Debates of Feb. 5th, 2020

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support for Canada's sovereignty.

I would ask the member if he believes that it would be helpful to hear from the other side about the economic impact that the agreement will have on the dairy industry, and in addition hear the actual details of the package that the Liberal government may be giving to those in the dairy industry in compensation for the loss of their quota.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the great question and for the joke. A sense of humour is essential for sitting in the House.

He asked a great question. The costs need to be assessed. However, since negotiations are still ongoing for some sectors, that is very hard to do.

I would also like to see an assessment of the cost of the adverse impact on our local farmers and on the use of our agricultural land. That is an important aspect that the members across the way do not seem to care too much about. The only thing they care about is signing the agreement as fast as possible.

We on this side of the House are going to do our job and question every one of these aspects to make sure we fully understand the contract we are signing. I am glad that my Conservative colleague wants to do the same.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague thinks the agreement currently being put in place is satisfactory to the other commodity sectors, such as pork, beef and grain. Quebec exports a lot of pork and soybeans.

Are farmers satisfied with the agreement that is being presented?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we in the Bloc Québécois generally support free trade agreements. In any case, our demographic and geopolitical situation requires them.

I have also had meetings with grain, canola and beef farmers, to name just a few, who need international agreements. We will always work with that in mind.

This will not stop us from doing our job and properly scrutinizing the contract we are signing. A contract might appear very beneficial at first glance, but it is important to look at any flaws and what can be improved. We are doing our job as the opposition and we will always do so in a constructive way.

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

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Government Contracts; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Taxation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to appeal to the Bloc today.

I am sorry, I do not speak French.

I hope to appeal to the Bloc today with a positive, fact-based discussion about the new NAFTA. I have some credibility in this in that in one of my first speeches, I congratulated the Bloc leader on his positive, fact-based, logical approach to Parliament, which is very refreshing. Therefore, through facts and logic, I hope to constructively provide evidence for the decision that I believe will be in the best interests of Quebeckers and to provide reasons for all of us to make this decision in an expedient manner.

If some members are not here to hear my speech, I will be happy to mail it to them.

I am sure the Bloc members would agree that in any international political realm, things can change quickly. Mexico and the U.S.A. are not exempt. If there is a decision requiring an international agreement that is in our favour, I am sure we would all agree that we should not dally. I mostly want to talk about aluminum, but I will first discuss a few other points.

Quebec is a great manufacturing province. If this agreement does not go through, tens of thousands of Quebec jobs would be at risk. This agreement would give Quebec manufacturing protection from tariffs. Quebec has $57 billion in exports to the United States, so we can imagine how many Quebec workers are at risk.

I believe the Bloc is in favour of environmental protection. This trade agreement has more environmental protection than any of our other trade agreements. Imagine what Quebeckers would lose in marine protection, air quality and other environmental protections if this agreement is not signed.

I am sure the Bloc is in favour of improving women's rights. Again, the advancements that would be made in this area would be lost if this agreement fails. Does the Bloc wish to continue to vote against improvements in women's rights?

I imagine the Bloc wishes justice for labour. Again, this agreement has more advances for labour than any other in history. Does the Bloc really want to vote against this improvement?

Under the old NAFTA, companies were suing our government and weakening local protection of our environment, etc. This agreement would eliminate that. Does the Bloc still want to be held hostage to foreign corporations? Quebec companies have access to U.S. government contracts, a provision that will be lost if the new agreement is not signed. Does the Bloc want Quebec workers to lose these types of jobs?

I am sure the Bloc, like the rest of us, is proud of Quebec culture. This agreement would preserve the cultural exemption and 75,000 Quebec jobs in cultural industries. The U.S. wanted to totally dismantle our supply management in Quebec and all of Canada, but this agreement did not let that happen.

Perhaps most importantly, I am sure the Bloc is sensitive to the poor. If this agreement is not ratified, imagine all Quebeckers paying higher prices on thousands of products, because of U.S. tariffs. Who can least afford that? It is the poor. In any agreement there is give-and-take, but where we have given up something, we can compensate, so that is a win-win situation.

In that the millions of Quebeckers I have mentioned so far would benefit from this agreement and have so much to lose without it, would it not be expedient to ratify it quickly in the volatile international political and economic environment?

There is a saying that perfect is the enemy of the good. We could give up a lot of things to try to get one last detail, but we could lose a lot more and put a lot more at risk than the one item we are trying to correct.

Now I will move to aluminum.

The Bloc Québécois has pointed out that almost all Canadian aluminum is made in Quebec, except for the 10% that is made in B.C., but NAFTA would not have an effect on B.C. aluminum, because its market is Asia. Quebec is the big winner in Canada for the gains made by the new NAFTA for aluminum. What are those gains?

First, the regional value content of automobiles would increase from 62.5% to 75%, a big win for Quebec aluminum. Second, 70% of aluminum purchased by automakers must be of North American origin. This protection goes from 0% under the old NAFTA to 70% under the new NAFTA, which is another big win for Quebec aluminum. Third, seven of the core parts of automobiles must contain at least 75% regional value content. These are the core parts of automobiles, such as engines, transmissions, etc. Given that some of these parts have major aluminum components, it is another big win for Quebec aluminum producers.

None of these great wins are mentioned correctly in the Groupe Performance Stratégique report that some of the Bloc members have mentioned. The report also makes an error in saying that is not possible to change the aluminum requirement for 10 years. Although it will be reviewed in 10 years, it can be changed any time under the auspices of the CUSMA working group on rules of origin.

That report also suggests that six major aluminum projects are on hold because of the new NAFTA, jeopardizing $6.2 billion in investment and about 30,000 jobs. If this were true, which it is not, that number does not come anywhere near the millions of Quebeckers who would benefit from the new NAFTA and the thousands of manufacturing and other jobs the Bloc are putting at risk by not supporting the agreement, as I outlined earlier in my speech.

However, the six investment decisions for the six potential aluminum projects were made prior to the final NAFTA and the aluminum benefits contained therein. Therefore, if anyone is jeopardizing the 30,000 possible jobs, it would be the Bloc because they are putting the benefits of the new NAFTA for aluminum at risk by not supporting it.

I am asking the Bloc to live up to the image I have of them, of being professional, facts-based, logical decision-makers. There are so many benefits for millions of Quebeckers, for the Quebec aluminum industry, for women, for labour, for the environment and for Quebec's great manufacturing employees who are producing $57 billion of exports. Please support all these millions of Quebeckers soon by supporting the agreement, before anything occurs to cause Quebeckers to lose all these benefits.

To give the Bloc members a few minutes to change their minds, I will talk about my riding.

There is benefit in the north for the territories. In my area, it helps preserve 130 or so exports in things like mineral products. There is a general exemption related to the rights of indigenous peoples, which is very important for my riding. Trade facilitation and customs procedures are being modernized, which makes it easier to get across the border in remote locations by using electronic processes. Hopefully that will be very helpful.

There is stability and predictability for Canadian investors and service suppliers who do work in the United States. There is special temporary access to the United States, as well, for those Canadian companies that are providing services or for their investors. They can get in and out of the States more quickly and easily than people from other companies. There is also a new chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises, which is most enterprises in my riding, with enhanced opportunities for promoting small and medium-sized enterprises that are focused on women and indigenous groups.

The other two territories have all the same types of benefits. The Northwest Territories exports $3 million in precious gems. In Nunavut, there are a number of exports including sculptures, so all of these things will help them out as well.

I hope I have convinced my Bloc Québécois colleagues of the many benefits for Quebec and that they won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but get these things in place as soon as possible, before we are in jeopardy of losing them.

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

Madam Speaker, I repeat that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of free trade. It is just that the Bloc Québécois reads contracts before signing them. I would like to be a merchant with something to sell and have my hon. colleague as a customer. For example, I could sell him a discounted car at a completely exorbitant price. He would be so afraid of missing out on the deal that he would quickly sign the contract without reading the fine print, where I indicated that the interest rate is 25%. That is a bit like what he is asking us to do.

We are talking about concessions. The government is saying that it is normal to make concessions, and the government members sometimes seem to find this funny. However, there are people in our regions of Quebec who do not find this funny at all. When it is always the same people who keep being asked to make concessions, things become very difficult for them. Sometimes those people get fed up.

The Bloc Québécois supports the manufacturing industry, the environment, women's rights and so on. With regard to aluminum, how do the members opposite not understand that the place where the aluminum is poured is not protected in the agreement?

As we have already seen over the past several years, this results in a huge increase in aluminum exports from China. This dirty aluminum, which is produced with coal, is going to flood our market. I do not understand why the government members keep saying that 70% is better than zero. It will end up being zero anyway. I would like my colleague's opinion on that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I talked about gain after gain in relation to aluminum. I gave three examples where there is much more protection: 75% for the total vehicle, 75% of the core products and 70% of the aluminum purchased by manufacturers.

With respect to taking away the type of dumping the member is talking about, there is much more protection than there was under the old NAFTA. There is much more protection than aluminum companies in Quebec would have without it. The member would not want to deny them these new protections.

To give it a more esoteric response related to parts, aluminum is often bought by car producers themselves and given to parts companies because they can buy in great volume. When they do that, 70% needs to be produced in North America. This is a big benefit for aluminum producers and members would not want to deny them these benefits. They are not the total benefits but they are certainly a lot better than what they had before.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way why, after initially saying that it was a non-starter and that the government would never agree to it, did the government agree to a sunset clause in this agreement and how would that eliminate any uncertainty certainly felt by the Canadian business community.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, there is a review every six years. All Canadian and American businesses that came onside originally will continue with the agreement, using the same argument that it provides huge benefits to both countries.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, this deal had to get amended. Why were the labour and environmental conditions not in the original deal?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the chance to outline the labour advancements in this deal. The labour protections in this agreement are the greatest labour protections than in any of our previous agreements.

There were a number of labour protections in the first agreement but some improvements and additions were made last December to labour, women and the environment to make them even stronger. Those improvements enhanced those items. There were in the original agreement a number of labour provisions and they were enhanced last December to make it even better.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, as part of my time debating Bill C-4, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, also known as the new NAFTA, I have some questions that my constituents and Canadians deserve answers for.

The Conservative Party has a long trade record and understands the importance of global trade. The previous Conservative government negotiated trade deals with over 40 countries.

In my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, we have many sectors that rely on international trading. We are the largest trading area between Vancouver and Calgary, with now the 10th-busiest airport in Canada.

A report from the Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission laid out a sector overview. Manufacturing in my community includes agri-food and high-tech aerospace, with metal, plastic, wood, concrete and fibreglass products. It anticipates that fabricated metal, non-metallic, mineral and transportation equipment manufacturing, as well as plastics, rubber products and beverages, will lead the way in growth. The cross-section of manufacturers makes it easy for existing and new businesses to find high-quality partners locally.

When China started embargoes on Canadian farming products, local cherry producers in my community were concerned that they would be next and started looking to potentially expand their exports to the United States and other markets. It is therefore very important to farmers and all businesses that we have stable and clearly outlined trading relationships.

NAFTA was not perfect, but it has been good for Canada, with $2 billion in trade crossing the border every day. The United States is our largest trading partner, representing 75% of Canadian exports.

I understand that the majority of major industry associations in Canada and the group, Canada's Premiers, are encouraging us to ratify the CUSMA deal. Canada's Premiers has stated, “Beyond seeking the ratification of CUSMA, Premiers are still prioritizing engagement with the U.S. to deal with other trade issues including Buy American policies and the softwood lumber dispute.”

Why was the buy American policy not addressed in CUSMA? Mexico got a buy America chapter in CUSMA, but Canada did not. There was no procurement chapter.

There has been a lot of uncertainty for four years. We have lost business opportunities and investments are on hold. Many people just want to be able to move forward with clarity. Goldy Hyder from the Business Council of Canada has said that the signed new NAFTA is “good enough” for Canada and “gets us through this administration.”

I will tell members about an industry that thinks the CUSMA agreement is good enough but is no further ahead, like so many other industries we hear about across the country with this deal. This is the wine industry specifically in British Columbia. Ontario also has uncertainty.

Just this past Monday I was speaking with Miles Prodan, executive director of the British Columbia Wine Institute. I have his approval to bring his comments forward in the House today. He stated, “We accept and support moving forward with CUSMA. However, there is nothing better and nothing more advantageous for our wine industry. A status quo was a win for us.” He is referring to the 281 VQA wineries his organization represents in B.C., 32 of which are located in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. “A status quo was a win for us.”

This is at a time when Canada is having a potentially devastating wine excise tax trade dispute with Australia. As I mentioned in the House yesterday, in 2018, following the Liberal government's introduction of an escalator tax for beer, wine and spirits, Australia requested a review from the World Trade Organization of Canada's exemption for 100% Canadian wines. This tax basically means automatic tax increases each and every year.

The draft report of this WTO review is anticipated in April, with a final report coming sometime this summer. A WTO ruling against Canada would be legally binding and could have a catastrophic effect on some 400 Canadian wineries, forcing them to bear the burden of millions of dollars of new taxes and putting this important industry and Canadian jobs on the line. This shows again a lack of clear understanding and thoughtful consideration by the Liberals of the ramifications of their tax policies and decisions.

On January 16, those of us from across the country who have wineries in our communities signed a letter to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade. It was led by our colleague, the member for Prince Albert, the Conservative shadow minister for international trade. It asked the government to engage with Australia to resolve the dispute prior to the WTO ruling. We received a response from the minister on January 31, and in the letter the minister said:

Australia's position on the excise duty exemption has been unwavering and clear. Any negotiated settlement must include the removal of the excise exemption for Canadian wines in its entirety, and this was confirmed to Canadian officials as recently as December 2019.

I bring this up today as this is a trend we are seeing with trade negotiations with the current government, an attitude of, “They drew a line in the sand, so what are you going to do?”

The Australian government could be responding in this way because Australia, like many other countries, was not happy with Canada due to the Prime Minister's no-show for the trans-Pacific partnership. This was a trade deal that the Prime Minister just had to sign. Reports are that TPP's signatories, including Australia, were outraged.

Regarding CUSMA negotiations, the chairman of the U.S. House ways and means committee said that the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister conceded on just about every point they raised for one reason: “enforceability, enforceability, enforceability.” What other concessions did we agree to that prompted such a statement?

If nothing else, the government is consistent. The attitude that we have heard on how Canada negotiated with the U.S. with concession after concession in CUSMA, we see here again on the Australia trade issue. This laissez-faire, “what are you going to do” attitude is not serving Canadians or families well.

Another major sector left out of CUSMA discussions was our softwood lumber industry in British Columbia. We lost thousands of jobs this past year, bringing the total to some 50,000 job losses over the last few years. I have spoken in the House about how this has directly affected my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, where 217 permanent jobs were lost.

The sustainable resource sector has been hit hard and is currently being forced to pay tariffs to the United States. Why was the softwood lumber industry left out of CUSMA? So much for supporting the middle class.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to think deeply and look at legislation closely. These calls by the government to hurry up and move it along are not responsible. These are not just numbers we are talking about. We are talking about lives, families and jobs. With the reckless Liberal “push it through” attitude, I seriously wonder whose jobs the Liberals are more concerned about.

The ratification process is slightly different in each country. In June of last year, this deal was ratified by the Mexican senate. Due to modifications made to the agreement, it was re-ratified in December. In the United States, debate proceeded in the House of Representatives in September 2019. It was passed in the House in December 2019, and the U.S. Senate passed the bill on January 16, 2020.

I can appreciate that we had an election, but we were all elected back in October. After the election, Conservatives were calling on the government to call the House back on November 25 as we needed to roll up our sleeves and get back to work on behalf of Canadians. This fell on deaf ears, and the Prime Minister did not call the House back until December 5.

The CUSMA deal had to be reintroduced after the election, but the government did not table Bill C-4 until January 29. We are now debating it much later than our trading partners, and are being asked to hurry up. It was simply reckless and irresponsible that the government waited so long to reintroduce the legislation. It is important for us to do our proper due diligence, in particular since the government has still not presented us with an economic impact analysis. This is something we, the official opposition, have repeatedly requested for almost two months now and have yet to receive.

We heard that the government had an economic impact analysis, but two days ago here in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said that the government would present it once it is complete.

Was one actually done? Was it done only on certain sectors? Is it incomplete? Is there information that there are industries where the analysis is not positive, and the Liberals do not want the information disclosed yet? These are all questions that we need answered.

Conservatives support and want free trade with the United States. We are the party of trade deals with our closest allies. NAFTA is a legacy from the Conservatives. Our Canadian businesses deserve certainty, and we should not be rushed into this important vote without having answers to the questions we are asking. It is our job as parliamentarians, and we owe that to the communities we serve. I urge everyone to take this information to committee so that we can delve into some of these questions properly.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservative side of the House for seeking greater opportunities to explore CUSMA. We feel, in the Green caucus, that we have had those opportunities and recognize that it is a done deal as far as that goes. The Trump administration is not going to reopen it.

I ask the hon. members on the other side of the House to think back to the 41st Parliament, though many members were not present at the time. The House then had zero opportunity to debate or vote on the Canada-China investment treaty, which binds this country for more than three decades to allowing the People's Republic of China to challenge any decision, by any level of government in this country, by secret tribunal. This is an egregious agreement and done in secret with zero opportunity to debate.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about this agreement, it is really important that we consider what is on the table here and that we are moving forward.

What we are looking at right now is the agreement that has been put in place. We have to look at what our duty is right now as parliamentarians, to analyze what is in front of us. That is what we are here to do. It is really important that we put a lot of these details through the committee, so that we can make sure that we are coming up with the best deal possible for Canadian businesses and Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the comments coming from the other side of House are, “Speed up. Slow down. Speed up, speed up. Slow down”.

At one time the Conservative leadership was asking why we had not gotten the deal done and that we should take whatever Donald Trump was giving. It was, “Take a deal, take a deal.” Now, all of a sudden, we are hearing, “Wait, hold on. We need more time. We need to get into the details of this.”

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has just, very eloquently, spoken about the amount of time that has been spent discussing and debating this.

I understand the position that the Conservatives are in. They want to support it, but they just do not want to show that they are supporting it because that is going to put them in the awkward position of having to acknowledge the fact that it is really a good deal.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, over the last few days I have been meeting with a number of different stakeholders and different business owners. The message that we are getting is what I had said in my presentation: “Okay, let us move forward. It is good enough. It is just good enough. Let us just move forward.”

Just being good enough is not really good enough. Most businesses are saying that if we are going to move forward with something, we want to make sure that we are getting ahead somehow, that we are at some advantage. That is really not what we are seeing or hearing from most industries. That is where the concern is.

Just being good enough is a serious question. It is something we need to really look at.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I would suggest that the reason the Conservatives are in no hurry and want to study these files is that they read agreements all the way through before signing them.

I would like to ask my Conservative Party colleague to raise the issues the committee should look at so it can analyze their economic repercussions and so on. That could be supply management, aluminum or another sector.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of industries that we need to look at. The member did mention a couple already. One of the others I mentioned during my presentation was softwood lumber. We do not have a softwood lumber agreement. That is an industry that we absolutely need to look at.

We have a number of resource sectors. We still have some farmers who are very uncertain and very unclear about what is actually in the agreement. There are a number of different industries that we need to look at, and definitely need to put a deep dive into.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to get it on the record, because a number of people talked about earlier input in this debate. The fact is that we consulted with over 1,100 stakeholders and organizations, and we had 47,000 written input submissions. We have done lots of consultation.

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. With all due respect, and I know that you are doing an extremely capable job, but I believe that the member does have an opportunity to respond to that question or comment. Does she not?

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

I am learning as I go. Thank you for the reminder. My apologies to the member for Windsor West. We will give a few seconds to the member for Kelowna—Lake Country to answer the comment.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for allowing me to answer the comment. I will be brief.

One of the differences we can talk about here is that, when we are looking at the United States, its opposition was involved. The Democratic Party was actually involved in different points of the discussion, and we have not been involved. That is a big difference between us and the United States.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to intervene in this discussion. I represent Windsor West, which is right on the Detroit border in the United States.

Our peninsula Windsor-Essex County has been a trading component of our nation from its creation, from our first nations that were in the area and still are to this day, and we are working on reclaiming some of their rights for many reasons of colonialism, to the French settlement, followed by the British settlement. It is the oldest European settlement west of Montreal. I represent Sandwich Town.

About 40,000 vehicles, 10,000 of them trucks, per day traverse through my riding. The 40,000 vehicles not only bring as passengers visitors, but up to 10,000 doctors, nurses and other health care professionals who work in the Detroit region daily.

It was the founding of the logging industry originally, but most recently it has been the hotbed for the auto industry and manufacturing. Trade with the United States has been part of our way of life. It is our people who are interchanged, so the Canada-U.S. relationship is very important because families live on both sides of the border.

I have an American aunt. This is a normal thing: we have Canadians and Americans in our family units and our working units as well. Even our sports and culture are very much there.

We see American flags in my riding, but we will not find any fiercer Canadians, especially when it comes to issues like being against the war in Iraq, where Windsor and other areas fought to keep us out of that war.

I remember the days of debates here in the House of Commons, when Canada was going in that direction and we pulled ourselves back from that. A relationship is knowing when to tell a friend when they are wrong. Knowing when to intervene is something is the strength of a relationship, not a weakness by any means.

This agreement is important, no doubt. We have to look at the previous agreement and what takes place. There are some important things that need to be clarified in the debate. First of all, this agreement coming back to us is better and improved because the Liberal government did not do its job. Liberals did not want to listen to Tracey Ramsey, the former member for Essex, who forced and focused on the issues of the environment, dairy and labour that should have been in the original agreement.

In fact, there were Liberals who would say certain negative things all the time, but this bill is coming back in this chamber for this vote because Liberals did not do their job. They do not want to have to be here. They would have loved to have dealt with this the first time, but the reality is Democrats were able to take Congress. When they took Congress, the Democrats had the opportunity to fix the deal and they did.

I have heard in the chamber, many times, members pushing the government to support Democrats to get this improved, when they did nothing. They stayed down on it because it is a Trump-Trudeau deal. That is the reality of this deal in itself. We now have—