Debates of Jan. 30th, 2020

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us hope that improves. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord will see to it and will pressure the government to make that happen.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on his speech.

I have to admit that I was a bit concerned yesterday. I was wondering whether he still supported the aluminum industry because, as everyone knows, a large group of protestors came here to the House of Commons yesterday. An MP from Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean was not here, and that was the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I would therefore like to know whether he still wants to be part of the group of people from Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean who want aluminum to gain the same status as steel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière.

I am very happy that we are working as a team for the same cause. Everyone knows that aluminum is extremely important to our ridings and our region of Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean.

My colleagues from Jonquière and Lac-Saint-Jean are new, and I am very happy that they were elected. However, they should realize that I was here first and that we have put in a lot of effort working with the government, with the minister's office, to find solutions that could help us and the industry. We put forward a number of proposals.

I am very pleased today to see that my colleagues are following my lead. Their maiden speeches sound much like ours, which really makes me happy. This team work is important.

I want to talk about our action plan. Our proposals to the government included an action plan and a timeline of less than a year to ensure that aluminum can be tracked across North America. We proposed that the United States and Mexico should implement the same strict controls on their imports as we do in Canada. My colleagues are with me on that one, which I am happy to hear. We also proposed that there should be more transparency regarding the $2 billion in assistance used—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Time is short. We have just enough time for a third question.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of North Island—Powell River there are multiple dairy farms. I have spent a lot of time on farms talking to farmers about their challenges. I know that one of the biggest losers in this trade agreement is supply management in the dairy sector.

Along with the concessions of CETA and the CPTPP, this latest hit means a 10% loss of market share for our Canadian producers.

Does the member's party support supply management? What concerns does he have for this industry that is so important to our communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, supply management is extremely important. It keeps our farmers in the market. However, we have to say that our farmers are currently very disappointed with the negotiations. They are extremely unhappy and disappointed. As I said, they believe that there are certain things in this agreement that are extremely vague. They had difficulty getting their compensation for the trans-Pacific partnership and are still wondering how this compensation will be paid out. There is no mechanism at present to provide them with any form of reassurance.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on a subject that I have been involved in, especially in my previous role as the shadow minister for international trade, and also as a passionate supporter of free trade.

I am well acquainted with the benefits of trade with the United States. I represent a southern Ontario riding that is very close to the border. We have many successful companies in Niagara West that do a significant amount of business not only with the United States but also throughout the world. I met personally with those business owners and operators, and their companies are world-class and full of potential. They provide communities with excellent jobs and economic development.

These business owners are asking for the certainty that free trade agreements provide. Free trade is essential to our country. One in five Canadian jobs is created as a result of free trade agreements. I also believe that members of the Conservative Party are the strongest supporters of free trade. We really are the party of free trade.

The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement were largely negotiated by Conservative governments.

Conservatives negotiated these deals to remove tariffs and quotas, and to eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade. Free trade agreements improve transparency, predictability, certainty and fairness to exporters. I believe all members in this chamber would agree that free trade agreements open markets for Canadian businesses, including small to medium-sized enterprises.

This is why it was so concerning when the United States announced that NAFTA would be renegotiated. The uncertainty had a ripple effect through virtually all Canadian industries that do business with American clients and purchasers. Why did the uncertainty cause so much anxiety in our business community? The short answer is that we are very dependent on one another.

Total merchandise trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled since 1993, and it has grown over ninefold between Canada and Mexico. In fact, 75% of total Canadian exports go to the United States and roughly 3% go to Mexico. All told, the total trilateral merchandise trade, the total of each country's imports from one another, has reached nearly $1.1 trillion U.S.

This is a tremendous amount of business that more than 1.9 million Canadian jobs depend on. The lack of certainty over the status of the renegotiation of NAFTA caused a reduction of business investment, which I think has been well documented, particularly in Canada. Some companies moved to the United States to offset potential losses while also directing their investments to the United States.

I saw the impact of this uncertainty when I did the “defend local jobs” tour from July to September 2018. During that time, I met with over 150 businesses, trade organizations and chambers. In Ontario, I attended round tables and meetings in London, Brantford, Kitchener, Welland, Niagara Falls, Beamsville, Orillia, Windsor and Toronto.

I went to Vancouver, where the BC Chamber of Commerce organized a round table with their members, as well as Kitimat, where I met with LNG Canada. In Alberta I met with business owners in Edmonton, Calgary and Leduc, where I saw first-hand the effects of the government's misguided policies and the anger that these policies were producing.

I did that tour to see first-hand the effects of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and to bring those concerns back to Parliament. I also brought back the personal accounts of business owners of how the uncertainty created by the renegotiation of NAFTA was impacting business operations. What I heard at the time was very worrisome. Stakeholders were asking for immediate support in order to prevent job losses or bankruptcy in the medium or even short term. They wanted to see improvements to Canada's business environment to reduce red tape and enhance our competitiveness. I will get back to Canada's competitiveness shortly, because I believe the government has failed terribly on competitiveness.

On the “defend local jobs” tour I learned that businesses at the time had begun to cut orders, reduce shifts and, in some cases, had even laid off workers. The key word was “uncertainty”. Businesses that had been investing in Canada saw the U.S. as a safer bet because they did not know what was going to happen here.

At the time, businesses impacted by the steel and aluminum tariffs had not yet seen any of the $2 billion in support promised by the government, which was extremely slow to roll out. The Liberals were quick to announce relief, but very slow to roll out any support for our businesses and workers.

Since then, this Liberal government has fumbled the NAFTA file several times. It agreed to many concessions in the renegotiations. Most importantly, I have to mention the concessions the Liberals made with respect to our dairy sector that are particularly damaging.

By the way, there is nothing on softwood lumber, as has been mentioned by other speakers, while the forestry workers are really hurting.

I want to be clear. The Conservatives support and want free trade with the United States. It is no secret that NAFTA is the legacy of the Conservative government, but we must carefully look at the legislation first. Rushing it through would not be wise. After all, when it comes to a trade deal with Canada's largest and most important trade partner, we need to do our due diligence.

I say this because the Liberal government failed to work with us during the negotiation and ratification processes and is now rushing to get this legislation through Parliament, which is not giving us much time to do our homework on it. The government has also failed to provide documents outlining the impacts of the new trade deal despite numerous requests from opposition members. The government does not seem to recognize the realities of the new minority government and is mistaken if it believes we will simply rubber-stamp this deal.

I want to reiterate that doing our due diligence is crucial. We want to ensure there are no surprises that could hurt our businesses and our workers. Hurting businesses and workers has been something the current government knows something about, especially when it comes to competitiveness. According to the World Economic Forum, Canada is now number 14 when it comes to competitiveness. We are behind Singapore, the United States, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, Sweden, the U.K., Denmark, Finland, China and South Korea. This is worrisome news.

The government has put legislation forward for the updated NAFTA, but is keeping Canadian businesses handcuffed with red tape, excessive regulations and high taxes. Just look at what it has done in the west. It has been an absolute travesty. Workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan cannot find jobs for months and some for years because the Liberals have drowned the resource sector in over-regulation, overtaxation and ridiculous amounts of red tape.

Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are the most famous examples of anti-energy legislation passed by the Liberal government. These two bills have done tremendous damage to the economies of our western neighbours. We need the government to finally do something about this. Yes, we need a free trade agreement with the U.S. We absolutely need it. However, if the government continues to stifle the growth of our business sector, including our world-class energy sector, how effective will this trade agreement be when Canadian businesses stall, fail or move south of the border, either to the U.S. or Mexico, because of the government's flawed domestic economic policies? The ill-conceived policies it is putting forward are just recipes for more wasteful spending, more sky-high taxes and more reckless borrowing, all while we are seeing worrying economic signs on the horizon.

The possibility of a made-in-Canada recession is becoming more real. If the government does not believe me, then perhaps it would like to listen to the Wall Street Journal, which stated:

Canadian exports and imports fell steeply in November of 2019, offering fresh evidence the country's economy has hit a rough patch.... The broad-based decline in trade from October [2019] is the latest in a string of disappointing economic indicators, among them a sizable loss of jobs in November and a decline in gross domestic product in October.... Some analysts...indicated the data were symptomatic of a stumbling economy.

What does the government do instead of lowering taxes to stimulate growth and job creation? It is thinking about hiking taxes again. It is looking at the carbon tax hike. It is almost as if it has spent the last four years making life harder and more unaffordable for Canadians.

Canadians should not be punished every time they drive their kids to school or turn up their thermostat on a cold winter day. In my riding of Niagara West, public transportation is almost non-existent. My constituents need to drive to work, drop off and pick up their kids from school, and drive them to hockey practice and all kinds of other activities.

We were very honest with Canadians in the last election. We warned them that the Liberals would raise the carbon tax. The Liberals denied it, but here we are today. They are thinking of raising it and probably will very shortly. This is not good for Canadian families, businesses or our global competitiveness. If they intend to raise the carbon tax, they will finally come clean with Canadians and tell them exactly by how much.

In order to hit our Paris targets they would need to raise it by an additional $50 per tonne. This would increase the price of gasoline by 23¢ a litre. Let us think of what the extra costs would do to job creators, never mind the families with children who have no other option but to drive around. Virtually everything is delivered to our favourite store by truck. The cost on gas will either be absorbed by businesses in order to keep their clients, which may bankrupt some businesses, or it will be passed on to the consumer and increase the price of everything.

In closing, I would like to say that we will carefully look at this legislation. We all owe it to our constituents to do our due diligence and ensure that Canadian workers and job creators will stand to benefit from this new NAFTA.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend on his speech, which did not seem to have too much to do with the subject at hand, but was kind of a litany of every sin known to mankind. I was just wondering which of these following statements he disagrees with.

The Business Council of Canada stated, “We applaud your government’s success in negotiating a comprehensive and high-standard agreement on North American trade.”

Premier Moe of Saskatchewan said that the signed USMCA trade deal is good news for Saskatchewan and Canada.

Premier Kenney tweeted, “Relieved that a renewed North American Trade Agreement has been concluded.”

Possibly I should not mention the Canadian Labour Congress' congratulatory statement. The steel producers, the CSPA, are urging all members of the House of Commons and the Senate to support this bill and swiftly ratify it.

Which of those statements does he disagree with?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will be supporting this. I guess the challenge I have is what I talked about in terms of competitiveness. I think that this is definitely not as good a deal as we could have had. I think everyone admits that we had to take what the U.S. offered to us. They also talk about the fact that Mexico was negotiating with the U.S. while we were not at the table.

I realize the importance of certainty. There is no question about that. We need to have certainty and that is what business organizations have told us. Even if it is a bad deal, we need to make sure that we have the opportunity to solidify what the rules are going to be because it is too unpredictable. When we look at a country like Canada, which takes investments in to make sure that we compete around the world, this certainty is definitely required in order for us to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to one of my questions, the Prime Minister said that 70% of aluminum was protected under the new agreement, known as CUSMA. Everyone knows that this is not the case. That statement is incorrect. The 70% refers to parts made from aluminum. This means that parts manufacturers can bring in the world's dirtiest aluminum from other countries at a lower price. For the past two months, I have been struggling to get him to see the difference between the protections for steel and the ones for aluminum.

Does my hon. colleague think that the Liberals are acting in bad faith by giving these kinds of answers, or does he think that they simply do not understand the agreement?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to what I originally said. We have been a taker in this agreement. This is what has been dictated to us, so to go around and say that this is a great deal is factually incorrect.

Is it the best deal we could get? I do not know. I guess time will tell.

However, I can assure colleagues of one thing that speaks to the issue I have been talking about, which is competitiveness as a nation. Regardless of the trade deals that we have, if we cannot be competitive at home, which means getting our most economically and environmentally sustainable aluminum to the rest of the world, then we are competing at an unfair disadvantage. These are the things that we need to continue to work on to be competitive at home, so that we do well here at home and around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of North Island—Powell River, one of the biggest concerns folks had around NAFTA was the investor-state provisions that really left Canada in a very weakened space. We were sued again and again by investors.

When we look at these, we see they were negotiated by a Conservative government. It is hard for me to be complimentary. Actually, those who I should be most complimentary to, of course, would be the Democrats in the United States. The reality is that in this agreement the investor-state provisions are not there.

I am wondering if the hon. member could share his thoughts with us on that.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I think one of the things that we need to continually focus on here in Canada is competitiveness. That includes a whole range of issues, as I have said.

Part of the challenge we have is that we compete in a global economy. If we are paying more for energy, if we are not mobilizing and getting the most out of our workforce, if we are not treating people, in terms of education and being able to get the jobs that they need to do, then all of these things factor into our competitiveness. Taxes play into that, as well as trade deals, and all of those other kinds of things.

I would just say that we still need to continue, even with deals like this, to work on our competitiveness domestically so that we compete globally and around the world.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, International Trade.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

As this is the first time I am rising in the House in the 43rd Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to thank the wonderful constituents of Long Range Mountains for re-electing me and returning me to this place to work on their behalf. The support from each and every community, of which I have well over 200, is greatly appreciated. To my many volunteers, friends, and most of all my family, my heartfelt thanks.

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker and all of my colleagues in the House, on being elected. Working together, we can accomplish so much for this magnificent country we are blessed to call home.

I am pleased today to speak about the new Canada-United States-Mexico agreement and highlight its benefits for Canada's agriculture and agri-food industries.

In my riding of Long Range Mountains, along the western coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, one will find dairy and beef cattle farms and sheep and goat farms of all sizes. All of these are found in the rural parts of my riding and they are a mixture of small family-run businesses and large enterprises.

One will find as well innovative produce and grain growers, many using hydroponic techniques and environmentally friendly practices. Of course the fishery is a traditional and vital part of my riding and my province, and both the fishers and the fish processors are excited about this new trade deal and the benefit it will have in my riding and the country.

Our farmers and food processors not only put food on our tables, they drive our economy. They contributed over $68.6 billion to our gross domestic food product in 2018 and $61.6 billion in agricultural exports. They contributed over $13.4 billion to our trade balance and they supported over 550,000 jobs in agriculture and agri-food in 2018 alone. The majority of those jobs are in rural Canada.

The government's ambitious agenda for agriculture includes a strong focus on trade. Canada has always been a trading nation, and our farmers depend on trade. They export about half of the value of their production. Canadian canola and soybean growers depend on trade for 80% of their sales. Wheat growers export 70% of their product and pork producers 67%. That is why we can and must engage in international trade, and that is why our government has big plans for agricultural trade.

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

To help us get there, over the last five years the government has concluded and implemented two major trade deals: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, CETA, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP. Together these gold standard agreements have opened new markets for our farmers and food processors. These agreements are part of our government's strong strategy to strengthen and diversify our trade.

CETA has been provisionally applied since September 2017. Canadian farmers and food processors are already taking advantage of access to the world's single largest market for food.

A second major milestone in trade was the one-year anniversary of the CPTPP on December 30, 2019. The CPTPP strengthens and diversifies Canada's trade and investment position with some of the world's fastest-growing economies. A wide range of Canadian agriculture and agri-food products are already benefiting from reduced tariffs, from pork to beef, blueberries to icewine, canola to pulses, and lobster to salmon.

Our government pushed hard for Canada to be among the first six nations to ratify this landmark agreement. That means Canadian farmers will be among the first to benefit from new sales in the CPTPP countries. For example, our wheat growers are now able to take advantage of Japan's Canada-specific quota for food wheat.

While it is still too early to measure the full impact of the CPTPP, early signs of success are evident. For example, Canadian exports of pork to Japan increased by 10.8% and exports of beef grew by 68% during the first 11 months of the CPTPP alone. That is an incredible increase.

While diversifying our agricultural trade, we are also securing our business with our largest trading partner through the new NAFTA. The North American trading zone is vital for our farmers and our food processors.

Under the 25 years of NAFTA, our nominal GDP has tripled. Meanwhile, agricultural and food trade in the North American region has risen to a value of $100 billion U.S. That is just about $275 million each and every day.

The new NAFTA means stability and security for our farmers and food processors when they are trading with their largest customer, and it means a strong foundation for growth in the future and growth in rural Canada. With this new agreement, we have maintained the tariff-free access to the U.S. market for Canadian exports that we enjoyed under NAFTA.

For our farmers and food processors, the new agreement will help secure $30 billion in agricultural exports to the United States alone. The new NAFTA will modernize, stabilize and re-energize our continental trading partnership, and it will drive even further integration of our North American supply chains.

Under the new agreement, access for Canadian refined sugar into the U.S. market will almost double. That is great news for our sugar industry, especially our sugar beet producers, who are looking to expand access for their high-quality sugar, which is 100% Canadian-grown and processed.

For our world-class wines and spirits industry, the new NAFTA provides for protection of Canadian whisky as a distinct product of Canada. It also protects the definition and traditional production method of authentic icewines. As well, Canadian wineries and distilleries retain the authority to sell only their own products on site.

Our new NAFTA is forward-looking. It will ensure our farmers have access to current technologies and will also benefit from future innovations in biotechnology. The agreement will encourage both innovation and trade in North America by mandating practical and trade-friendly approaches to getting safe agricultural biotech products to market.

There is a requirement for more transparent regulations for current and future agricultural biotech products, so everyone knows what requires approval and how to obtain that approval. As well, there is a provision to drive greater co-operation on agricultural biotechnology on the global stage, as North America will lead by example.

The new NAFTA will set the stage for further growth and help our agri-food industry keep a step ahead of the competition as we get ready to feed the world.

Throughout the negotiations, our government worked extremely hard to advance the interests of Canadian farmers and food businesses. We know that they are key economic drivers for this country. We know they create well-paying jobs, particularly in our rural communities. Over two million jobs in Canada depend on trade with the United States.

The agreement provides increased market access for the U.S. into Canada for dairy, poultry and eggs, but most importantly, maintains the three pillars of the supply management system: production controls, price controls and import controls. It is important to remember that the U.S. administration was calling for the abolition of this, but we know how important supply management is to our agriculture industry. Our government has pledged to fully and fairly support our dairy, poultry and egg producers.

Furthermore, successful trade depends on successful trade routes. That is why our government invested $10 billion in trade and transportation corridors to help get agri-food products to market. We enacted the Transportation Modernization Act. This legislation is delivering a more transparent, fair and efficient freight system that includes a number of new tools to support the grain industry. It is a long-term solution to help farmers get their products to market in a safe and timely manner.

Our government has strong and ambitious growth plans for our agriculture and food industry. Together, we will give our farmers and food processors a competitive edge in two-thirds of the global economy, and the future is bright.

I am confident hon. members will join me to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech, which was lovely. I congratulate her on her election and her appointment.

I have been trying to get an answer all week, so I will try to ask a very simple question in hopes of getting a very simple answer. Thus far, the Liberals have been telling me that they thought steel and aluminum had the same protections when the agreement was signed.

Does my hon. colleague on the other side of the House think that steel and aluminum were given the same treatment when this agreement was signed?