Cattle Feeders' Association. I've lived and farmed in Sainte-Hélène-de-Bagot, Quebec for 43 years now. Sainte-Hélène is a small community near Saint-Hyacinthe. I'm in a partnership with my two sons, and we seed and harvest over 3,000 acres. We operate a feedlot of 2,300 cattle one-time capacity and market 4,000 fed cattle every year. On the farm my older son operates a cow-calf operation of 100 head, so I know what I'm talking about to you tonight.

[Rick White]

Yes, that's excellent.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee on your study of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, also known as CUSMA.

It is a pleasure to appear today on behalf of Canada's 43,000 canola farmers. My name, of course, is Rick White, and I am the president and CEO of the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

Thank you for accommodating my presentation through teleconference from Winnipeg, where CCGA's head office is located. I am also joined in your room by Dave Carey. He's our vice-president of government and industry relations based in Ottawa.

Canola farmers support CUSMA and encourage the government to complete the parliamentary process quickly. Canada's ratification will provide a strong signal to our trading partners of the importance of this agreement and reinstate predictability and certainty in the North American marketplace for Canadian farmers.

CCGA represents canola farmers from Ontario to British Columbia on national and international issues, policies and programs that impact their farms' success. Developed in Canada, canola is a staple of Canadian agriculture as well as Canadian science and innovation. Today it is Canada's most widely seeded crop and is the largest farm cash receipt of any agricultural commodity, earning Canadian farmers over $9.3 billion in 2018. Annually, the canola sector provides $26.7 billion to the Canadian economy and provides for 250,000 jobs.

With 90% of canola exported as seed, oil or meal, free trade and access to international markets are key success factors for our farmers' continued prosperity. Free trade agreements such as CUSMA preserve and provide predictable markets and rules of trade in which to sell and grow our sector. In an environment of growing protectionism, it is even more important for Canada to support open markets and enable trade.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has served canola farmers well. Since its implementation 26 years ago, canola sales to our southern neighbours have grown significantly and have directly contributed to the growth and development of the canola sector here in Canada. Today the U.S. is our number one market, and Mexico is our fourth. In 2019, Canada sold 3.5 billion dollars' worth of canola products to the United States, which represents 5.6 million tonnes of seed, oil and meal. Ten years ago, our sales were $1.6 billion, so canola has more than doubled in value over the last decade.

Importantly, the U.S. is a critical market for canola value-added products. The U.S. purchases over 50% of our oil exports and 75% of our meal exports. The economic activity generated from processing seed in Canada and exporting oil and meal is an integral part of canola's contribution to the Canadian economy. Furthermore, many of these processors are in rural Canada, close to canola production. The value-added activity supports local communities, sustains rural employment and provides sales opportunities for canola producers outside the traditional elevator system.

CUSMA builds on and strengthens the NAFTA. CCGA advanced three priorities prior to and throughout the negotiations that are largely met with CUSMA.

Our primary objective was to preserve NAFTA concessions and maintain market access into the United States and Mexico. Under NAFTA and continued under CUSMA, exports of canola seed, oil and meal remain duty-free and will continue to face little in the way of trade barriers. This provides long-term predictability and restores certainty to our trade and business relationships.

Our second objective was to streamline and align regulatory practices between NAFTA partners. CUSMA adds a new section on agricultural biotechnology, including the new generation of plant breeding techniques, recognizing the importance of innovation for North American agriculture. It confirms existing procedures and builds on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, covering trade facilitation measures, instances of low-level presence and the creation of a working group for co-operation on agricultural biotechnology.

Our third objective was to seek improvements for further processed canola products, such as margarine and shortening. CUSMA modernizes the rules of origin, improving access for margarine products of which canola or soy are primary ingredients. Making the vegetable oil market more competitive should generate additional value-added activities here in Canada and capture more economic activity domestically. lt is unfortunate that we did not achieve the same outcome for shortening as the market is significantly larger.

While I appreciate today's testimony is focused on Bill C-4, the last year has been a challenging one for farmers. The loss of the China market for canola seed, various rail challenges, adverse weather and geopolitical and macro forces out of farmers' control have created significant uncertainty and risk at the farm level. Farmers are again making 2020 production decisions with limited certainty and knowledge of demand, price and available sales opportunities.

While CUSMA restores certainty in North America, reopening the China market to canola seed, meaningful changes to government business risk management programs, and biofuel market diversification are also required to assist farmers to manage the current and any future trade disruption. The current risk management programs, most notably agri-stability, falls short in addressing farm financial losses, and significant enhancements are required to make it work for farmers. Additionally, a clear requirement in the clean fuel standard that all diesel fuel consumed in Canada contain a minimum 5% renewable content would create greenhouse gas reductions and increase domestic demand for canola seed by an additional 1.3 million tonnes to 2.3 million tonnes.

In conclusion, NAFTA was critical to the development and success of the Canadian canola industry, and its modernization through CUSMA provides a platform to further stimulate growth in our sector and in the larger economy. As such, I have one parting comment. CCGA respectfully urges parliamentarians from both Houses to complete the necessary review and swiftly pass Bill C-4 into law.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, we are examining Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. This week, we are continuing to hear witnesses and get comments on how important this is and whether there's anything more that needs to be added as we move forward.

I'll introduce the witnesses.

By video conference, we have from the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Rick White, president and chief executive officer. Welcome. We appreciate having you here. We understand that we have the video conference system only until eight o'clock, so we'll make sure to get questions to you before that.

From Gay Lea Foods Co-operative Limited, we have Rosemary MacLellan, vice-president, strategy and industry affairs.

From the National Cattle Feeders' Association, we have Janice Tranberg, president and chief executive officer, and Michel Daigle, chair.

Welcome to all of you.

We'll start with you, Mr. White, if you'd like to give some opening comments.

[Michael Powell, Director, Government Relations, Canadian Electricity Association]

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-4 and CUSMA and how it helps Canada in the North American integrated electricity grid.

CEA is the national voice of electricity. Our members operate in every province and territory in Canada and include generation, transmission and distribution companies, as well as technology and service providers from across the country.

Our electricity sector employs 81,000 Canadians and contributes $30 billion to Canada's GDP. Indirectly, our sector supports essentially every job in Canada, as electricity is the foundation of the modern economy.

Electricity is at the heart of Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy. More than 80% of Canada's generation is already non-emitting, making it one of the cleanest grids in the world. In fact, the Canadian electricity sector has already reduced GHG emissions by 30% since 2005.

Electricity will play an essential role as Canada transitions to a low-carbon economy.

[Isabelle Des Chênes, Executive Vice-President, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's an honour to appear before the committee today.

The trading relationship that Canada has with the United States and Mexico is a key pillar of our economy. The Canada, U.S. and Mexico trade agreement represents a step forward in that relationship and the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada and its members support its ratification with the passage of Bill C-4.

Canada's chemistry industry is a vital component of our economy and is the fourth-largest manufacturing sector, at just over $58 billion in annual shipments. Ours is also a very highly skilled industry. More than 38% of our nearly 90,000 employees are university graduates, second only to the IT sector. These highly skilled employees are well paid with an annual average salary of $80,000. The chemistry industry also supports an additional 525,000 Canadians in indirect jobs. While few people give thought to the role of chemistry in the economy, more than 95% of all manufactured goods are directly touched by the business of chemistry. This includes key sectors of the Canadian economy, such as transportation, agri-food, natural resources and, of course, the municipal entities through water and sewage treatment.

In my brief time with you today, I want to share a few key points on behalf of Canada's chemistry sector. First, free trade has been an unquestionable benefit for our chemistry sector and nowhere is that more prevalent than here in North America. Canada's chemistry sector is highly integrated into international trade flows. Our industry exports nearly $40 billion of chemical products each year, second only to transportation equipment providers in the manufacturing space. On the other hand, we import just under $60 billion from other nations. Taken together, the chemistry sector trades around 100 billion dollars' worth of products each year.

With respect to our North American neighbours, approximately 76% of our exports and 58% of our imported chemical products come from the United States and Mexico, equating to over 65 billion dollars' worth of trade annually. Our members have offices and production facilities across Canada, including in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Every single day these facilities trade hundreds of millions of dollars of products with our American and Mexican neighbours. Every day they send hundreds of train cars from Fort Saskatchewan, Sarnia and Bécancour to facilities in Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Coahuila, Chihuahua and Mexico City. In return, these U.S. and Mexican companies send hundreds of cars back, picking up new products in Guadalajara, Louisiana, New Jersey and Washington along the way, and sending them to manufacturers in Red Deer, Toronto and Montreal. Thousands of trucks and train cars cross our three borders each day in a highly efficient and integrated manner. All of this has been possible through free trade.

My second point is that once it became clear that a renegotiation of NAFTA was imminent, CIAC wasted no time in articulating clear and concise priorities that would preserve and modernize North American trade. While it was important for us to maintain tariff-free access for chemical products into the U.S. and Mexico, we wanted to use this once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernize key aspects of the North American trade framework. Addressing non-tariff issues through free trade negotiations is a constructive way to ensure a common approach among trade partners, vital to a knowledge-based economy. This means finding new ways to strengthen government-to-government co-operation, avoiding duplication and enhancing regulatory cohesion among trade partners. Just as important as enhancing the free flow and security of goods, the flow of ideas and information helps to strengthen our supply trains, improve our businesses and improve business certainty. Modern trade agreements go far beyond tariffs and it is crucial that these agreements evolve with the economy.

In a unique step, we collaborated with our sister associations in the United States and Mexico to offer tripartite recommendations to our respective negotiating teams on modernizations to the areas of rules of origin and regulatory co-operation. These two areas are uniquely critical for the trade of chemical products.

CUSMA preserves and enhances the trilateral trade of chemistry products in North America. It prevents new tariffs from being applied to chemical products, modernizes rules of origin by offering companies a clear menu of options for documenting the origin of their products, enhances regulatory co-operation with a sectoral annex intended to facilitate cross-border information and burden sharing to protect human health and environmental health, and strengthens Canada's world-leading risk management approach to chemicals management. Finally, it facilitates digital trade by ensuring that industry data can flow freely and securely across borders.

The chemistry sector has evolved significantly since the original NAFTA was adopted. Today, tens of billions of dollars' worth of chemical products are traded across our borders. CUSMA will provide for tariff-free trade of chemical products. It modernizes key areas vital to a knowledge-based 21st century economy and it strengthens Canada's risk-based approach to chemicals management.

Finally, we'd like to thank the Prime Minister and Minister Freeland for their extensive engagement on the file. We can't say enough about Canada's negotiating team at Global Affairs Canada. They proved that despite the tense rhetoric, you can achieve win-win-win outcomes. I'd also like to note the high degree of participation from the provinces as well.

In the interest of time, I will leave it at that and welcome your questions.

[Jason McLinton, Vice-President, Grocery Division and Regulatory Affairs, Retail Council of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to come and discuss with you Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States .

RCC, the Retail Council of Canada, strongly supports Bill C-4

I will briefly introduce the RCC.

The retail trade is the largest private employer in Canada. More than 2.2 million Canadians work in our industry. Recognized as the voice of retailers in Canada, RCC represents more than 45,000 businesses of all types, including department stores, grocery, specialty, discount, independent and online stores.

The grocery members of the RCC are proud to be an integral part of the Canadian food system. They constitute the final and direct link with consumers, offering Canadians the wide variety of foods they eat every day.

RCC is highly supportive of Bill C-4.

Canada is a trading nation. Free trade is essential to a modern economy, allowing Canada access to world markets for its exports and allowing retailers and consumers in Canada to access a variety of goods at competitive prices.

The renegotiated NAFTA, otherwise known as the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, preserves key elements of the previous free trade agreement and incorporates new and updated provisions that seek to address 21st century issues.

Let me be clear. CUSMA is good for retailers and CUSMA is good for Canadian consumers.

Specifically, I'd like to make comments on two points within CUSMA.

The first one is the de minimis threshold. Retailers in this country are pleased that the Canadian negotiating team delivered a deal that protected Canadian retailers from the most unreasonable demands made by the U.S. side. With U.S.-based online merchants and couriers pushing hard for an increase of the de minimis level to $800 U.S., it could have been devastating for retail merchants in Canada and to the over 2.1 million Canadians working in the retail sector.

This level would have created a tax and duty advantage for foreign shippers over Canadian retailers, essentially incentivizing Canadians to shop anywhere but in Canada, at the expense of those who actually invest and employ in Canada. Clothes, books, shoes, toys, sporting goods, consumer electronics and housewares would have been particularly hard hit, and these tend to be the areas in which small and medium-sized retailers specialize.

We're very pleased to say that the Canadian negotiating team did not cave in to these demands, and I would personally like to thank the Prime Minister, Minister Freeland and the Canadian negotiating team for the work they did in this area.

The second area that I'd like to comment on is the tariff rate quotas for supply-managed goods. Through negotiation of CUSMA and other new trade agreements, such as the CPTPP and CETA, Canada has increased its TRQ commitments for supply-managed goods nearly threefold, and the landscape of Canadian industry and consumer demand has changed significantly.

RCC is supportive of the government's decision to conduct this comprehensive review of its TRQs for existing and new trade agreements, such as CUSMA.

That said, if the purpose of these trade agreements is to bring competitive pricing for Canadian consumers, retailers must be given their fair share of duty-free quota under Global Affairs Canada's review, to maximize consumer choice and bring these better prices.

In particular, quota on products meant for final retail sale to the consumer should be allocated directly to retailers, rather than slicing the pie so thinly that each piece of the pie would be of negligible value, or allocating the bulk of ready-for-sale goods such as fluid milk, cheese and poultry up the line.

Having fewer price takers along the supply chain will ultimately lead to more competitive prices for Canadians.

While quota cannot be allocated directly to consumers, it can be allocated to the people who are closest to consumers, and that is retailers, if Canadians are to see the full benefits of this deal.

In conclusion, thank you once again for the opportunity to present the perspective of food retailers and other retailers on Bill C-4.

I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

We will continue our study of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Welcome to all of our witnesses for our second week of hearings.

From the Canadian Electricity Association, we have Michael Powell. From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have Corinne Pohlmann and Jasmin Guénette. From the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, we have Isabelle Des Chênes and David Cherniak. From the Retail Council of Canada, we have Jason McLinton.

Mr. McLinton, we'll start with you.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming to testify today.

My question is for Mr. Nantais.

In your statement, you said that the new NAFTA, Bill C-4, should be ratified expeditiously, and I believe you also noted the importance of obtaining certainty.

Is that certainty something that your members in the auto industry and the approximately half-million Canadians who work in the auto industry are asking for?

[Pierre Lampron, President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Good afternoon. On behalf of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, I want to thank you for the opportunity to offer our perspectives on Bill C-4 concerning the Canada — United States — Mexico Agreement.

I'm accompanied by Jacques Lefebvre, our chief executive officer, and Chris Cochlin, our legal advisor from Cassidy Levy Kent LLP. Mr. Cochlin is an expert in international trade.

The vast majority of politicians in this country say that they support supply management. However, in the end, actions speak louder than words. Today, with CUSMA, supply management has never been more weakened. There's no doubt that Canadian dairy farmers have been hit by the three most recent trade agreements. This is something that even the Government of Canada recognizes.

When the imports already authorized under the WTO and the access previously granted under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, are added together, these total imports will be equivalent to 18% of Canadian milk production by 2024. CUSMA also gives the United States oversight over the management of our dairy system by requiring a consultation with them prior to any changes in its administration.

Is this not an abdication of the independence of Canadian decision-making and our sovereignty? Have we negotiated reciprocity with the United States, given the non-tariff barriers that our products must face in order to enter the American market?

The Prime Minister has repeatedly committed to full and fair compensation to the dairy sector for the cumulative impacts of CETA, CPTPP and CUSMA. In terms of the first two agreements, at the end of 2019, we received a first instalment representing a little more than 12% of the total promised compensation. We await guarantees that the sums still to come are locked in. Once again, actions speak louder than words.

This compensation doesn't include CUSMA. Some wonder why financial compensation is being offered instead of programs.

First, our recent experience with programs set up to mitigate agreements with Europe hasn't been conclusive. Of the $250 million granted, almost 10% was allocated to the administration of the program by the public service. This amounts to $22 million returned to state coffers for the administration of the program by federal public servants. The remaining sums benefited only a small number of producers.

Second, the compensation formula announced in August 2019 is consistent with the recommendations of the mitigation working group created by the federal government after the signing of CUSMA. However, beyond the numbers, realities on the ground affect some 11,000 families across the country.

My experience isn't unique, but it sheds light on why financial compensation is needed. When my brothers and I took over the family farm some 30 years ago, we knew that the market was equivalent to the potential of Canadian consumers. We made calculations and projections on this basis. We determined that we could make ends meet despite the significant costs associated with acquiring a farm.

The Canadian government will have ceded nearly one-fifth of our production to foreigners by 2024. We know now that our business plan didn't take into account the fact that our market would be conceded in this way. If we had known this, my brothers and I would have given serious thought to whether it was worth it to take over the family farm. This would be true of any business confronted by a loss of nearly 20% of its market.

However, since the concessions have been granted, we have a few recommendations.

We recommend that the Canadian government continue to give dairy farmers, in the form of direct payments, the remaining seven years of full and fair compensation to mitigate the impacts of CETA and CPTPP. We ask that the total amount be formally accounted for within the 2020 main estimates and that the government announce the amount of compensation for CUSMA prior to its entry into force.

On the other hand, CUSMA contains a provision that imposes export taxes, above a certain threshold, on skim milk powder, milk protein concentrate and infant formula.

This threshold is draconian. In the first year of the agreement, it represents about half our exports for 2018, and then it declines. This export tax undermines the competitiveness of our products in relation to the products of other global players, including the United States. This provision sets a dangerous precedent for any dairy product that may be exported.

In addition, if CUSMA enters into force before August 1, the beginning of the dairy year, the export thresholds will see a dramatic decline of nearly 35% after only a few months. For Canadian dairy producers, CUSMA presents a fourfold threat.

On the one hand, we've conceded more of our domestic milk production to foreign producers for products that will end up on our shelves. These products will be made from foreign milk whose production is directly and indirectly subsidized, which isn't the case here. This results in cheaper milk for foreign processors that export products here. This gives rise to the question of whether this unfair competition constitutes the dumping of foreign dairy products on our shelves.

At the same time, we face export barriers for dairy products made with milk from our own country. Add to that the fact that our border is porous and the government isn't in a position to test foreign dairy products coming into the country. It's important to note that these products aren't subject to the same production standards to which we adhere.

Given the impact on our industry and the dangerous precedent set by the export thresholds, we call on the government to take mitigating steps. We understand that this could be done through administrative measures after the ratification of CUSMA, on a voluntary basis, without reopening the agreement.

When it comes to controlling our borders, the government must commit to giving the Canada Border Services Agency the resources and training to enable officers to fully play their roles. After our discussions with the union management, we're convinced that the officers expect nothing less.

Canadian dairy producers are committed to the highest standards of sustainable production. This is done through the proAction program. These standards come with costs for farmers. For example, unlike American producers, our Canadian producers don't use artificial growth hormones to increase milk production at the expense of the health of the cows.

Instead of supporting our farmers so that they can maintain these rigorous production standards, the government has chosen to open its market to surpluses of foreign dairy products that don't meet our domestic standards.

In conclusion, the Dairy Farmers of Canada understand the importance of international trade to the Canadian economy in general. They aren't opposed to Canada exploring or entering into new trade agreements. However, let's be realistic. All countries have both offensive and defensive interests when it comes to trade negotiations. The United States, for example, has a long tradition of protecting their sugar, cotton and dairy sectors. Unlike in Canada, these industries receive production subsidies, directly or indirectly, from the American government.

The defence of supply management has never prevented Canada from entering into an international trade agreement. Trade negotiations don't seek to pit one Canadian industry against another. However, we firmly believe that access to the Canadian dairy market should no longer be the price of entry into these agreements. Despite the government's assurances, we remain concerned about what could be conceded in a free trade agreement with Great Britain. It's also important to consider that the impacts of recent trade agreements weren't limited to dairy farmers.

The Canadian government should also provide full and fair compensation to dairy processors, in addition to Canada's poultry and egg farmers. Lastly, the time may have come for a committee of the House of Commons or Senate, or even of both, to look into the possibility that foreign dairy products are being dumped in Canada. Your farmers aren't scared of international competition, provided that there's a level playing field.

I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

[Mark Nantais, President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, honourable members.

I'm pleased to be here today representing Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Canada, Ford Motor Company of Canada and General Motors of Canada Company.

Our members operate four assembly plants, as well as engine and components plants. They invest many billions of dollars in the development of zero-emission technologies and advanced vehicle safety technologies. We have over 1,300 independent dealerships across Canada, and we contribute quality employment opportunities for over half a million Canadians.

The CVMA has been a primary advocate of CUSMA, and we recommend passage of Bill C-4 without delay. The passage of CUSMA is essential to provide certainty to North American automobile manufacturers. The automotive provisions, as well as the side letters that provide protection from the U.S. section 232 tariff actions, are indeed critical elements to support automotive manufacturing competitiveness within the North American trade bloc.

It's important to remember that, for the auto sector in Canada, the alternative to reaching this agreement was the cancellation of NAFTA, the reimposition of tariffs on finished vehicles and parts, and likely section 232 tariffs on input materials. So, if we are anxious to see ratification, that is indeed why.

We again want to say thank you to the Canadian negotiators for working so closely with us and ultimately ensuring that we maintain Canada's auto sector as a truly integrated part of the North American industry. This agreement was existential for Canada's largest manufacturing and export industry.

The agreement reinforces the long-established integration of the auto industry supply chain necessary for its competitiveness and, importantly, the ongoing need for continued regulatory alignment with the United States of vehicle technical regulations that are integral to trade and the environment while ensuring greater consumer product choice and affordability.

The auto portions of the new agreement, including the rules of origin, the labour value content provisions and the section 232 side agreements, are things that all our members support and can adjust to over a reasonable time period so that we will remain compliant, enabling us to continue to enjoy duty-free access to the largest and most beneficial auto market in the world.

Since the Auto Pact of 1965, Canada's automotive industry and its supply chains have become deeply integrated with the United States and, over time, with Mexico. Vehicles are built seamlessly on both sides of the border. The resulting deep integration has led to a more competitive Canadian auto industry, greater consumer choice at more affordable prices and a strong North American trade bloc.

When the original NAFTA came into force in 1994, it provided a foundation for a strongly global competitive trade bloc. The geographic proximity of the three NAFTA partner facilities, the multi-billion dollar sectors, the parts sector and the just-in-time supply chains are critical to vehicle assembly operations in North America. It also created inherent transportation and supply chain logistics cost advantages.

Today, automotive manufacturing represents the second-largest Canadian export sector, with $54 billion in trade in 2019. Ninety-two per cent of the total value of that was to the United States. The United States is our number one automotive trade partner, and it's absolutely critical that a trade agreement be in place to provide the foundation for Canadian automotive production and exports in the future.

We must always keep in mind that Canada is one-tenth of a complex, fully integrated long-lead industry. Multi-billion dollar product plans and manufacturing investment plans generally begin over five years in advance of the start of production. Planners require regulatory certainty to make their decisions. They especially need Canada to maintain fully harmonized safety, vehicle GHG, criteria emissions regulations with the United States.

This remains imperative if we are to continue to be part of this fully integrated, long-lead, high-capital-cost industry. Put simply, we did not work this hard to modernize integrated rules of trade in North America to then take our eye off the ball and drift away with unique or different regulations. That could actually put us back to square one and leave us on the sidelines.

Canada's officials must also maintain a high degree of engagement with their counterparts in the U.S. and Mexico. We cannot relax our efforts to ensure that Canada is sufficiently competitive to win future manufacturing investments that anchor much of the Canadian automotive supply chain. Canada must have competitive, in fact, more competitive, costs of auto operation in Canada, including investment incentives, carbon costs, competitive labour agreements, taxes that keep pace with the United States, competitive electricity prices and competitive regulatory regimes.

It's important to remember that the auto sector is going through one of the most dramatic periods of change in its 100-year history for auto technology and mobility business models. We must work closely together with the Canadian industry and all levels of government to demonstrate that Canada is the best place anywhere to invest in the future of this important industry.

In closing, we fully respect the committee's need to hear Canadians and ask questions. We have worked with all parties over the last two years to discuss this very complex issue. We have been truly involved, and we appreciate your interest and open dialogue. We thank you for that, but we must ask you to ratify this agreement promptly.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Welcome to all of our witnesses and to committee members.

We're about to start another week of consultations. If we can get another 20 hours of consultation.... I'm glad to see that all our members are still anxious to keep going. I'm glad you're all here.

As an individual, we have Wietze Dykstra. From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Mary Robinson, president, as well as Robert Friesen, trade policy analyst. From the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, we have Mark Nantais, president. From the Dairy Farmers of Canada, we have Jacques Lefebvre, chief executive officer; Pierre Lampron, president; and Christopher Cochlin, international trade legal adviser at Cassidy Levy Kent.

We will start the opening remarks with you, Mr. Dykstra.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. Good morning.

As you heard, my name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, and I'm a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. My areas of specialty include digital policy, intellectual property, privacy and the Internet. I appear today in a personal capacity representing only my own views.

As you know, the typical approach before a committee on bill study is to examine the bill, identify provisions to support and areas for amendment. In this case, at least for my areas, what really matters is not what is in the bill, but what's not. The most notable issues from a digital policy perspective, which obviously have significant implications for issues addressed by this committee, won't be found in Bill C-4, by and large. Rather, they are found in CUSMA itself and they typically limit Canada's policy options for future policy reforms rather than require immediate legislative action.

This raises a significant challenge, since the flawed aspects of the deal can't be fixed in C-4. Rather they require a change in a trade agreement that is largely presented as a take it or leave it deal.

I'd like to briefly discuss four issues along these lines, some of which could create costs that run into the hundreds of millions of dollars for Canada: copyright term extension, the cultural exemption, privacy and data protection and Internet platform liability.

I'll start with copyright term extension, and I know you heard about that earlier today. The IP provisions in the agreement raise some significant concerns, but none more so than the requirement to extend the term of copyright from the international standard of life of the author plus 50 years to life plus 70. The additional 20 years is a reform that Canada rightly resisted for decades under both Liberal and Conservative governments. By caving on the issue, the agreement represents a major windfall that could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars for rights holders and creates the need to recalibrate Canadian copyright law to restore the balance; for example, perhaps addressing some of the issues you heard earlier on digital locks.

The independent data on copyright term extension is unequivocal. It creates less access to works, higher costs for consumers and no incentive for new creativity. In the words of professor Paul Heald, one of the leading researchers on the effects of term extension, “it's a tax on consumers” with no obligations to benefit the public.

This committee's copyright review conducted an extensive review into the issue and recommended establishing a registration requirement to obtain the additional 20 years of protection, to mitigate against the disadvantages of term extension and increase overall transparency of the copyright system.

Term extension doesn't appear in C-4 because the government negotiated a 30-month transition period to address the issue. I think the government has rightly not rushed into term extension and we should be taking full advantage of the transition period to follow this committee's recommendation to establish a registration requirement for the additional 20 years. That would allow rights holders who want it to get the additional protection they're looking for, while also ensuring that many other works enter into the public domain after their term of protection expires after life plus 50 years.

Second, I'll turn to the cultural exemption. Much like copyright term extension, there is no reference to the cultural exemption in Bill C-4. That's because the exemption doesn't require legislative reform. However, I'd argue that the exemption is one of the most poorly understood aspects of this agreement, at least in the areas I focus on.

Consistent with government claims, the cultural exemption covers a broad range of sectors with a near complete exemption for Canada. While the government has emphasized its broad scope, it rarely speaks of what the U.S. demanded in return, namely the right to levy retaliatory measures of equivalent commercial effect where Canada relies on the exemption. The retaliatory measures provision means the U.S. is entitled to levy tariffs or other measures that have an equivalent commercial effect in response to Canadian policies that would otherwise violate CUSMA, if not for the cultural exemption.

Since the provision does not limit the response to the cultural sector, the U.S. can be expected to target sensitive areas of the Canadian economy such as the dairy sector in order to discourage its use. That was the U.S. strategy recently when responding to a French plan to levy a new digital tax, which led to plans or threats to levy $2.4 billion U.S. in tariffs against French goods such as wine, cheese and handbags.

How could this play out in a Canadian context? The recent broadcasting and telecommunications legislative review panel report—the so-called Yale report—contains what I would view as many ill-advised recommendations on regulating the Internet and online news services such as news aggregators.

Should the government adopt the broadcast panel recommendations on content, the U.S. would have a strong case permitting retaliation with measures of equivalent commercial effect. Panel proposals that may violate the new trade agreement include requirements to pay levies to fund Canadian content without full access to the same funding mechanisms enjoyed by Canadian firms, licensing requirements for Internet services that may violate NAFTA standards, and discoverability requirements that limit the manner in which information is conveyed on websites and services.

I emphasize that I think this is bad policy that should be rejected. However, for the purposes of this review, note that the policy flexibility to enact reforms in this area is severely limited by the agreement, which establishes the possibility of retaliatory tariffs in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Third, I'll address the digital charter and privacy. Limitations on Canadian policy also arise in the context of privacy and data protection. Unlike the cultural exemption, which permits violations of the treaty subject to those retaliatory tariffs, on the issue of privacy, Canada would run the risk of simply being offside its commitment under CUSMA.

Once again, there is no provision on point in C-4—there's no need for one—because CUSMA prohibits certain privacy-related provisions, rather than requiring them. For example—and I know this came up in the previous panel—CUSMA includes a provision restricting data localization, which refers to measures requiring data be stored within Canada. It features a more restrictive provision than that found in the CPTPP. There are some general exceptions, but the Canadian government will be restricted in its ability to establish localization requirements under the agreement.

Those implications I think are far-reaching. Consider the wide range of policy issues with data right now: Canada's digital charter and its proposed privacy and data reforms, concerns about data sovereignty, AI-related issues and fears about the competitiveness of Canadian businesses in relation to Canadian data.

The Canadian government itself has established localization requirements as part of its cloud computing policy. Indeed, there is a recognition that data localization may be needed in some circumstances, yet under this agreement, Canada has limited its ability to regulate. The same is true on the issue of data transfers, as CUSMA also limits the ability to restrict them. As we enter into a discussion with the European Union about the adequacy of Canadian privacy laws, there are concerns that a data transfer provision could leave Canada between a proverbial privacy rock and a hard place, with the EU demanding certain restrictions and CUSMA prohibiting them.

Finally, I'll address Internet platform liability. A similar dynamic arises in the context of Internet platform liability, which raises the question of what responsibility lies with Internet companies for third-party content on their sites. The issue captures large players such as Google and Facebook, but frankly, almost anyone that offers user comments or content. There's no provision in C-4 on this either. Once again, the reason is that CUSMA restricts policy in the area, rather than requiring a new provision.

CUSMA includes a legal safe harbour for Internet intermediaries and platforms for content posted by their users. The rule is designed to provide Internet platforms with immunity from liability, both for the removal of content, as well as for the failure to remove content. Contrary to some claims, that does not mean that everything goes: sites and services are still subject to court orders and the enforcement of criminal law. Further, intellectual property rights enforcement is also exempted. However, some have now argued that the responsibility of Internet intermediaries should go further, with potential liability for failure to act, even in cases of harmful, albeit legal, content. I think that issue raises important freedom of expression concerns and questions about how we balance freedom of expression and speech with protection from harm.

The issue with C-4 and CUSMA is not to debate where Canada should land. The broadcast panel recommended liability for online harms, even if the content is legal. Others, including me, would argue that liability should rest with illegal content, but to create liability for legal content is to render Internet companies judge and jury over what remains online, thereby further empowering the large Internet companies, as well as limiting competition and freedom of speech.

The key point here is that there is a policy debate to be had, and under CUSMA, Canada has already committed to a position, one that restricts our ability to establish liability for third-party content.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Today, we are studying clauses 22 to 28 and 108 to 122 of Bill C-4.

Today we have with us Professor Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa.

Joining us are Bruno Letendre, the chair of Les Producteurs de lait du Québec; François Dumontier, its director of communications, public affairs and trade union life; and Luc Boivin, the owner of Fromagerie Boivin.

Welcome to all of you.

We will start with presentations of 10 minutes by each group, followed by questions for each. We have three groups today instead of four at this panel, so we have a little more time for the witnesses.

If you see the yellow card, that means you have 30 seconds left.

We'll start with Luc Boivin, the owner of Fromagerie Boivin.

Welcome, Mr. Boivin.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the team, and I would even say congratulations. Prior to my election, I was watching and observing this, and I'm really pleased that we're at this place now that we're looking at Bill C-4.

I've been listening intently this morning and even during question period.

One of the areas of concern that Monsieur Lemire has been probing extensively is the whole area of the aluminum industry in Quebec. We heard this morning that there are really severe concern about the competitiveness of that industry going forward. SMEs are concerned, so I would just like to hear a little bit more about the engagement that occurred with the players and stakeholders in that industry. I know you were able to achieve perhaps more than what was there before, but could you reassure us a little bit more as to how you see this going forward?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes, but in Bill C-4 we've got 50 years cited in proposed subsection 6.2(2).

You don't need to answer now. Some clarity on that would be useful.

With respect to the Criminal Code provision, I'm just curious why this provision in the Criminal Code is necessary. What does it cover that wasn't there previously?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's fair. I take that to mean that's not something we put on the table, but something we accepted because broadly or overall, the agreement is in our benefit. While this provision may not well be, it's still worth it.

I have a very specific question and it's just because a previous witness pointed this out. In BillC-4, to amend proposed subsection 6.2(2) of the Copyright Act, there's a reference to 50 years, which is inconsistent with the other dates that I see throughout C-4. I'm curious. Is that reference to 50 years supposed to be 70 years, or is it to be 50 years?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you. That's good enough.

I'm wondering if you can point me to anything in Bill C-4 that would preserve the rights of Canada to proceed with similar types of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We will begin the third panel.

Today we are hearing witnesses on the subject matter study of clauses 22 to 38 and clauses 108 to 122 of Bill C-4.

I will remind folks in the room that no photo taking or video conferencing is allowed. In addition, during testimony, when you see the little yellow card, that means you have 30 seconds to wrap it up. I'll try to give you a little wave to give you the heads-up.

Today we have various folks from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. We have Mr. Steve Verheul, our chief negotiator; Robert Brookfield, director general; Loris Mirella, director, intellectual property; Shendra Melia, executive director; and Nicola Waterfield, deputy director.

Welcome to everyone. We will have a 10-minute presentation from the panel, after which we will move to questions from the committee members.

With that, I open the floor for your presentation.

Thank you.

[Jennifer Mitchell]

Sure.

Just to quickly finish the points I was making, waiting the 30 months to implement the copyright term extension for all classes of intellectual property, particularly when it comes to songs and musical compositions, will create more confusion in the marketplace.

My first point was that we were stifling innovation and creativity, export potential and growth for small businesses, but we also risked creating more confusion. Commercial users who license songs typically do so worldwide, which means they need to get a licence for the entire world. Remaining out of step with all of our international trading partners will continue to complicate licensing for users rather than providing any kind of relief.

We also risk introducing even more complexity by extending the copyright term for some classes of intellectual property and not others as Bill C-4 would do.

[Jennifer Mitchell, President, Red Brick Songs, Casablanca Media Publishing]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and honourable members, for this opportunity. I'm here today with Casey Chisick of Cassels, who is external legal counsel both to Music Publishers Canada and to my companies.

I have had the pleasure of owning and running a Canadian-owned independent music publishing business for almost two decades. I'm here to talk to you about the need to fully implement copyright term extension in accordance with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement immediately, completely and with no conditions. In doing so, small and medium-sized businesses in the music publishing sector and our songwriting partners are able to continue innovating, growing and exporting songs to the world.

Canadian music publishing is a $329-million industry, which grows every year because of innovative entrepreneurs who help create value from songs. In today's digital and globally connected age, songs, music and culture have no boundaries, allowing many Canadian songwriters to achieve international success because of the scale of opportunity outside our country.

The market in Canada is simply too small for songwriters and publishers to succeed only within our borders, so music publishers work hard and make investments to help songwriters expand and grow into international markets. In fact, two-thirds of music publishers' revenue now comes from foreign sources, which is a dramatic change from 2005, when only a quarter of their revenue was from these same foreign sources.

The key to dealing with changes in technology has been our ability to expand globally. Music publishers use their relationships in other countries, built over many years, to create opportunities for songwriters to succeed.

Music publishing is about championing a songwriter and a song through the lifetime of the writer's career and the song's copyright. We take a long-term perspective, and we work a lot behind the scenes to create value. We are the songwriter's partner. We not only make financial investments in songwriters; we also invest time and leverage our relationships to help a songwriter's career evolve.

This means matching people such as songwriter Jeen O'Brien with partners in lucrative markets like Japan to co-write singles that are released by other artists or used in TV, movies, commercials or video games. It means arranging co-writing opportunities for Dan Davidson in London, England, and China and financing radio promotion. Those efforts led to a top 20 Canadian country radio hit.

It means taking a risk to sign emerging songwriter Tom Probizanski, who moved to Toronto from Thunder Bay. We invested in him so he could go to Los Angeles and Denmark to co-write. He released an EP under the name of “Zanski” and we paid for his blog and playlisting promotion so that he was featured in Clash Magazine, EARMILK and various Spotify playlists.

We were able to take these risks and invest that money in Jeen, Dan and Tom only because we could rely on the income of several songs for which my companies hold the copyright. These efforts were made possible by the value that we were able to create from songs such as Imagine by John Lennon; What a Wonderful World; My Way; Y.M.C.A.; Start Me Up by the Rolling Stones; Skinnamarink by Sharon, Lois and Bram; and even the theme for The Simpsons.

This brings us to today. I would like to thank the government for agreeing in CUSMA to extend the term of copyright in works by 20 years. It is critical, though, that this be implemented completely, immediately and with no conditions, rather than waiting the 30 months that is allowable under CUSMA. Bill C-4 would extend the term of copyright for a few works: anonymous works, audiovisual works and so on. It would add an extra five years to the term of protection for performances and sound recordings, which was already extended in 2015, a welcome development to be sure.

However, the bill would not finish the job. It would not extend the term of protection for musical compositions known as songs. On behalf of Music Publishers Canada and the songwriters and composers I work with, I urge the committee members to amend Bill C-4 to align Canada with its global trading partners by extending the term of copyright protection for all musical, literary, dramatic and artistic works right now, instead of using the 30-month transition period.

Why is this important? Many works will fall into the public domain in the next 30 months. That will affect creators' and publishers' ability to reinvest in the Canadian economy.

As I mentioned, many music publishing companies are small and medium-sized businesses that rely on steady income from hit songs to develop new talent. For a small business like mine—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We will begin the second panel of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The subject matter is to study clauses 22 to 38 and 108 to 122 of Bill C-4.

With us today we have Roger Boivin, president, Groupe Performance Stratégique. We also have Mr. Scott Smith from Honey Bee Manufacturing, and Mr. Mark Nantais from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. By video conference, we have Jennifer Mitchell, president of Red Brick Songs, for Casablanca Media Publishing.

Welcome. Each witness will have five minutes to present, after which we will move into questions. When you see the little paper move up, that means you have thirty seconds left to kindly wrap up your remarks. I will try to allow as much time as possible but our time is tight this morning.

With that, we will begin with Mr. Roger Boivin for five minutes.

[David Cassidy, President, Unifor Local 444]

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dave Cassidy. I'm the president of Unifor Local 444 in Windsor.

Local 444 represents just under 10,000 active members working across a range of industries including gaming, long-term care, aerospace, energy and transportation. Of course, we also do auto assembly and make auto parts.

Our local represents approximately 6,500 workers at the Fiat Chrysler Windsor assembly plant, producing vehicles like the Grand Caravan, the Voyager and the Chrysler Pacifica. We also represent thousands more workers at nearby feeder plants, right down the supply chain.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you today with respect to Bill C-4 on the implementation of the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement. As the committee members will know, our union international president Jerry Dias took a very active interest in NAFTA renegotiations. I can tell you, coming from Windsor, that reopening, or even getting rid of NAFTA, has been top of mind for workers ever since that original deal came into force back in 1994.

I know the terms of NAFTA stretch beyond just the auto sector. It's a deal that touches nearly every good and service that crosses our continental borders, yet among them the auto industry seems to grab the headlines, and for good reason. Building and developing an advanced auto industry is lucrative business. It is also a tool for significant economic development. Canada is fortunate to have invested heavily in the auto sector. Every one job in auto assembly helps generate 10 others throughout the economy.

An auto assembly plant is like a centre of gravity for additional manufacturing investments. Supplier parts, whether seats, doors, wheels or other components, are intentionally located nearby to help meet production schedules and demand. This is exactly the case in Windsor where the auto industry is still a vital cog in the local economy, this despite years of devastating closures, plant reallocations, job outsourcing and layoffs.

In 1994 NAFTA changed the terms of trade and redefined the North American supply chain. It is no surprise that automakers and parts manufacturers started relocating production to low-wage Mexico or in some cases the low-wage U.S. south.

We used to have a $3.5 billion auto trade deficit with Mexico for cars and parts. The deficit is now nearing $30 billion. We expected this would happen. This is part of the reason Canadian auto workers have long been opposed to NAFTA. Over time and through our collective bargaining, we've managed to secure decent wages and benefits for our members doing very difficult, repetitive and skilled labour, but all that gets undercut as Mexican factories pop up and workers are paid a wage that's a fraction of what we earn.

I don't know if you know this, but a new Audi assembly plant located in Mexico, producing a $40,000 luxury SUV, for instance, will pay workers around $2.25 U.S. per hour. Canadian workers will not, and should not, have to compete with that. I'll tell you there is rarely a time when Canadian auto companies fail to point out these disparities when they're trying to lower our wages, trim our benefits or overhaul our pensions. This is NAFTA's effect on working conditions in Canada.

As I said, our union put a lot of time and resources into engaging in NAFTA renegotiations and working with federal officials to make meaningful changes. No one was under any assumption that tinkering with NAFTA would, by itself, undo decades of damage and neglect, but certainly, meaningful changes were made, and we recognize that.

Under CUSMA there is now a much higher threshold to determine a North American-made car than there was under NAFTA. Giving tariff preferences to carmakers that build a car actually made from North American components strengthens the integrity of the deal. This is far different from the approach the Harper government took when renegotiating the TPP wherein they committed to weakening the NAFTA threshold. Under TPP, which Unifor strongly opposed, more than half a car didn't have to be built in a trade zone to receive tariff preference.

It's good news that under CUSMA the trend is reversed. We think that this could help locate production of tier-1 and tier-2 suppliers into Canada as carmakers attempt to meet the new rules.

CUSMA also strengthens rules of origin on key component parts over and above the original deal. For the first time, there are auto rules of origin that apply to steel and aluminum resources, requiring OEMs to purchase at least 70% of these materials in North America.

[Matthew Poirier, Director of Policy, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everyone. It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of Canada's 90,000 manufacturers and exporters, and our association's 2,500 direct members, to support Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, also known as CUSMA.

Before I begin, I'd like to commend the efforts of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Freeland, Chief Negotiator Verheul and all their staff for negotiating CUSMA. Being part of the process, we at Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, or CME, understand how difficult these negotiations were. It was crucial to achieve a positive outcome for Canadian businesses and all their employees, and we did just that. As such, CME fully supports this bill. We urge the government and all parliamentarians to ratify CUSMA as soon as possible.

My goal today is simple. I want to explain why free trade is important to manufacturing and how CUSMA will improve on NAFTA.

Why is free trade so important? Simply put, North American trade is the basis upon which Canada's manufacturing industry is built. Our sector alone employs 1.7 million workers in every community across the country. In 2019 we shipped 455 billion dollars' worth of merchandise exports to the U.S. and Mexico. This represented 77% of our total exports to all countries that year. Two-thirds of these exports, worth about $305 billion, were manufactured goods. The numbers simply speak for themselves.

You see, Canadian, American and Mexican manufacturers don't really compete with one another. Rather, we build stuff together in a continental manufacturing ecosystem bound together by integrated supply chains. North American free trade is therefore a pillar of our national economy. It is why the manufacturing sector produces the bulk of Canada's exports. It is how the sector can compete against the rest of the world. This is why CUSMA—NAFTA before it—is so important. Without this agreement and without integrated production with the U.S. and Mexico, we simply would not have the scale necessary to be a global player. Canada's ability to take advantage of any other trade deal is only possible if North America continues to manufacture and grow.

How does CUSMA improve on NAFTA? CUSMA preserves the integrated manufacturing operations that allow the relatively free flow of goods and services between our three markets. Going into the negotiations, our members made it clear that the primary objective of Canada must be to do no harm to this integrated manufacturing economy. CUSMA accomplishes this. In fact, CUSMA preserves many of the key elements of the original NAFTA that were targets of the U.S. for elimination. This includes the dispute settlement mechanisms and business traveller visa exemptions. This was by no means assured at the outset, but there they are, alive and well.

Importantly, CUSMA updates critical areas of NAFTA, dragging it into the 21st century. This alone will significantly enhance North American trade. For example, the new digital trade chapter recognizes that the Internet is a thing, and establishes a framework for e-commerce in North America. The customs administration and trade facilitation chapter will also go a long way in modernizing borders throughout North America, enabling the free flow of goods.

Lastly, chapter 26, the new competitiveness chapter, has not garnered a lot of attention, but in our estimation it is one of the biggest accomplishments. Why? It sets up a framework for three sovereign countries to become a unified trade bloc. It will do this by promoting better coordination and integration of our manufacturing industries so that it can tackle global trade challenges together. This is a significant accomplishment. We have consistently urged the government to start work on implementing the parts of the agreement—parts like chapter 26—that do not require legal changes. We should be looking to make early progress by establishing committees for North American competitiveness and good regulatory practices, as outlined in the agreement. This would show Canadian leadership, signal to our other partners that we take CUSMA seriously and let us hit the ground running.

Once CUSMA is the law of the land, we need to pivot towards helping manufacturers and exporters take advantage of the new deal. The U.S. is, and always will remain, our largest export market. We must leverage such excellent government resources as the trade commissioner service and Export Development Canada to help companies transition from NAFTA to CUSMA.

Limited access to the U.S. government procurement market is also a big challenge.

This is how government can play a positive role in helping companies capitalize on CUSMA once it's in force—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Good morning, everyone. Happy Monday morning.

We are meeting today at the Standing Committee of Industry, Science and Technology to study clauses 22 to 38 and clauses 108 to 122 of Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

With us this morning we have Mr. Lawrence Herman, who is joining us by video conference from Toronto. We also have with us Mr. Matthew Poirier from the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters; Mr. David Cassidy, UNIFOR Local 444; and Jonathon Azzopardi, from the Canadian Association of Mold Makers.

Since we have a large panel, we will ask that you each present for approximately five minutes. At the end of the testimony, we will then move into a rotation for questions.

We will start with Mr. Herman, who is joining us by video conference. Just in case we have a technical problem, we want to make sure we get his testimony on the record.

With that, Mr. Herman, please feel free to begin your testimony.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for giving their testimony today and giving us some guidance on our deliberations on CUSMA. We're operating on quite a tight timeline, and I very much appreciate what our supply-managed sectors have gone through. We seem to be constantly paying the price for other jurisdictions' overproduction problems. It's obvious when you look at states like Wisconsin, which produces more milk than our entire country and is affected by massive price fluctuations, that they're looking for places to get rid of their excess production. Canada was an easy target, and I very much appreciate that.

There have been a lot of discussions about when this agreement is actually going to be ratified. I was looking at Bill C-4 and the coming into force provisions. Section 213 says, “this Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.” I'd like to know what your conversations with the executive branch have been like when you've raised these particular concerns.

[Dave Taylor]

Yes, Alistair and I do know each other.

With me today is Jacques Lefebvre, chief executive officer for Dairy Farmers of Canada.

I'd like to go off script for just a second to say that I think most of you have dairy farmers in your ridings, and they all have a story. We all have a story. As a young kid, I wanted to farm. I've been able to do that, and I appreciate the opportunity I have had. In the late 1970s, my dad had a fairly large dairy operation for Vancouver Island. He expanded into a whole market-garden operation as well. He built greenhouses and a retail store. Of course, in 1982, when interest rates went to the highest levels we've seen, he lost it all. We walked away with 20 cows, 10 heifers, 500 litres of quota, and nothing else. That propelled me to university. I was back and forth to the farm, and in 1995 I was able to jump back into farming. Since that time—this week actually—it's been 25 years that my brother, my dad and I have farmed together. We still farm together. My dad's 81. He is still a part of the farm, along with the next generation, as my son is involved now, too. It's a pleasure farming. There have been great opportunities in the last 25 years, but there have been some real bumps as of late, and I'd like to speak about that a bit in my statement here today.

On behalf of all Canadian dairy farmers—and I feel the weight of that today—I want to thank you for the opportunity to offer our perspective on certain clauses of Bill C-4 and the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement. The concessions granted in CUSMA have put Canadian dairy farmers in a vise, on the one hand by outsourcing a portion of our domestic production to foreign dairy farmers. After carving out a part of our domestic production in CETA, and again in CPTPP, you are now asking our farmers to make another sacrifice. To be clear, the total impact of these market access concessions, in addition to those already granted through the WTO, will be—and we've heard it from two speakers already—18% of our production by 2024. The government has once again weakened our Canadian dairy sector.

On the other hand, compounding the impact of market access is the fact that the one significant avenue for the dairy sector to mitigate some of these impacts through exports has been taken away by the imposition of an unprecedented and, may I say, draconian cap on our exports. This is covered under clause 44 of the bill, and it is where I will focus some attention today.

CUSMA requires that any export of skim milk powder, milk protein concentrate and infant formula beyond a predetermined threshold be charged an export charge on each additional kilogram of product exported globally. In other words, although CUSMA is an agreement that should ostensibly be limited to its three signatories, the cap on dairy exports extends to every country in the world. This goes well beyond what would normally be expected in a trade negotiation, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future agreements for all other sectors, I believe. In addition, if the caps come into force before August 1, the beginning of the dairy year, the cap on skim milk powder and milk protein concentrates will drop from 55,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes on August 1. That is a drop of about 35% after possibly only one, two or three months; we're not sure at this point. That would be another blow to our dairy market with no time for transitioning.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians depend upon this sector for their livelihoods. This could have ripple effects in communities across our country. The squeeze will also be felt by Canadian consumers, who can no longer be sure that the milk on their store shelves is produced according to the same high standards as milk produced here at home. For example, use of the artificial growth hormone rbST is banned here in Canada due to concerns over animal welfare, and I believe rightfully so. However, this is not the case in the United States.

Given that we are in a vise, we ask if there is a way to mitigate the impacts through an administrative agreement between Canada and the United States that would not require a reopening of the agreement.

Beyond market access and in addition to the cap on exports, CUSMA also requires Canada to consult with the U.S. on any changes to the administration of our domestic supply management system. This amounts to nothing less than giving the U.S. oversight of the administration of our Canadian dairy system. It puts into question the independence of decision-making in Canada and our sovereignty.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly committed to full and fair compensation for the dairy sector for the total impacts of CETA, CPTPP and CUSMA. Let me be clear: Instead of compensation, Canadian dairy farmers would have strongly preferred to see no dairy concessions in recent trade agreements. I'd like to repeat that: We would have strongly preferred to see no dairy concessions in recent trade agreements. This being said, concessions were made and compensation was promised in return.

Canadian dairy farmers, who are all impacted by recent trade agreements and are best positioned to know their own needs, have indicated that this compensation should come in the form of direct payments. This is consistent with farmers' recommendations from the mitigation working group established by the federal government following the signing of CUSMA and the government's commitment to listen to farmers on how compensation should be paid. Direct compensation is for lost markets. Government programs are to foster growth in an industry. The two should not be confused.

We therefore recommend that the Canadian government fulfill its commitment to fully and fairly compensate dairy farmers to mitigate the impacts of CUSMA, as per the producer recommendations made by the mitigation working group.

Another important point I'd like to make is that the Canada Border Services Agency does not currently have the training, tools or resources to effectively monitor what is coming into Canada. Canadian borders are leaky. This will become even more problematic as imports continue to increase as a result of the concessions granted in these agreements. For Canadian consumers it will be important for the government to ensure at the border that the food coming into Canada has the same food safety and quality, and that Canada has the capacity to police the increased amount of foreign product entering the country as a result of these agreements.

Finally, it is important to note that the impacts of recent trade agreements were not limited to dairy farmers. We therefore strongly encourage the Canadian government to provide full and fair compensation for the impact of recent trade agreements to dairy processors, in addition to Canada's poultry and egg farmers.

In conclusion, I come back to the next generation. My son is expecting his first child. He's 24. He's a full part of our farm now. He asked me, because I do get out to the odd meeting now, “Dad, where are we at? What's the future looking like?” He sees the cuts. He sees the hits we take. He says, “Dad, I could go work in the medical industry. I could go do that.” My wish is that he will stay, that he will be involved and will take the farm to another level altogether, that he will have confidence in Canada's supply-managed system and in a dynamic dairy industry for the future. I hope all of us around the table would believe in that and certainly advance that to the best of our abilities.

Thank you so much.

[Shane Stokke, Vice-Chair, Grain Growers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

My name is Shane Stokke. I'm vice-chair of Grain Growers of Canada. Grain Growers of Canada provides a strong national voice for grain, oilseeds and pulse producers across Canada. As such, we appreciate the invitation to appear before you to discuss the specific elements of Bill C-4 that are pertinent to the grain sector.

I farm at Watrous, Saskatchewan, an hour east of Saskatoon. I grow many different crops, and trade is very important to me to be fluent and real.

Our message regarding CUSMA and Bill C-4 is simple. We want to see it pass quickly. Our farmer members across Canada need certainty to invest and grow. With farmers feeling the effects of global trade wars, diplomatic disputes, increased input costs, higher taxes and challenging weather conditions, the last thing we can afford is uncertainty in trade within our own continent. We need tariff-free access for our export commodities. Canadian farmers rely on stable markets to succeed, and ratifying CUSMA will allow us to capitalize on further opportunities for growth with our closest trading partners.

Mr. Chair, specifically relating to the legislation before us, I'm happy to offer a comment, as per request, to clause 59 and sections under the Canada Grain Act portion of the bill. This section includes a remedy to a long-term trade irritant that both the United States and Canada have had. In essence, these changes allow for a levelling of the playing field. These changes ensure that all wheat varieties registered in Canada can receive a Canadian grade regardless of where they're grown. I should mention that a similar change was proposed by the previous government in Bill C-48 prior to the 2015 election, but it was unable to pass due to the dissolution of Parliament. We supported that change in 2015, and we are very pleased to see these changes being proposed once again. We hope they will be in place soon, with swift ratification of CUSMA through the passage of Bill C-4.

Over the last decade, there have been significant changes to both grain grading and handling systems here in Canada. This remedy is essential to the last remaining cross-border trade irritant U.S. farmers have with respect to grain, and we support this change. Under the current system, registered Canadian varieties grown in the U.S. and sold into the Canadian bulk handling system are automatically given the lowest grade possible. This change will allow grain grown in the U.S. to be graded here in Canada, and graded appropriately. Under the Canada Grain Act, nothing prevents companies such as mills from buying grain on specifications outside the grading system, and that will not change.

Currently a significant amount of grain is not sold in the Canadian bulk system. We would not expect that to increase dramatically because of this change. This change will now make Canada more compliant in providing reciprocal treatment to our trading partners, which we support and expect in return. This also highlights the fact that Canada truly believes in a rules-based system for world trade, and we're happy to show we will walk the talk in that regard. By removing this long-time, last trade irritant, it also assists Canada in growing forward.

While we believe there should be future reforms to the Canada Grain Act, by ensuring we're working on an even playing field with our trading partners we will be more firmly in control of any future changes to the act. This will allow strict Canadian stakeholder engagement for any future changes to the Canada Grain Act to ensure that any changes made are made in the best interests of Canadian grain growers.

In conclusion, CUSMA ensures continued tariff-free trade, establishing processes that help remove technical barriers to trade and maintaining vital precisions to deal with disputes.

I welcome any questions you may have.

[Jane Proctor, Vice-President, Policy and Issue Management, Canadian Produce Marketing Association]

Thank you.

Honourable members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, on behalf of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the study of clauses 44, 46, 53 and 59 of Bill C-4.

The Canadian Produce Marketing Association is a 95-year-old not-for-profit trade association, representing more than 860 member companies doing business in Canada within a supply chain that contributes $17.4 billion in real GDP and supports roughly 249,000 jobs here in Canada. In addition, the fruit and vegetable sector in Canada supports $9.8 billion in wages and salaries. Combined, CPMA members are responsible for 90% of fresh fruits and vegetables purchased by Canadians. As an industry association, CPMA represents the entire fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, from farm gate to dinner plate.

Our comments are reflective of a wide array of members across the supply chain, who work daily to provide Canadians with the fresh and healthy fruit and vegetable options they demand. That's right from growers all the way through to retail and food service.

The produce industry is a unique entity. This important economic engine is made up of rural, provincial, national and international companies, all working together to increase consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. CPMA represents the industry in all areas of impact, including sustainability—which currently includes a significant effort around packaging—research, innovation, infrastructure, regulatory modernization and trade, to name but a few.

Since the implementation of the previous North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 1994, Canadian fresh fruit and vegetable exports to Mexico and the U.S. have increased by approximately 396% when adjusted for inflation. This growth is indicative of the importance of tariff-free trade and the integration of our marketplace within North America and within the fresh produce industry.

The integrated North American supply chain also continues to be an important tool in ensuring that Canadian consumers have a consistent and diverse supply of fresh fruits and vegetables year-round, despite a relatively short growing season here domestically.

In order to meet the Canadian government's agri-food export target of 2025, and to ensure that Canadians can meet the recommendation in Canada's food guide that they fill half their plates with fresh fruits and vegetables, the continuation of tariff-free access under CUSMA is essential.

As a side note, industry is pleased that the final text of CUSMA does not include any changes to trade remedy laws related to seasonality and produce. This is an area we're going to continue to be watching, because our understanding is that there is pressure to the USTR still by certain pockets within the U.S. industry. That is one thing we wanted to put on your radar. We stand committed to ratification of CUSMA, and on behalf of industry we are therefore pleased to appear before you today.

Specific to why we are here today, I offer the following comments on clauses 44, 46, 53 and 59 of Bill C-4. Our understanding of the change to subsection 6.2(1.1) of the Export and Import Permits Act, proposed in subclause 44(1), is that it's a simple change to remove the reference to CETA—I think the wording is “for the purpose of implementing CETA”—which we support. Clause 44 relates specifically to dairy products, which is not within the mandate of CPMA and wouldn't be appropriate for us to speak to.

Clause 46 appears to be a simple change to add the text “respecting export charges referred to in subsection 6.?2(5)”. However, unless we are mistaken, there is no subsection 6.2(5) in the Export and Import Permits Act. We're going to reserve comment until that's clarified. It's unlikely that we would object to the export charges if they reflect current practice, but we'd appreciate understanding that text. My apologies if we misunderstood, but I've gone through it a few times and I just don't see that. It ends at 6.2(4).

Clause 53 refers to the Fertilizers Act. Since we do not have the expertise to comment on the specifics of that, we're going to defer to and support our colleagues at both Fertilizer Canada and the Canadian Horticultural Council on this clause. We would like to note that, in general, our industry is very reliant on inputs for fresh fruit and vegetables to continue to provide capacity for production here in Canada. Obviously, we'd like to see the fertilizer inputs remain in place.

Clause 59 refers to the Canada Grain Act. Again, that's outside of our mandate, so we will defer to our colleagues in that sector.

In closing, I would like to underscore our support for the ratification of CUSMA and Bill C-4.

Thank you for the time to present today on behalf of our industry.

[Claire Citeau, Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance]

Thank you for inviting us to speak on behalf of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, or CAFTA, voice of Canadian agri-food exporters, regarding the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

My name is Claire Citeau, and I am the executive director of CAFTA. I will share my time with our vice-president, Brian Innes.

Our members have a very simple message: CAFTA calls for the swift ratification of CUSMA to ensure continued stability in the North American market and strongly urges parliamentarians in both Houses to pass Bill C-4 quickly.

CAFTA represents the 90% of farmers who depend on trade, as well as producers, manufacturers and agri-food exporters who want to grow the economy through better and competitive access to international markets. This includes the beef, pork, meat, grains, cereals, pulses, soybean, canola, as well as the malt, sugar and processed food industries.

Together, our members account for more than 90% of Canada's agri-food exports, which in 2019 reached over $60 billion, and support about a million jobs in urban and rural communities across Canada. A significant portion of these sales and jobs would not exist without competitive access to world markets.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

Can you confirm that under the protocol to replace NAFTA, article 2 states that this protocol and its annex shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the last notification and that therefore, if Bill C-4 is fast-tracked as the government wishes, the agreement will apply before the beginning of the dairy year, which begins in August?

Therefore, dairy farmers would only benefit from a few weeks of the first year of the agreement because the second year of the agreement would have already begun.

Correct me if I'm wrong. In the first year, 55,000 tonnes could be exported. In the second year, 35,000 tonnes could be exported. We are talking about a major financial issue for Canadian dairy producers and processors.

Have I read the facts correctly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone, to our meeting on the study of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

We have a three-hour meeting today. It's going to be very tight, so I'm going to be tight on the time also.

Here with us, for the first 40 minutes, we have Steve Verheul, chief negotiator and assistant deputy minister of trade policy and negotiations at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have Nicole Howe, executive director of the supply management and livestock policy division at the policy development and analysis directorate, and Aaron Fowler, chief agriculture negotiator and director general of trade agreements and negotiations.

Mr. Verheul, if you want to start, you have up to 10 minutes for an opening statement.

[Matthew Poirier, Director of Policy, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to everyone.

It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of Canada's 90,000 manufacturers and exporters and our association's 2,500 direct members to support Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, also known as CUSMA.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the efforts of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Freeland, chief negotiator Steve Verheul and all of their staff for negotiating CUSMA. Being part of the process, we at Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, or CME, understand how difficult these negotiations were. It was crucial to achieve a positive outcome for business and all its employees, and we did just that. As such, CME fully supports this bill and we urge the government and all parliamentarians to ratify CUSMA as soon as possible.

My goal today is simple. I want to explain why free trade is important to manufacturing and how CUSMA will improve on NAFTA. Why is free trade so important? Simply put, North American trade is the basis upon which Canada's manufacturing industry is built. Our sector alone employs 1.7 million workers in every community across the country.

In 2019, we shipped $455 billion of merchandise exports to the U.S. and Mexico. This represented 77% of our total exports to all countries that year. Two-thirds of these exports, worth about $305 billion, were manufactured goods. The numbers simply speak for themselves. You see, Canadian, American and Mexican manufacturers don't really compete with one another. Rather, we build stuff together: a continental manufacturing ecosystem bound together by integrated supply chains.

North American free trade is therefore a pillar of our national economy. It is why the manufacturing sector produces the bulk of Canada's exports. It is how the sector can compete against the rest of the world. This is why CUSMA, and NAFTA before it, are so important. Without these agreements and without integrated production with the U.S. and Mexico, we simply would not have the scale necessary to be a global player. Canada's ability to take advantage of any other trade deal is only possible if North America continues to manufacture together.

How does CUSMA improve on NAFTA? CUSMA preserves the integrated manufacturing operations that allow the relative free flow of goods and services among our three markets. Going into the negotiations, our members made it clear to us that the primary objective of Canada must be to do no harm to this integrated manufacturing economy. CUSMA accomplished this.

In fact, CUSMA preserves many of the key elements of the original NAFTA that were targets of the U.S. for elimination. This includes dispute settlement mechanisms and the business traveller visa exemptions. This was by no means assured at the outset, but there they are alive and well.

Importantly, CUSMA updates critical areas of NAFTA, dragging it into the 21st century. This alone will significantly enhance North American trade. For example, the new digital trade chapter recognizes now that the Internet is a thing and establishes a framework for e-commerce in North America. The customs administration and free trade facilitation chapter will also go a long way in modernizing borders throughout North America, enabling the free flow of goods.

Lastly, chapter 26, the new competitiveness chapter, has not garnered a lot of attention, but it is, in our estimation, one of the biggest accomplishments of CUSMA. Why? It sets up a framework for three sovereign countries to become a unified trade bloc. It will do this by promoting better coordination and integration of our manufacturing industries so that we can tackle global trade challenges together. This is a significant accomplishment.

We have consistently urged the government to start work on implementing parts of the agreement now, like chapter 26, that do not require legal changes. We should be looking to make early progress by establishing committees for North American competitiveness and good regulatory practices, as outlined in the agreement. This would show Canadian leadership, signal to our other partners that we take CUSMA seriously and let us hit the ground running.

Once CUSMA is the law of the land, we need to pivot toward helping manufacturers and exporters take advantage of the new deal. The U.S. is, and will always remain, our largest export market. We must leverage the excellent government resources like the trade commissioner service and Export Development Canada to help companies transition from NAFTA to CUSMA.

Limited access to the U.S. government procurement market is also a big challenge. We encourage the government to work with the Americans, on a bilateral basis, to open up this lucrative area for Canadian farms. This is how government can play a positive role in helping companies capitalize on CUSMA once it's enforced.

In the final analysis, CUSMA is a good deal for Canada, and given the very challenging negotiations, an impressive achievement. We urge all parties to pass this bill as quickly as possible. If you do that, I can assure you that Canadian manufacturers will return the favour by creating prosperity for all Canadians for years to come.

Thank you, and I look forward to the discussion.

[Risa Schwartz, Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Judy.

With the ratification of CUSMA, Canada, working together with first nations, will be taking steps to make international trade more inclusive and more equitable for indigenous peoples, especially for indigenous women.

CUSMA didn't ultimately include a trade and indigenous peoples chapter, but the text of the final agreement mainstreamed many important provisions for first nations. CUSMA maintains Canada's traditional reservations, exceptions and exclusions in the areas of services, investment, environment and state-owned enterprises. It continues the WTO agreement on procurement carve-outs for indigenous businesses. It contains provisions that recognize the important role that indigenous peoples play in conserving the environment.

There is a new emphasis in CUSMA on co-operation activities to promote and enhance opportunities for indigenous businesses in the chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises. Indigenous peoples are the youngest and fastest-growing demographic in Canada, and opportunities for indigenous business means opportunities for women and for youth. There is a new provision in CUSMA for handcrafted indigenous textiles and apparel goods, which are now eligible for duty-free treatment.

Also, importantly, for the first time in a Canadian trade agreement, CUSMA includes protections for inherent and treaty rights through a new general exception in article 32.5, “Indigenous Peoples Rights”. The general exception clause is much stronger than we have seen in other agreements. This new exception clause covers the entire agreement and applies to indigenous peoples in all three CUSMA countries. It will allow all three states to take action to fulfill their legal obligations to indigenous peoples.

As well, we'd like to note that the investor-state dispute settlement will be phased out as between the United States and Canada. ISDS is a threat to indigenous peoples' rights. All these matters are groundwork for positive change.

Once CUSMA is ratified, we must work together to realize economic gains and to ensure these provisions are implemented in a manner that provides for greater economic equity for first nations. We note that the mandate letter for the Minister of Public Services and Procurement includes that “at least 5% of federal contracts awarded” must be “to businesses managed and led by indigenous peoples”.

This commitment needs to be monitored by each federal department and reported upon to cabinet on an annual basis to ensure the target is being met. Progress in meeting the 5% target should also be published by the Government of Canada for transparency.

While CUSMA is an example of the difference it makes to engage with indigenous peoples at an early stage, there must be increased opportunities for first nations to participate directly in international trade negotiations, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Assembly of First Nations will continue to advocate that Canada move beyond engagement and invite first nations to the negotiation table; include trade and indigenous peoples chapters in all new or modernized international trade agreements; explicitly acknowledge the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in international trade and investment agreements; and ensure that a general exception to protect indigenous people's rights, such as the one in CUSMA, is a red-line item for negotiation agreements. Like New Zealand, Canada must commit to protecting indigenous rights in international trade agreements. This is not a matter that should be up for negotiation.

As well, we ask that Canada halt the negotiation of new ISDS provisions in new international trade and investment agreements and remove ISDS provisions when older agreements are being modernized.

Finally, we ask Canada to invest in programs and services needed for first nations trade networks and inter-nation trade so that additional capacity can be established in first nations trade policy and programs and services. We are also here today to recommend an amendment to Bill C-4. The bill is missing a non-derogation clause. The non-derogation clause amendment was proposed previously by the national chief when he appeared before this committee during the study for Bill C-100.

All implementing legislation for international agreements that have the potential to impact inherent and treaty rights must include a non-derogation clause. It is not just the international trade and investment agreements that can impact inherent and treaty rights, but also how the agreement is implemented through domestic regulatory and policy matters. A non-derogation clause will clarify that the act and CUSMA shall be construed so as to uphold existing aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in our Constitution.

Chi-meegwetch for the opportunity today to present to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

[Judy Whiteduck, Director, Safe, Secure and Sustainable Communities, Assembly of First Nations]

[Witness spoke in Algonquin]

[English]

I wanted to acknowledge all of you, myself and the territory before we begin. We have a brief set of remarks that we'll share, which I will start with.

Thank you, first of all, for the invitation to the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations to appear before your committee to inform the study of Bill C-4. The national chief has sent his regrets due to other commitments, and we are pleased to be here on his behalf.

My name is Judy Whiteduck, and I am the director of the economic sector. I am joined by Risa Schwartz, our legal counsel on international trade matters.

The AFN is a national organization advocating for first nations citizens in Canada, which includes more than 900,000 first nations people, both living on reserves and in towns and urban centres.

First nations leaders direct the work of the Assembly of First Nations through resolutions passed at chiefs' assemblies. In 2019, the AFN passed resolution 37/2019, which was continued advocacy on Canada's international trade agreements to achieve economic reconciliation. It urged greater participation of first nations in international trade negotiations, and called upon Canada to include a trade and indigenous peoples chapter in future international trade agreements. The AFN has a specific chiefs committee on economic development, which includes first nations trade relations.

In 2017, the national chief was welcomed by Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland to be a member of the NAFTA council. At an official level, Risa Schwartz and I also participate on the indigenous working group on international trade for the Canada-United States- Mexico agreement. While there is more to do, this work has resulted in the most inclusive international agreement for indigenous peoples to date.

I will now ask Risa to provide additional comments on CUSMA and to make a recommendation for an amendment to Bill C-4 as well.

Thank you.

[Lawrence Herman]

Thank you. I won't go through the paper in any detail. I'll just summarize some points.

Bill C-4 is an implementation measure. It adjusts Canadian laws to bring those laws into conformity with the agreement, with CUSMA, and it needs parliamentary approval, obviously, to make those changes to Canadian statutes. Those changes set out in the bill will allow Canada to ratify the treaty.

It's important to understand that the conclusion of treaties and their ratification is an executive act. It doesn't legally require parliamentary approval for the Government of Canada to ratify an agreement, but the policy for many years has been to submit major agreements, trade agreements in particular, to Parliament for parliamentary approval. Of course, before Canada can ratify any agreement, whether it's a trade agreement or otherwise, Canadian laws have to be brought into line with the provisions of the agreement. If Canada were to ratify an agreement and Canadian laws had not been made consistent with the agreement, Canada would be, as a country, as a state, in breach of its obligations under the agreement.

Let's come to Bill C-4. I want to give you a bit more context about Bill C-4. There is nothing that I could see in Bill C-4 that is in any way inconsistent with the provisions of CUSMA. I have to say—and I think this is important in terms of context—that CUSMA is a done deal. The negotiations are over. This committee is not being charged with renegotiating or proposing renegotiating the CUSMA. It is done. The U.S. has ratified it. Mexico has ratified it. It is now Canada's turn to ratify the agreement. That requires that Canadian laws be changed and adjusted in some respects. In some cases, it's a matter of tinkering, but in some respects, Canadian laws and statutes have to be changed. That's what Bill C-4 does.

This committee, it seems to me, has three options.

It can approve Bill C-4, possibly with some minor tinkering here and there. I don't think there's much that needs to be done in that regard, if anything. It can approve the bill as presented.

The second option would be to propose amendments to Bill C-4 with or without a recommendation that the treaty be approved. It could radically amend Bill C-4 to change its contents, making them inconsistent with what Canada has agreed to in CUSMA.

Third, it could refuse to approve Bill C-4 and refuse to recommend Canadian approval of CUSMA.

The latter two options or scenarios would mean that Canada could not ratify the agreement. This would be, in my view, an enormous setback for the country, and in fact would be without precedent. There has never been an instance in Canadian history where Parliament has refused to approve a trade agreement and to pass the necessary legislation. We know that in 1987-88 the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was held up in the Senate after it had passed the House. An election was held and we know the consequences. A Conservative government was returned with a majority and the House subsequently passed the necessary implementing legislation.

In the case of the NAFTA, before it was presented to the trade committee or indeed tabled in the House, there were changes made to the NAFTA as renegotiated, because Canada, the U.S. and Mexico agreed that it would be necessary to add side letters to the negotiated text of the agreement. The NAFTA implementing bill was tabled in the House and was approved.

Canadian implementing legislation in other areas has been approved by the House. The European Trade Agreement—the CETA—and the trans-Pacific trade agreement have both been approved by the House. If any one of the negative scenarios that I outlined were to be proposed and approved by the House as a whole, I think the consequences would be disastrous. It would mean that the U.S. and Mexico would have ratified CUSMA, Canada would not have and, I assume, that Mexico and the U.S. would go ahead with the implementation and all of the other matters under the agreement. Canada would not be a party to that agreement. It would complicate things enormously in terms of supply lines and other matters. More than that, it would set back Canada-U.S. relations in a major way.

If this agreement, as I said—negotiated, signed, approved and ratified by the U.S. and Mexico—were turned down by Canada, legally, at least initially, the NAFTA would then remain in force as is between Canada and the United States. There would be serious doubts about whether the NAFTA would be continued by this particular administration under that scenario. The future of the NAFTA itself would be extremely uncertain.

The question then before this committee is what the consequences for Canada would be if Parliament, by following through with any such recommendation by this committee, were to refuse to approve the CUSMA and pass the necessary implementing legislation. That is the issue that you're faced with.

I know that in previous deliberations of this committee, suggestions have been made to reopen the NAFTA because one or another interest group is not happy with certain of its provisions. That is frankly a non-starter. The United States and Mexico, but particularly the United States, will not agree to reopen this agreement. It has passed the U.S. Congress. It's been ratified by the President, and the suggestion that Canada could go back to the U.S. government and say that it wanted to reopen this agreement is frankly a fantasy. It will not happen. Even if it did in the remotest of possibilities, even if the United States and Mexico were prepared to reopen the CUSMA because of Canada's insistence, we would have to look at starting negotiations again, going through all of the process of negotiating and putting on the table our starting position, and being prepared to make compromises, because, as Mr. Verheul said in his testimony, trade negotiations are questions of balancing concessions. Canada would have to put its starting bid on the table and be prepared to make concessions. This is, to me, the most unrealistic of scenarios.

[Drew Dilkens, Mayor, City of Windsor, and Member, Big City Mayors' Caucus, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Parliamentary Secretary Bendayan and members of the Standing Committee on International Trade. As I sit in my office right now at Windsor City Hall, what you can't quite see—you'll have to trust me, and you can pull up your Google Maps—is that about one and a half kilometres out the window behind me is the city of Detroit and the United States.

I want to thank you, because I think it's appropriate to have this opportunity to provide some comments on Bill C-4, the Canada, U.S., Mexico agreement implementation act.

Now I don't need to tell anyone in the room that Canada is a trading nation, that our prosperity, growth and success are largely reliant on our ability to trade with other countries. I'm the mayor of the City of Windsor and also a member of the FCM Big City Mayors' Caucus. My community is home to 240,000 people, and we are set in a region of nearly 400,000 people. Our city is the largest border city in Canada. The local economy is intricately tied to that of Detroit, Michigan, and the United States.

We are home to the busiest commercial border crossing between the United States and Canada. In fact, the Windsor-Detroit border crossings handle more than one-third of all Canada-U.S. land trade over four points of entry: the Ambassador Bridge, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the CP Rail tunnel and the Windsor-Detroit Truck Ferry.

The importance of trade with the United States to this area is further punctuated by the fact that one of our nation's largest infrastructure projects is under way, that being the construction of the Gordie Howe bridge linking Windsor and Detroit, Canada and the United States. This project has survived the test of time through four Canadian prime ministers and four U.S. presidents, representing Democratic, Republican, Liberal and Conservative parties. It has made it this far because smart people on both sides of the border understand the value of smooth and efficient border crossings and the value of trade for our economies and what it means for jobs. Nowhere is the value of secure, efficient and safe movement of goods and people so important than to the Windsor-Essex area, likely more so than anywhere else in Canada.

Windsor is proud to be the automotive capital of Canada and home to the largest cluster of tool, die and mould-makers in North America. Our two largest private employers are the Fiat Chrysler assembly plant, home to the Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Pacifica, and the Ford Motor Company, which operates two engine plants locally.

Windsor-Essex is also home to the largest auto cluster in North America, with more than 300 local companies engaging in engineering, designing and manufacturing of cutting-edge industrial systems and products for clients across the globe. This is an industry that supports thousands of well-paying, highly skilled jobs, and one that comprises 30% of our regional GDP.

The auto sector is vital to the economy of Windsor-Essex, but it's also vital to the overall economy of Canada as well as various regional economies throughout the United States. Our local supply chains are still tightly integrated. Based on geography, businesses are able to take advantage of the best elements that all three countries have to offer. There is no better example that I can think of than this: Parts put into a car produced in Canada cross the border an average of seven times before that car rolls off the end of the production line. That, I think, is a great example of how tightly integrated our economies are.

The amendments to the new Canada-United States-Mexico agreement will help strengthen and protect well-paying jobs and will help our companies stay highly competitive in a global economy. That's truly how our employers compete, on a global basis. The agreement's updated rules of origin, increasing the regional value content threshold for cars up to 75% from 62.5% ensures that a higher majority of car parts, such as engines and transmissions, for example, originate in North America, in cities like mine.

The new agreement also introduces new requirements to help ensure that at least 70% of a producer's steel and aluminum products originate in North America. This agreement has the potential to generate increased automotive production in North America, of course, including cities and areas like Windsor-Essex, as well as additional sourcing opportunities for Canadian parts producers, many of which have local footprints in Canada.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that this new agreement is perfect. It's not. Future revisions to trilateral trade agreements with Mexico and the United States should strongly consider better labour mobility for highly skilled workers, so that positions like robotic technicians, machine learning specialists and other new economy workers can seamlessly travel within the trade zone to meet the changing demands of employers as they and our economies evolve. The 8,000 people from my city who cross the border every day into the United States to work understand how important mobility is for their livelihoods and for that of their employers.

There's an old axiom taught in many law schools that says the best agreement is usually the one that leaves each party thinking they could have done a little bit better. There's no doubt that is the case in this negotiation and revision to our trade agreement. However, the incremental improvements achieved through the process far outweigh any negative aspects.

Political and economic environments juxtaposed with the benefits of this bill lead me to offer my full support to the federal government. On behalf of the people in Windsor—Essex, I encourage Parliament to move quickly to ratify this deal. I personally thank Minister Freeland for her efforts on behalf of all Canadians.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We are resuming debate and discussion. We are following up, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, on Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

With us in this segment, on our panel, as individuals, we have Leo Blydorp and Lawrence Herman. From the Assembly of First Nations, we have Judy Whiteduck, director, economic sector, and Risa Schwartz, legal counsel. From the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, we have Matthew Poirier, director of policy, and Alan Arcand, chief economist, and from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we have the mayor of Windsor, Drew Dilkens.

We will open up our panel for discussion beginning with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Mr. Dilkens, you may go first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

He's referring to the motion that was brought forth to this committee at the first meeting on February 18. I'm not sure whether you all have it in front of you. I can read it out:

That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, hold immediate hearings with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada's telecommunications companies and other telecom experts and advocacy groups, to better understand (a) the influx of fraud calls to Canadians' home phones and cellular devices including robocalls, ghost calls, and spam calls, (b) to give an update on the successes and failures of the National Do-Not-Call List, and (c) to outline the September 2020 STIR/SHAKEN measures and how this will benefit Canadian consumers.

That is the motion before us, with the addition of a suggested timeline of when it could be done: March 10 and 12.

We sit next week. Obviously, next Tuesday's meeting will be allocated to Bill C-4 to wrap up anything remaining. Next Thursday's meeting will be to discuss what we will be doing. Then we have a riding week. It is the following week, when we're back on the Hill, from March 9 to 13. So this would be on March 10 and 12, if the committee is in agreement.

First we will agree on the actual motion. Then, do we agree on the timing? That being before the committee, I leave the floor open for comments.

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I just want to make sure in terms of clarity that the proposal we agreed on in terms of the motion is that this committee, from my understanding from the analysts, will receive a briefing note from the clerk of the trade committee with respect to Bill C-4, the new NAFTA, the CUSMA. It will be circulated for everyone to give us a chance to read it. We will see if we can get a witness list from the clerk. As soon as we can get it, we will definitely share that with you.

If it's possible for all parties to provide witness lists to the clerk of this committee by 9 a.m. tomorrow, again, that can be adjusted if we only receive the list of witnesses from the trade committee tomorrow morning. I want to be flexible, understanding that if you haven't received the information, I don't want to penalize you for not having that information in front of you.

If we do receive it today, can we say that by 9 o'clock tomorrow morning you would provide your witness lists? That way, it gives the clerk time to actually invite folks for Monday morning and make sure they are prepared and able to come on Monday.

I just want to double-check with respect to the timing for availability. We will try to have a meeting of this committee from.... I'm looking at a four-hour window. Just to make sure, are you suggesting an 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. meeting of this committee on Monday morning?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

In addition to the motion that is before us, we have some other business in front of us. We have various notices of motion. Additionally, the committee has received the notice of tabling of the supplementary estimates (B) for us to discuss. Because we are in committee business, I would like to ask the committee how they would like to proceed.

Do we want to proceed with immediately discussing Bill C-4, given the very short timeline that we have to discuss this with respect to potential witnesses, or would we like to maybe give a deadline of when we could submit our witness lists to the clerk? I am throwing this out there. I am looking at the clerk, who is probably hoping to get that list sooner rather than later.

Ms. Rempel Garner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

If you will give us a moment, the clerk will double-check the letter from the chair of the trade committee and the exact articles of Bill C-4 that were mandated. We will be back to you in a moment.

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Good morning, everyone. We are starting the second meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

As you know, on Tuesday we passed some routine motions, one of which was to instruct the clerk on ordering food, because this committee sits over the course of the lunch hour. I wanted to let members know, if you have any dietary restrictions, allergies, anything like that, to please let the clerk know so that we won't a member falling ill. We wouldn't want that. If you could let the clerk know, that would be great. You don't have to do it now, but I don't want anyone falling ill.

With that, as you know, we have quite a lot of business in front of us, including various notices of motions that have been put forth to the committee. Further to the last meeting, we have also received notice with respect to Bill C-4. I believe we need to have a motion to proceed with that. I see that Ms. Rempel Garner is ready to go forward.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting to order, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Welcome to everybody. Welcome to our witnesses. Good morning to our committee members and a few friends we have visiting today.

I'll introduce the witnesses. From the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, we have Colin Robertson. From MLTC Resource Development, we have Al Balisky, and from NorSask Forest Products, Tracey Gorski. From the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale, we have Claude Vaillancourt and Normand Pépin, and from Vitalus Nutrition, we have Philip Vanderpol, president and chief executive officer.

Mr. Vanderpol, would you like to lead off, please?

[Phil Benson, Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada]

Good evening. Thanks for having us here.

My name is Phil Benson. I'm a lobbyist with Teamsters Canada. With me is Christopher Monette, director of public affairs.

Teamsters Canada is Canada's supply chain union, representing more than 125,000 workers in all sectors of the transportation industry, and in all sectors of the economy, from film and food and beverage to dairy. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.4 million workers.

Teamsters Canada supports CUSMA and Bill C-4's timely passage. lt is not the best deal, but it is a deal, an achievement, given America's approach of bargaining in the best interests of its businesses, predicated on national security interests. Gains were made. However, not understanding that the fundamental nature and substance of negotiating trade agreements have changed left opportunity off the table.

Trade is important for many teamsters' jobs. lt is a reason why Teamsters Canada participated in every bargaining round during CUSMA's negotiation. The Liberal government made the right decision to include labour unions, NGOs and civil society in the process. The practice of negotiating trade deals in secret is a factor in the growing disaffection of workers. Opening the door let in new perspectives, leading to a better outcome. Unfortunately, some departments did not get the memo. We were not a “client” in their mind, and they often treated us as an afterthought. We anticipate that this will change and will not happen again.

The minister clearly appreciated and encouraged our activities in building support and consensus in Washington and Mexico City. Working with our colleagues and allies was helpful in achieving gains. It helped build support for a deal. Our International Brotherhood of Teamsters colleagues in Washington led the fight to make the improvements that led to a successful conclusion of the process in the United States. Those changes and the elimination of ISDS provisions are a win.

During the Mexican round, we joined a civil society conference at the Mexican Senate and met with independent trade unions. Workers in the auto supply chain, in a closed-door session, told of unhygienic, inexcusable working conditions and gave testimony of violence and sexual assaults. I am proud of how teamsters and labour are fighting for workers rights everywhere and of a government that got it. Trade agreements must include protection of workers, women, the environment and indigenous peoples, and Bill C-4 is a start in the right direction.

The negotiators' liberalization trade-bargaining blinders in seeking “ambition” lost the opportunity to protect Canadian jobs—for example, some jobs in rail and road transportation. It's a loss. Buy American and the imposition at whim of tariffs left unchecked is a push bet. The six-year review and sunset clause is counter to why trade deals are entered, a confirmation that negotiating trade is no longer all about “ambition” and does offer potential future risk and opportunity.

The provisions of NAFTA are not used by many sectors. The rules of origin are more expensive to comply with than paying the cost of low or zero-based tariffs. We do not believe that will change. As such, the NAFTA negotiations were driven by the goal of the United States to protect American-based auto manufacturing and to dismantle Canada's supply-side management system.

[Meagan Hatch]

Good afternoon.

AHAM represents manufacturers of major, portable and floor-care appliances in Canada and the United States. Our membership includes over 150 companies. The industry supports 40,000 jobs in Canada, including manufacturing, sales, distribution and retail. In Canada the economic impact of the appliance industry is close to $6 billion annually.

AHAM supports the rapid adoption of Bill C-4 and CUSMA.

Canada is a net importer of home appliances, with the U.S. and Mexico being the predominant trading partners. Manufacturers design appliances for a single North American market. This larger market increases consumer choice, drives down costs and maximizes economies of scale.

We support chapter 11 and chapter 28 of the agreement, which aim to reduce technical barriers to trade and increase regulatory alignment. We also support annex 12-D, which is specific to our industry and calls for energy performance standards and test procedures to be harmonized. It also encourages the use of voluntary programs such as Energy Star, noting that they contribute to improving energy efficiency for a range of products.

This is why we'd like to raise an issue that is of great concern to our members both in Canada and the United States. The Liberal Party has put forward a commitment to make Energy Star certification mandatory for all home appliances by 2022.

If all home appliances are required to be Energy Star, almost half of what's available in the market today will vanish, and in the future that could rise to 75%. Although implementation has not started, this has created great uncertainty in the market for both manufacturers and retailers. If the government moves forward with making Energy Star mandatory, Canada will be going against the intent of CUSMA, but more importantly, Canadians will experience a significant reduction in products available on the market. In fact, a staggering 41% of what is currently sold in Canada today will no longer meet these requirements. Because of the sharply limited model selection, it is likely that low-income Canadians will end up paying more for entry-level models. A price rise could be made worse by the greater cost of manufacturing such products, since more efficient components may be costlier, and in some cases, more fundamental construction changes will be needed. Unfortunately, in certain cases minor energy savings would be achieved.

This is because overall, today's home appliances are very energy efficient, and the cost to further improve efficiency could be significant, depending on maturity of the existing technology.

Both NRCan and the U.S. Department of Energy set mandatory minimum energy efficiency standards that all appliances must meet, and these have become more strict over time. Home appliances have undergone several standards changes. Some products are nearing maximum efficiency under available technology, and in some cases, the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Energy Star is a voluntary program. The purpose is to make it easy for consumers to identify higher energy efficiency products. It is intended to highlight the top 25% to 30%, or best in class, of energy efficiency. This competition motivates manufacturers to find new innovation. Manufacturers, in turn, make significant investments to qualify for the program.

If the Canadian market is limited to Energy Star products, this competition ends and the mark loses meaning. If the government mandates that everything be Energy Star, then it renders the brand meaningless. Article 12.D.5 of CUSMA clearly states its support for voluntary programs such as Energy Star to promote energy efficiency. This is in direct contrast to the government's proposal to make the Energy Star program mandatory.

Another rather significant issue with the Liberal commitment is that the Energy Star brand is not owned by the Canadian government. The brand is owned and trademarked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S. government administers the program and sets the levels that manufacturers must meet in order to qualify for the designation. The Energy Star brand is highly praised by both NRCan and industry alike. The brand is recognized by 85% of the public, and the logo is used around the world. We want it to continue.

The Energy Star commitment is also inconsistent with the Liberal approach to energy efficiency over the last four years. In Canada the federal, provincial and territorial governments all have important roles to play in setting energy efficiency standards. In 2016 the FPT governments developed a framework encouraging market transformation through collaboration on energy efficiency standards. The framework states that when federal, provincial and territorial governments are not coordinated, manufacturers may have to test an identical product more than once to sell it across Canada. This can lead to unnecessary costs, reduce the product choices available in the market and create barriers to internal trade between provinces.

Making Energy Star levels mandatory is also in stark contrast to the government's approach to energy efficiency harmonization with the United States through the work of the regulatory co-operation council.

In 2018, Canada and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding to formalize the RCC and reaffirm the importance of regulatory co-operation. At the time, the president of the Treasury Board noted that aligning energy efficiency standards through the work of the RCC was the best way forward because it would save Canadians about $1.8 billion in energy costs by 2030. This is exactly why CUSMA commits to regulatory harmonization and supports voluntary programs like Energy Star.

Canada has historically been slow to adopt the stricter energy efficiency standards introduced in the United States. Since 2016, under this government, the two countries have made significant strides towards harmonization and alignment through the work of the regulatory co-operation council. Canada is now finally aligned with the United States. This process took over 10 years. It would be a shame to throw it all away.

Regulatory alignment is critical to avoid unnecessary double testings and barriers to trade, and it maximizes consumer product choice. Instead of making Energy Star mandatory, the government should continue to adopt the regulatory framework that can more quickly update its standards. Bill C-4 and CUSMA create a structure for this harmonization to thrive.

AHAM has been a strong advocate for advancements in energy efficiency standards, but making Energy Star mandatory will have negative consequences for middle-class Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

With us on this panel for the next two hours are the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, Flavio Volpe, president; the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Canada, Meagan Hatch, director, government relations, and Kevin Girdharry, manager, policy and data analysis; HTC CO2 Systems, Stephen Beasley, vice-president; IPEX Group of Companies, Veso Sobot; and Teamsters Canada, Phil Benson, and Christopher Monette, director, public affairs.

Thank you all very much for making the time to be here today.

Mr. Volpe, we'll start with your comments, please.

[Angelo DiCaro]

I'd say that the fact that this deal is going to get done is probably as much certainty as people have had in the last three years of this roller coaster. In a way, then, it becomes a good thing. Many big investment decisions have been on pause, with people waiting to find out what these final rules are going to look like. I think, then, that having this tumultuous period come to a close is a good thing.

I'm not going to speak for Jerry, but I think that some of the outcomes of the last number of months.... The eventual elimination of the steel and aluminum tariffs has been a big weight lifted off that industry. It's not entirely connected to the deal that's in front of us in Bill C-4, but it's a big thing for our members in those metal sectors. That was very helpful.

As for the auto industry, I've heard many commentators talk about the U.S. FTA with Canada, originally in 1988 and then spilling into NAFTA, as being largely about autos. I think it may be a little myopic for us to think that way, but it's a big component. What we've seen come out of the auto chapter has been a real change in what we've seen with respect to the auto industry in previous trade agreements.

As Dr. Geist was saying, it's always complicated when you're trading things off that you don't fully understand. I'll tell you that from the position of auto workers—and folks in those communities will know—it feels as though they have been the sacrificial lambs put out there for gains in other sectors. This is the first time, it seems, that the intent was to try to create greater certainty for them. For that reason, I think we've done pretty well.

There are still aspects of it that I think could be tightened up, but at this point, just having this thing in place and hoping that investments will now start to smooth out and trickle in is a good thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Does everybody understand what we're now about to vote on? There are no more comments? Okay. All in favour of Ms. McLeod's motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

See? Remember what I said about the spirit of co-operation at the beginning? Thank you.

On the next piece of business, I assume that everybody has seen the letter we received from the chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Is that a yes? Okay.

They have requested that we review certain provisions of Bill C-4. The gist of the request and of the motion that was passed at their committee is that we have the option to agree to do it, in which case we would have to provide a response to that committee no later than 5 p.m. next Tuesday.

That would require us to deal with this sometime between now and next Monday, presumably have some witnesses come and speak to us and then turn to our analysts, who have just explained to us what they do and ask them to become superheroes right out of the gate and turn something around in less than 24 hours. Then we would have to review it ourselves.

Option number two is that we decline to accept this invitation, in which case we can notify the trade committee by Friday.

I'll throw it out there for discussion.

Mr. Lefebvre.

[Angelo DiCaro, Director of Research, Unifor]

Please, I'll explain. When we were first invited, we also asked if Hector could join us and split our time. That's what we've decided to do. We'll do five minutes and five minutes, and that will make up Unifor's time. I only learned about the extra 10 minutes today, so it was too late to fill in the blanks on the comments. I'll go first, if you'll indulge me; then we'll go to Hector.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. As was said, my name is Angelo DiCaro. I am the national director of research for Unifor.

Unifor is Canada's largest union in the private sector, representing more than 315,000 workers in nearly every industry, from coast to coast to coast.

I want to thank the committee for the invitation to speak today on Bill C-4 and the implementation of CUSMA, and I bring greetings from our national president Jerry Dias and national secretary-treasurer Lana Payne.

I also want to thank the committee for allowing me to share my time with Hector de la Cueva, a friend and an ally of our union, who is with us on video conference from Mexico City. Hector is the general coordinator of Mexico's Labor Research and Trade Union Advisory Center, and he has been a key point of contact for us throughout these NAFTA negotiations.

I want to open my remarks by stating what's probably the obvious. NAFTA has been a very challenging deal for working people, with many negative effects over time.

lt was an agreement built to limit democratic controls over trade and investment and tie the hands of government policy-makers. lt was one of the first agreements to establish private tribunals that investors could use to challenge Canadian regulations and potentially sue governments for unlimited sums of money. lt conceded sovereignty of Canada's energy production to the United States. And despite the obvious competitive pressures that “free trade” would put on workers in all three countries, NAFTA and its negotiators simply paid no mind.

A generation later, we have seen the outcome: a manufacturing trade deficit with Mexico that has ballooned from $3.5 billion at its onset to more than $27 billion today—half of that in the auto sector alone, including parts.

We've seen a workforce pressured by wage cuts and threats of job loss to low-wage right-to-work states or Mexican export processing zones. If you want examples, you don't have to look too far, considering the recent struggles we faced at Nemak, in Essex, and of course our fight with General Motors assembly operations in Oshawa.

These job dislocations happen largely because of NAFTA. They happen because businesses have unconditional access to markets. lt's why companies can sell here but have no obligation to build here.

In light of that, it's almost impossible for our union to be fully satisfied with the outcomes of CUSMA. Unifor members in Kitimat and in Saguenay, for instance, are rightly upset about the unequal treatment the aluminum sector received regarding aluminum content rules for automobiles. It's a problem that needs addressing.

Our members in the softwood lumber industry are still disadvantaged by unfair duties on exports, deepening our already challenged forest industry.

But while we are paying close attention to these concerns, there are, without a doubt, important advances in this deal, led by Minister Freeland and her team, that deserve support.

ln CUSMA, for the first time, tariff-free auto trade is now conditional on high-wage production. It's not a silver bullet, but it is a new tool to help stop the bleeding of investment to low-wage factories and an attempt to incentivize an upward pressure on low-wage production.

ln CUSMA, for the first time, Canada has scrapped its investor-state dispute settlement system, or ISDS. This is very good. Frankly, we would encourage the federal government to go one step further in its implementation efforts and direct the removal of ISDS from all other trade agreements that Canada currently has.

CUSMA also reclaims our energy sovereignty. lt maintains our cultural carve-out and reverses course on certain bad cultural policies enacted under the Harper government.

Most importantly, it establishes important fixes to pre-existing language and groundbreaking new provisions that address workers' rights—provisions that have been made even stronger, thanks to recent changes outlined in the protocol of amendment.

CUSMA's labour provisions not only exceed the terms of the original NAFTA, but they exceed provisions in any trade agreement negotiated ever since—provisions that I, personally, would have thought impossible to achieve even three years ago.

Now, we are not so naive as to think that CUSMA, by itself, fixes the deeply entrenched anti-worker practices in Mexico. If anyone thinks that, then they don't have a clear read of the problem in Mexico.

The implementation of this agreement must come with clear commitments that Canadian officials will work with their Mexican counterparts to finance rights-based community support projects and fully resource a proactive investigative approach to the rapid response mechanism.

All of this must be done in consultation with trade unions and worker advocacy groups in Mexico, like Hector's.

With that, I will pass the rest of my time over to Hector for his comments.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon.

As you heard, my name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I'm also a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. My areas of specialty include digital policy, intellectual property, privacy and the Internet. I appear today in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

As you know, the typical approach before committee on a bill study is to examine the bill and identify provisions to support and areas for amendment. In this case, however, what really matters is not what is in the bill, but what is not. Indeed, the most notable issues from a digital policy perspective won't be found in Bill C-4. Rather, they are found in the new NAFTA itself, and they typically limit Canada's policy options for future reforms rather than require immediate legislative action. I think this raises a significant challenge, since the flawed aspects of the deal cannot, to my knowledge, be fixed in Bill C-4. Rather, they require change in a trade agreement that has been largely presented as a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

I'd like to briefly discuss four issues along these lines: copyright term extension, the cultural exemption, privacy and data protection, and Internet platform liability.

First is copyright term extension. The intellectual property provisions in the agreement raise some significant concerns, but none more so than the requirement to extend the term of copyright from the international standard of the life of the author plus 50 years to life plus 70. The additional 20 years is a reform that Canada rightly resisted for decades. By caving on the issue, the agreement represents a major windfall that could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars for rights holders and creates the need to recalibrate Canadian copyright law to restore the balance.

The independent data on copyright term extension is unequivocal: It results in less access to works, higher costs for consumers and no incentive for new creativity. In the words of Paul Heald, one of the leading researchers on the effects of term extension, it effectively represents a tax on consumers to the benefit of publishers with no obligation to benefit the public.

The copyright review that was conducted by the industry committee in the last Parliament included an extensive review into the issue and concluded that extension should only occur as part of a trade agreement ratification. In such a circumstance, it recommended establishing a registration requirement to obtain the additional 20 years of protection to mitigate against the disadvantages of term extension and increase the overall transparency of the copyright system.

Copyright term extension does not appear in Bill C-4 because the government, I think, smartly negotiated a 30-month transition period to address the issue. The government has not rushed into term extension, and it should take full advantage of the transition period to follow the copyright review recommendation by establishing the registration requirement for the additional 20 years. That would allow rights holders who want the additional protection to get it, while also ensuring that many other works enter into the public domain after their term has expired, after life plus 50.

Second is the cultural exemption. Now, much like the copyright term extension, there is no reference to the cultural exemption in Bill C-4, and that's because the cultural exemption doesn't require legislative reform. However, I'd argue that the exemption is one of the most poorly understood aspects of the agreement. Consistent with the government claims, the cultural exemption covers a broad range of sectors, with a near complete exemption for Canada.

However, while the government has emphasized its broad scope, it rarely speaks of subarticle 32.6(4), which comes immediately afterward. That provision was the price of the exemption, and it permits the U.S. to levy retaliatory measures of “equivalent commercial effect” where Canada relies upon the exemption. The retaliatory measures provision means that the U.S. is entitled to levy tariffs or other measures that have an equivalent commercial effect in response to Canadian policies that would otherwise violate the new NAFTA if not for the exemption.

Since the provision does not limit the response to the cultural sector, the U.S. can be expected to target sensitive areas in the Canadian economy, such as dairy or steel, in order to discourage the use of the exemption. That was the U.S. strategy when it recently responded to a French plan to levy a new digital tax: The U.S. planned to levy $2.4 billion in tariffs against French goods such as wine, cheese and handbags.

How could that play out in a Canadian policy context? The recent report of the broadcasting and telecommunications legislative review panel, the so-called Yale report, contains what I view as many ill-advised recommendations on regulating the Internet and online news services, such as news aggregators.

Should the government adopt the broadcast panel recommendations on content, the U.S. would have a strong case for permitting retaliation with measures of equivalent commercial effect. Panel proposals that may violate the new trade agreement include requirements to pay levies to fund Canadian content without full access to the same funding mechanisms enjoyed by Canadians, licensing requirements for Internet services that may violate NAFTA standards, and discoverability requirements that limit the manner in which information is conveyed on websites and services.

I'll emphasize that I think this is bad policy that should be rejected. However, for the purposes of this review of the new NAFTA, note that the policy flexibility to enact reforms in this area is severely limited by the agreement, which establishes the possibility of retaliatory tariffs for cultural policy.

Third is privacy. The limitations of new Canadian policy also arise in the context of privacy and data protection. Unlike the cultural exemption, which permits violations of the treaty subject to potential retaliatory tariffs, on the issue of privacy Canada would run the risk of being offside of its commitment under the new NAFTA.

Note, again, that there is no provision on point in Bill C-4. There is no need for one, since the new NAFTA prohibits certain privacy-related provisions, rather than requiring them.

For example, the new NAFTA includes a provision that prohibits data localization, which refers to measures requiring the data to be stored in Canada. The new NAFTA actually features a more restrictive provision than the one found in the CPTPP. There are some general exceptions that build in GATS-related rules, but the Canadian government will clearly be restricted in its ability to establish localization requirements under the agreement.

The implications of this limitation are far-reaching. With respect to data right now, consider the wide range of policy issues we're grappling with, whether that's Canada's digital charter and the proposals for privacy and data reforms, concerns around data sovereignty, AI-related issues, or fears about the competitiveness of Canadian businesses in relation to Canadian data.

It's notable that the Canadian government itself has established localization requirements as part of its cloud computing policy. Indeed, there is a recognition that data localization may be needed in some circumstances. Yet under this agreement, Canada is severely limited in terms of its ability to implement such requirements.

The same is true on the issue of data transfers, as the new NAFTA limits our ability to restrict them as well. As we enter into discussions with the European Union about the adequacy of Canadian privacy laws, there are concerns that the data transfer provision could put Canada between a proverbial privacy rock and a hard place, with the EU demanding certain restrictions on data transfers and the new NAFTA prohibiting them.

Finally, there is Internet platform liability. A similar dynamic arises in the context of Internet platform liability, which raises the question of what responsibility lies with Internet companies for third party content hosted on their sites. This issue captures large players, such as Google and Facebook, alongside anyone who offers user comments or content. Once again, there is no provision on this issue in Bill C-4. The reason it isn't there is that the new NAFTA restricts policy in the area rather than requiring a new provision.

The new NAFTA includes a legal safe harbour for Internet intermediaries and platforms for content posted by their users. The rule is designed to provide the platforms with immunity from liability both for the removal of content and for the failure to remove content. Contrary to some claims, the rule doesn't mean that “everything goes”. Sites and services are still subject to court orders and the enforcement of criminal law. Intellectual property rights enforcement is also exempted.

However, there are some who argue that the responsibility of Internet platforms should go further, with potential liability for failure to act even in cases of harmful, albeit legal, content. That position raises important freedom of expression concerns and questions about how to balance free speech safeguards with protection from harm.

The issue for a review in Bill C-4 is not to debate where Canada should land on the issue. For example, the broadcast panel recommended liability for online harms, even if the content is legal. Others, including myself, would argue that liability should rest with illegal content, but to create liability for legal content is to render Internet companies judge and jury over what remains online, thereby further empowering those large Internet companies, as well as limiting competition and freedom of speech.

The key point here is that there is a policy debate to be had. Under the new NAFTA, Canada has effectively already committed to a position, one that restricts our ability to establish liability for third party content.

I look forward to your questions.

[Nathalie Caron]

Good afternoon. My name is Nathalie Caron, and I am the senior legislative counsel at the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons. I was tasked with drafting the amendments for Bill C-4.

I'd like to start by saying that the work we do for you, always on an individual basis, is confidential and non-partisan. The discussions we have with you about amendments are not shared with anyone without your consent. By the way, when you have amendments, we encourage you to contact us as soon as possible so that we can begin work on the amendments immediately. You don't need to wait until you are fully prepared or you have all your instructions ready. As soon as you're ready to give us instructions for one or two amendments, you can contact us so we can get to work right away.

It can be a lengthy process, depending on how complex the request is—hence the importance of the instructions you give us. It helps us if you can explain the purpose of the measure and your objectives, as well as provide some context. Having that information is very helpful as we draft the amendments. Our role is really to turn your instructions into legislation that does what you want it to. Your explanations and objectives are essential to the analysis we carry out. We perform a legal analysis of your instructions, and if we identify any issues, we let you know. That way, we can try to find you other options. Then, we start drafting.

We produce a draft, which is reviewed and then sent to you for approval. Once approved, it is translated and revised. The process has a number of steps, which is why it's so important that you contact us as quickly as possible.

What I'd like to convey to you today is this: don't hesitate to contact us, even if you're not ready to provide instructions for your amendments. That way, we can at least start the discussion and explore solutions.

[The Clerk]

I'll start by introducing myself.

My name is Philippe Méla, as Ms. Sgro mentioned. I'm the legislative clerk for Bill C-4.

You adopted a motion yesterday determining the dates for the deadline for amendments and the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I'm going to be here to help you analyze the receivability of amendments, if you have any, and the amendments will be drafted by my colleague, Nathalie Caron.

Since you already know me, being here quite often, I'm going to let my colleague speak.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I would like to call to order the sixth meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Before we start with our witnesses, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

[Robert Kucheran]

Thank you very much.

My name is Robert Kucheran. I'm the chairman of the executive board of Canada's Building Trades Unions. We're the voice of over 500,000 skilled Canadian construction workers, members of 15 international unions who work in more than 60 different trades and occupations. Construction is one of the largest sectors in the Canadian economy, representing about 14% of Canada's GDP.

Although the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, CUSMA, does not have a direct impact on the CBTU or the construction we represent, its efforts to improve labour standards among the three countries have a direct, positive impact on our sector. Therefore, the impending ratification of the updated CUSMA offers us an important opportunity to voice support for this vital trade deal.

As mentioned, CUSMA includes a comprehensive labour chapter fully subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the agreement, which aims to raise and improve labour standards and working conditions in all three countries by building on international labour principles and rights. Labour standards and working conditions have always been a priority of the CBTU as well as our affiliates. We realize that these improvements are targeted to our trading partners, but that's a testament to the level of labour standards and working conditions we have in Canada and continue to advocate for and strengthen in this country. Specifically, the chapter on labour includes an annex on worker representation in collective bargaining in Mexico under which Mexico commits to specific legislative actions that would provide for the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. We applaud and support the Government of Canada in its goal of levelling the playing field on labour standards and working conditions to ensure that parties do not lower their levels of protection to attract trade or investment, but rather raise them to the higher standard.

Canada's Building Trades Unions are pleased about the added provisions that provide commitments to ensure greater protection for fundamental principles and rights at work, including prohibition of the importation of goods produced through forced labour; enforcement of obligations related to discrimination, such as discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity; addressing violence against workers for exercising their labour rights, such as single instances of violence or threats thereof; and ensuring that migrant workers are protected under these labour laws.

Canada's Building Trades Unions supports these commitments, believing that stronger labour rights will lead to stronger health and safety laws not only for construction workers, but also for all workers. Along with stronger labour provisions, we believe that increased trade leads to stronger economies. This new agreement will reinforce the strong economic ties between the three countries and support the well-paying middle-class jobs that will strengthen the economies of all three countries.

We also support the significant gains that have been achieved for Canadian workers in general, as described earlier in the day by the Canadian Labour Congress in their submission.

Some of the highlights are the elimination of chapter 12, the investor-state dispute settlement provisions under the old NAFTA, which prioritized the rights of foreign investors and corporations over the rights of sovereign governments; the increased North American content requirement for vehicles from 62.5% to 75%; and the new labour value content requirement that stipulates that 40% of material and manufacturing costs in automobiles and 45% in trucks will have to originate in facilities where direct production workers have an average hourly wage of at least $16 U.S.; elimination of NAFTA's energy chapter, including the proportionality clause that required Canada to export a fixed share of energy production to the U.S., even in times of energy shortages; the strengthening of NAFTA's cultural exception, which is expanded to include digital industries; and a clear general exception for indigenous rights, which implies that nothing in this agreement prevents North American governments from fulfilling their legal, social, economic, cultural and moral obligations to first nations.

Canada's Building Trades Unions, along with our affiliation with North America's Building Trades Unions, welcomes the vital improvements to CUSMA that were negotiated early in 2019 between the House Democrats and the U.S. trade representative, and recently passed in the U.S. Senate. Some of these include the removal of language that allowed a responding party to block the formation of a dispute settlement panel; a reversal of the burden of proof on labour and environmental violations; the removal of language in article 23.6 that rendered unenforceable the prohibition of goods produced in whole or in part through forced and compulsory labour; the removal of language in article 23.7 that stipulated that parties only have to address cases of violence against workers that are occurring “through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction”; the introduction of a bilateral rapid trade labour mechanism that allows for an independent investigation of potential violations of freedom of association and collective bargaining at specific facilities and, where violations are found to be occurring, the imposition of penalties on goods that are not produced in compliance with these obligations; and the removal of provisions requiring 10 years of market protection for biologics.

There's an area that still needs some attention. Canada’s Building Trades Unions would like to have seen greater access for qualified construction workers between Canada, the United States and Mexico. With similarities in training and accreditation for these skilled trades in both Canada and the U.S. specifically, we believe labour shortages in our countries can have a North American solution. We understand that Canada's negotiators attempted to include this in the negotiations, but ultimately it didn't get to the final text.

We thank our negotiators for listening to the CBTU and our affiliates who strongly advocated for this. We stand ready to consult with the Government of Canada to offer our expertise in areas of mutual benefit. Canada’s Building Trades Unions supports Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. We urge all parties to pass Bill C-4. We believe that the provisions and commitments included in CUSMA will continue reinforcing the strong economic ties between the three countries and well supporting middle-class jobs into the future.

I want to thank the committee for allowing us the opportunity to present.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting back to order. Pursuant to our order of reference, we're studying Bill C-4.

Welcome to our witnesses. We appreciate your coming during this late part of the afternoon. Excuse us for trying to.... For members, this is their lunch, dinner and the rest of it. We've been working very hastily, trying to deal with all the issues of NAFTA.

Appearing as individuals, we have Michael Bose and D'Arcy Hilgartner. From Canada's Buildings Trades Unions, we have Robert Kucheran, chairman of the executive board. From the Canadian Trucking Alliance, we have Lak Shoan, director, policy and industry awareness. From the Dairy Farmers of Canada, we have Christopher Cochlin, and from Vermeer's Dairy Limited, Jake Vermeer.

Welcome to all of you. As I said, thank you for making the time.

We'll start with you, Mr. Bose.

[Catherine Cobden, President, Canadian Steel Producers Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Catherine Cobden. I'm the president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association and it's my honour to share the perspectives of our members on Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

I'm here today representing member companies, which produce approximately 15 million tonnes of steel pipe and tubular products annually and support 123,000 direct and indirect jobs in five provinces, from Saskatchewan through to Quebec.

Canada's steel sector plays a strategically important role in the North American economy. We are advanced manufacturers of 100% recyclable and enduring product. We are a critical supplier to other key Canadian and North American sectors, including the automotive, energy and construction sectors and many other general manufacturing applications. We're also a sector that knows first-hand how critical it is for our business success to have strong and productive relationships between Canada and the United States and Mexico.

We operate in a highly integrated marketplace with steel moving back and forth across the Canada, U.S. and Mexico borders as it is transformed into additional products. In this capacity, we thank you all for this agreement and we welcome it wholly. We urge all members of the House of Commons and the Senate to support this bill and ratify it without delay. We see immediate advantages of the new agreement that strengthen NAFTA in several important ways both for our country and certainly for our steel sector. The agreement also creates more certainty in our markets, a much needed and necessary condition for driving increased investment.

Now let me step you through some of the key advantages for steel that we see in this new agreement.

First, the automotive rules of origin incentivize the use of Canadian and North American steel. This means that more North American steel will be used over foreign, non-North American steel. It sounds obvious but it deserves to be said. The new requirement for a 70% North American steel content is a significant gain for the North American steel sector. NAFTA did not have any such provision, so that's a significant development.

Today the North American automotive sector is a valued customer for our technically advanced and high-quality steel, with approximately 25% to 30% of all Canadian steel supplying this sector. That equates to about three million to four million tonnes annually. This is an extremely important development for us and for our steel industry colleagues in the U.S. and Mexico. Indeed, we were quite engaged working together on this and other aspects of this agreement.

Furthermore, the increased North American value content requirements for vehicles and vehicle parts are also important and improve the original NAFTA agreement significantly. As Jean has already mentioned, in some cases it has moved the content requirement from 62% to roughly 75%, which is a tremendous increase.

In the case of steel, we also welcome additional definitions coming into effect in seven years' time that strengthen the rules of origin by ensuring North American sourcing. This is important for our sector. We face severe global overcapacity. It's severe. The OECD estimates that approximately 440 million tonnes of excess capacity exists globally. This excess capacity equates to about 30 times the entire Canadian production. That's steel out there that's looking for a home, that's trying to cross both the Canadian and the North American borders.

Beyond the rules of origin, I want to point out that the new agreement also improves market access for Canadian steel and allows the use of effective trade remedies against unfairly traded imports. That overcapacity, which I mentioned, often results in unfair and injurious trade practices.

The new agreement contains important provisions that will promote increased co-operation and information sharing between North American governments to address circumvention and the evasion of trade remedy orders. This is critical for us. This increased co-operation is essential for the North American steel marketplace because we face a relentless flow of unfairly traded goods due to the global overcapacity I mentioned.

I remind the committee that last May we celebrated the establishment of the Canada-U.S. understanding on trade that resulted in the lifting of the very damaging tariffs on Canadian steel. This did not come easily to our nation, but it came as we worked as one against the difficult tariff situation. For us, CUSMA takes us further along the path of working with our North American trading partners on what we refer to as the principle of a North American perimeter to trade that strengthens the competitiveness of the North American region, that addresses global steel overcapacity and that aims to deal more readily with unfairly traded steel imports.

Madam Chair, please let me end with a call to all, once again, to come together as team Canada, as you have deftly done in the past, and get this deal done as quickly as possible, with my thanks.

I'm happy to take questions.

[Jackie King, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Madam Chair, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today regarding the CUSMA implementing legislation. Given the critical importance of this agreement for Canadian businesses, I'm really delighted to be here. I'm joined by my colleague Mark Agnew, who leads our international trade work.

The members of the committee will certainly be familiar with local chambers of commerce in their communities. At the national level, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce represents over 200,000 businesses in all sectors and all regions of the country. Our membership encompasses not only chambers of commerce but also sectoral associations and companies, including everything from small to large multinational organizations.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce was actively engaged throughout the CUSMA negotiations. We attended the negotiating rounds and mobilized our network of chambers, associations and companies through our “keep trade free” coalition. We also work closely with our counterpart business associations in the United States and Mexico.

With respect to the legislation currently before the committee, this trade agreement and its associated implementing legislation are critical for the Canadian economy. North America is, and will remain, our most important trade and investment partner. Businesses across the country have suffered from significant disruptive uncertainty since President Trump came to office. Although the CUSMA is not a panacea for the erratic trade policies emanating from the White House, it is crucial that we turn the page and lock in the new arrangement to provide certainty for our Canadian companies.

It's in that spirit that we urge the expeditious passage of Bill C-4. Every trade agreement involves trade-offs, and no agreement is perfect. However, our trade negotiators did an extremely commendable job with their efforts, during a very difficult set of circumstances, to deliver the agreement that is now before Parliament for consideration.

Now I'll highlight some of the particular benefits of CUSMA, from our perspective.

Foremost is maintaining the original NAFTA's benefits with respect to tariff-free market access for goods, given the volume of cross-border trade. The importance of the certainty this provides has been underscored by media reports earlier this month, stating that the U.S. is considering raising its WTO bound tariff rates.

CUSMA's goods market access has been complemented by customs and trade facilitation provisions to help ensure that products can move more easily across borders.

Shifting to the services sector, the retention of the labour mobility provisions from the original NAFTA will help to ensure that companies are able to attract the best talent. While we certainly had hoped to expand the list of covered sectors, enhanced labour mobility under the U.S. administration was realistically a bridge too far.

We also welcome the inclusion of digital trade provisions, which will help play a key role in setting global standards on issues such as cross-border data flows. More specifically, these types of provisions are helping to shape the ongoing WTO e-commerce negotiations.

Crucially, CUSMA preserves the NAFTA's dispute settlement provisions for anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases, and strengthens the panel process for state-to-state disputes.

Last, the side letters on section 232 measures provide a degree of protection for Canadian exporters. However, we cannot afford to be complacent under either this or a future U.S. administration.

As I noted a moment ago, the chamber gives its full endorsement to the passage of Bill C-4, and Canada completing its CUSMA ratification process in a timely manner. However, the clear message is that we do not want to see this process as the end of the road when it comes to ensuring Canadian businesses remain competitive while attempting to access opportunities in the North American market.

A perennial concern for us is buy America provisions at the federal and state levels, which attaches conditions to require the use of American-manufactured products. This considerably limits the ability of Canadian firms to participate in many U.S. infrastructure projects, and more specifically, the ability of Canadian companies to use their Canadian-based operations to participate in those contracts. The prevalence of buy America provisions risks creating incentives for companies to move manufacturing jobs to the United States. Unlike NAFTA, CUSMA does not cover U.S.-Canada procurement, and there is a risk—we understand from the media reporting—that the Trump administration may withdraw the United States from the WTO GPA.

Another concern is softwood lumber. Canada's softwood lumber industry remains in a challenging period due to a range of factors including market access and issues with the U.S. The government should continue its efforts to reach a resolution in the softwood lumber dispute in collaboration with our exporting companies.

Finally, regulatory barriers and border frictions continue to create problems for Canadian companies seeking access to the U.S. With the CUSMA negotiations now concluded it is important for the government to ensure the regulatory co-operation council works in partnership with industry-led initiatives such as the Beyond Preclearance Coalition. These types of initiatives may not provide a photo opportunity but they are absolutely critical for companies that move goods across the border.

While these three issues are not ones that we expect to be resolved in CUSMA negotiations, they are crucial to our members and should be priorities for the government now that the CUSMA negotiations are concluded. However, as I mentioned at the outset, we urge the committee to move ahead with its study as expeditiously as possible so that we can complete our domestic ratification procedures and refocus our energy on these outstanding issues.

Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order as we continue to do a study of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. Will our witnesses please join us at the table?

With us, from the Aluminium Association of Canada, we have Jean Simard, president and chief executive officer. From the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, we have Huw Williams, director, public affairs, and Oumar Dicko, chief economist. From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have Jackie King, chief operating officer, and Mark Agnew, director, international policy. Finally, from the Canadian Steel Producers Association, we have Catherine Cobden, president.

Mr. Simard, I will start with you.

[Hassan Yussuff, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Hassan Yussuff. I'm the President of the Canadian Labour Congress. My colleague Chris Roberts is the director of our social policy department.

The CLC speaks on behalf of three million unionized workers, men and women across the country. It's a pleasure to join you here this afternoon.

Canada has always been a trading country. Exports are vital to the Canadian economy, our communities and thousands of jobs. Our steel and auto manufacturing, forestry, agriculture and resource industries depend on trade, and Canadians of course support a fair trade agreement that preserves good jobs, protects labour rights and preserves the ability of the government to regulate in the public interest.

I participated on the government advisory council, providing input during the renegotiations of NAFTA. Canada's unions welcome the important gains for workers continuing in the updated Canadian-U.S.-Mexico agreement. These gains include the elimination of chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement, the IDS provision in NAFTA; the enforceable labour rights provisions that are incorporated in the CUSMA as a standalone chapter; the inclusion of a provision restricting the import of goods produced by forced labour; increased North American content requirements for vehicles and a new labour value content requirement in auto manufacturing; the elimination of the NAFTA energy chapter, including the proportionality clause; the strengthening of NAFTA's general cultural exemption in its expansion to include digital industries; and a clear and general exception for indigenous rights. This exception means that nothing in the agreement prevents a North American government from fulfilling its legal, social, economic, cultural and moral obligations to indigenous people.

We're also pleased to see that section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports have been removed. These unfair tariffs caused significant hardship for Canadian workers.

The elimination of chapter 11 is an important step in protecting our environment. Too often, the NAFTA investor-state dispute settlement process allowed investors to sue Canadians and Canada over legitimate measures taken to prevent and limit damage to the environment. The environment chapter in CUSMA includes new commitments to address environmental challenges. These address air quality, endangered species, ocean-depleting substances, conservation for biological diversity, marine pollution, illegal wildlife trade, illegal fishing and the depletion of fishing stocks.

We regret the fact the U.S. negotiators blocked any mention of climate change in the agreement. As a result, CUSMA contains no reference to the Paris Agreement, despite the addition of a number of multilateral environmental agreements in the updated text.

The CLC welcomes the important improvements in CUSMA negotiated last year by the House Democrats and the U.S. Trade Representative. These improvements include restrictions on the ability of the responding party to block the formation of a dispute settlement mechanism panel; changes to strengthen the prohibition of goods produced by forced labour; changes to strengthen the protection of workers from violence and physical intimidation; the introduction of a bilateral rapid-response labour mechanism to respond to the violations of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights; the removal of a provision requiring a 10-year market protection for biologics; and the reversal of the burden of proof on labour and environmental violations—this language now presumes that labour and environmental violations affect trade or investment between the parties unless the responding party can demonstrate otherwise.

Some areas of CUSMA continue to provide cause for concern among Canadian workers. CUSMA makes concessions in Canada's supply management of agriculture by opening markets to more U.S. dairy, ag and poultry products. These concessions will add to the pressure on Canadian producers resulting from market access granted under CETA and the CPTPP. Budget 2019 committed to providing up to $3.9 billion in support for supply–managed producers. However, workers in these supply-managed industries are not offered any protection in support if they lose their income or work due to the ratification of the CUSMA, CETA or CPTPP. We recommend that the government take steps to ensure that these workers are not disadvantaged by the implementation of CUSMA.

The CUSMA facility-specific rapid-response labour mechanism represents an important step forward in labour rights. However, there are few stipulations that unnecessarily limit the responsiveness and scope of a modern mechanism. These include a provision requiring the complainant to first ask the respondent to conduct its own investigation of a potential labour rights violation at a facility covered by the mechanism. Only once there is a disagreement over the findings can verification by a panel of labour experts be invoked. These facilities covered by the mechanism are limited to priority sectors that include manufacturing, service and mining, but exclude agriculture, forestry and the fishing industry, etc.

To summarize, the gains achieved in CUSMA are notably significant. In our view, ratification of the agreement is critical to Canadian interests and the well-being of workers in Canada. Parliament's scrutiny of Bill C-4 is an important and necessary part of the legislative process. However, we urge the parties to pass Bill C-4 without undue delay.

With that, I welcome any questions the committee might have. Thank you very much for allowing us to present here today.

[Claire Citeau, Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance]

Thank you for inviting us to speak on behalf of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, or CAFTA, the voice of Canadian agri-food exporters, regarding the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

Our members have a very simple message: CAFTA calls for the swift ratification of CUSMA to ensure continued stability in the North American market and strongly urges parliamentarians in both houses to pass Bill C-4 quickly.

CAFTA represents the 90% of farmers who depend on trade, and producers, manufacturers, and agri-food exporters who want to grow the economy through better and competitive access to international markets. This includes the beef, pork, meat, grain, cereal, pulse, soybean, canola, as well as the malt, sugar and processed food industries. Together, CAFTA members account for more than 90% of Canada's agri-food exports, which, in 2019, reached over $60 billion, and support about a million jobs in urban and rural communities across Canada. A significant portion of these jobs and sales would not exist without competitive access to world markets.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are continuing are study of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

For witnesses in this segment we have, from the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, Brian Innes, vice-president, and Claire Citeau, the executive director; from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Bob Lowe, vice-president, and Fawn Jackson, manager, environment and sustainability; from the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff, president, and Chris Roberts, national director; and from the United Steelworkers, Ken Neumann, national director, and Mark Rowlinson, executive assistant to the national director.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee today.

We will start with Ms. Citeau.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to speak to my motion.

When I brought this forward, it was in good faith, because in the past we've taken this process forward for bills of extreme importance. We had no idea at that time how many witnesses we were going to have. In order to give the witnesses who were concerned about this bill an ability to tell parliamentarians how it's going to affect them, I did make these recommendations.

I was extremely upset this morning when I read an article from CBC in regard to my motion. It was a matter of poor faith. I'm going to quote it because the Prime Minister quoted my motion. The reporter wrote, “A contentious motion Justin Trudeau characterized as a 'near miss' will come to a vote”. Trudeau said, “There are certain messages that could be passed to some parties that might be playing some challenging games around delaying NAFTA”.

First, I want to tell my Liberal colleagues how upsetting that is to read, when I was not even given the courtesy of being in the story. Second, the Liberals brought forward a very similar motion today. I want to read this into the record because it says how the Liberals were surprised. This comes from the House on February 6, when John Nater, one of our MPs, asked:

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, is referred to committee, could the government commit to supporting a proposal at committee to have other committees, in addition to the trade committee, study the provisions of Bill C-4 and the impacts within their respective mandates in the same manner that budget bills have been considered at committee in recent years?

Now this is what the Liberal House leader said in the House, on record. Pablo Rodriguez said:

Mr. Speaker, the government is supportive of adopting the process that has been used in the past for budget implementation legislation. Under this process, the chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade would write to the other committees and invite them to do a subject matter review of the relevant provisions of the legislation, as long as the motion contains a fixed date and time for the start and end of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

That's basically what I was trying to achieve. The Prime Minister was aware of what the House leader said. I'm just curious, and maybe the parliamentary secretary can comment on this. Was the House leader trying to play politics here, or was the Prime Minister trying to play politics with this, because that certainly wasn't the intention from this side of the House?

[Brian Kingston, Vice-President, Policy, International and Fiscal, Business Council of Canada]

Madame Chair, committee members, thank you for the invitation to take part here today in your consultations on Bill C-4.

The Business Council of Canada represents the chief executives and entrepreneurs of 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors and regions of our economy. Our member companies employ 1.7 million Canadians, account for more than half the value of the Toronto Stock Exchange, contribute the largest share of federal corporate taxes and are responsible for most of Canada's exports, corporate philanthropy and private sector investment in research and development.

It almost goes without saying, and I've said this many times before in front of this committee, that trade with the United States is absolutely critical to our prosperity. The Canadian economy depends on international trade, clearly, and the U.S. is by far our largest trade and investment partner. Trade of goods and services represents around 64% of Canada's gross domestic product, with the U.S. the destination for 75% of our goods exports last year.

The Business Council strongly supports CUSMA/USMCA and calls for the swift passage of Bill C-4, for four critical reasons.

The first is that the agreement protects market access. When negotiations were first launched, we had one overarching recommendation for government and for our negotiation team, and that was to do no harm. To avoid damaging employment, trade and investment, Canadian, American and Mexican businesses need to retain their preferential access to markets and commercial opportunities in each respective country. By this measure, CUSMA is an overwhelming success. The resulting agreement is based upon reciprocal access and treatment, and no Canadian company will face new tariffs or other market access barriers in North America as a result of this deal.

Given recent reports that the White House is considering raising its WTO bound tariff rates, the importance of quickly ratifying this agreement is even greater. I just might add that, at the beginning of these negotiations, the overarching U.S. objective was to “[i]mprove the U.S. trade balance and reduce the trade deficit with the NAFTA countries.” In other words, the U.S. wanted to restrict imports, not liberalize trade, as is usually the objective in a trade agreement. Given that this is where we started, the final deal achieved the number one objective for the Canadian business community by protecting our market access and doing no harm.

The second reason that we strongly support this agreement is that it removes uncertainty from the Canadian economy. The ratification of CUSMA eliminates significant trade uncertainty. According to the Bank of Canada, protectionist trade measures around the world right now are estimated to reduce global gross domestic product by about 1.3% by 2021. Given that the U.S. remains the key market for Canadian firms that are planning to grow and invest abroad, reducing uncertainty in this critically important relationship will be a boost for the Canadian economy at this time.

The third reason is that the agreement modernizes NAFTA, and this tends to get overlooked at times. CUSMA will improve the trade relationship by modernizing long-outdated elements of NAFTA. The agreement is largely based on the text of the trans-Pacific partnership, which is our most modern trade agreement. For example, there are chapters on digital trade that prohibit customs duties and other discriminatory measures from being applied to digital products, while ensuring that data can be transferred across borders. This is a significant improvement on NAFTA and something to be applauded.

The fourth reason is that it enhances North American competitiveness. CUSMA includes new chapters and provisions that will help us develop a more productive and mutually beneficial relationship, including a chapter specifically on competitiveness and one on good regulatory practices. We call on government to take advantage of these new mechanisms by developing a robust committee work plan.

Before I conclude, I'll just say a word on timing. The U.S. and Mexico have moved to ratify this agreement in their respective legislatures. While we have every right to review and assess the deal, I caution against unnecessary delays. Given all the challenges facing the Canadian economy right now, including rail blockades, coronavirus and our deteriorating relationship with China, the last thing we need to add into that very concerning mix is a delay on this deal with our most important trade partner.

I'll conclude with that, and I look forward to your questions.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to move a motion regarding the study schedule for Bill C-4. The motion pertains to the study that we're currently undertaking, and it's based on the motion that was introduced by our colleague Mr. Carrie at the last meeting.

I'm introducing a fresh motion. For procedural ease, I have copies, which I will give to the clerk.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, members of this committee. I'll make a few introductory remarks and then I will be happy to answer your questions.

I'd like to acknowledge that we're gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin.

Let me start with very great pleasure by introducing the outstanding Canadian public servants who are here with me today and without whose hard work, dedication and intelligence this pivotal new agreement would not have been possible. I'm going to introduce the two people sitting next to me. Let me just say that they lead an outstanding team of Canadian professional trade negotiators. At a particularly rough moment during the negotiations, one of our negotiators said, “We think of ourselves as the Navy SEALs of Canada”. I think that is a very appropriate way for all of us to think of our outstanding professional trade negotiators.

With me is Steve Verheul, chief negotiator of NAFTA and assistant deputy minister of trade, and Kirsten Hillman, our acting ambassador to the U.S., as well as a trade negotiator of some renown.

I'm very pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-4, the act to implement the new NAFTA, the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

Canada is a trading nation. Indeed, with the world's 10th largest economy, trade is the backbone of our economy. Trade is vital for the continued prosperity of Canadian workers, entrepreneurs, businesses and communities across the country.

Our government champions an open, inclusive society and an open global economy. These fundamental Canadian values transcend party and region. In fact, each of Canada's three major, recently concluded, trading agreements—the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and now the new NAFTA—were the outcome of efforts across party lines.

Canadians support free, fair, and balanced international trade, based on mutually agreed rules. These rules provide predictability and stability in how goods, services and investment are carried out between Canada and our major trading partners. We have seen remarkable success in this area.

In 1994 NAFTA created the largest free trade region in the world. In 2018 trilateral merchandise trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico reached nearly $1.2 trillion U.S., a fourfold increase since 1993.

Today the NAFTA region comprises almost 490 million consumers and has a combined GDP of more than $23.5 trillion U.S. Our three countries together account for more than one-quarter of the world's GDP, with less than 7% of its population. This record of growth is a tribute to all Canadians, to our entrepreneurs and our workers across this country. Trade between the NAFTA partners has helped us build a continental network of supply chains across a range of industrial and agricultural sectors. It has made Canada more competitive globally. It has created good jobs for Canadians and has fostered job-creating direct investment between Canada and the United States.

The new NAFTA helps ensure we maintain this vital relationship, and that we maintain predictability and stability in our commercial relationship with the United States—our closest, and overwhelmingly our largest, trading partner—and with Mexico.

The negotiations to modernize NAFTA were unprecedented in their intensity, scope and urgency. At the outset we faced a barrage of protectionist trade actions from the United States and the very real threat of a U.S. unilateral withdrawal from NAFTA altogether. Team Canada stood firm and team Canada stood united. Guided by strong support for free trade from Canadians across the country, at all orders of government across the political spectrum, from business to labour leaders to indigenous leaders, we sought advice and consensus and we acted in a united way.

I would today like to particularly thank the NAFTA council for its hard work. Together we worked tirelessly to modernize NAFTA for the 21st century and to extract further benefits for Canadians from a trading partnership that has been a model for the world, and that is exactly what we accomplished.

The new NAFTA preserves Canada's tariff-free access to the United States and Mexico. It restores and strengthens the predictability and stability of Canada's access to our largest market, and crucially, it does so in the face of rising protectionist sentiment south of our border and around the world. The new NAFTA improves on and modernizes the original agreement.

Allow me to highlight some of the key tangible benefits for Canadians.

First, this agreement protects $2 billion U.S. worth of daily cross-border goods and services trade between Canada and the United States. This means that 99.9% of Canadian exports to the United States are eligible for tariff free trade.

The new NAFTA preserves crucial cross-border auto supply chains, and provides an incentive to produce vehicles in Canada.

The agreement also commits all partners to comply with stringent labour standards, and strengthens labour obligations to help level the playing field for Canadian workers. Mexico has also undertaken specific commitments to provide for the protection and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

I would add that our government is working in collaboration with the Mexican government to help Mexico implement its labour reforms.

Throughout the negotiations, Canada was confronted with the American tariffs that were unprecedented, unjust, and arbitrary with respect to Canadian steel and aluminum. We were able to avoid an escalation, however, without backtracking. We stayed focused on defending Canadian workers, their families, and their communities.

We succeeded, and those U.S. tariffs have been lifted.

There was an additional U.S. threat to impose a section 232 tariff on Canadian autos and auto parts. For Canada, that threat was lifted on November 30, 2018, the day we signed the new NAFTA and the day we signed a binding letter on 232 autos and auto parts with the United States. As a result, Canada's auto industry now has the stability to seek investment for further growth and innovation.

The new NAFTA also preserves elements of the original NAFTA that have been essential for Canada and were under threat.

It maintains chapter 29 regarding the dispute settlement mechanism for trade. This is a fair and impartial mechanism, which had been included in the original agreement thanks to the hard work accomplished by Canada. This mechanism has been beneficial for our forest sector workers well over the years, and has protected their jobs from unjust trade measures.

The new agreement preserves NAFTA’s cultural exception, which contributes to protecting more than 666,000 jobs in Canada’s cultural industries and is so pivotal to supporting the artists who tell our stories, in both official languages.

Critically, the new NAFTA maintains tariff-free access to the U.S. market for Canadian ranchers and grain farmers. We should never lose sight of the fact that the starting objective of the United States in the NAFTA negotiations was to abolish Canada's system of supply management.

We did not accept that. Instead, we stood up for Canadian farmers and preserved supply management for this generation and for those to come.

The agreement includes an enforceable environment chapter that requires NAFTA partners to maintain high levels of environmental protection, as well as ensuring sound environmental stewardship. In addition, it recognizes and supports the unique role of indigenous peoples in safeguarding and preserving our environment.

The new NAFTA contains ambitious and enforceable labour obligations to protect workers from discrimination in the workplace, including on the basis of gender.

In conclusion, the new NAFTA is good for continued economic growth and prosperity in Canada. It restores stability and predictability for exporters and for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers in our export-oriented industries. It allows us to put the uncertainty of recent years in the past.

Most importantly, the new NAFTA is pivotal in securing the future of good-quality Canadian jobs across our country as market access to the United States and Mexico will be assured—will be guaranteed—by the new NAFTA for years to come.

I want to be clear. We have come a long way. However, until this agreement is ratified by all three countries and enters into force, there continues to be risk and uncertainty, which will inevitably grow with the passage of time. This agreement has already been ratified by the United States and Mexico—our two other NAFTA partners.

Debate in Parliament, including at committees, is very important in our democracy, but the risk to Canada is also real. It is imperative we lock in the gains we have made with this agreement, the security we have achieved and the market access we have fought for by ratifying the new NAFTA without undue delay. That is what Canadians expect all of us to do and it's the right thing to do.

Thank you very much.

I'll be happy to take your questions.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading of Bill C-4.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Before we go to the question, do we all know the rules?

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.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech in this chamber in the new Parliament, I would like to take a minute to thank the voters of Regina—Wascana for electing me to this chamber. It certainly is an honour and a privilege to be able to represent the interests of Regina—Wascana in the House of Commons. I would also like to thank all of the volunteers on my campaign team who worked so hard putting up lawn signs, stuffing brochures into mailboxes and knocking on doors to make sure that the campaign was a success.

Of course, I have to thank my family, particularly my mom and dad. I am sure there have been many times when they wished that their son would just choose a more normal hobby other than pursuing a seat in Parliament, but I am glad it finally worked out for the better. I would also like to thank my brother Brad, his wife Kathy and my nephews Mason, Michael and Mark. They all had the opportunity to join me for my swearing-in ceremony, and it certainly was a special family occasion.

Now I would like to say a few words about Bill C-4.

On March 28, 2019, the Western Producer farm newspaper ran an editorial about agriculture policy. The Western Producer's editorial board said, “Two years ago, the federal government identified agriculture as a key sector for growth in exports”. Considering the high quality of our Canadian dairy products and the priority that the government gave to expanding agriculture exports, it came as a complete surprise to me that the new NAFTA, the new free trade agreement that the government recently negotiated with the United States and Mexico, had a serious flaw. This flaw, a concession made to the Americans at the expense of the dairy farmers in my province of Saskatchewan and thousands of other dairy producers across the country, is a real head-scratcher.

It is puzzling to me and to my fellow Conservative colleagues on the international trade committee why this government would kneecap our hard-working dairy producers by bargaining away their ability to increase dairy exports under the new NAFTA. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement does not just limit the ability of dairy farmers to export to the United States and Mexico; it limits their ability to export to Japan, China, Europe or anywhere in the world.

Yesterday, the international trade committee heard detailed testimony from a panel of government experts on Bill C-4. These experts included Mr. Steve Verheul, Canada's chief negotiator for the new NAFTA, and Mr. Aaron Fowler, chief agriculture negotiator and director general of trade agreements and negotiations from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

At committee, I asked Mr. Fowler to clarify whether the new dairy export tariff that our dairy farmers would soon have to pay included only the United States and Mexico or applied to Canadian exports to the rest of the world as well. Mr. Fowler confirmed that the agreement applies to Canada's exports to the rest of the world.

When I asked Mr. Fowler whether there was a similar provision under the old NAFTA, the trans-Pacific partnership or our trade deal with the European Union, Mr. Fowler said, “I am aware of no similar provision in any of our other trade agreements.”

Then I asked the negotiating team to provide some insight into how the dairy export limit made it into the new NAFTA. Mr. Fowler said that the U.S. was concerned about new innovative Canadian dairy products, and that Canadian exports of these products were displacing American dairy products from markets that they, the Americans, traditionally exported to.

I appreciate the detailed answers that Canada's negotiating team provided to the committee on how truly innovative our Canadian dairy farmers have become in recent years in specialized products that Canadians can export around the globe. However, in the end it was up to this government to negotiate a better free trade agreement, or at least not a worse agreement, with the U.S. and Mexico, and not to impose a new worldwide limit on our dairy exports. This Liberal export limit would cut farm revenue, and farm families need this extra money.

Better margins and increased profitability on each and every dairy farm are more important now than ever because dairy farmers and, in fact, other producers across Canada have to come up with thousands of additional dollars to pay for the Liberals' carbon tax.

It is very troubling that the government can prioritize the expansion of farm exports on one day, only to limit them the next. During negotiations, why did our trade representatives, who were working on a North American trade deal with the U.S. and Mexico, buckle under pressure from the Americans and agree to limit exports to the rest of the world on dairy products?

These dairy products could have been sold to hungry and thirsty Japanese, Chinese and European customers who were not even parties to this trade agreement. Why did no one catch the significance of this concession, the imposition of a limit on our dairy exports, before it was too late?

It was my sad duty to report to the dairy farmers of SaskMilk, who came to Parliament Hill yesterday to brief me and my Conservative colleagues, that their analysis of the Liberals' new NAFTA was, unfortunately, correct. The Liberal government did, in fact, cave to the demands of the Americans at the negotiating table to limit Canada's dairy exports to hungry, thirsty, paying customers around the globe who live in nations that are not even parties to this new NAFTA agreement among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-4, on which we will be voting. Typically, when I stand in Parliament to vote, I am always very comfortable with my vote. Whether it is yes or no, I am proud to stand in my place and vote.

Today we will be voting on this agreement, and it will be with a heavy heart and reluctance that I will stand to support it, knowing not only that there are a lot of problems with it, but if I do not support it, things will take a dramatic and drastic turn. We need to have a free trade agreement with our most important trading partner. It will not be an easy vote when I know it could have and should have been so much better.

I will talk about process, priorities and gaps.

On the process, Canada was left on the sidelines for some of the most important parts of the negotiations. Mexico and the U.S. put a lot of the final details to the agreement and told Canada that it could like it or lump it. What kind of negotiators do we have when they leave us on the sidelines for some of the most critical components of a deal?

The other piece I have trouble with is the lack of engagement. If we look at what happened in the U.S., the Republicans and Democrats worked very closely, made changes and came up with an agreement with which everyone was comfortable. That collaborative process, working together on important priorities, helped make a better agreement in the long run.

In our case, was there engagement with the other parties in the House? Yes, there was a committee, but that committee did not talk to the elected representatives, the elected representatives being the official opposition, the Bloc and the NDP. The negotiators did not benefit from the wisdom of the other parties in the House, which has left us with a lump-it-or-like-it agreement.

Last week, the minister suggested that the opposition parties not hold up the agreement. The Conservatives had suggested the House resume early. The election was in October and the Liberals did not recall the House until early December. We said that we needed to come back to talk about and engage on this agreement. Then we suggested the House resume in early January to debate the agreement, that it was one of the most important trade agreements we would sign and that we needed to give it due diligence and talk about it. Did the government bring us back early? No. Then the Liberals said that they did not want the opposition parties to delay it, yet we had not even seen the legislation. It is a failed and flawed process. They should be very ashamed with how they went about it.

The Liberals took a number of priorities into the negotiations, but what did they omit? They omitted probably the biggest trade irritant between Canada and the U.S. in the last number of decades, softwood lumber. Was softwood lumber made one of their priorities for negotiation? No. The government headed into negotiations on an updated agreement, and the most important trade irritant we had for decades was not a priority.

In 2017, the government said it would get a new softwood agreement. The Prime Minister and President Obama said that they would get it done. Here we are in 2020, and the agreement is not done.

What has been happening with the softwood lumber industry? In my province alone, over 24 mills have closed and 10,000-plus employees have been impacted. The government's lack of doing its job in getting a softwood lumber agreement is hurting Canadians across the country.

I would like to suggest that British Columbia might be the canary in the coal mine on this particular issue, because mills in New Brunswick are suggesting that they are having problems. Quebec has been concerned about it. When 20% is put on as an arbitrary number at the border and we do not have an agreement, our industry is hurting.

Was it a priority for negotiations? No, forestry was neglected. Was it in the Speech from the Throne? It was neglected. Was it in the minister's mandate letter? It was neglected.

I would suggest that the government has failed to do its job. The Prime Minister said one of the most important things he needed to do was protect jobs in this country, but he has been absolutely indifferent to the crisis in forestry across this country. It took the last Conservative government to get the deal done, and it obviously looks as though we need to get back in, because it will take a Conservative government to get it done in the future.

Let me speak to failures. The one failure that stands out in my mind is aluminum. Aluminum has not been afforded the same provisions as steel. Why not?

Let us look at what is happening in the industry. In Canada, aluminum production in 2019 was 2.9 metric tons, and that has diminished from the year prior. It has been going down a bit. What is happening in China with aluminum? In China, aluminum production was 33.8 metric tons and is going up. What has been happening as well is that around the world, the need for aluminum has been going up, but the Liberal government did not feel it was important. Aluminum did not really matter.

One other priority was the environment. What the government failed to recognize is that Canada has the lowest carbon footprint for aluminum production in the world, since we use hydroelectricity, but there is more than that. The Prime Minister was at an announcement in Quebec with Rio Tinto and Elysis. They are looking at a no-carbon-emission process for the production of aluminum. Let us imagine that: We are going to have no-carbon-emission aluminum. I understand that oxygen might even be produced as part of the process.

The government is providing some protection for steel for the car industry, but it is not saying that our aluminum industry matters. Producing environmentally sound aluminum, predominantly in Quebec but also in British Columbia, does matter. The government neglected that, left it out of the agreement, and did not offer the same protections. That is certainly a failure.

There is another area of concern. I have never seen a government give up sovereignty in agreements that it signs with other countries, but now we are going to need permission from the U.S. to enter into an agreement with China. There are also restrictions with respect to our exports to other countries. We are giving away our sovereignty.

These are significant concerns. For the reasons I have identified, we are very reluctant to support this particular agreement as it moves forward.

That said, the United States and Mexico are our largest trading partners. We need to have an agreement. It will take another Conservative government to fix the softwood lumber agreement, to work with the aluminum industry and to make sure that both industries get the same recognition as our steel industry. We are going to have a job to do in trying to fix the agreement, but we cannot go without it in the meantime.

[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, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, when no member rises to speak on the motion for the 2nd reading stage of Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, or at 1:59 p.m., whichever comes first, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill shall be deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until immediately after Oral Questions this day.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, is referred to committee, could the government commit to supporting a proposal at committee to have other committees, in addition to the trade committee, study the provisions of Bill C-4 and the impacts within their respective mandates in the same manner that budget bills have been considered at committee in recent years?

The House resumed from February 5 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.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight to talk about Bill C-4, the Canada–United States–Mexico agreement implementation act, better known over here as NAFTA 2.0.

Since tonight is my first time addressing the chamber at length since the October election, I want to take a moment to thank those who have sent me here for my second term as the member of Parliament for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

I thank my volunteers. They made it possible for me to come into the chamber tonight for the 43rd Parliament. As well, I think everyone in the House would agree that our spouses are the most important. In this case, yes, my wife Ann has had to put up with me for 42 years now. It has been a long time, but we have had a great journey, and for the first time, during the election I also had my two children, Courtney and Geoff, door knock in Saskatoon—Grasswood, which is probably another story, but we certainly enjoyed it as a family.

It is my privilege to talk about this bill, because it is the most important bill in the 43rd Parliament. It would affect every territory and province in this great dominion. The relationship between Canada and our neighbour to the south, without question, is our most important relationship. Most of our trade is with our partners in the United States, including 75% of our exports and over 50% of our imports. Between goods and services, our bilateral trade with the United States is almost $900 billion. The original NAFTA deal that was put together by Prime Minister Mulroney and the Conservative government has done this country a great deal of service. We have all enjoyed free trade.

At this time, I would also like to speak of the member for Abbotsford, who spoke earlier on this bill. Without question, he is one of the greatest trade ministers we have ever had in this country. We went from five agreements all the way up to 55. He is known around the world. I went to Taiwan, which had great things to say about the member for Abbotsford and the trade agreement that he brought during the Harper years. It should be recognized in the House that the member is still with us and is a valuable contributor. He spoke the other day on this agreement and had several very good points.

It was kind of a surprise that Mexico is our third-largest trading partner, so NAFTA 2.0 is very much front and centre in this country. The three countries are very close, both economically and politically. As well, at this time of year, many Canadians go to Mexico for weeks or months, and they know how important it is for Mexico, the United States and Canada to get along.

The importance, though, of this trading relationship is felt particularly strongly in my province of Saskatchewan. It is a trading province. It has a population of 1.2 million people, roughly, and exports more than it takes in, which it always has and hopefully always will, from agriculture to energy to manufacturing. Much of the provincial economy, more than 50%, is dependent on trade both within Canada and outside Canada. That is why it is important to recognize that Saskatchewan's premier, Scott Moe, is in Washington today with the Deputy Prime Minister. Trade is foremost in my province of Saskatchewan. We are dependent upon the NAFTA 2.0 agreement. Every community in my province of 1.2 million people depends on the NAFTA 2.0 agreement. Let me get that out into the open.

Conservatives from coast to coast understand exactly how important this trade is. Conservatives negotiated, as I mentioned, the original NAFTA. We did all the heavy lifting of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union and worked with the government of Israel to expand and modernize our agreement with that country. There are dozens of other countries that the Conservatives have negotiated new trade agreements with as well, such as South Korea, Honduras and Panama. The world is ours.

In this country, we produce more than we can use. We have a population of only 37 million, so it is important that we have trade with each and every country in the world if we can do it.

As I have mentioned, perhaps more than any other province or territory in this dominion, Saskatchewan has benefited from the increased trade between Canada and our international partners. The economy in my province of Saskatchewan is growing like it has never grown before. With it, the population is growing, including 80,000 new jobs since 2007, largely due to the increase in trading opportunities created by the previous Conservative government for nine and a half years. Exports from Saskatchewan are up nearly 60% in that same time frame, and now our province ships to over 150 countries around the world.

I was in Regina on Monday for the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association address. Our premier has an ambitious growth program for our province. In 2030, we want to get another 100,000 people in our province and we want to increase our trade by another 50%. We can see that this agreement here is front and foremost in the province of Saskatchewan.

What has this meant? It has meant more for young people now who no longer have to go to Alberta to search for jobs. We have new schools in our province for the first time in a long time. We have young families who can stay home in Saskatchewan and share their families with grandma and grandpa. We have infrastructure, and the province makes investments in services for the people of my province.

It is concerning that the current government has not been able to live up to this record. In fact, it has been hurting our trade relationships. I will give a couple of examples.

Saskatchewan's minister of trade reported that Saskatchewan's exports to India alone plummeted from roughly $2 billion in 2015 when we left government, to only $650 million in 2018. Let us think about that. India was one of our biggest trading partners when the Conservatives left in 2015, and now my province of Saskatchewan is suffering at only $650 million. Our agriculture sector in particular is so tied to trade with India, in chickpeas and so on. We know all about that. I might add that part of the problem has been the Prime Minister's trip to India. It has hurt the provincial economy.

Trade is important in our province. I cannot emphasize that enough. In light of the current government's weakness on this file, to compensate and to further our province's trading relationships around the world, Saskatchewan's provincial government has had to open new international offices in Japan, India and Singapore. I ask members to think about that. Our provincial government has had to go out and seek new trading partners because the federal government has let us down in the province of Saskatchewan. We now have trade offices in India, Singapore and Japan. These kinds of actions are so important because the people of Saskatchewan know how difficult it can be when we are facing uncertainty in our trading relationships.

Saskatchewan caucus has heard over and over again from our producers, our workers and our unions about how the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum hurt Saskatchewan workers and producers.

I want to thank a number of people from our caucus because they have raised some flags in this trade agreement. For the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo there is the softwood lumber issue where we have lost tens of thousands of jobs for B.C. Regarding automotive, our Oshawa MP has certainly stood up in this House and talked about the differences in this trade agreement. On aluminum, there is our member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. We all know that Quebec aluminum is the greenest and best in the world, and yet we are being penalized with NAFTA 2. There appears to be a cap on milk exports that we have talked about before in the House.

In closing, it will be an interesting time. We want to see this bill go to committee. We want to bring in many stakeholders because it is the stakeholders who in the next six years will have the biggest say on this NAFTA.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, as part of my time debating Bill C-4, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, also known as the new NAFTA, I have some questions that my constituents and Canadians deserve answers for.

The Conservative Party has a long trade record and understands the importance of global trade. The previous Conservative government negotiated trade deals with over 40 countries.

In my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, we have many sectors that rely on international trading. We are the largest trading area between Vancouver and Calgary, with now the 10th-busiest airport in Canada.

A report from the Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission laid out a sector overview. Manufacturing in my community includes agri-food and high-tech aerospace, with metal, plastic, wood, concrete and fibreglass products. It anticipates that fabricated metal, non-metallic, mineral and transportation equipment manufacturing, as well as plastics, rubber products and beverages, will lead the way in growth. The cross-section of manufacturers makes it easy for existing and new businesses to find high-quality partners locally.

When China started embargoes on Canadian farming products, local cherry producers in my community were concerned that they would be next and started looking to potentially expand their exports to the United States and other markets. It is therefore very important to farmers and all businesses that we have stable and clearly outlined trading relationships.

NAFTA was not perfect, but it has been good for Canada, with $2 billion in trade crossing the border every day. The United States is our largest trading partner, representing 75% of Canadian exports.

I understand that the majority of major industry associations in Canada and the group, Canada's Premiers, are encouraging us to ratify the CUSMA deal. Canada's Premiers has stated, “Beyond seeking the ratification of CUSMA, Premiers are still prioritizing engagement with the U.S. to deal with other trade issues including Buy American policies and the softwood lumber dispute.”

Why was the buy American policy not addressed in CUSMA? Mexico got a buy America chapter in CUSMA, but Canada did not. There was no procurement chapter.

There has been a lot of uncertainty for four years. We have lost business opportunities and investments are on hold. Many people just want to be able to move forward with clarity. Goldy Hyder from the Business Council of Canada has said that the signed new NAFTA is “good enough” for Canada and “gets us through this administration.”

I will tell members about an industry that thinks the CUSMA agreement is good enough but is no further ahead, like so many other industries we hear about across the country with this deal. This is the wine industry specifically in British Columbia. Ontario also has uncertainty.

Just this past Monday I was speaking with Miles Prodan, executive director of the British Columbia Wine Institute. I have his approval to bring his comments forward in the House today. He stated, “We accept and support moving forward with CUSMA. However, there is nothing better and nothing more advantageous for our wine industry. A status quo was a win for us.” He is referring to the 281 VQA wineries his organization represents in B.C., 32 of which are located in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. “A status quo was a win for us.”

This is at a time when Canada is having a potentially devastating wine excise tax trade dispute with Australia. As I mentioned in the House yesterday, in 2018, following the Liberal government's introduction of an escalator tax for beer, wine and spirits, Australia requested a review from the World Trade Organization of Canada's exemption for 100% Canadian wines. This tax basically means automatic tax increases each and every year.

The draft report of this WTO review is anticipated in April, with a final report coming sometime this summer. A WTO ruling against Canada would be legally binding and could have a catastrophic effect on some 400 Canadian wineries, forcing them to bear the burden of millions of dollars of new taxes and putting this important industry and Canadian jobs on the line. This shows again a lack of clear understanding and thoughtful consideration by the Liberals of the ramifications of their tax policies and decisions.

On January 16, those of us from across the country who have wineries in our communities signed a letter to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade. It was led by our colleague, the member for Prince Albert, the Conservative shadow minister for international trade. It asked the government to engage with Australia to resolve the dispute prior to the WTO ruling. We received a response from the minister on January 31, and in the letter the minister said:

Australia's position on the excise duty exemption has been unwavering and clear. Any negotiated settlement must include the removal of the excise exemption for Canadian wines in its entirety, and this was confirmed to Canadian officials as recently as December 2019.

I bring this up today as this is a trend we are seeing with trade negotiations with the current government, an attitude of, “They drew a line in the sand, so what are you going to do?”

The Australian government could be responding in this way because Australia, like many other countries, was not happy with Canada due to the Prime Minister's no-show for the trans-Pacific partnership. This was a trade deal that the Prime Minister just had to sign. Reports are that TPP's signatories, including Australia, were outraged.

Regarding CUSMA negotiations, the chairman of the U.S. House ways and means committee said that the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister conceded on just about every point they raised for one reason: “enforceability, enforceability, enforceability.” What other concessions did we agree to that prompted such a statement?

If nothing else, the government is consistent. The attitude that we have heard on how Canada negotiated with the U.S. with concession after concession in CUSMA, we see here again on the Australia trade issue. This laissez-faire, “what are you going to do” attitude is not serving Canadians or families well.

Another major sector left out of CUSMA discussions was our softwood lumber industry in British Columbia. We lost thousands of jobs this past year, bringing the total to some 50,000 job losses over the last few years. I have spoken in the House about how this has directly affected my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, where 217 permanent jobs were lost.

The sustainable resource sector has been hit hard and is currently being forced to pay tariffs to the United States. Why was the softwood lumber industry left out of CUSMA? So much for supporting the middle class.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to think deeply and look at legislation closely. These calls by the government to hurry up and move it along are not responsible. These are not just numbers we are talking about. We are talking about lives, families and jobs. With the reckless Liberal “push it through” attitude, I seriously wonder whose jobs the Liberals are more concerned about.

The ratification process is slightly different in each country. In June of last year, this deal was ratified by the Mexican senate. Due to modifications made to the agreement, it was re-ratified in December. In the United States, debate proceeded in the House of Representatives in September 2019. It was passed in the House in December 2019, and the U.S. Senate passed the bill on January 16, 2020.

I can appreciate that we had an election, but we were all elected back in October. After the election, Conservatives were calling on the government to call the House back on November 25 as we needed to roll up our sleeves and get back to work on behalf of Canadians. This fell on deaf ears, and the Prime Minister did not call the House back until December 5.

The CUSMA deal had to be reintroduced after the election, but the government did not table Bill C-4 until January 29. We are now debating it much later than our trading partners, and are being asked to hurry up. It was simply reckless and irresponsible that the government waited so long to reintroduce the legislation. It is important for us to do our proper due diligence, in particular since the government has still not presented us with an economic impact analysis. This is something we, the official opposition, have repeatedly requested for almost two months now and have yet to receive.

We heard that the government had an economic impact analysis, but two days ago here in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said that the government would present it once it is complete.

Was one actually done? Was it done only on certain sectors? Is it incomplete? Is there information that there are industries where the analysis is not positive, and the Liberals do not want the information disclosed yet? These are all questions that we need answered.

Conservatives support and want free trade with the United States. We are the party of trade deals with our closest allies. NAFTA is a legacy from the Conservatives. Our Canadian businesses deserve certainty, and we should not be rushed into this important vote without having answers to the questions we are asking. It is our job as parliamentarians, and we owe that to the communities we serve. I urge everyone to take this information to committee so that we can delve into some of these questions properly.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is a trading nation and the Unites States is by far our largest trading partner. Of our exports, 75% go to the U.S., and 51% of our imports come from the U.S. Mexico is our fifth largest trading partner.

In that context, I am happy to address the House today about the benefits of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement and to encourage all members in the House to support Bill C-4.

Our government spent over a year negotiating a modernized free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. Our goal was to negotiate a deal that was good for Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and communities across the country. We negotiated a deal that would protect Canadian jobs, create more opportunities for Canadian workers and their families and ensure the growth of our economy.

From farmers in Alberta to auto workers in Windsor to entrepreneurs in St. John's and Surrey, the new NAFTA will benefit Canadians in every corner of the country.

The agreement we were able to achieve is particularly impressive, given the challenges we faced at the outset. We made the best of a challenging situation, because no other outcome was acceptable.

Trade between Canada and the U.S. is of vital importance. We were dealing with a U.S. president who said that NAFTA was the worst trade deal in history. He was determined to tear it up. He slapped tariffs on our steel and aluminum. What did we do? We stood up for the Canadian steel and aluminum industries, and in the end we won.

Canadians had every reason to be worried about all this. The fact we have a deal is a testament to Canada's determination and patience.

This will be the third major trade agreement signed by our Liberal government. The Trans-Pacific Partnership and CETA are the other two. The ratification of CUSMA will put trade uncertainty behind us. This is a big win for Canada, such a big win that even the Premier of Ontario is on board. Provincial and territorial leaders have urged all federal parties to ratify CUSMA and have warned against playing political games.

The sad truth is that the Conservatives and the NDP do not bring much to the table except political games.

The Conservatives seem to hate it when Canada does well. They say that Canada is an economic failure. They dismiss any good news. They run Canada down. They dismiss the hard work of Canadians who have created over one million jobs in the last four years.

Instead of celebrating the hard work of Canadians that has made Canada and Canada's economy one of the strongest in the world, what do they do? The Conservatives paint a picture of doom and gloom. I encourage the members opposite to stand up for Canada's future, to be proud of Canada's accomplishments, to celebrate what we have achieved together and to ratify CUSMA.

My colleagues from the NDP have joined forces with the Bloc Québécois to drag out the ratification of this trade deal. I am not sure why they want to drag things out, but I am sure that the deal before us is the deal we have and no stalling tactics or delays will change that. Much like the Conservatives, they dismiss the good things that were achieved in CUSMA.

I would think that the NDP and the Bloc would recognize that this deal is progressive trade in action. It has the strongest labour and environment chapters ever to be included in a trade agreement. It removes the investor-state dispute settlement provisions of NAFTA, a key demand of the NDP. CUSMA also has strong protection for women and indigenous peoples.

I am not sure why the NDP wants to delay the implementation of these progressive reforms. We should work together as colleagues, put Canada and Canadians first and get this important bill passed without delay.

In December, Canada signed an amending protocol that makes significant improvements to CUSMA. It strengthens state-to-state dispute settlement, labour protection, environmental protection, intellectual property and the automotive rules of origin and will help keep the most advanced medications affordable for Canadians. These changes are all in Canada's best interest, and they make CUSMA an even better deal.

For residents of my constituency of Surrey—Newton and all of British Columbia, it means access to the U.S. market and the 20.3 billion dollars' worth of exports that B.C. sends to the U.S. every year. It means stability for B.C. workers in the lumber, oil and processed food sectors. It means B.C.'s agricultural goods continue to benefit from duty-free access for nearly 89% of U.S. agriculture tariff lines and 91% of Mexican tariff lines. The agreement also protects the $2.1 billion in B.C. exports to the U.S. market.

CUSMA preserves NAFTA's chapter 19, which gives Canada access to an independent and impartial process to challenge U.S. or Mexican anti-dumping and countervailing duties. That is good news for British Columbia's softwood lumber industry and its $4.3 billion in U.S. exports.

In the previous Parliament, I had the pleasure of sitting on the international trade committee with former MP Linda Lapointe from Quebec. During a trip to Washington, we met with U.S. negotiators and it was Linda who maintained that the cultural exemption component be kept. At that time, U.S. negotiators were not concerned about this issue. However, this is very important for the French language in Quebec and cultural industries throughout Canada.

CUSMA is the result of a long, difficult and challenging negotiation. We made it through and have a deal before us that will help Canadians build a better Canada. Let us pass it and let them get to work.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in the House on Monday, it is indeed an honour for me to be taking part in my first debate here on the floor of the House of Commons.

In the short time available to me, I would like to resume debate and provide my concluding remarks on Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

As I had indicated previously, Canada's Conservatives support free trade with our North American trading partners. What we do not support is rushing blindly into an agreement to implement a deal whose details have not yet been shared. I am confident when I say that members on this side are prepared to work with our Liberal colleagues to ensure that this agreement is ratified; however, we need them to be open and transparent about what those impacts will be. We know they have done financial modelling and analysis of how this new free trade agreement will affect Canada's economy, both overall and broken down by sector. Will the Liberals commit to showing all the members of this House these financial models?

We already know that dairy concessions in the agreement will negatively impact the industry. By allowing an agreement to be inked that opened our supply management system, the government will now be using taxpayers' dollars to compensate our dairy farmers, because of their loss in market share. We need to know if there are other industries that we will have to compensate with taxpayers' dollars, because these industries are going to be negatively impacted by this new NAFTA.

As it is, the wine industry in my riding of Niagara Falls is facing an uncertain business environment because of Australia's WTO challenge that would change our current federal excise exemption for 100% Canadian-made wines. This is another important sector in my riding that is waiting and wondering what the government is going to do. We are about eight weeks away from the World Trade Organization's interim report on this trade challenge, and the Liberals are missing in action on this important trade file.

Meanwhile, 700 wineries and 9,000 Canadians are wondering about the future of their jobs. That does not include the thousands of other local spinoff jobs supported by the wine industry, including accommodations, dining establishments and tour companies.

These are a few of my concerns that I have about the new NAFTA.

Parliamentarians need to know the details of what has changed from the existing agreement, who will be impacted and what can be done to provide stability to those impacted business sectors. I think it is certainly imperative that the official opposition be allowed to do our job of examining the signed agreement, not just the Liberals' talking points on the agreement.

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.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

To the witnesses, I very much appreciate your appearing on short notice with us today. Welcome.

From Global Affairs Canada, we have Steve Verheul, chief negotiator and assistant deputy minister, trade policy and negotiations; Martin Thornell, senior adviser, tariffs and goods market access; and Stephanie Chandler, senior policy adviser, trade policy and negotiations. From Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we have Aaron Fowler, chief agriculture negotiator and director general. From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have Rina Young, manager, trade and environment, international affairs branch.

Mr. Verheul, I'll turn the floor over to you for your opening comments—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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 really 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 actually have that opportunity to have a more fulsome discussion, where we can state what are objectives are and have a more fulsome 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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 Implementation Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

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 Agreement Implementation Act

[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 232 tariffs 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 one 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 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.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I start my first speech in the House, I would like to thank my wife, Barbara, and 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 tri-national 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 include 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 are 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.

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.

[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-a-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.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with second reading debate of our first key priority, the CUSMA implementation bill.

Next Monday and Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Tuesday will be a supply day.

Next Thursday and Friday, we will continue debate on Bill C-3 on border services.

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 Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

[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 precedence 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 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.

[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 agreements 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.

Ways and Means

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

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 first time and printed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)