Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2020

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see the two main parties passing the buck back and forth and blaming each other for past failings in various deals over the years. What does all this really amount to? Concessions have been granted over the years, especially in supply management, and now in the aluminum sector. Virtually all the concessions made to reach a comprehensive agreement that is good for all of Canada have one thing in common: Quebec pays the price. It is unfortunate, but there is no other way to see it.

I would ask the House, the government and specifically my Conservative colleague whether they would be willing to put an end, once and for all, to these concessions that are undermining our agricultural system and supply management. We have already given up 18% of our market. The government has conceded not only on that but also on our capacity to export to countries that are not even parties to the agreement. This is unheard of, and it is just not right. I would like the political parties to make a clear commitment and tell us whether they will protect supply management, through legislation, to ensure that this never happens again.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, negotiations should never be on the backs of hard-working farmers. I do appreciate the fact that the member is speaking up for all Canadian farmers in the supply management field.

I will go back to the original TPP agreement, on which there were some concessions. Our Conservative government was very proactive and very committed in saying that there would be proper compensation for that.

We have the agreement with NAFTA, and my colleague is absolutely right in asking what the plan is moving forward. We have been asking the Liberals about this. I know my friends in the Bloc want to see the cost benefit analysis too, showing exactly how things will be affected and the industries that will be hurt by this. The Bloc members have brought up supply management, but there is also the aluminum sector. Again, with this agreement, we now have new rules for aluminum, which we did not have in the past.

I am in agreement. In committee, we will bring forward witnesses to ensure the government has a plan, so if somebody is negatively affected, a proactive approach can be taken to ensure certain compensation is available for that, like our Conservative government did. We have to let the government know that to dither any further is not appropriate.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House for the first time in 2020. On top of that, I do so as you preside over this august chamber. I am happy for you, and I thank you for giving me the floor.

I am very pleased to be here to present to the House of Commons an important result the government obtained for the cultural sector with the new NAFTA, also known as CUSMA.

Canada has managed to retain the general exemption for cultural industries, a key provision designed to preserve Canada's cultural sovereignty. This is an important aspect of the original NAFTA.

The general exemption for cultural industries fully preserves the latitude Canada has to adopt and maintain the programs and policies that support the creation and dissemination of Canadian artistic expression or content, including in the digital environment.

At the outset of the negotiations, our government made it clear that it wanted to preserve the cultural exemption and did not back down on that objective throughout the negotiation process, to get the result we have today. The cultural exemption is a matter of national interest that enjoys overwhelming support from Canada's cultural industries, and most certainly those of Quebec, all the provinces and territories, and several municipal and local governments.

Today I am very proud to say that Canada fought hard at the negotiating table to ultimately achieve our objectives in the cultural sector by retaining the cultural exemption.

Why is that so important? As countries' economies become increasingly integrated, different nations need a strong culture and national cultural expressions to preserve their sovereignty and their sense of identity.

Canada is proud of its cultural diversity. We are proud of our heritage, stories, culture and population. As a Quebecker, I can say that we have a very rich culture, a culture we export to just about every corner of the planet. That is also true for the entire country. We should be proud of this, and that is why the cultural exemption is essential. We must preserve the vitality of this important sector. I will speak a little later not only about Canada's fabric, but also about the very important economic benefits of culture.

We understand that culture is important at a number of levels. It helps build our societies, it strengthens social cohesion and pride, it supports economic prosperity, it is an integral part of who we are as Canadians and it enriches our lives.

Historically, culture has been treated differently in Canada's free trade agreements. Since the bilateral agreement we signed with the United States in 1988, Canada has chosen to exempt cultural industries from the obligations of free trade agreements.

The cultural exemption in the new agreement protects Canada's right to pursue its cultural policy goals. This enhances the benefits of the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and the original NAFTA.

The new CUSMA recognizes that Canada has a right to promote its cultural industries through incentives like grants, tax credits, regulations and other forms of support. This is why the cultural exemption is so important.

I should also point out that the cultural exemption is neutral on technology. This means that the exemption applies to both the physical world and the digital world. Because of its horizontal scope, this exemption takes precedence over the disciplines on trade associated with the cultural industries in all chapters of the new agreement, including the chapter on digital trade.

The definition of cultural industries in Canada takes into account the key role that both Canadian and non-Canadian online platforms now play in distributing Canadian cultural content. That is why we worked so hard to make sure the cultural exemption would fully apply to the online environment. During the negotiations, we stressed that our ability to take action to adopt measures aimed at promoting Canadian cultural expression in the digital realm needed to be recognized and preserved in the new agreement.

The digital environment is evolving at a fast pace, and it is in this country's interest to keep its strategic options open in the future, especially since we are in the process of reviewing the Broadcasting Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act.

Canada not only maintained its existing programs and policies, but it also ensured that it would have the flexibility to intervene strategically to support cultural industries in the future. Over the years, Canada's approach to culture when negotiating free trade agreements has played a decisive role in promoting Canada's national cultural industries and has therefore contributed to economic growth, job creation and prosperity. Since music, television shows, movies and books are not just entertaining, but also essential to our quality of life, as I mentioned earlier, they represent a major industry and a significant segment of our economy.

Together, Canada's cultural industries account for more than 660,000 jobs and contribute $53 billion to our economy. In 2017, our cultural industries accounted for about 3% of Canada's GDP and exports worth nearly $16 billion.

The cultural industries have much to offer the world. Just think of artists like Céline Dion, Drake and The Weeknd, who have propelled Canada onto the international stage. We are an exporter of culture, and we need to celebrate that. Quebec has some amazing filmmakers, such as Xavier Dolan, Denis Villeneuve and Jean-Marc Vallée, who are internationally renowned for their talent and their storytelling. The list goes on and on.

It is our collective responsibility as a government to support this industry, which is the foundation of our national identity, and to create the conditions needed to support the artists of today and help develop the talent of tomorrow.

I would also like to point out that Canada's vibrant cultural industries are ready to do business. In recent years, for example, Canada has become Hollywood North as a result of its welcoming film production environment, world-class production infrastructure—including skilled labour—and strategic tax credits. It is no surprise that over the past five years alone the number of foreign productions filmed in Canada has increased by 160%, more quickly than in the United States or the United Kingdom.

Our commitment to protect culture includes much more than free trade agreements. Canada is a global advocate of the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which was adopted by UNESCO in 2005. This convention recognizes both the economic and social value of cultural goods and services and reaffirms the right of governments to adopt their own cultural policies.

In addition, the government made the single largest reinvestment in Canadian arts and culture not only in over 30 years, but also in the entire G7, precisely to bring in the tools needed to support Canada's entire cultural ecosystem. That makes me very proud. It is one of the first things we did when we came to power in 2015, as early as budget 2016, after the cultural sector took such a hard hit during the previous decade under the Conservatives.

I believe it is important to show our support, especially when we see both the social and economic value of culture. We know that the money invested generates returns both for jobs and the GDP. This industry represents 3% of our GDP, which is huge. It is important that the government support our content creators, our artists, artisans and Canadian cultural industries, which are so vital.

I would like to reiterate that the cultural component of the new agreement represents a major victory for the Canadian cultural industry and for all Canadians. Indeed, Canadians will continue to have access to rich and diverse cultural expressions across all media and all formats.

In future, we will continue to tell our stories and express our culture in all its diversity and on every platform. I think that all members of the House should be pleased that in spite of tough negotiations, Canada succeeded in preserving our country's cultural exemption and ensuring that it applies in the digital age.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked at length about the cultural exemptions.

We appreciate the briefing that the Liberals provided to members of Parliament last week, in which the hard-working public servants who were part of the negotiating team briefed us on matters relating to this new NAFTA. However, while we all recognize in the House the importance of a North American trade deal, these negotiators shared with us that, although they did make some gains on the cultural side of things, they did not on the government's so-called priorities for the environment and gender.

I wonder if the member could highlight his feelings on the areas that the negotiators made very clear they were not able to make progress on.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not at the briefing that the hon. member is referring to. I will look into exactly what was said.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the public servants who worked tirelessly for months on these negotiations. They did a wonderful job under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who oversaw the NAFTA renegotiation.

I believe it is important to point out today that we had a long way to go on these negotiations. That was the very essence of my speech. However, we achieved very good results. We got a modernized agreement that maintains the cultural exemption, which has always been fundamental to Canada and even more so to Quebec. I cannot help but be pleased about that. I think that was well received by everyone in the cultural industry. From a cultural perspective, the results of the renegotiation were very well received. Overall, this agreement was well received by economic and political actors across the country, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois. It is still hard to understand the Bloc Québécois's position, when the Premier of Quebec is calling for the quick ratification of this agreement.

Overall, it is a good agreement. With regard to the cultural exemption, it is a victory for Canada and Quebec.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

Hearing him talk about culture was music to my ears. Speaking of ears, I am a little worried that he still does not understand why the Bloc Québécois opposes the agreement, because we have explained our position at great length.

Getting back to culture, I certainly welcome good provisions. However, the aspects protected in the agreement are things we do not even have in Quebec and Canada. The cultural industry, especially in Quebec, has expressed concerns about the glaring lack of resources in the industry, about artists who are going hungry and have a hard time making ends meet and who have have been calling for government money for years. My colleague opposite blames the previous Conservative government for the cuts, but I do not think the Liberals have done much in four years to make up for those cuts.

When will the government sit down with the industry and with cultural industry representatives in Quebec, listen to their concerns and address this serious problem?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague. He said it was music to his ears, which I think is appropriate considering the subject of my speech.

I am very pleased to remind him that, when we came to power, we invested over $2.3 billion. We doubled the budget of the National Film Board of Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts. We made massive investments. Never in the past 30 years has a federal government invested as much in culture as we have since taking office in 2015.

Canada's cultural sector went through a very dark decade because, as we all know, it was not a priority for Mr. Harper's government or the Conservative Party. It was a priority for us and still is. In fact, we are the only G7 country to have invested so heavily in culture. I think it is something we can be very proud of, actually.

Just talk to people at the CBC, the National Film Board or Telefilm Canada. Most people in the arts felt the difference right from when we took office. As a Quebecker, I intend to continue to push the government to invest more in culture because it is essential for our identity and our economy.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, taking a different tack, I am wondering if the member could speak a bit about the process by which the House engages on trade agreements. We have heard a little about the comparison between the process the United States follows and the one that we follow, whereby the House debates the content of the agreement after it has been signed, at the ratification stage.

I wonder whether the member would agree that Canada would benefit from a more robust process that provides a formal role for the House in shaping the content of trade agreements.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that we must always respect parliamentarians' work. Any suggestion may have merit. This debate has merit, but there must also be an understanding of the context in which negotiations were held. Ultimately, it is important to ratify the agreement to benefit the Canadian economy. That view is held by business owners, unions and the provincial and territorial premiers. There is a consensus that this agreement must be ratified as quickly as possible.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to address the House in formal debate, let me first thank the amazing citizens of Red Deer—Mountain View for their support during the last election. None of us makes it to this place on our own. From that perspective, I wish not only to recognize the numerous volunteers who have supported me, but also my devoted family who has stood beside me all along the way. My wife Judy, our son Devin, our daughter Megan, our son-in-law Hanno and our grandchildren Julian, Serena and Conrad are my inspiration for my service to my community.

I have been blessed to have so many wonderful people guide me along my political journey. Over the past 12 years, I have continually felt that same sense of duty and honour each time I enter this chamber. I reflect upon the love, passion, desires and counsel my parents, brothers, family, colleagues and friends have taught me, and I strive to live up to the honour they have bestowed upon me by allowing me to serve as their representative.

During the last Parliament, I was honoured to serve on the international trade committee. Committee members had a unique view of the negotiation process and numerous opportunities to meet with parliamentarians from around the world, including our American neighbours.

I was also honoured to accompany Prime Minister Harper to London in the final days of the CETA negotiations, where discussions with Canadian producers, manufacturers and distributors looking to do business with their European counterparts took place.

Canada is a trading nation. As Conservatives, we truly are the party of trade. This was obvious from the respect that Prime Minister Harper commanded as he spoke with global leaders. It saddens me to hear how the current Liberal government continually tries to minimize the great work done by our former government and how it desperately tries to weave its way into the international trade narrative.

When it comes to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, the current government was handed CETA on a silver platter. All the Prime Minister had to do was retrieve the ball the Harper government had hit over the fence for the walk-off home run, and sign it.

The government's insistence that it reopen parts of the agreement caused serious confusion with our trading partners and showed inconsistencies and weaknesses of which other signatories were quick to take advantage. This became the opening that encouraged one of those European partners, Italy, to initiate unsubstantiated, non-tariff trade barriers against Canadian durum wheat. Ironically, its ploy was to demonize us for herbicide use. This came from a region that uses three to six times the amount of herbicide our Canadian farmers do. Because the current government had no strategy or ability to help our farmers, the rest of the world saw this administration as weak.

Canadian farmers once again took it on the chin when the government chose to tweet in Arabic about internal issues in Saudi Arabia, which had always previously been dealt with professionally through proper diplomatic channels.

Similarly unexplainable behaviour by the Prime Minister created a near disaster with Vietnam at a time when tensions were high after the U.S. pulled out of TPP discussions. Because the TPP was a template for a renewed North American trade agreement and was so close to being a reality in July 2015, it was with disbelief that we saw the Prime Minister once again put our position in jeopardy by creating a scene during these negotiations. Whether it was the entire reason or not, the consequence is that we have another non-tariff trade barrier with Vietnam that once again affects our agricultural exports.

Then we had our problems with India. The trade committee happened to be in Malaysia on the last leg of an ASEAN trade tour when the Prime Minister's Indian antics hit the global news wire. To say that all of us were embarrassed would be an understatement. If it had just been the costume party, that would have been bad enough, but revelations about his guest list and the snubbing of the Indian prime minister went beyond the pale.

Canada had always had agreements with India regarding our pulse exports, but these agreements needed constant vigilance. The government dropped the ball, and all of a sudden we had an international incident: another non-tariff trade barrier that put our Canadian pulse producers in jeopardy. This multi-billion dollar market became another casualty of a disjointed government strategy that lacked both knowledge and direction.

Sadly, Canadians are no longer surprised by these types of unforced errors from the Prime Minister. This has also been the underpinning of his attitude with our southern neighbours. This was obvious from the Prime Minister's confrontational commentary once he thought the American president was out of earshot. His irresponsible statements inflamed our relationship with the United States at a time when we should have been addressing solvable irritants with our southern neighbours.

There may have been a sense of bravado at the PMO, but the result was that the U.S. administration lost its respect for its traditional ally and stopped listening to us.

This heightened the problems associated with the stalled steel and aluminum tariffs, slowed any action on softwood lumber, and in the new NAFTA, solidified their entrenched position on dairy.

The issues that we have with China today are complex and I wish our diplomatic team success as it deals with these concerns. On the trade file, the concerns we have today have been exacerbated by the government's global, knee-jerk response to serious trade issues and the serious diplomatic missteps that have been a hallmark of the government.

If Canada would not stand up to the non-tariff issues of the countries I previously mentioned, then the Chinese government was pretty confident that we would not stand up to its import restrictions either. Canola, pork and beef were to become pawns in this debate. With the present developments with the U.S.A.-China agreement, we find ourselves on the outside looking in. Quite frankly, neither of these important trading partners have time for us. No longer are we that soft middle power that both our U.S. neighbours and the Chinese government would seek counsel from when issues arose. The egos of the leaders and administration of all three countries now dominate the discussion and as Canadians, we suffer the most.

Where does this leave us with the new NAFTA? We have always had strong relationships with our southern neighbours and we must continue to value these trusted partners through a strong, well-thought-out free trade agreement. However, while doing so, we must always think of our Canadian workers and their combined expertise, our manufacturers and their ability to compete with Canadian raw materials, our farmers and their world-class food production, and our natural resource industry and its respected environmentally friendly footprint.

These are the people, and the industries in which they toil, that any free trade agreement must consider. In our present national discussions, we hear a lot of talk about the environmental practices of our mining, oil and gas, agriculture, forestry and other industrial users and naively think that this matters to the rest of the world.

As a western Canadian, I would love it if we would use our environmental record as a lever for global acceptance of best practices and that as a nation we would champion this expertise so that the world would take notice. Sadly, our global competitors that pile on when it comes to natural resource development have found allies with anti-development actors that have infiltrated political parties, honest ecological activists and inculcated our education system. All this to portray our natural resource industries in a negative light.

In Alberta, we did not look for sweetheart deals from the federal government to allow our heavy emitters to put actual pollutants into the air or to get permission to pour raw sewage into our rivers. Instead, we set up strong environmental conditions that made sense for our geography, that recognized our natural resource advantages from forestry and agriculture, and our desire to build on all resources for the betterment of the nation. We wanted to do our part.

Do any of these things seem to matter to the eco-activists that will do all they can to shutter in our resources while ignoring the blatant economic sabotage and environmental disasters that are practised by our competitors? No, but we in the west still forge ahead despite these attacks because we know that this is how we can help build a nation.

We will stand up for the green aluminum producers from Quebec because we are proud of what they produce, because it is the right thing to do. We will stand up for our oil and gas industry because by doing so we can help displace poorly regulated and environmental suspect energy from other global suppliers, because it is the right thing to do. We will stand up for our forestry workers and we will stand up for our great farmers and ranchers who produce the best food in the world with the softest environmental footprint, because it is the right thing to do.

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

Madam Speaker, when the member stands and talks about the reputation of the Prime Minister and what the government has done outside of Canada's borders, I would suggest that we only need to look at the area that we are debating today and that is the area of trade.

We have an incredible group of civil servants, arguably some of the best negotiators in the world, who have been working with the Government of Canada to achieve significant trade agreements. When the member makes reference to the world looking in, I would suggest that Canada is envied around the world for the number of trade agreements and the amount of trade that takes place between Canada, a population base of 36 million, compared to other countries around the world.

Would my colleague not agree that, on the trade file, Canada is one of the most aggressive countries in completing trade agreements second to no other western world country?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, sadly, the current government has done all it can to make things difficult for the Canadian producers and our Canadian trade people. Yes, there are some fantastic folks who are working on behalf of Canada, but unfortunately, they take direction from the Prime Minister and his trade people in his party.

Sadly, it has caused us problems. The latest statement from the wheat growers estimates that market losses in the last 36 months, as the result of non-tariff trade barriers imposed by the six countries that I mentioned, amount to $3.7 billion. That is the type of thing that we are talking about.

No, making a show of oneself in an international scene is not something that Canadians are proud of.

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

Madam Speaker, I will say that unfortunately the member and I do not see eye to eye on some of the environmental concerns. However, as a member who represents a more rural and remote riding, I understand that using our resources is really important.

In my riding, dairy farmers are very concerned. There are several dairy farms in my riding and they are very concerned about the changes that are happening and the impacts that those changes will have on their communities. One of the things I would like to hear the member speak on is when we look at trade agreements how we can start to do a better job of remembering the rural and remote communities, where we have those huge impacts, if we are not thoughtful in moving forward.

I would love to hear how the member plans to move toward some really meaningful climate activism that we need to do across this country. We have not done well in our emissions in this country, but let us just leave it on the rural and remote communities and making sure that as trade agreements are negotiated, that lens is put in place. I feel that they are not looked at seriously enough at this point.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things one should recognize is that in the CETA there were discussions between the dairy industry and the government, and they went forward so that they understood what was happening. They understood, as well, that there was going to be money put aside to backstop for any damage that might possibly have occurred because of the agreement. The dairy producers indicated that they thought that if they got this market, they would have an opportunity and would not even need to go into that, or certainly might not have to take all of it.

That disappeared when the Liberals took over. Now we are in a situation where they have given away even more concessions to the United States: class 6 and 7 milk and other issues concerning overproduction or production that we might have, if we wanted to sell baby formula around the world.

Those are the kinds of things that happened on the dairy front, and I think that is significant. I will leave it at that.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, this morning in the media, Teck Resources said that the mine that the federal government needs to be approving at the end of this month will be emissions-free by 2050.

We have blockers of pipelines in this country who continue to talk about green aluminum. I would like the member to talk a little about the green efforts that are happening in Canada's oil and gas industry.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, not only do we have people blocking pipelines around the country, we have them here in this particular House.

What has been lost in the discussion, as far as aluminum is concerned when it comes to production and distribution, is who the global competitors of Canadian aluminum are now and how confident we are that we can trust those competitors to play by the rules. Since aluminum sourced in Canada is some of the most environmentally and ethically sourced on the planet, how can we effectively leverage this green aluminum at the global-conscious level? If we do that and are prepared to help the people of Quebec, we then have to have them understand that the strides that have been made in Alberta for all of the energy sources have been amazing.

Why do the Liberals not spend a little time paying attention to what is real, and look at the people around the world who are destroying this planet?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal Party for sharing this speaking time with me so I can add my voice and perspective to this important debate on the new NAFTA or, as it is called now, CUSMA.

I would like to congratulate the Canadian negotiating team for getting this deal done with a U.S. administration that, at best, can be described as difficult to deal with.

This is not a perfect agreement. As parliamentarians, we are being asked to choose between the original version of NAFTA and this updated version. The original NAFTA successfully created an integrated supply chain that benefited businesses and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, there are many flaws in the agreement that created and accelerated inequality.

For more than a decade, the Green Party has called for the renegotiation of NAFTA and the removal of problematic components. In our view, the worst part of the original agreement was the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms and the proportionality clause, both of which have been removed in CUSMA. The investor-state provisions in NAFTA allowed foreign corporations to seek financial compensation from taxpayers through private arbitration tribunals when laws and regulations got in the way of their profits. Canada is the most-sued country under these NAFTA investor-state rules, and taxpayers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to U.S. companies, but no Canadian company has ever successfully won compensation from the U.S. government.

For more than 10 years, I have worked to raise awareness about the serious problems created by investor-state provisions in our trade agreements. These provisions are anti-democratic and they obstruct good public policy and environmental protections, including action on climate change. I am happy to see the investor-state provisions removed from the CUSMA. This is a win. I would like to see investor-state dispute settlement provisions removed from all trade agreements and investment treaties that Canada has signed, and they should be excluded from any new agreements.

NAFTA's proportionality clause required that Canada export the same proportion of energy that it had on average in the previous three years, even in an energy crisis. Mexico did not agree to the inclusion of this clause. Canada, the coldest NAFTA country, signed away too much control of its energy sector. Fortunately, the proportionality clause was removed from the CUSMA. This is also a win.

The continued exemption of bulk water exports is encouraging, and the Canadian cultural exemption remains intact. These are wins as well.

The Green Party believes in fair and equitable trade that does not exploit lower labour, health, safety or environmental standards in other countries or result in the lowering of standards in Canada. Done right, trade can be an effective way to improve conditions for people and the planet rather than creating a race to the bottom.

Free trade agreements have allowed corporations to exploit lower wages and standards in other countries. Under NAFTA, many jobs in Canada were moved to Mexico for this reason. This hollowed out Canada's manufacturing and textile sectors and led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs here. When NAFTA was negotiated and signed, Canadians were promised that it would increase prosperity. In reality, NAFTA increased the wealth of the rich at the expense of working Canadians, whose wages have stagnated.

As an international human rights observer in the 1990s, I accompanied labour activists who were trying to organize workers in Guatemala's sweatshops, which produced low-cost goods for the North American market. The simple act of trying to create a union led to intimidation, violence, disappearances and murder. This was not how international trade should work. I am pleased that CUSMA would create stricter enforcement of labour standards in Mexico, would guarantee Mexican workers the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and would help to strengthen the labour movement there. The agreement includes a rapid response mechanism for labour violations.

These labour standards were strengthened in the new, improved version of the agreement, thanks to a push by Democrats in the United States who were not happy with the lack of proper labour standards or enforcement in the first signed version of CUSMA.

U.S. Democrats also managed to roll back the patent extensions on biologic drugs proposed in the first version of the CUSMA agreement. This change will save Canadian consumers money and make it more affordable to create a universal pharmacare program in Canada.

Thankfully, the Canadian Parliament did not rush to ratify this first signed version of the agreement, so we can all benefit from these important changes made by U.S. Democrats.

Another area of improvement is the rules of origin. Higher levels of North American content are now required before goods can be certified as made in North America. There is a new 70% North American steel and aluminum requirement for automobiles, but while the steel content requirement guarantees that steel must be produced in North America, there is not an equal requirement for aluminum. This requirement should have been included in the agreement..

Our supply management system for dairy and poultry farmers will remain intact, but one of the drawbacks of the new agreement is that it will allow imports of dairy products from the U.S. This will undermine the economic viability of Canadian farms and will require compensation to farmers.

In addition, many dairy products in the U.S. contain a genetically modified bovine growth hormone called rBGH, which is banned in Canada. We need legislation in place to ensure that U.S. products containing rBGH are either labelled or blocked from entering this country.

The CUSMA agreement makes some progress on environmental protections. Countries are committed to meet their obligations on a number of multilateral environmental treaties they have signed. These agreements are all enforceable. However, what CUSMA is missing is any mention of climate change and any obligation for the three CUSMA countries to uphold their commitments under the climate accords. While the climate change targets established in Paris are binding, there are no enforcement mechanisms or penalties for countries that do not live up to their commitments.

Increasing trade in goods will accelerate climate change. One of the best ways to combat climate change is to localize our economies as much as possible. This is especially true for agricultural products. Redundant trade, such as importing products that can easily be produced locally, does not make sense.

There are other concerns with CUSMA. The agreement fails to address the decades-long softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States. Getting the proper agreement on softwood is critical to the health of the Canadian forest industry.

The good regulatory practices chapter is also of concern. Who decides what good regulatory practices are? Will this process involve only business and government, or will civil society organizations representing labour, consumers, and the environment be involved?

The extension of copyright from 50 years after an author's death to 75 years is an unnecessary change.

It is ironic to hear the Conservatives complaining about not having enough access during the negotiation process and having to study an agreement that is a done deal. This really speaks to the lack of a clear and transparent process for negotiating trade agreements. The process of negotiating CUSMA included briefings for an expanded group of stakeholders, going beyond just the business organizations and corporations that were consulted in the past. That is an improvement, but there is still work to do to make the trade agreement negotiation process more transparent. It is unacceptable that Canadians, and the parliamentarians who represent them, can only get involved in a debate about the merits of a trade agreement once it has been completed and signed.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives complained about the secretive nature of the negotiation process while they were in opposition. The Greens believe that we should be following the European Union model for trade negotiations. We should have an open and transparent discussion and debate about Canada's objectives before negotiations start. That debate should continue during and after negotiations are concluded. Also, a socio-economic analysis of the potential impacts and benefits of a new trade agreement should be made available to all Canadians.

For years I have spoken out loudly against the corporate free trade model, so people who know me might wonder why I intend to support the CUSMA agreement. This is not a perfect agreement, the negotiation process is flawed and we can and should do better, but this is a choice between retaining the old flawed NAFTA and ratifying this new, improved version. A step forward is preferable to the status quo.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the position of the Green Party and the comments, which recognize that it is of value to do a comparison of the modernization of the old agreement and that some significant steps have been taken in going forward. Some of them are very much socially progressive measures, as has already been mentioned.

I ask my colleague to recognize that there has been a great deal of discussion about the process. I have stated before that we have an incredible group of people, civil servants who have assisted in the negotiations and even made this agreement possible with the leadership of the government. That said, no one would be surprised that there have been talks, discussions and consultations over the last two to two and a half years.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts in regard to the many dialogues that took place well in advance of the agreement being signed? Would he not assign some value to that?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that there has been expanded consultation on this agreement in particular and with CPTPP. I think that we need to continue that process and have more debate in Parliament before we enter into a process of starting a trade negotiation. For example, the Conservatives want a trade agreement with China. We have a committee right now that is looking at problems with China and the socio-economic impacts of getting into a trade negotiation with China.

I appreciate having those discussions in advance, and a more open and transparent process. I appreciate the openness that has happened and I would like to see more of it in the future.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my fellow British Columbian's contributions to the House today, although he has made a materially wrong contribution by saying that the Conservative Party supports a free trade agreement with China.

In fact, our leader has been very clear on this matter. We believe that the Liberals are being very naive on all things related to China. We have seen rejection after rejection, including the issue of an extradition agreement that the government actually tried to reach with the Government of China.

I ask the member to keep those things in mind and again challenge the Green Party on its continued opposition to all trade, particularly when it comes to the issue of investor-state provisions. There are many things to disagree about in terms of process and whatnot.

Does the member think that when we are encouraging many of our businesses in British Columbia to trade abroad, if they had a choice to do it in a country where the court system and the rule of law are not the same as in in Canada, they would feel comfortable taking their claim if they had expropriation without compensation in that country? They would much rather see the World Trade Organization rules apply, I think.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the Conservatives. You may not be in favour of a trade agreement with China at this point, but you did sign the Canada-China FIPA, and I am wondering if you have regrets now about the extensive power that has been given to—

[An hon. member]

Do not say “you”.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Conservatives have regrets now about the extensive power that they have given to Chinese state-owned corporations to seek damages through this investor-state process, whereby they can take us on for environmental protections, labour standards, health and safety standards, or for opposing the purchase of retirement homes and providing substandard services to our communities and seniors. Investor-state—

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

Questions and comments, very rapidly, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of areas that the hon. member totally neglected to discuss in his comments.

One is in regard to gender. Of course we know that the Liberal government promised an entire chapter to promote gender equality. It failed to do that. The government also promised to include an entire chapter to talk about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It failed to do that.

Considering the makeup of a huge portion of the member's electorate, I wonder why he neglected to mention those two critical areas in his statement.