House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was deal.
Bernadette Jordan LiberalMinister of Fisheries
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that conservation measures, as well as COVID-19, have had significant negative impacts on our economy as well as on harvesters, including the recreational sector.
We are continuing to work with our partners and stakeholders to consider actions that help minimize the impacts while achieving conservation efforts. We will continue to work with those groups to make sure that we meet these needs.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, a recent report revealed that the claim that natural gas will displace coal and reduce greenhouse gas emissions came from an industry insider.
He admits he neglected to include end-to-end life-cycle emissions of fracked gas. In fact, fracked gas has the same greenhouse gas impact as burning coal. Fracking also contaminates air and water, and causes earthquakes.
Jurisdictions around the world have banned fracking. Will the government do the right thing and ban fracking in Canada?
Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, hydraulic fracturing in Canada is strictly regulated and must be done using approved equipment and very specific procedures. As I am sure the hon. member knows, the development and regulation of Canada's shale and tight resources and oil and gas reserves falls primarily within provincial jurisdiction.
The Government of Canada is working with the provinces and territories to provide scientific and policy advice to support their policy and regulatory processes to ensure that any resource development occurs in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I am ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on February 25 by the member for Fundy Royal and on February 27 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the premature disclosure of two bills.
Allow me first to recapitulate the arguments presented by the two members.
On February 25, 2020, the member for Fundy Royal raised a question of privilege regarding a Canadian Press article published online on February 24 that detailed specific information contained in Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying, even before it was introduced in the House by the Minister of Justice. The member quoted from the article in question, which mentioned that anonymous sources allegedly discussed the contents of the bill with the journalist while knowing full well that doing so contravened the practices of the House. The member for Fundy Royal feels that this premature disclosure of the bill constitutes a breach of his privileges and contempt of the House.
On February 27, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a question of privilege also concerning the premature disclosure of a bill.
During this intervention, the parliamentary secretary said that a bill entitled “an act to amend the Criminal Code (unlawfully imported firearms)”, put on notice on February 21 by the member for Markham—Unionville, was also the subject of an article published on February 24 in iPolitics before it was introduced in the House. On February 25, the member put another bill on notice, one with a slightly different title, “an act to amend the Criminal Code (possession of unlawfully imported firearms)”. The bill became Bill C-238 after it was introduced on February 27.
The parliamentary secretary feels that the provisions of Bill C-238 correspond to what was described in the iPolitics article, and he presumed, therefore, that the two bills are in large measure the same. The parliamentary secretary suggested that this disclosure contravenes the principle that members are the first to know the contents of a bill. Since a breach of privilege was apparently committed, he suggested referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
On February 28, the member for Markham—Unionville apologized and admitted that he had indeed discussed the contents of the first bill with fellow members and journalists. He said that he had acted in ignorance of the rule prohibiting discussion of bills on notice before they are introduced in the House. He also explained the reasons for the change in title between the two bills.
The same day, the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House presented his most sincere apologies for the premature disclosure of Bill C-7, saying in passing that no one within the government had been authorized to discuss the bill before its introduction in the House.
I believe that the whole matter can be summarized as follows.
First, based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House.
Second, in his apology, the member for Markham—Unionville made it clear that his two bills on firearms were substantially the same, apart from the slightly different titles. It seems clear to the Chair, therefore, that the member also discussed a bill before its introduction. It matters little that the bill in question was subsequently withdrawn and never introduced in the House.
The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one’s intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.
In this case, it is clear that the content of the bills, both the private member's bill and the government bill, were revealed to the media before their introduction and first reading. The question now is to determine whether the disclosure of these bills was a breach of the House’s privilege and whether mitigating circumstances should be considered.
In this instance, I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the member for Markham—Unionville when he says that he was unaware of the rules regarding the confidentiality of bills on notice. I believe that his remarks were sincere and that he believed he was advancing his cause in a legitimate fashion.
My analysis is different for the question of privilege raised by the member for Fundy Royal concerning government Bill C-7. Permit me to quote a part of the article at the heart of this matter:
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details of the bill prior to its tabling in the House of Commons this afternoon.
Everything indicates that the act was deliberate. It is difficult to posit a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules in this case.
On April 19, 2016, my predecessor, faced with a similar situation regarding the premature disclosure of Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying, found a prima facie case of privilege in a decision that can be located on pages 2442 and 2443 of the Debates.
In light of the information provided by the member for Fundy Royal, the precedents and the current practice in this matter, the Chair notes the existence of sufficient grounds to conclude that there was a prima facie breach of the privilege of the House and the members and their right to be the first to know the contents of Bill C-7.
Consequently, I now invite the member for Fundy Royal to move the appropriate motion.
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOral Questions
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
moved:
That the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your finding that a breach of our privileges did exist in this case in the leaking of the contents of Bill C-7 to the media before members of the House could see the bill.
There is a reason why we have rules in this place to protect the rights and the privileges of members of Parliament in this place on all sides of the House, so that we are able to do the job that we were elected to do, which is to represent our constituents, to pass legislation and to debate. Those are the things that we have been given the ability to do by our constituents. When we have government departments, government members that do not abide by the rules of the House, it undermines not just those members in the opposition, it undermines all of us.
It is well-established practice in the House that when a bill is on notice for introduction, the House has the first right to the contents of the bill. Everyone in the House knows this. We know that the House is paramount when it comes to the introduction of the legislation, but if there is any one department in the whole of government that we would expect would know the rules around the laws and procedures in the House, that department would be the justice department, the department tasked with making laws that impact the lives of all Canadians. That department knows better. That is a department filled with hundreds if not thousands of lawyers and legal minds that know better.
Let us say they did not know better. Just like with any one of our children, sometimes if they make a mistake we correct them. Maybe if they make a second mistake, we will correct them again. By the third time around, we expect that they know the rules.
This is the fourth time there has been found a breach of our privileges in the House that was made by the Department of Justice. In fact, the last ruling on this matter was also on the previous legislation around medical assistance in dying. It was even the same legislation.
The article that was put forward within The Canadian Press had very detailed and specific information contained in the bill. That is why this breach of privilege has been found.
The reporters and those who were leaking know that contempt has occurred by revealing later in the article that, "The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details of the bill prior to its tabling in the House of Commons this afternoon."
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that those who were leaking this information from the Department of Justice or some other arm of government knew exactly what they were doing when they did it. What they thought about this place is not much, because we have rules, and they thumbed their nose at the rules that we have.
After the sources indicated to the reporter that they were aware of their guilty actions, they boldly and defiantly continued their affront to Parliament by providing even more detail of the bill. Quoting again from that article, “Sources say today's bill will not deal with broader issues that were excluded in the new law and that must be considered as part of a parliamentary review of the law that is to begin this summer.” Again, bang on with what was in the bill.
We saw the news articles and we thought we knew what had happened, another leak from the Department of Justice, another affront to this Parliament, another breach of all of our collective privileges, but again we had to read the bill to find out whether in fact that was the case.
We carefully reviewed the contents of Bill C-7 following its introduction in the House. When I and other members of Parliament got to see the bill for the first time, others in the media had seen the bill in its entirety for hours before.
The details reported by The Canadian Press hours earlier were indeed contained in Bill C-7. Ironically, over and over, the first precedent that I had quoted earlier was from the last Parliament, brought to the Speaker's attention on April 14, 2016, and in regard to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying).
The department in question is being absolutely recidivist. It is not taking seriously the consequences and the rulings of Speakers. The Speaker in 2016 found that there was, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege regarding Bill C-14 and said:
As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.
The Speaker's concluding remarks in 2016 were as follows:
In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.
On October 4, 2010, on page 4711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken noted:
It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.
This all goes back to my point about the Department of Justice not taking seriously the rules of this House. The one department that ought to know best about the rules of this House is now a four-time offender, with breaches of privileges found by successive Speakers over the last several years, sometimes over the same bill subject matters. The House, and the rules of the House, are being completely ignored.
The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, after, and members are not going to believe this, the Department of Justice briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House.
Maybe, in this minority House, members can finally take this department and this Minister of Justice's office to account and to task for their continuous disrespect of the privileges and the rights of this place, and the rights of all Canadians who send us as members of Parliament to do good work on their behalf.
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOral Questions
Some hon. members
Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The question is on the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOral Questions
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The House resumed 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 third time and passed.
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.
I am pleased to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-4, an act to implement the new NAFTA and, in particular, the agreement's intellectual property provisions. Canadian creators and innovators make an important contribution to the North American knowledge economy. For instance, in 2017, 68% of the patents filed by Canadians internationally were filed in the United States, more than at any foreign patent office. The new NAFTA would allow Canadian creators and innovators to continue to conduct business with our U.S. and Mexican partners, ensuring that they would continue to receive a clear, predictable and transparent framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property, or IP, rights in all three markets.
IP rights provide Canadian innovators and creators with a period of time during which they can expect to hold exclusive rights and be entitled to receive compensation, such as royalties for the use of their creations and innovations. With the new NAFTA, Canadians can be confident that their IP rights will receive a minimum standard of protection and enforcement across the entire North American marketplace.
Since the original NAFTA was negotiated, a number of key technological and multilateral developments have taken place that have presented novel challenges, such as with respect to the protection and enforcement of copyright in the digital environment. These include significant advances in the digital economy, including the further development of modern digital technologies that, since NAFTA, have been addressed in multilateral frameworks like the World Intellectual Property Organization.
The updated IP chapter builds upon those international IP treaties, like the WTO agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as well as the multilateral treaties administered by the WIPO with a view to establishing minimum standards on IP rights protection and enforcement for the North American marketplace.
Under the new agreement, all three parties agreed to an updated comprehensive chapter on IP rights protection and enforcement. This chapter includes obligations on copyright-related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents and pharmaceutical IP; data protection for agricultural chemical products and trade secrets; and IP rights enforcement in the civil, criminal and border contexts.
The modernized agreement also reflects several recent reforms to Canada's IP regime, such as those under the Combating Counterfeit Products Act and the Copyright Modernization Act, Canada's recent accession to several multilateral treaties under the WIPO, and initiatives undertaken through the government's recent intellectual property strategy.
For instance, further to reforms to Canada's copyright regime under the Copyright Modernization Act, the new NAFTA contains rules with respect to Internet service providers' liability that recognize Canada's notice and notice framework in this area as an effective approach to addressing online copyright infringement. The new agreement contains rules concerning legal protections for technological protection measures, or the digital locks on copyrighted works, which align with Canada's existing law and policy.
Regarding geographical indications, or Gls, the signs used on products to show that they come from a particular place with distinctive characteristics or qualities related to that place, the new NAFTA outcome is in line with Canada's open and transparent system for the protection of Gls. This means wines, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs remain eligible for GI protection in the Canadian marketplace, in line with Canada's current framework.
The agreement also contains provisions that require the parties to provide that judicial authorities can, where appropriate, order the award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in civil proceedings. This is a valuable tool that often serves as a disincentive against bad actors who pursue bad faith litigation tactics, which can otherwise stifle innovation.
The agreement is not the end of the conversation among the three partners. It also includes a commitment from all three parties to co-operate in discussions on a range of IP issues of interest, such as on enhancing procedural fairness in IP litigation, including choice of venue, an issue of particular concern for some Canadian business owners operating abroad.
Building upon Canada's already strong IP regime, the new agreement would require changes in certain areas of Canada's existing IP legal and policy framework. For example, on border measures, Canada already provides officials at the border with the authority to act on their own initiative, as appropriate, to detain suspected counterfeit trademark or pirated counterfeit goods on import and export. The new agreement would require Canada to extend this authority to such goods transiting through Canada destined for another marketplace.
Regarding copyright, the new agreement requires a change in the general term of copyright protection from “life of the author plus 50 years”, to “life of the author plus 70 years”. With respect to patents, Canada would be required to provide for a patent term adjustment in respect of unreasonable delays in the issuance of a patent.
To implement these two obligations, Canada has transition periods of two and a half years for the general term of protection for copyright and four and a half years for patent term adjustment. These transition periods would commence following the entry into force of the agreement and would enable the government to thoroughly consider and consult on how best to implement these new commitments.
On December 10, 2019, Canada, the United States and Mexico agreed to update certain elements of the new NAFTA to improve the final outcome and clear the path toward ratification and implementation. With respect to IP, agreement was reached to delete or amend certain provisions dealing with patent and pharmaceutical IP. Most notably, the parties agreed to delete the commitment on data protection for biologics, which means that Canada would no longer need to amend its domestic regime to provide 10 years of data protection in this area.
The parties also agreed to remove a provision on the availability of patents for new uses, new methods or new processes of using a known product, as well as provisions on data protection for new indications of existing drugs. Last, language was also added on an exception related to regulatory reviews on how the three countries may meet obligations dealing with patent term restoration, patent linkage and data protection for small-molecule drugs.
These amendments clarify that Canada, the United States and Mexico would remain flexible under the new agreement to pursue domestic policy priorities in these areas. Notably, Canada would be required to make changes to domestic patent or pharmaceutical IP regimes in order to implement the amended provisions. For many Canadian creators and innovators, one of the key barriers to exporting abroad is uncertainty over IP rights and whether they will be protected and enforced when operating in foreign markets. That is why Canada worked tirelessly to ensure that the new agreement establishes clear standards on IP rights and is enforced across North America.
Ratifying the new NAFTA is not just about securing economic benefits for Canada today, but also ensuring our continued prosperity in the future. The agreement would ensure that Canada continues to have a strong and vital relationship with our closest neighbours.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, we have raised concerns repeatedly around this deal. We are grateful that we are going to see the text of future agreements ahead of time so we can have a better idea what the objective is of the government, when it heads into these trade agreements and deals, so we can have a chance to scrutinize them.
We are concerned about the government and its commitment around the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We are wondering why the government would move forward with a commitment to sign this agreement that does not make reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I see this failure in treaties and agreements cross-border, whether over our salmon or various related issues where I live, where indigenous people and their rights are not consulted.
Maybe the member could speak about the importance of this, whether it be in this trade deal or future trade deals, and how significant it is that the government address this.
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Madam Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that the rights of indigenous individuals and the environment are always top of mind when we are negotiating our free trade agreements.
Having said that, I do want to reiterate that the United States is our largest trading partner and how vital this ratification was, so for us to get this done was of utmost importance. However, we do definitely keep those issues in consideration.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague opposite for his speech and say that I was very happy to hear him talk about copyright and succession. The agreement would increase the succession term from 50 years to 70 years after the author's death. As it stands, the heir or the person to whom the copyright is bequeathed must request an extension of the copyright term.
Could my colleague tell me what the government thinks about the fact that the heir must request an extension 50 years after the author's death, when that is something that should be done automatically?
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Madam Speaker, we have made a marked improvement in our existing laws. Look at Mexico, for example, whose measure was 100 years. The fact that we have gone from 50 to 70 years is quite an improvement. I wanted to highlight that.
In terms of those who have to acquire the IP afterward, I am sure there is room to renegotiate this in the future when this trade agreement comes up for renewal. If colleagues look at what we have done, it is quite significant to move from 50 to 70 when our member partners were already at 100. It is quite a movement in the right direction.
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise this afternoon and speak to the tripartite agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States. I will be sharing my speaking time on this important issue with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.
It is always a privilege to rise in the House in support of trade with our partners, as trade is one of the pillars of our economy. This afternoon, we are not talking about just any partner. We are talking about our American partner. As members know, our shared relationship and border go back a long way.
I will start by saying that I plan on supporting Bill C-4 because this agreement is in keeping with a long tradition that we established. In 1994, Brian Mulroney signed the first agreement, NAFTA, with the United States and Mexico.
This fundamental agreement helped Canada triple its exports to the U.S. and Mexico and also helped stimulate our economy. As a proud representative of a vibrant manufacturing region, I can see first-hand how this free trade agreement benefits our manufacturers in Bellechasse—Les Etchemins, such as Rotobec, and in Lévis.
I just want to remind my colleague that, like him, I plan to support this important bill to maintain our trade relationship with our most important partner. The United States takes in three-quarters of Canada's exports, a significant amount considering that Canadian exports totalled nearly $400 billion U.S. in 2016.
However, we are less pleased about the fact that the current government did a poor job of negotiating this agreement, as it does with most things. The Liberal government does not know how to negotiate agreements for Canada, and that has a negative impact on businesses such as those in the dairy industry in my riding. Nevertheless, we are better off with a bad agreement than with no agreement, which is why I have already voted in favour of this bill and why we hope it passes quickly.
For some time now, the Conservatives have been telling the government to hurry up and approve the deal. I worked in consulting engineering, where people say that a deal is not done until it is signed. It is not a good deal, but we need to get it approved ASAP.
That is why, in spring 2019, before the October federal election, we proposed a preliminary study of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement so that it could be passed as soon as the government introduced it in the House, but the Liberals refused.
The day after the election, we asked the Liberals to consider the possibility of sitting in December between Christmas and New Year's because we thought it was important to ratify this agreement. Once again, the Liberals ignored our request.
We had to wait until the end of January before they finally bothered to table the agreement here in the House so that we could begin the legislative process. Once again, we asked for things to be done more quickly because people wanted to have their say about the problems with this important agreement. The Liberals refused.
That brings us to where we are today. We are making progress, and I can say that we intend to support the ratification of this agreement every step of the way. The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most solid relationships that can exist between two countries. It plays an important role in our manufacturing jobs. A number of agreements and several billion dollars are at stake.
I want to take this opportunity to remind members that there is a border between Canada and the United States. Of course, it is important to ensure the free flow of goods between the two countries, but it is also important to ensure that our borders remain secure. I am referring to the beyond the border action plan announced in December 2011 by then U.S. president Barack Obama and then Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. We recognize the importance of maintaining a strong trade relationship while keeping our borders secure.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the Liberals did not negotiate a good deal in this case. As we have seen, many groups were left out in the cold. Overall, the agreement that was signed and that we are going to approve is not as good as the previous agreement that was negotiated by the Conservatives. That is unfortunate, but, as I said, we would rather have a bad deal than no deal at all.
Why are the Liberals such bad negotiators? When we look at their record on negotiating, we have to remember that the agreements collectively provide the big picture.
Take the dairy sector. This sector plays a very important role in the Chaudière-Appalaches region, especially in Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, where businesses are handed down from one generation to the next and are an economic mainstay in our region. These businesses have had to deal with not one, not two, but three agreements.
The first agreement, which was negotiated by our government, is the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. That agreement made some accommodations with regard to supply management to allow European products to enter our market. On October 18, 2013, an agreement in principle was signed with the European Union, and the agreement came into force in September 2017.
The trans-Pacific partnership is now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This happened during the transition from the Conservative government to the current government.
At the time, when we were in negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership, the U.S. was involved, but it withdrew from the agreement in January 2017. The other members of the initial agreement picked up where they left off and renamed the agreement. However, the concessions that were made in the Canada-Europe free trade agreement and then in the trans-Pacific partnership were renewed. This left the dairy sector vulnerable, because there was no agreement with the U.S. when it came time to renegotiate the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. In a way, we had already made two concessions. Even more damaging was the fact that the concessions were cumulative. The Liberals made more bad decisions on cheese imports.
Under the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, 16,000 tonnes of imported cheese from Europe was to enter our markets. The Liberals made the mistake of granting the power to import these cheeses not to those who were affected, namely manufacturers and processors, but to distributors, who received half of the import quota. This was even more detrimental than a simple reduction in volume because Quebec's entire cheese sector was undermined.
Mr. Letendre, the chairman of Les Producteurs de lait du Québec, stated that it made no sense to allocate 50% of the quota to distributors. He said that it is expensive to develop new products in order to compete and that this would hurt Quebec's industry.
I wanted to cite the example of the three agreements that were negotiated. Every time the Liberals were involved in the negotiations, it hurt the dairy industry and Canadian industries. Ultimately, our businesses are being penalized, and we have yet to see any compensation. That is unfortunate, because had Canada's interests been considered in the negotiations, we would not have had to make concessions.
I had many things to say, but I realize that my time is running out. I made my point at the outset. We intend to support the agreement despite its weaknesses because it is important to maintain the relationship with our most important partner, the United States.
Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 have been listening to the debate all day on this very important piece of legislation. From what I recall, it is the first time that all political entities, the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Conservatives and obviously the Liberal government which is putting it forward are supporting a trade agreement. We have stakeholders from across the country, union and business leaders who are also in support of this agreement. I would even go back to the author of the original trade agreement, Brian Mulroney, who also supports this agreement.
Would the member across the way acknowledge that throughout the last couple of years we have seen Canadians from coast to coast to coast come together to provide the feedback that has been necessary in order to get us to this very point today?
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Certainly, everyone agrees that we are supporting a bad deal that does not address matters like the softwood lumber dispute or government procurement, for instance.
I have a note dated December 19 about Prevost, a flagship company in my riding. Prevost won the largest contract in its history, a $260-million contract to build 307 buses for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York state.
That is great news. However, the downside is that the agreement that was signed does not contain any provisions on government procurement. That creates uncertainty. Yes, we are going to support the agreement, but we are a long way from an agreement that provides a net benefit to Canada.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my Quebec colleague for his very interesting speech. I agree with him on the whole issue of supply management. In Quebec, we have felt the impact of treaties on supply management. The treaties that Canada has signed have always come at the expense of supply management and Quebec dairy producers.
However, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the agreement that the Bloc Québécois managed to get on the traceability of aluminum in order to prevent China from exporting aluminum to Mexico and flooding the North American market. In its negotiations with the government, the Bloc Québécois succeeded in protecting nearly $6 billion in aluminum investments in Quebec.
I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this is a plus in the free trade agreement.
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words and his question. I would remind him, however, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I encourage him to remain vigilant. The agreement will not be changed. The traceability agreement depends on the goodwill of the countries, so we will have to see how it will be enforced. The same is true in the agricultural sector. Additional concessions were made at the expense of our agricultural industry. We on this side are still waiting to see what the compensation looks like.
Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, one of the biggest losers in the CUSMA is the supply-managed dairy sector as the member said. Along with concessions and CPTPP, this latest hit means a 10% loss of market share to Canadian producers.
Could the member speak about whether the Conservatives support the supply-managed dairy sector and if so, why they have supported every assault on the sector over the last five years?
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I invite her to look at what the Conservative Party did when it was in power. We took action to limit milk protein imports from New Zealand and to stop the illegal import of cheese in the form of pizza kits. We did plenty. Unlike the Liberals, who have done nothing about the problem of diafiltered milk, the Conservative government did not sit back and simply say that it supported supply management; it took concrete action. Our record on that is very solid.
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the new NAFTA agreement and the repercussions of this important agreement. Of course, it is always a pleasure, and indeed my duty, to rise in this place and defend the interests of my constituents and those across Canada.
I want to thank all those involved on both sides of the House and all our neighbours and friends in the United States and Mexico for working on this agreement. As we all know, there was an incredible effort to get a deal on the table and that effort was a testament to how everybody understood how important this deal really was.
The Conservatives are in support of a trade agreement with the United States and with Mexico. It is good for business and it will provide the certainty for which all are looking.
The Conservatives, of course, are the party of trade. Our party is responsible for negotiating some of the largest and most important trade agreements in Canadian history. It was also under the previous Conservative government that we signed 40 trade agreements with countries all over the world. It was also under a Conservative government that NAFTA was first created. It was a historic agreement that propelled the Canadian economy into the future and provided unequalled opportunities for Canadian manufacturing, industry, energy, agriculture and other sectors.
The previous Conservative government was very forthcoming with information on the free trade negotiations that were taking place. The member for Abbotsford, as the then minister of international trade, provided many opportunities for parliamentarians to ask questions, take part in briefings and see documents. Unfortunately, we have not seen the same from the Liberal government. It prefers that the opposition just trust the government and not worry, that it got the best deal possible.
Over the past few weeks, the Liberal Party has claimed that it is the Conservatives who have delayed the implementation of the new NAFTA deal. Conservative members on the Standing Committee on International Trade sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, outlining the concerns the Conservative Party had heard with a new NAFTA deal and to correct the record that outlined how it was, in fact, the Liberal Party who had been delaying the implementation of this new NAFTA deal.
Knowing that the federal election was coming up in October of 2019, the Conservatives offered to begin a prestudy on the original trade deal. It was originally called Bill C-100. That happened in May of last year. When the government was ready to move the legislation through the House of Commons, the work would already have been done in committee. However, the Liberals declined.
When the revised agreement was signed in December 2019, the Conservatives offered to come back early from the Christmas break to begin work on that bill. The Liberals declined that as well.
The Liberal government waited until January 29 to introduce the implementation legislation in the House of Commons, even though the revised agreement was signed in December. The Conservatives moved that legislation through the House of Commons in just six sitting days compared to the 16 days it took to move the original implementation legislation, Bill C-100, through the House of Commons and to committee.
The international trade committee had approximately 200 requests to appear on that new trade deal. The amount of work to do on the legislation had not changed and the Conservatives consistently offered to commence that work earlier. The Liberals declined.
The Conservatives ultimately offered to complete a clause-by-clause examination by no later than March 5, under the assumption that the government would not be recalling the House of Commons during the constituency break week to conduct report stage and third reading of Bill C-4. The Liberals declined that too.
The Liberals released their economic impact analysis for that trade deal only one day before the international trade committee had to conduct its clause-by-clause review and the first formal briefing that parliamentarians actually received on the new agreement was on December 11, 2019.
Canada's Conservatives sought a unanimous consent motion in the House of Commons to speed up the ratification of that new trade deal. The Liberals declined that too.
Those are the facts.
I want to turn now to the substance of that agreement. The deal is not perfect. We have said that many times on this side of the House and so have some of our other opposition colleagues. There are a number of shortcomings that I would like to put on record.
The Liberal government has left our great aluminum industry vulnerable to backdoor imports from China. While steel was protected with rules that steel must be melted and poured by primary steelmakers in North America in order to receive preferential tariff treatment, no such provision was added for aluminum.
Jean Simard, president and CEO of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said the following:
The advantage thus conferred to Mexico makes it more or less China's North American backyard to dispose of the products of its overcapacity, thereby generating the gradual relocation of North American transformers to Mexico.
The Liberal government also failed to secure a new ISDS, leaving Canadians and their businesses unprotected by unfair laws, tariffs or trade practices of our partners. This will leave many Canadian industries open to abuse, with little to no recourse.
In the early 2000s, the softwood lumber industry was devastated by unfair trade practices and it was only because of arbitration panels ruling against the U.S. that we eventually worked out a settlement.
In a statement, the president of the BC Lumber Trade Council said:
Having a robust and fair dispute resolution mechanism is absolutely critical to maintaining a rules-based trading system and providing an avenue for Canada and Canadian companies to appeal unwarranted duties.
The CUSMA deal, the new NAFTA, fails to include a fair dispute resolution process.
Another huge problem is CUSMA's sunset clause. The sunset clause sets out formal reviews every six years and a termination clause in 16 years unless it is renegotiated. I, among many other Canadians, would like to know why we are not protecting long-term stability for our Canadian business.
Dennis Darby, chief executive of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said, “With a five-year potential sword hanging over your head, I think what it's going to do is cause manufacturers to not invest and be really, really risk-averse."
I would like to have on the record the shortcomings we see in the dairy section of this agreement. It would reduce Canadian dairy producers' access to the U.S. market at the same time opening the Canadian market to more U.S. milk products. This agreement dictates specific thresholds for Canadian exports of milk protein concentrates, skim milk powder and infant formula. If export thresholds are exceeded, Canada would add duties to the exports in excess to make them more expensive. It would also eliminate milk class 6 and milk class 7, which would affect dairy farms across Ontario and the country.
Pierre Lampron, president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, said, “[T]he message sent to our passionate, proud and quality-conscious farmers and all the people who work in the dairy sector is clear: they are nothing more than a bargaining chip to satisfy President Trump.”
I would like to take a minute to express my concerns with how the government is also handling the coronavirus crisis.
When is the Liberal government going to start to outlining its plan to Canadians in the case of a possible pandemic? Expecting Canadians to stockpile supplies is simply not enough. All Canadians deserve to be reassured that the government is prepared to assist and support those affected by the virus. We need much more vigorous screening processes upon entry, mandatory quarantine for those who do enter from high-risk countries or potentially stopping incoming and outgoing flights from high-risk areas. The health and safety of all Canadians needs to be a top priority.
Canada's Conservatives have offered repeatedly to expedite the new NAFTA deal in order to ensure swift ratification, but again, at every stage, the Liberals have chosen to play politics.
The committee heard from a number of sectors that would be negatively impacted by CUSMA, and it is important the government is aware of those negative impacts so it can work to mitigate them.
I want to reiterate for my friends on all sides of the House that the Conservatives support this legislation. We are the party of trade and we hope to see that continue.
Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, in the last four-plus years, the government has spent a great deal of time and effort dealing with the issue of trade. We have signed agreements with the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Agreements have been signed with Ukraine and we have had other agreements with respect to the World Trade Organization. These are have really helped Canada's economy.
I ask for my colleague's thoughts on the importance of trade to our nation, no matter what region of the country we live in. Today we are debating important trade legislation that will positively impact all Canadians.