International Trade Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[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.

[Maryscott Greenwood, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council]

Good morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Happy Fat Tuesday.

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today, and for allowing me to beam my testimony from Washington, D.C. It is an honour to advise parliamentarians on a topic as important for our two countries as the one under discussion, the most significant trade agreement on Earth, updated and modernized for the third decade of the new millennium.

You will recall that the new North American free trade agreement was first announced on October 1, 2018. As you've had a number of experts provide background on the elements of the agreement, I'm not going to take up your time with a recap of the history of the rather tortuous path that brought us to this moment. We know what made it into the deal and what didn't. We know that it didn't hit 100% of every constituent's wish list, including ours at the Canadian American Business Council, but a deal that doesn't fully satisfy any party is called a compromise, and compromise is the soul of trade.

Further, I think everyone acknowledges that CUSMA substantially improves not only our trade policies but also government relations in North America. It reaffirms our commitment to the rule of law, our commitment to our economic interdependence, and our belief that Mexico is a crucial partner in our shared prosperity. All three governments agreed that NAFTA needed updating, and frankly, the successful negotiations were a tremendous relief to business.

As you can probably guess, the Canadian American Business Council wants to see it become law sooner rather than later. I speak for businesses in both countries, and I am here to tell you that this new deal is a set of stable rules that we will be able to depend upon for years. Business loves stability. Business loathes uncertainty. You've probably heard that formulation before. A lot has been written about how companies and financial institutions have been sitting on capital since the 2008 meltdown, despite efforts by central banks to encourage spending and lending. It's because of uncertainty.

The global trade environment at the moment is volatile. Stable, mutually agreed-upon trade rules are reassuring. Don't we all want to see businesses confidently spending on growth and expanding commerce right here in North America?

As a former American diplomat to Canada, and someone who has woken up every single morning for the last two decades working on the Canada-U.S. relationship, it is my mission to know the pulse of both Congress and the White House on the issues of bilateral concern that affect our business coalition. Believe me when I tell you that we are in a rare moment today. If anyone thinks it's still possible to find leverage and rewrite CUSMA, I think they misunderstand this moment in time. We are truly at a point where the Parliament of Canada must say “yea” or “nay”, up or down.

That said, let me go a little bit further and tell you what I think would happen from a Washington perspective if the vote in Canada is "nay" and the deal goes down. You all know that the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate ratified what we in Washington call the USMCA in December and January. Do you know how many bills have been introduced so far this session in Congress? There have been thousands. Do you know how many have passed the House? There have been nearly 500. Do you know how many have made it through the House and the Senate so far? There have been 91, and most of those were to name post offices or veterans affairs buildings. We really don't have much agreement down here on anything.

Do you remember when Speaker Pelosi actually tore up the State of the Union address, moments after the President delivered it on live national television? Well, she didn't tear up the modernized NAFTA, as some in her party would have wanted her to do. Instead, she led a comprehensive, thoughtful effort to pass it. The USMCA didn't just pass; it passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. In the current political climate here, that was an achievement.

Then, President Trump signed it into law at the end of last month, and as you know, President Trump doesn't always do what Congress asks him to do, so the stars in Washington have aligned.

Now let me put my advocate hat back on for a moment and speculate on what might happen if, now that the agreement has passed both chambers of Congress, has been signed at the White House and, importantly, has been ratified in Mexico, it were to fail in the Canadian Parliament.

As you have probably heard, President Trump instinctively tends toward protectionism. His slogan is “America First”. He has described himself as “a Tariff Man”. He doesn't react happily when he's embarrassed, which he certainly would be if the new agreement fails in Canada. He rightly regards the agreement as his signature legislative accomplishment in his first term.

His fallback would be tariffs. Canada, Mexico and the United States have already been through that unfortunate chapter. If trends in the current democratic primary race continue, President Trump's opponent this fall may well be Senator Bernie Sanders.

Senator Sanders describes himself, as you know, as a democratic socialist. Like other people on the political left, he not only dislikes trade deals, like the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA, but he has made his opposition to this new agreement plain. He, too, would prefer to rely on tariffs to protect what he sees as America's economic interests. Let's not forget that Senator Sanders was one of the few members of Congress who voted against the USMCA.

I imagine you can see where I'm going here. Does anyone really think it's a good idea to prod this president or his potential rival into a tariff war with Canada and Mexico? An irritated president, with the snap of his or her fingers, can thicken our international border, clogging traffic and giving businesses in both countries migraines. But given the size of our respective economies, I'd submit that the migraines would be worse in Canada.

As someone who speaks for leading Canadian and American businesses, I would point out here that our members already have a few headaches. There is the rather delicate issue of the rail blockades. And there are questions about the ability to site and fund new infrastructure projects, particularly in the energy sector, as you know.

I would suggest that rejecting the new trade agreement in this environment would amount not just to an unforced error but to a serious self-inflicted wound.

That said, let me take a more optimistic tack here just for a moment. Unlike the United States, Canada has, since the 1980s, seen free trade agreements as being in its crucial national interests. Given the relative size of your market, Canadians have had a greater interest than most in clear, transparent, agreed-upon rules, which is probably why Canada has had free trade agreements with Europe, Chile, Jordan, Israel, Costa Rica, Honduras, Korea, Panama and Peru.

Otherwise put, Canadian businesses have clear and preferential rules with markets representing trillions of dollars. Does it not make sense to update and pass an agreement with Canada's single largest trading partner? I dare say a long list of other countries would love to have preferential access to the American market at this point. Proximity without access is frustrating, to say the least. An agreement with the biggest market in the world is ready and available right now. Everyone is waiting.

The position of the Canadian American Business Council is that your choice is clear. The updated agreement strengthens a commercial relationship that has existed since the earliest days of our countries. The effort of the last three years has been intense, sometimes nerve-racking, but we are nearly there. Canadian parliamentarians have a simple question before them, and I submit that to ask it is to answer it.

Thank you very much.

I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Greenwood.

Now we will go on to the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, with Charles Milliard, chief executive officer; Kathy Megyery, vice-president, strategy and economic affairs; and Louis Lyonnais, adviser, strategy and economic affairs.

I will turn the floor over to you. Thank you very much. Go ahead, please.

[Charles Milliard, Chief Executive Officer, Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec]

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Charles Milliard, and I am the president and CEO of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, or the FCCQ for short. Joining me is Kathy Megyery, vice-president of strategy and economic affairs.

I'd like to thank the committee for having us despite a few technical problems. We had a bit of trouble with the connection for our appearance this morning, so I thank you for your patience.

The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec represents 132 chambers of commerce across Quebec and 1,100 member businesses. The federation's members are active in every sector of the economy throughout the entire province. As Quebec's largest network of business people and businesses, the federation also serves as a provincial chamber of commerce, advocating for public policies on behalf of its members.

I want to start by saying that the federation welcomes the signing of the trade agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, which, as we know, puts an end to more than a year of business uncertainty. The prevailing uncertainty prior to the conclusion of the agreement was quite detrimental to business and investment in Canada. While the federation fully recognizes the importance of the new agreement, it has serious concerns about certain aspects that warrant rigorous federal oversight.

The federation recognizes that the agreement was unfortunately concluded to the detriment of our supply management system and Quebec's dairy farmers, who were to some extent sacrificed. That is true of the negotiations leading to all three of the major trade deals recently signed, the Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, and CUSMA.

In addition, despite the very clear calls of Quebec's aluminum sector regarding regional content rules, it will not see its fate improve under the agreement. Conversely, the steel sector, 53% of which is based in Ontario, obtained the protections it had been calling for. Going forward, interprovincial equity should be the guiding principle for any concessions the federal government makes in negotiating international agreements.

What's more, this agreement causes a third breach in supply management, thereby undermining the system's viability and long-term sustainability, especially for the smallest farms. Government announcements regarding compensation for CETA and the CPTPP were long in coming, and the payments have taken even longer, unfortunately. To date, dairy processors and poultry and egg farmers continue to wait for their compensation payments. Nothing has yet been announced in connection with CUSMA.

The FCCQ is calling on the government to swiftly establish the terms of the compensation program for dairy farmers and producers further to CUSMA. The federation also submits that Quebec farmers should receive compensation commensurate to the share of Quebec's agri-food sector in the Canadian economy as a whole.

As for the aluminum sector, the government must remain vigilant. Initially, CUSMA contained a provision requiring that 70% of steel and aluminum originate in North America. Accordingly, Mexico was supposed to purchase 70% of its supply from North America. However, a grey area in the definition would likely have allowed Mexico to continue buying cheap metal from China, as it has been for months now.

The flaw was corrected in the new version of CUSMA, but only for steel, not for aluminum. This new dynamic will impact Quebec's market share. American companies supplied by Quebec have already begun relocating operations to Mexico so they can pay less for metal. Consequently, we will probably lose more and more of the U.S. market as we watch metal processing capacity move to Mexico. The FCCQ is therefore calling on the federal government to ensure the industry maintains its competitiveness in a market that has just undergone a significant change, by engaging the Americans through all diplomatic channels necessary to force Mexico to play by the rules.

Under the provisions of CUSMA, Canada agreed to an increase in the duty collection threshold, the de minimis threshold, which went from $20 to $150 for duties. A longtime demand of online retailers in the U.S., the increase could lead to a spike in cross-border shopping, which would have obvious consequences for Quebec retailers and their employees. The higher threshold could prompt U.S. online retailers to start offering customers free shipping to Canada, something many already offer their customers in the U.S. The FCCQ is therefore calling on the federal government to pay close attention to the retail sector overall to ensure it can remain competitive with foreign companies.

Furthermore, the federation's members, especially small and medium-size businesses, share a common concern, one we want to convey to the government today: information on the benefits of these trade agreements is lacking. They feel the government should be doing a better job when it comes to the trade deals and after-sales service.

Although a number of mechanisms are in place, the information doesn't always seem to flow as effectively as our business network in Quebec would like. The government should be more proactive when it comes to educating companies about the benefits of leveraging trade agreements and conquering foreign markets.

Accordingly, it is necessary, in our view, to provide businesses with support as they enter the export market for the first time. It would also be a good idea to provide smaller businesses with more online support and high-potential companies with tailored support.

The FCCQ has always advocated the importance of diversifying export markets and leverages its network of well-established local chambers of commerce across the province to help Quebec companies discover the benefits of export markets and seize new business opportunities.

Against the current backdrop of American protectionism, it's important for Quebec companies to focus on other high-potential markets and increase their proportion of non-U.S. exports. As you know, 70% of Quebec exports last year were destined for the U.S.

Diversifying our trade partners is even more important considering the uncertainty caused by American surtaxes, which has taken its toll on our economy in recent years.

Finally, I want to highlight the fact that numerous products that are not compliant with current regulations seem to be making their way across the border, because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is short on resources. With added restrictions, it's essential to increase the level of screening and analysis to make sure imported products adhere to the same requirements our products do.

Clearly, the purpose of Canada's regulatory framework is to foster better consumer health, but to do that, companies subject to the regulations must incur the associated costs. Harmonization is thus vital to the competitiveness of Quebec's agri-food industry. The FCCQ is recommending that the government increase controls and inspections by the agency to ensure imported products meet the same standards and rules as Canadian products.

Thank you. We would be pleased to answer any questions you have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Now we go on to the Music Publishers Canada, with Jennifer Mitchell by teleconference.

Good morning.

[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, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Mitchell.

We'll now go on to Andrea Kokonis and Gilles Daigle from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers. Welcome.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kokonis.

Before I open it up to the members, I've had confirmation for the chief economist, Dr. Paquet. Her availability tomorrow would be from 12:45 until 1:45. Is the committee in agreement with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

That's good news. We're actually going to get that economic analysis.

Parliamentary Secretary, can we get a copy of the economic analysis before she comes? Can you check to see if that's possible?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'll certainly check. As I committed to last week, I did request an update on where that report stands. I spoke to officials. I understand that they're working very hard to get it to us as soon as possible. I had encouraged them to come as soon as possible. I think they were supposed to come on Thursday, and now they are coming on Wednesday at 12:45.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I only have five minutes, so....

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

This is not part of your five minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I look forward to seeing it. If we could have it the day before or even later this afternoon, that would give us a chance to at least go through it tonight. I'm sure it's a big document, so it's a lot to go through, but we'll do our best. Hopefully we can see it.

Witnesses, thank you for being here this morning.

Scotty, we've been friends for five years, but we usually just meet in airports. I can't believe we're actually meeting somewhere other than an airport. It's an inside joke: It seems like she has a seat at the Ottawa airport and my seat is right next to hers.

I going to start off with you, Scotty. Can you give us a sense, in the U.S., of how many times Lighthizer actually went over to talk to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats before they went to renegotiations?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I don't have the exact number, Mr. Hoback, but I would say quite a few times. One of the underappreciated elements of the Trump administration's negotiation strategy is that Ambassador Lighthizer, who has been a real trade warrior for many years, knew that the opposition party controlling the House would hold the fate of this agreement in its hands. He absolutely did a lot to coordinate with the Speaker and also the members of the Ways and Means Committee.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That's where we get frustrated here. People are being told that we're stalling and delaying, which is far from the truth. In fact, I offered to bring a pre-study to it last spring. The Libs said no. We offered to come back in the summer if we needed to; there was no need to. When it was renegotiated, we asked for more information. We got a briefing. When we asked questions at the briefing, we didn't get a response until January. In fact, Wayne Easter and I were at a CABC meeting when you were here in Ottawa, and we both said we could do this as a committee of the whole and have it done in December before Christmas.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I do remember that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Of course, there was no appetite from the Liberal Party to do that.

This will pass, and I want to make sure that you understand that we are not going to vote against it. That being said—and you would understand this too—Trump got elected by the Rust Belt states that felt neglected, that weren't included or thought about after the last NAFTA agreement, and I don't want to make that same mistake. We've had some 200 submissions to appear in front of this committee, and we were proposing March 5 to have it out of committee, which would have been during the break week, which means it would have hit the House at exactly the same time it will right now. The Liberal Party said no, and I can see why, because as we start to go through it, we start to see the economic analysis that the C.D. Howe Institute did. It said it will be a $10-billion hit for Canada. If you compare it to TPP, if we had all signed on as Obama wanted us to, it would have been a $4-billion plus. So there's lots to absorb.

When you're looking at this $10-billion hit, there are a lot of groups and organizations and companies that are negatively impacted. I'm not going to vote against it and they understand that, but they at least want a mitigation plan. They want to understand what it means for them and how the government is going to help them, and that's all we're trying to do here. So we will get through this, and I hope we will be in clause-by-clause by Thursday and it will be back into the House and then hopefully the Senate. Now, I can't control the Senate. That's a different can of worms, and good luck there.

One of the things we talked about before was the de minimis and the changes to the de minimis, going from $20 to $40. I know you probably wanted it to be $800, but it's not there. Then there's the tax-free status to $150, but a lot of people don't understand that Canada Post, which is the biggest carrier here in Canada, is not included in that.

Do you have any thoughts on that and why Canada Post wouldn't have been included and only private couriers were included in that scenario?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

Mr. Hoback, I don't know what the puts and takes were with the various carriers. You are right to say that we thought very strongly that it would make sense to align the de minimis level among all three countries. Why was that? Quite simply, we didn't think it made sense to penalize Canadians who engage in e-commerce. When you think about all the remote communities and all the places in the vast country that is Canada, there just aren't retailers that have every single item that somebody might want on a given day. Our thought was that it didn't make sense to penalize Canadians for that, and actually the government loses money when it does that.

As for your particular question about why some carriers were included and not others, I don't know. I think you'd have to ask the negotiators themselves.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay. So you have no insight on that, then.

I'll go to the composers, SOCAN. You were talking about the changes to copyright, and you mentioned an amendment. Both you and the Music Publishers are saying we should try to amend it. Now that's not an option, from what I understand. We can't amend it. We don't have that choice, but we can make a mental note to lay down some talks and discussions moving forward. Maybe even in implementation we can look at doing that. Maybe it's just Canadian legislation that needs to change. So maybe this should go back to the industry committee and go that route.

Is that fair to say?

[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.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You've heard it for 30 years.

[Gilles Daigle]

And throughout the early 2000s, how many times were we told that, as part of this now ongoing copyright revision process, they'd extend the term? The final output of that came in 2012, with major changes to the Copyright Act. Term extension was left out.