House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was deal.
The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak to the trade agreement now before the House. I have had opportunities in the last few days to stand in the House, but this is my first speech.
I would like thank all the people in my riding who helped me in being elected to serve in the House for a second term. When we have an election, it is amazing how many people come forward to volunteer, and they do so much significant work in the community.
I also want to thank my family members who supported my being here today, especially my sister Mary. Even thought she has three small children to care for, she flew in to spend the last few days of the election with me. It meant a lot to have her there.
However, I also want to acknowledge all the volunteers for every party. At the end of the day, democracy is fundamental to our country. It is important to acknowledge all the people who volunteered and spent time working very hard for their candidates.
I have some concerns about this agreement and I am torn on this issue. I recognize the importance of trade to our country and to its economic success. We live in a global economy, but I have a lot of concerns about how that works.
The U.S. is is Canada's most significant trading partner. It is our friend and our neighbour. We have some political challenges with the U.S. at certain times, but there is a lot of back and forth between our two countries. Therefore, trying to find ways to work with the Americans is important.
However, at the end of the day, trade needs to focus on fairness. We need to have trade that assures all Canadians are respected throughout the process.
I live in a rural and remote community. North Island—Powell River is just under 60,000 square kilometres. There are several ferries. It is both on Vancouver Island and on the Mainland. One of the things that worries me in our trade process, and I will talk about the transparency of that process, is we often forget some of our rural and remote communities and the challenges they face when we do not think about trade through that lens.
My riding has several dairy farms. When we look at what has been happening with the past several trade agreements, supply management is struggling. From my perspective, supply management is really under attack. I understand that there are challenges when we trade, but supply management is so important. It assures all Canadians of a good product in which they can trust. I encourage people to check out a Canadian dairy farm. It is an amazing thing. It is a lot more healthy and wonderful than one thinks, and we can trust that product.
Protecting rural and remote communities is key. Supply management allows us to have robust farms that are small and local, that provide local jobs, not only on the farms but in the services they use, and that is important.
Viewfield Farms, Daldas Farms and Lloydshaven farm are in my riding. Those farms are a big part of our community. Not only do they employ people at their farms and create amazing products, they also access the services around them to care for their farms, their milk products and their cows.
When we look at the negotiations that have taken place on supply management, under CUSMA, CPTPP and CETA about 10% of the market share has been taken away from those sectors, which makes it harder for those farms. I hope we do not want more focus on centralization. That takes away from those small rural and remote communities and starts to build in larger centres. Therefore, this is important.
The other thing that worries me is that this trade agreement contains a provision that would grant the U.S. oversight into the administration of the Canadian dairy system. It undermines Canada's sovereignty and our ability to manage our product. When we look at the product produced in the U.S., we need to be concerned about it. We know that the American dairy sector uses bovine growth hormone, which increases milk production up to 25%. There are no studies on what that does to people when they consume these products.
We know it is really bad for the cows. They suffer from more stress and there is a higher incidence of udder infections, swollen legs and premature death. It should be very concerning when that product is coming across our borders. Canadians need to know what the product is. As I said earlier, those who go to Canadian farms will feel good about eating dairy products. Farmers take care of their cows.
Another important area for me, especially in this day and age, is environmental protections and addressing issues like climate change. When there are trade discussions, Canada has an important opportunity to reflect on how it is doing with respect to its climate change actions, on which we need to do a lot better. However, it is also an opportunity to negotiate with other countries to increase their accountability. I want to see more trade agreements where provisions around the environment and climate change are binding and fully enforceable. We do not see that in this agreement.
The provisions should also focus on and be in line with Canada's international obligations. When we look at the Paris agreement, we do not see that reflected. When I look at this trade agreement, it really does not help us move forward and toward those important environmental climate change targets.
I have another frustration. I remember being in this place in the spring of last year, talking about ratifying this agreement. Again and again, the NDP asked why the government was rushing this, that we needed to ensure the U.S. Democrats in Congress had an opportunity to do their work on this deal, that they would make it a better deal, and that happened. However, we kept hearing that it was the best deal we could get. Then the government would go back to the table and come back again, saying it was a better deal.
It is important for the government understand it has an obligation to get the best deal it can, to take every action it can to ensure Canadian workers are cared for, that we are respectful of workers in other countries, that we look at how it will impact our businesses and economy, what it looks like in urban settings and in rural and remote settings. I am glad the work was done, but it is frustrating to keep having this conversation.
I am very pleased that chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement of NAFTA, is finally gone. When we look at the history of the country, Canada was sued repeatedly and this mechanism kept us in a vulnerable position. I am glad it is gone.
However, I am also concerned about some of the language I see in the agreement that leads me to believe some of those things are entwined in the language. We will have to watch that carefully, and we should be concerned about it.
At the end of the day, though, one of my biggest frustrations on all trade agreements is the lack of transparency of the negotiation process. It needs to be addressed and I hope that is fixed soon.
Canadians across the country need to understand what we are negotiating and why. As I said earlier, I represent three dairy farms in my riding and one thing they wanted to know how much supply management quota we were giving away. They were frustrated by the lack of communication and clarity around this very important issue.
We have a huge country with a lot of diverse economies. We also have a lot of rural and remote communities, like mine, that are struggling as we adjust to this changing world and changing economy. We need to ensure that trade recognizes this and looks at how we can work collaboratively to ensure those folks are not left behind in these discussions.
I call on the government to understand that we need a more transparent process. I understand that when we are negotiating something, we do not want to lay all our cards on the table publicly. However, there still was not enough information that allowed different sectors in our communities across Canada to express their concerns and ensure that those voices were heard. Even in the states, Trump was very clear about his goals, so we need to hear the goals of government.
I look forward to having further discussions. I am excited for the bill go to committee, where we can study these issues more fully.
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, the member talked about the dairy industry.
First, why should poor families in Canada have to pay higher prices for dairy for their children?
Second, when we close our markets, how can we ask other countries to open their markets for agriculture exports?
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about the fact that the member does not seem to understand fulsomely what supply management is. He also does not seem to support it. It is not exactly what I thought I would hear from that side of the House.
I want to be really clear. In Canada, we have, through our supply management system, a really strong dairy sector that is reliable and strong. We know what we are getting in that product. The cost of our dairy is very reasonable. It is a great relationship between ensuring we have fair prices and providing stability and support for those businesses that are often held by families for generation after generation.
I am going to come back to the good, healthy product we have. We know what is in our dairy products, and that is really important.
I am a little concerned that side of the House, which says it supports supply management, seems to have a different opinion.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and I congratulate her on her election.
Seeing as we both come from ridings with major dairy businesses, I would like to hear her speak again about how CUSMA opens up a new breach in supply management. The agreement gives up more than 3% of our dairy market, which amounts to a loss of about $150 million a year, every year. Furthermore, the government announced that farmers would be fully compensated, but we still do not know what that compensation will look like.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, I apologize for not responding in the member's first language, French. I am working on it, but it is taking me a long time.
This is an important part of the reality for our dairy farmers across the country. I want to be really clear. I am not sure about the dairy farmers in her riding, but the dairy farmers in my riding have said that they will take the compensation if they have to. However, what they really want is just to do their job and to provide a good product, and not have their quota moved all the time.
That does raise a lot of concern. How is that compensation going to come back to those businesses? How is that going to roll out? Is it going to be continuous? How are we going to ensure that those dairy farmers have the opportunity to be strong and well-funded in their own right. This is a concern.
As I said earlier, in small, rural and remote communities, we need these dairy farms. They assure us of a good product. They do all the things in which I think Canadians really believe. We need to ensure we protect them. Compensation helps, but it is not the last solution. Hopefully we will see something from the government soon, because they deserve it.
Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, most of the premiers of the provinces welcome this agreement.
I would like to ask the member a question.
Can she deny that the signing of this agreement adds a level of certainty to our Canadian economy? Can she deny that the agreement commits to protecting our environment, air quality and marine pollution? Can she deny that the agreement recognizes the gender identity, sexual orientation and diverse genders of all persons here in Canada? Can she deny that under the new agreement, we will no longer have to pay customs at the border on Canadian dairy products, eggs and poultry?
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the member that I am actually in a seat on the opposition side. My job and my duty to all Canadians is to look at agreements and offer suggestions on how I feel we could do better based on the conversations I have in my riding.
That is the work I do, and I am really proud to do it. I would just encourage that member to look a little more closely, because the environmental commitments are nowhere near what he is suggesting.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, before I start my first speech in the House, I would like to thank my wife, Barbara, and my kids, Shauna, Carolyn, Christina, their partners, their kids, the whole team that helped to get me here including my campaign manager, Brent McArthur, and the voters of Guelph.
It is such an honour to rise in this place today in support of Bill C-4 regarding the implementation legislation for the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. This agreement encompasses Canada's most ambitious environment chapter to date and it is also complemented by the environmental co-operation agreement.
It is a priority for the Government of Canada to ensure that all of Canada's trade agreements not only advance our commercial interests, but also bring concrete benefits to all stakeholders. By including environmental provisions with our free trade agreements, we support Canadian businesses and ensure that trading partners do not gain an unfair trading advantage by not enforcing their environmental laws.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, which came into effect in 1994, was the first free trade agreement to link the environment and trade through a historic parallel agreement on environmental co-operation, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.
The parties committed at that time to maintain robust environmental provisions established on our tri-national institution for environmental co-operation, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
The Canada-United States-Mexico agreement integrates comprehensive and ambitious environmental provisions directly into an environment chapter within the agreement, which is subject to the chapter on dispute settlements.
The agreement also retains the core obligations on environmental governance found in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. This includes commitments to pursue high levels of environmental protection to effectively enforce environmental laws and to promote transparency, accountability and public participation. This reflects the importance that we place on ensuring that trade liberalization, environmental protection and conservation are mutually supportive.
The agreement also includes commitments that go beyond the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. This includes prohibiting a party from moving away from environmental law to attract trade or investment and ensuring that environmental impact assessment processes are in place for projects having potential adverse effects on the environment.
The new NAFTA creates substantive commitments and many of these are in line with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership on a wide range of global environmental issues, which shows the interconnection of our trade agreements within major markets within the globe.
These protections include illegal wildlife trade and illegal logging; fisheries management; protection of the marine environment and the ozone layer; sustainable forestry; and conservation of species at risk and biological diversity, which also include consultations with indigenous peoples. New commitments aiming to strengthen the relationship between trade and the environment include the promotion of trade in environmental goods and services, corporate social responsibility and the voluntary mechanisms to enhance environmental performance.
For the first time in a free trade agreement, the new NAFTA includes new articles on air quality and marine litter, as well as a binding commitment that prohibits the practice of shark finning. This is a first for Canada. It also recognizes the important role of indigenous peoples in the long-term conservation of the environment, sustainable fisheries and forestry management, and biodiversity conservation to make sure that their voices are also at the table as we move forward.
The agreement provides for an environmental consultation mechanism. Should parties fail to resolve an environmental matter arising under the agreement in a co-operative manner through various levels of consultation right up to the ministerial level, the complaining party may seek recourse through broader formal Canada-United States-Mexico agreement dispute settlement procedures. To help ensure compliance with the environmental obligations, trade sanctions may be imposed by an independent review panel.
While the core obligations on environmental governance apply only to federal legislation, commitments in other areas of the agreement, such as conservation and fisheries, apply to the federal government as well as to Canada's provinces and territories. Provinces and territories were consulted thoroughly throughout the negotiation process.
The agreement maintains and incorporates the submissions on the enforcement matters process established under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, which is a key mechanism to promote transparency and public participation on the enforcement of environmental laws in North America. Under this process, citizens of the three countries may file a submission alleging that one of the three parties is not enforcing its environmental laws. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation secretariat evaluates the submissions and requests from the implicated party to provide information and clarification regarding the enforcement of the environmental law at issue within its jurisdiction.
In December 2019, Canada, the United States and Mexico also agreed to update certain elements of CUSMA, including to strengthen environmental obligations under the agreement. This includes a commitment from parties to implement their respective obligations under specific multilateral environmental agreements, MEAs, that are ratified domestically, as well as the new provision to clarify the relationship between CUSMA and MEAs.
New language has also been added confirming that failure to comply with one's obligations in the environment chapter that affect trade or investment are now presumed to be “in a manner affecting trade or investment between the parties”, unless the defending party can demonstrate otherwise. The environmental provisions are written right into the law of the agreement.
In addition, Canada, the United States and Mexico have negotiated a parallel environmental co-operation agreement that ensures trilateral environmental co-operation continues, supported by ministerial-level dialogue and public engagement as we move forward to improve our targets under the co-op agreement and other international agreements.
The environmental co-operation agreement ensures that unique institutions for trilateral environmental co-operation are created under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and maintained and modernized going forward. This includes the continued operation of the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, including the secretariat, based in Montreal; a ministerial council, which will continue to meet on an annual basis; and a joint public advisory committee.
The environmental co-operation agreement allows the three countries to establish a work program in which they can develop co-operative activities on a broad range of issues related to strengthening environmental governance; reducing pollution and supporting strong low emissions and resilient economies; conserving and protecting biodiversity and habitats; supporting green growth and sustainable development; and promoting the sustainable management and use of natural resources.
In addition, through the joint public advisory committee, representatives from each country will continue to ensure active public participation and transparency in the actions of the commission. Membership of this committee will be from a diverse pool of candidates, including with respect to gender balance, and will include representatives from all segments of society, including non-governmental organizations, academia, the private sector, indigenous peoples, private citizens and youth.
The environmental co-operation agreement complements the ambitious environmental chapter of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. The environmental co-operation agreement will contribute to the maintenance of robust environmental governance and the modernization of the existing institutions for trilateral environmental co-operation.
The Government of Canada is committed to bringing Canadian goods and services to international markets while maintaining our high standards of environmental protection and conservation. We know it is possible, and we have a responsibility to do both. Under this agreement and the new parallel co-operation agreement, we will be moving forward together to ensure we are protecting our shared environment now and for future generations.
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was very excited about Canada's opportunity to work toward gender equality protections in the NAFTA negotiations because he mentioned that gender equality is an economic issue. Could the member opposite tell us what sort of big wins we received in regard to gender issues in the new NAFTA?
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome the new member for Cloverdale—Langley City to this place.
Gender equality and women's economic empowerment are key priorities of our government. The gender lens is used throughout all agreements we negotiate. There are new labour provisions within this agreement that require all parties to implement policies that protect against employment discrimination based on gender. Gender is also addressed in other chapters, including provisions related to corporate social responsibility and small and medium-sized enterprises.
We do not want to leave anyone behind in this agreement.
Terry Dowdall Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Madam Speaker, in Simcoe—Grey, one of the largest employers, not only in my riding but probably in Ontario, is a company called DECAST. The company seems to have problems in the Buy American stance. It cannot put any contracts in the United States at this time, but the United States is allowed to tender contracts here. It is really not fair. It is dropping its prices.
What is the member for Guelph doing for these industries and why did they not have the Buy American and address those issues? It is an extremely important issue in my riding and certainly across Canada.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, DECAST is an example of a business that will benefit from this new provision of having 70% of steel and aluminum included in the parts supply chain. Within the steel agreement, these products have to be cast in our trade region and not overseas.
When we move forward, companies like DECAST that have already benefited from our removal of the 232 provisions will benefit as we go forward to make sure that we use North American products in our North American manufacturing.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.
He talked about the environment, and he even answered the last question by mentioning the aluminum sector and saying that 70% of the materials used in parts, whether steel or aluminum, are now required to be from North America. However, he knows full well that that is not true.
The parts may come from Mexico, but Mexico does not have any smelters, so the aluminum will come from China. Since the member brought up the environment, it is worth noting that that aluminum will be nowhere near as green as the aluminum we produce here in Quebec.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, I think there is some confusion on this. I have heard that argument from the member's party across the way over the last few days.
There is a regional value content limit of 75% regional content, which means that 75 % of all content has to come from within the North American region in order to qualify under NAFTA provisions.
Aluminum is covered throughout the supply chain, including parts. The inclusion of North American supplies is under the regional content section. I encourage the member to look into that section.
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, New Flyer Industries in my riding is a lead producer in electric buses, but it also produces a lot of diesel buses for the United States.
We are losing jobs in Canada that are going to the U.S. because of the Buy American policy. I want to follow up with the member for Guelph as why Canada did not make any progress on getting exemptions from the Buy American policy.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, I am very excited to say that Guelph will be receiving 65 electric buses under a new agreement we have with the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
I hope to see the procurement process go through the evaluation between New Flyer and Nova Bus in Quebec. I am from Winnipeg originally, so I hope the process includes getting some of the 5,000 electric buses we are targeting for Canada to come from New Flyer in Winnipeg.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about this important agreement with our most important trading partners.
It has been 51 days since we, the official opposition, the Conservatives, who are very concerned and seized with the economic future of our country, requested the economic impact analysis for this agreement from the Liberals. While we wait, the Deputy Prime Minister has asked us to accelerate our approval for the ratification of this agreement through this place. We have continued to wait. Perhaps while I am speaking today, the Liberals will deliver that economic impact analysis to us. In the meantime, we can talk about some of the ways this deal has fallen short and why we think it is important for it to be studied before its passage.
As Conservatives, we understand the weight and importance it has for all Canadians and our trading partners. Ultimately the Conservatives, as the party of free trade, will support important free trade agreements like the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. However, that does not mean that it gets a rubber stamp, because we know that in all of our ridings, and truly in all 338 constituencies represented by members from all parties in the House, this deal falls short. That is not for a lack of trying on the part of the official opposition to give good advice to the government and give them opportunities to get this deal right.
In my riding of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I have heard concerns from a variety of sectors. I will highlight a few of them today.
Over the course of this debate, we have heard people talk about the deal's negative impact on dairy farmers. We know that these concessions, the capitulation on these items, are not only unnecessary but harmful and hurtful to these farmers. The uncertainty created by this deal is also hurting them. We know that these farmers are on the cutting edge of sustainability. They do it not because they have to, not because the government regulates them to do so, but because they, as stewards of our land and responsible providers of world-class food products like milk and cheese, want to do what is best for Canadians. They expect the government to do what is best for them.
The concessions on market access that were given and the elimination of milk classes 6 and 7, which were done in the absence of proper consultation with their sector by the government in negotiating this deal, has caused a lot of concern. We are concerned and skeptical as we wait for the details of the full impact of CUSMA, and we know that farmers are waiting to find out what the full impact will be.
We have also talked about aluminum. I want to talk about the impact that has on my community. The folks at Northern Cables have been very concerned about some of the policies that have been in place and how they have not been protected from the dumping of aluminum, sourced from China, in North America and its impact on their business.
Northern Cables is a local employer. It is a company owned by Canadians that produces a high-quality product. The company knows that its future is uncertain due to a lack of protection in this deal. It is great for industry associations to say that it is good for them, but I can tell members that Northern Cables, which is located in multiple communities across my riding, is concerned. The company knows that producers based in China are skirting the rules by soldering connectors onto long lengths of aluminum to get around the existing rules.
They know the provisions in this deal allow for that. North American-based aluminum means aluminum that has been melted down and then shipped again.
Transshipping of aluminum is going to hurt the industry, especially if it lands in Mexico and is sent across the continent to land in Canada. It is going to hurt producers and manufacturers. It is going to have a negative effect on jobs in places like Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and at locally owned and operated businesses like Northern Cables. That gives us concern.
We wonder what the impact will be. We worry about what the compensation will be, because the government has been silent on that. We do not know what is going to be done to compensate supply-managed sectors. We do not know how the government is going to protect the aluminum sector.
Our NDP colleagues do not seem to be sure whether they want the deal to pass or not. Our record shows that we are the party of free trade. I am not sure that the NDP has supported any but one free trade agreement in the history of our country, so that causes us concern.
When it comes to holding the government to account, this falls squarely on our shoulders. We need to make sure that all Canadians are heard, not just well-placed lobbyists speaking to people in the Prime Minister's Office. That is what we hope to have done in committee.
We need to look at important provisions in this deal, like how it would affect our sovereignty. This deal would allow the United States to have oversight of Canadian trade negotiations with other countries. That should concern all Canadians. It seems very much like an unforced error. It seems very much like the result of an unprepared team in achieving the deal that it has.
Other important Canadian sectors have been left unprotected. Our forestry sector is still looking for a resolution to softwood lumber concerns. With that dispute not addressed in this deal, is this truly free trade?
Here in Ontario in particular, the auto sector is important to the Canadian economy. It is an important employer. For a car to be seen as North American, only three-quarters of the car are considered, from the ground up. It is not really a North American car. When the requirement is only for 40% to 45% of auto content made by workers earning $16 an hour, this gives opportunity to countries with labour provisions that do not protect their workers. That is going to undercut our auto sector here in Canada.
The sunset clause in this deal requires a formal review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement every six years. The agreement will terminate in 16 years if the parties do not agree to it.
I call it the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement because that is its official name. However, we know, having heard praise from the American president for what the Canadian government was prepared to give up, and he said we gave up a lot, that this deal really is NAFTA 0.5.
Conservatives want a good deal for Canadians. Conservatives will support free trade. But Conservatives know that Canadians depend on us to find out where this deal falls short, and that is what we are going to do at committee. We will get those answers so we can help support those sectors when we form government as soon as Canadians call on us to do so.
It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this important deal today. Along with all members of the House, I look forward to giving it a thorough examination before its passage.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his research and for talking about various issues that concern his constituents.
This deal has taken a lot of effort. It was a difficult deal to get through to the U.S. So many positive things have been said about the deal by businesses, by Premier Legault of Quebec and by the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I wonder what it is. Is it just because the agreement was negotiated by the Liberals? It was done along with a whole team and with other prime ministers involved as well. Could the member tell us what is so wrong with this deal?
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, we have arrived at this deal and there are so many questions, but not as to why Conservatives might have concerns. I think I have laid those out. We know that there is a lot that we do not know. We know we have asked the government for 51 successive days for an economic impact analysis on this agreement.
It is hard to get behind a deal when we do not know what is in it. It is often said that the devil is in the details, and I have certainly listed some of those concerns. Therefore, I am asking the member to encourage her government, to encourage the Deputy Prime Minister, to provide the full assessment and analysis to the official opposition so that we can do the work that we were sent here to do.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, I would ask the member what he thinks of our process here in Canada compared with the United States.
When the United States is developing a new trade agreement, it goes before Congress to ask what the priorities should be and what should be negotiated. The same thing happens in the European Union. However, here in Canada it is all done in secret.
We do not know what the priorities are for the Canadian government until we see the agreement, until the agreement is signed. It just seems to be a terrible way for Canadians to get involved in something as important as a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico when we know nothing about it until it is already done.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, truly it is a flawed process. Not only were the opposition and Canadians not given an opportunity to give input and help the government set its priorities throughout the negotiations, but the deal has been signed and we still do not know what is in it. We are asked to accelerate its passage through this place, but we still do not even have the picture of it.
We did not have input, certainly not for a lack of trying, throughout the negotiation. However, now the deal has been signed and ratified by our trading partners, the other signatories. The Canadian government has signed it and is now asking the House to ratify the deal, but we do not know what its full impact is going to be. Therefore, it is truly a flawed process and one that should be discussed as we undertake the study of the deal.
Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders
January 31st, 2020 / 10:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Speaker, the issue of transshipping is one of grave concern to the aluminum sector, in particular. Aluminum can come in by way of ingots that are melted down and then deemed in Mexico to be North American content. I wonder if the member could expand on that concern.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, the member's point is very well taken.
It is very concerning. When aluminum sourced from China can be delivered to Mexico, melted down, re-formed and then shipped across the country, it hurts the Canadian aluminum industry and it hurts the producers who use it.
I have heard this concern from the good people at Northern Cables in my riding. We have heard it from our colleagues who have aluminum producers in their ridings. We are going to look for more information as we study the bill.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, or CUSMA. For over a year, Canada negotiated hard for a modernized free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. We knew how important it was to get a deal that was good for Canada, good for Canadian workers, good for Canadian businesses and good for communities across the country.
CUSMA, or the new NAFTA, is a significant milestone in our relationship with the United States and Mexico. The United States, as we all know, is our biggest trading partner. Two billion dollars' worth of goods and services are exchanged every day, totalling about $720 billion per year.
I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the team of negotiators, who worked so hard not only to ensure that Canadian jobs were protected but also to create more opportunities for Canadian workers and their families.
CUSMA, as the new NAFTA is known, has paid off. We have secured a great deal that protects all Canadian communities and benefits Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
What does this ratification mean to all Canadians and to my constituents of Don Valley East? CUSMA will reinforce the strong economic ties between the three countries and support well-paying middle-class jobs for Canadians. CUSMA will maintain the tariff-free market access from NAFTA, which includes the updated new chapters to address modern-day trade challenges and opportunities.
In this speech I will focus on some of the key outcomes of CUSMA as they impact Canadians and my constituents.
First is the environment. The environment has been and continues to be one of the biggest concerns to Canadians. In the last election, 95% of Canadians stated that the environment was their top priority. I am pleased to say that the agreement has a new enforceable environment chapter that replaces the separate side agreement.
What are some of the highlights of the environment chapter? It upholds air quality standards and fights marine pollution. It has an enforcement mechanism through the core obligations in the agreement. It establishes binding and enforceable dispute resolution processes to address any questions regarding compliance. It means robust environmental governance and a win for Canada.
How? Canadian businesses can remain competitive by ensuring that our trading partners do not gain an unfair trading advantage by not enforcing their environmental laws. When all parties play fair on the environment, we can continue to be competitive, grow and expand our economies and get good-paying jobs.
Second is the cultural exemption. Our cultural industry is a robust $53.8-billion industry. Our government, through CUSMA, has protected this industry. The industry represents 650,000 high-paying jobs. In my riding, there are many cultural organizations that are very pleased with the exemption the government has negotiated. This is one way of augmenting the middle class.
The new NAFTA, or CUSMA, preserves cultural exemptions and provides Canada the flexibility to adopt and maintain programs and policies that support the creation, distribution and development of Canadian artistic expressions or content, including the digital environment. That is why the negotiators of team Canada stood firm to protect the cultural exemption and our economic interests during the renegotiation of the new NAFTA.
As I mentioned, this is good for the cultural businesses in my riding of Don Valley East. For example, organizations like SOCAN can count on the stability and assurances the new trade agreement brings. It means they can defend our cultural sovereignty and see that financial benefits go to our talented Canadian artists and the economy.
Many of the creative industry organizations are small and medium-sized enterprises that depend on exporting large amounts of their production to the North American market. It is imperative for the House to implement CUSMA sooner rather than later so that our creative industries can gain from the financial benefits and protections offered through it.
A robust cultural sector enables the growth of innovative businesses that embrace the digital market and increase their cultural exports, which makes Canada stand out globally. To back this up, I will quote from an open letter from creative industry organizations published in The Hill Times on January 27, 2020:
We thank the government for signing the Canada-U.S.-Mexico (CUSMA) trade agreement last year. Under it, copyright in Canada will be strengthened by extending the term of protection by 20 years, to the life of the author plus 70 years.
Third is the auto industry. Canada's auto sector is one of the biggest winners from CUSMA. On November 30, 2019, Canada signed a side letter, which has already been entered into force to protect our auto industry and its high-paying jobs against a possible 232 tariffs on cars and car parts. The new rules of origin level the playing field for Canada's high-wage workers. I am pleased to say that Canada is the only G7 country with that protection. This is a good deal for Canada and Canadian workers.
Fourth is the SMEs. Small and medium-sized enterprises will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the new NAFTA agreement. SMEs are the backbone of the Canadian economy and employ more than 10 million Canadians, or 90% of the private-sector labour force. CUSMA includes a new chapter on SMEs designed to foster co-operation among the parties to increase trade and investment opportunities for them, ensuring information is available to the SMEs on the obligations and functioning of the agreement. This is good news for many SMEs in my riding of Don Valley East. Businesses like Conavi, Clear Blue Technologies, 7D Surgical and Volanté Systems will benefit from this trade agreement through continued access to the U.S. and Mexican markets.
The streamlined customs and origin procedures and greater transparency in government regulations make it easier for our small and medium-sized enterprises to do businesses in North America and grow and expand. The the Business Council of Canada has said:
We applaud your government's success in negotiating a comprehensive and high-standard Agreement on North American trade. [It] maintains our country's preferential access to the United States and Mexico—Canada's largest and third-largest trading partners respectively—while modernizing long-outdated elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In conclusion, CUSMA is good deal for Canada. Millions of Canadians depend on stable, reliable trade with our largest trading partners. We are moving forward with the new NAFTA right away to secure millions of jobs, create more opportunities for Canadian businesses and keep our economy strong.
I hope to see support from all of my colleagues in the House to ratify this important deal.