Debates of Jan. 30th, 2020

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Ivison of the National Post said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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