Debates of Jan. 30th, 2020

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my friend across the way is attempting to rewrite history. I want to give the former Harper government some credit as it did begin negotiations on a number of agreements. That is a good thing and I recognize that.

We did sign off on the Ukraine trade deal, but we did not have to modify it.

To assume credit for the European Union or the TPP is really stretching it. However, we do not mind sharing some of the glory that both the Conservative and Liberal governments have recognized the true value of trade in the world, particularly trade with the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. is our single greatest trading partner, which emphasizes just how important this agreement is.

I listened to many Conservatives speak, and if I were in opposition, I would probably be saying that we could do better. However, if we look at the agreement itself, from my perspective, it is a good deal. We have provinces of all political stripes recognizing the value of it and wanting to see it passed.

Would my friend not agree that this is a good deal?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that there are only five minutes of questions and comments, and to please put their questions through the Speaker right away so that we can get to other questions and comments from those who also want to participate.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will not rewrite history. It is true that the member's party almost jeopardized both the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

My colleague said that if he were in opposition he would probably be saying that improvements could be made. However, my response to him is that I am in opposition and we certainly would not have done any worse than the Liberals did.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that great speech.

I am pleased to see that the Conservatives recognize the importance of protecting aluminum. That makes me very happy, and I thank them for that. All parties need to work together.

In fact, we invited the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to join us when we all got going on this in December. He agreed to join us then and got to meet with Ms. Néron and the other participants. We were the ones who invited them, organized their press conference, and let them meet here in the House of Commons. We invited the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to that too, but he did not come, unfortunately.

My question for my hon. colleague is this: Are there partisan reasons why the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is no longer interested in joining us? If not, can we count on him to help us protect our workers?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, not only can Quebeckers and the people of Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean and Chicoutimi count on the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to stand up for them, but they can also count on him to play a leadership role with the co-operation of the Bloc Québécois, of course.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is a strong supporter of the aluminum industry. He has been talking about this from the beginning. I would only urge my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean to ask the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord the question directly, rather than asking me.

The only answer I can give him is that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is a strong supporter of aluminum and that we can be proud of his work.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am the representative for North Island—Powell River, and we have multiple dairy farms in our communities. One of the challenges for small, rural, remote communities is when industries are attacked through trade agreements, and we see a huge decline of resources to those communities. One of the things I love about supply management is that it protects these family-owned businesses and it protects those communities.

I would like to hear the member's opinion on supply management and how much more our dairy farmers can take with trade agreements like this one.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government should not touch supply management in any upcoming free trade agreements. No new concessions should be made. That is the reality. Supply management protects all the small farms in my riding. I am obviously a proud supporter of supply management.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I recognize the next speaker, I want to advise members that we are now at the time when we are transferring over to 10-minute speeches as opposed to 20-minute speeches. Unfortunately, at some point I will have to interrupt the member because we are going to run out of time. He will be able to continue his speech tomorrow if this matter is before the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today for my first speech and to speak to the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. Some people call it CUSMA. In my home riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, we simply call it the new NAFTA. Either way, this trade agreement spells certainty and job security for the 40,000 manufacturing workers and 8,000 agriculture workers in our region, whose companies rely on open and reliable access to the U.S. market.

Two billion dollars in trade crosses the U.S.-Canada border each day, and one-quarter of that trade crosses the Windsor-Detroit border. More than just market access, the new NAFTA means every car made in North America will have 25% more local content. That means more production, more jobs and greater prosperity for our region.

Members should not just take my word for it; the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association said that the new NAFTA is “the single biggest boost to the fortunes of the Canadian auto supply sector in our history.” That is why I urge my colleagues in the House to move swiftly and resolutely on ratifying this important trade deal.

I also want to talk about another key aspect of the new NAFTA that would help tilt the playing field even further in favour of Canadian workers like those in Windsor—Tecumseh, and that is the new labour chapter.

Through the new labour chapter, the agreement seeks to improve working conditions and living standards across North America and to protect and enhance basic workers' rights. Trade and labour protections are mutually supportive, and Canada strives to demonstrate internationally that a competitive economy includes safe, healthy and co-operative workplaces. The labour chapter in this new agreement aims to raise and improve labour standards and working conditions in all three countries by building on international labour principles and rights.

The original NAFTA includes a side agreement on labour called the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. This new labour chapter is a significant improvement over the original side agreement and is fully incorporated into the new NAFTA. The new labour chapter includes commitments to protect and promote internationally recognized labour principles and rights, including the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Most importantly, these commitments are all subject to dispute settlement.

The chapter also includes commitments to ensure that national laws and policies provide protection of the fundamental principles and rights at work, including the right to freedom of association and to collective bargaining. The chapter also includes a non-derogation clause that prevents parties from deviating from their domestic labour laws in order to encourage trade or investment.

Importantly, the new labour chapter has a number of key provisions that support the advancement of fair and inclusive trade. For instance, it includes enforceable obligations to address issues related to migrant workers, forced or compulsory labour, and violence against union members. To address labour rights violations in Mexico, it also includes an annex with specific requirements on worker representation in collective bargaining.

I mentioned the issue of forced or compulsory labour, an odious practice that still exists in many countries. The Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is the very first agreement to include an obligation that would commit Canada as well as the United States and Mexico to prohibit the importation of goods produced by forced labour. This is a milestone provision that could have an important impact on workers around the globe.

Let me give some context.

The ILO estimates that in 2016, approximately 25 million people worldwide were subjected to forced labour, and a disproportionate number were women and young girls. For this reason, our government has committed to addressing forced labour within the labour chapter of the agreement.

While these inclusive trade provisions would largely help workers outside of Canada, the modernized agreement would also help workers here at home. “How, exactly?” one may ask. North American free trade has been an enormous benefit to Canadian businesses, workers and the overall economy. It means more good-quality jobs here at home and more affordable goods and services. The agreement would ensure that trade does not come at the expense of workers' labour rights.

Ultimately, trade is about people. It is about creating the best possible conditions for growth, for jobs and for the prosperity of individuals and working families in their communities.

Let me give an example of how the CUSMA would protect Canadian interests and help to curb the outflow of jobs.

The rules of origin chapter addresses automotive manufacturing wages in North America by including a labour value content requirement. Basically, this means that 40% of the value of a vehicle must be from a plant where the workers earn an average of $16 U.S. per hour or more in order for the vehicle to be considered as originating from a CUSMA country.

This provision, together with the labour chapter provisions on collective bargaining rights, may create upward pressures on wages in Mexico and help to level the playing field for Canadian workers and businesses.

It is important to note that the labour chapter is subject to the dispute settlement chapter in cases of non-compliance to ensure that all obligations are respected. The agreement provides an opportunity for governments to take the necessary actions and measures if prior attempts to resolve the matter through consultations prove ineffective.

The labour chapter allows for complaints from members of the public, including businesses and unions, in cases of non-compliance.

When Canada, the United States and Mexico agreed to further strengthen the labour chapter of the agreement on December 10, 2019, Canada established a new bilateral rapid response mechanism with Mexico that allows Canada to request an investigation into certain labour rights violations by an independent panel of labour experts. This mechanism will ultimately hold covered facilities accountable for the commitments on workers' rights.

The labour chapter is a significant improvement on the original NAFTA side agreement on labour. This robust and comprehensive chapter will bolster existing protections for workers. Workers at home and around the world will benefit from the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement and enjoy better labour standards for years to come.

Let us get this deal ratified.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have three minutes and 20 seconds the next time this matter is before the House should he choose to finish his speech and take questions and comments.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

International Trade

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to raise an issue of great concern to me.

Yesterday in the House, a majority of parliamentarians adopted a motion calling on the Auditor General to conduct an investigation into the $186.7-billion investing in Canada plan presented by the Liberal government in 2016. This plan was slammed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer many times for its lack of information for Canadians and for the government's inability to keep track of the millions and billions of dollars in investments it promised to make in various projects.

To us, this is absolutely important. Members will recall that, when the Liberal government was first elected in 2015, it promised to invest in infrastructure to get Canadians back to work and to grow the economy and our GDP. Unfortunately, that did not happen and these investments in infrastructure were being made with borrowed money.

In 2015, they announced small deficits of $10 billion, $10 billion, $6 billion, a little less than $3 billion, and then a return to a balanced budget. Today, we are at $26 billion in deficit spending for this year alone.

What is more, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says there is no infrastructure plan. How can anyone tell if a plan is good when there is no plan? That is why we asked the Auditor General to do this analysis and look into the plan.

Last year, the Auditor General announced that he did not have enough money to handle all the necessary audits and oversight. We are concerned that the Auditor General might not have all the resources he needs to carry out this new mandate from the House of Commons. That is why we are asking the government for assurances that he will get the resources he needs. The Auditor General says he is several million dollars short of being able to complete all of his performance audits.

We want the government to make the money available. Maybe the government could get some of the money from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The government pledged tens of millions of dollars to the bank so it would look good on the world stage. The government is still sending tens of millions of dollars to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank even though China has closed its borders to canola, pork and beef imports from Canada.

Here in Canada, the Auditor General is complaining that he does not have enough money to provide oversight for all government activities. Given that Canada does not have good relations with China, we believe that it is perfectly reasonable to take the money that is supposed to be invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and give it to the Auditor General so that he can investigate how infrastructure money is spent and invested right here in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member was quote focused on the Auditor General and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. My colleague and I thought maybe it would be more appropriate if I attempted to provide an answer, because it was not necessarily about canola.

Having said that, there is a difference on this side of the House, with the new government, since 2015. There is a much deeper respect for those independent parliamentary offices, such as the Auditor General of Canada. We all know that there is a process in which the Auditor General goes before standing committees and comes before Parliament in different ways, putting in requests and also making suggestions. Reports come out. There is a great deal of discussion and ongoing debate.

Even when I was an MLA, I always respected the independence of the auditor, whether at the national level or at the provincial level. They do a lot of fine work. I am sure that even with the resources they have today, they are able to meet their requirements.

I suspect if members were to check with any of our independent offices of the Parliament of Canada, or even those independent offices at the provincial level, they would find there is always a need for additional resources. I am sure if more money was offered, something that Stephen Harper never did to the best of my knowledge, it would at least facilitate some discussion.

With regard to infrastructure, I have noticed that many of the Conservatives like to talk about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. However, I can recall one of the incidents in the past where it actually invested in flood proofing for the Philippines. I believe that saved a great deal of material and provided financial help for a country that was really in need of some flood proofing.

To try to say that the Asian Development Bank is nothing but a disaster does it a disservice. At the end of the day, it was a wise investment from the Government of Canada.

There are many different ways we can provide assistance. Every year, whether it was a Conservative government of the past or the current government, we spend money internationally to support communities. We have done that. It is part of our obligations. All western countries, including the U.S., European countries and Australia, contribute to the bigger picture and try to make the world a better place to live. I suspect that, at least indirectly if not directly, the commitment to the Asian Development Bank assists in doing that.

The member made a brief comment on canola, and I can tell him that the government has long been a very strong advocate for our canola farmers on the prairies. In fact, shortly after getting into government, we had an issue with canola in Russia. We were able to resolve that. We continuously look at other potential markets around the world where canola trade could be expanded upon.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was only once the current government became a minority government that it agreed to talk about canola in a special committee on Canada-China relations. The Liberal government is going to send $256 million of taxpayers' money to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Auditor General is asking for much less than that to be able to do his job and audit the government.

The Auditor General needs more money because the current government is spending like no other government in Canadian history. This Prime Minister is the highest-spending prime minister in Canadian history. It makes sense that the Auditor General needs more money to sort through all of the spending and programs. Infrastructure Canada's funding programs include more than 50 programs and involve 32 departments.

If we want the Auditor General to do his job, we need to give him the means to do so. Since we are at odds with China, on canola in particular, I think we should use the money that we were to send to the Canada Infrastructure Bank to adequately fund the Auditor General of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my friend makes reference to the record amounts of money the government spends. I am sure he would also acknowledge that every year, as the country continues to grow and there is more prosperity, albeit more under Liberal regimes than Conservative regimes, we are going to see increases in expenditures.

We need to respect the fact that we have an independent office. It is a parliamentary office. There are opportunities for the type of dialogue that the member is suggesting we have. I would really encourage the member to get involved with committees, such as the procedure and House affairs committee, or maybe raising, through his House leader, the issue at the Board of Internal Economy. There are other ways to talk about it, but I do not think we need to politicize the Office of the Auditor General.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:41 p.m.)