Debates of March 10th, 2020

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abbotsford, who has a long history in trade. During his time as trade minister, 51 agreements were completed. Therefore, I am honoured to share my time with such a financial wizard of trade.

North America has a trade history. If I go back to the Blackfoot Confederacy and my riding, the nations traded west through the Bow River corridor into B.C. They traded south into Wyoming. They traded into Montana. Therefore, we have had international trade going on in North America for some time with the indigenous people.

The Hudson's Bay Company showed up and traded across the country and exported all over the world. We are an exporting country. We survive because we export. We are tied to it. We have to trade.

Back in 1854, before we were a country, reciprocity with the U.S. was an issue. There was a reciprocity agreement in 1854, because we were dependent on trade with the U.S.

In the times after Confederation, with Macdonald, Borden, Mulroney and Harper, we continued to build trade agreements because we knew we were an exporting nation. However, there were challenges in those decades. As the U.S. became more intertwined in the later decades of the 1890s into the 1930s, we had the Smoot-Hawley agreement. The U.S. realized trade deficits with Canada were really detrimental to it. Therefore, it began to build trade tariffs, one after another, over those next 40 years.

Following the Second World War, Canada was constantly going back to the U.S. for exemptions to deal with trade under the Smoot-Hawley agreement, which was very protectionist. We were begging for exemptions. We did get the Auto Pact. When Nixon became president, he decided the U.S. was done with exemptions for Canada. He left us the Auto Pact, but that was the only thing he left us.

The next decade began with the building of NAFTA. We realized we were so intertwined economically with North America that we needed a better deal than what we had. As that grew, Mulroney was elected. Who did he use as a spokesman to build the NAFTA agreement across Canada? Premier Lougheed of Alberta. He was the gentleman who went across the country and the United States to get support for this agreement and to get people to understand how good NAFTA would be for them. It was an incredible experience for the premier of Alberta to show what with North America meant, not just for Alberta but for the whole country.

Once the NAFTA agreement was in place, it worked for decades. Now we are faced with one that has its challenges.

Several times today, members have mentioned the dairy industry and what it has lost in the new agreement.

Aluminum will be an interesting challenge. We know what has happened in Mexico. It is not as good as the deal we have for steel. We have a great aluminum industry in the country. I do not know why we did not work more to protect it, because it is such a green industry, both on the west coast and in Quebec. It is one of the greenest industries we have. It should have been protected more. It is an example of a green industry.

The cattle industry still has issues with cross-border trading. Moving live animals is a problem. Washington State is now looking at COOL, which is country of origin labelling. It is already developing some legislation. Trump likes that kind of legislation. Our cattle industry is very concerned because hundreds of thousands of live animals and products move back and forth in North America. COOL was very detrimental, but we managed to get it out. Now it is coming back. We have to deal with that. Our agriculture industry is absolutely paranoid about the cost of that.

We did not deal with softwood.

There is something else interesting in my riding. It is the only sugar beet industry left in Canada. We produce sugar beets in Canada. My grandfather was involved in bringing that industry to southern Alberta from the United States. He brought it up and we have irrigation. The sugar beet industry is very strong in my riding. It employs up to 200 people a year when those sugar beets are harvested. There was access to the U.S. market under the previous NAFTA, and the sugar beet industry was very concerned about what might happen. It was protected and it is still there, so that is a positive piece under the current NAFTA.

Somebody here mentioned the Wheat Board, and I cannot resist that because that was a problem. It put shackles on western Canada as far as trade for our prairie farmers. I have very successful farmers in my riding who knew that they could trade better than the bureaucracy of the Canadian Wheat Board. They would load up their trucks and take them across the border to deliver a Canadian product, because they knew they could trade better than a bureaucratic Canadian Wheat Board. Those people went to jail. They spent months in jail for driving across the border delivering a Canadian product that was wanted in the United States for trade. Canadians went to jail because they wanted to trade, but that is what we do. Some of those people continue to be leaders in their communities today. That jail record did not keep them from doing the good things they needed to do. It is just an example of what we believe about trade. We believe in western Canada how good it is, but it is trade all over the country.

Most recently, for example in Newfoundland, people have learned how to develop the eggs that come out of sea urchins for the Japanese market. We trade all over this country because we are tied to it.

This agreement is done and it has been signed, but there are things that need to be fixed. There were concessions made, one after another, to get it done out of fear of what Trump would do to us. Out of that fear, we got an agreement. It is not an agreement that is going to be fixed easily, but it is something that we need to do.

Do we agree with trade? Do my constituents want trade? Absolutely they do, but they want certainty. They need to know where those markets are because we are traders. We are entwined with the U.S. and Mexican markets. We have to trade. We need to get our products to market. The deal will be done and we will support it, but there certainly are losses in this one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the member's speeches, especially because he is so sensitive to indigenous people, as I have noted in the past, and I really enjoy that. Perhaps the member could comment briefly on the fact that, for the first time, indigenous rights are in this agreement. I am sure he would agree with that.

More important, the member talked about the green aluminum industry. Anything he could add as to what his party would do on green industry would be great.

While he is thinking of the answer, I just want to mention that he said there should be improved protection for aluminum, but there is a huge increase in protection for aluminum in this agreement. The regional value content in cars increased from 62.5% to 75%. In the past, there was no protection on aluminum parts purchased by auto makers. Now, 70% must be North American and 7% of the core parts of a car must have 75% regional value, and of course a number of those parts have aluminum. This can be reviewed and improved any time.

If the member could talk about green industry and his party's plan, that would be great.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's input in the House and his speeches as well. He represents a great part of our country.

Regarding green industries, and agriculture is one of them, a United Nations committee stated that we need to remove cattle from the prairies because they are destroying our environment. I could not believe that one. The cattle on the prairies are a critical piece of our environment. They replaced the buffalo. Without those cattle on the prairies, we lose our natural prairies and we lose the green environment. It is so wrong that people in other parts of the world who do not understand the environment, do not understand that cattle do the same thing today as the millions of buffalo that roamed and worked the prairies. We have an industry that needs trade, and it is the cattle industry, but they make the environment greener on the prairies.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP trade critic, I have been following the debate very closely.

Conservatives mentioned a couple of issues multiple times. One is the lack of an economic impact assessment, or the late delivery of that document, getting it only a day before the conclusion of the committee's study. A second concern, and I think a legitimate concern, is about having to give notice to the United States of negotiating an agreement with a non-market country, which really means China.

The NDP was successful in negotiating some policy changes with the government, namely that the government would be required by its own rules to table an economic impact assessment with the ratifying legislation, that it would be required to give three months' public notice, here in Parliament, of an intent to negotiate with any country, and that it would give notice of its negotiating objectives.

That is sound policy, and it helps in addressing some of the concerns about the process for this agreement by making public the notice that the U.S. would get anyway and by ensuring that economic impact assessments would be tabled with the ratifying legislation.

Would the member comment on those provisions?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings such depth to his questions and interest in this House. I always appreciate it when the member stands up to address the House.

The member talked about transparency, and transparency is the issue. We are dealing with the coronavirus. I am going to go a different way on this, but members will understand why in a second. We have had a party dealing with this, but it has been dealing with it in a very closed fashion.

When the Conservatives dealt with SARS, was it just the committee of the cabinet that was dealing with it? No. The leaders of all opposition parties were included at 10 o'clock every day. It was transparent and it was dealt with as a team, because those things need to be dealt with by a team.

This is the same as what the member was saying about dealing with a team. We are dealing with the coronavirus and we are out here having to ask questions about what is going on. If the Liberals would include the opposition, as Conservatives did with SARS, we would have transparency and much better information sharing. We would then be able to make better decisions.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to engage in this debate again. What I am going to speak to is a story of betrayal, incompetence, weakness on the part of the Prime Minister, hubris and recklessness. It is a story of opportunity lost because we did not even have to engage in this negotiation the way the Prime Minister engaged in it.

Our Prime Minister assumed that, because President Trump said that he was going to tear up NAFTA, somehow he needed to reach out to him and say that he gladly would renegotiate this agreement. Anyone who knows anything about the American trade system knows that the President cannot unilaterally tear up a trade agreement. He needs to have the consent and the approval of Congress.

Think about this: 35 of the American states have Canada as their number one export market. Show me the representatives, senators and governors from those states. Do colleagues think they will ever agree to tear up the old NAFTA? Of course not, but our Prime Minister marched into this negotiation and said, “President Trump, what do you want from us?” That is how it all started and then President Trump said, “Well, I've got this huge trade deficit with Canada.” That is fake news.

The truth is that our trade with the United States is virtually perfectly balanced. One month it will be one way, a couple of billion dollars, another month the other way. The reality is that our trade is as perfectly balanced as any two countries could expect. The President's target was Mexico, but somehow our Prime Minister did not figure that out.

The Prime Minister said that he was going to bring back a win-win-win. It was three wins, one for Mexico, one for the U.S. and one for Canada. Did we get a win out of this deal? By any reasonable measure and standard we lost and we lost big time. Let me explain why.

What are the wins? We did get a digital economy chapter out of it, because back when NAFTA was first negotiated we did not have a digital economy. Today it is ubiquitous, so it makes sense to have a chapter for that.

We did synchronize some of our intellectual property rules with the United States. That is okay.

We raised our de minimis amounts so that people can come across the border with a higher duty-free limit, but there were no real market access gains for Canada in this agreement, except for maybe a little bit of sugar. That is about it, honestly.

Earlier Liberal speakers defined success in this agreement by what Canada did not lose. They said we were able to defend things. We were able to preserve chapter 19. What a great win. We preserved what we had before. That is not my definition of a win. My definition of a win is that we gain something from the United States, not just security or simply a marketplace that will not be disrupted because we do not have an agreement.

Let me now talk about the concessions we made. Can members imagine that after five years of negotiations our Prime Minister agreed to President Trump's demand that there be a six-year sunset clause? In other words, in six years either we decide to carry on, or the deal falls dead. That is the first time Canada has ever done that, by the way.

The aluminum industry in Canada was not provided with the same protection against dumping, primarily from China, that the United States got, so we sold out the aluminum industry.

Then there are export caps on the auto industry for parts and vehicles being exported.

We conceded Canadian sovereignty on milk pricing. Never before have we done that, where we said, “President Trump, if we want to change our milk pricing regime, we will come to you, cap in hand on bended knee, and beg you for permission to do this” to defend our supply management system.

We did the same thing with our sovereignty with regard to negotiating other trade agreements. Can members imagine that? We agreed with Donald Trump that if we ever want to negotiate a trade agreement with a non-market economy like China, we will have to come to him and ask him for permission to do so. Sly fox that he is, he has already negotiated his own deal with China, at least a phase one deal, so he does not have to come to us cap in hand, but we have to go to him that way to try to compete on a level playing field with China. Do members think he will ever approve that? Of course not. We got snookered.

It gets worse. We conceded double the amount of new dairy access that the Americans will have to our market than our Conservative government had negotiated under the TPP. That is a massive failure, and it gets worse. The Liberals actually imposed export caps on our ability to export value-added milk products. For example, in cheesemaking in the milk industry, there are by-products that used to be washed down the drain, but we had some smart Canadian companies there. One of them is in Abbotsford, British Columbia. It is called Vitalus, and we had Phil Vanderpol from Vitalus at committee. We asked him about the export caps.

The U.S. wanted us to limit our exports of these value-added unique products not only to the United States, which might have been fair, but also to other countries all around the world. We said to Donald Trump, “You know what? We are not going to be able to export beyond those cap limits.”

I asked Mr. Vanderpol at committee if he got a chance to talk to the minister and the trade representatives about this. He said that yes, they had a meeting, and they told him in no uncertain terms that export caps were not on the table. When the agreement came out, guess what? Caps had not only been on the table, but had been negotiated away by our Liberal government.

That is the betrayal part of this agreement. That is a betrayal, and Mr. Vanderpol was very upset about how his industry had been sold out by this Liberal government.

I will now talk about the process that the government undertook to apprise Canadians of what this deal really meant in economic terms.

The United States did an economic impact assessment, and I have it here. There are 400 stinking pages of it that explain the impact it will have on the U.S. economy, and it is a positive impact. The assessment says that the U.S. made major gains against Canada. Ours was a 73-pager, and it did not even compare the old NAFTA to the new NAFTA; it compared a universe without NAFTA at all to the new NAFTA.

Fortunately, there is an organization in Canada that did the work that this Liberal government failed to do, and that is the C. D. Howe Institute. It actually compared the impact of the new NAFTA to what the old NAFTA delivered for Canadians in economic terms, and it is a sad story. It is a story of failure on the part of the Liberal government. The C. D. Howe Institute concluded that Canada is going to sacrifice about $14 billion of economic activity every single year going forward. That is a $14-billion GDP hit that we are going to take as a result of this agreement. Is that a responsible agreement?

The Liberals used to say that no NAFTA was better than a bad NAFTA. Now they are saying that it is better to have a new NAFTA than no NAFTA at all. They do know what they are talking about.

They talk about win-win-win. They talk about delivering a better deal for Canadians. At the end of the day, after we look at this agreement, and I do have some experience in trade, we see this is a big fail for Canadians.

I wish we had better news for Canadians, because we can do so much better. The previous Conservative government would have never made the concessions that were made in this agreement. There are things in this deal that Canada has never agreed to before, yet this Liberal government made those concessions. That is a sad story.

It is a story of failure.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member opposite I would like to remind him that inside the House for the very first time, and maybe the member across the way can correct me, we have an agreement in which the Bloc, the NDP, the Green Party and the Conservatives, including the member who just spoke, are going to be supporting the bill.

If the deal is that bad, can he explain why the Conservatives never achieved what this government has by getting virtually unanimous support for a trade bill, something the Conservatives were never able to get?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is amusing. Every time the member stands I have a good chuckle at the way he is able to stretch the truth. I want to remind him it was the Liberal government of the day that voted against the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The Liberal government members of the day said they would vote against the original NAFTA and when they were elected, they suddenly changed their minds. They had a conversion on the road to Damascus. These are wannabe trade-meisters.

What the Liberal government has left this Parliament with is no options at all, except for one. We are supporting the agreement, but by any stretch or measure, this is a worse agreement than we had before. The C.D. Howe put an exclamation mark on that assessment.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that a future Conservative government would make no concessions on supply management in a future trade deal, whether Canada-U.K. or another deal?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the member of is that a future Conservative government would never sell out the industry the way the Liberals did under this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want the member to try to imagine that he is a Liberal. If he was negotiating this deal, but he knew on the other side that there was a member who had negotiated 51 free trade agreements, would he have involved that person in those trade negotiations that would have made it better?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the best question I have heard in the House today. Our former Conservative government negotiated free trade agreements with 46 different countries. We had five to start with and we ended up with 51. That is a record I am very proud of and I know the member is very proud of. Can I imagine being a Liberal? Never, never in my life.

However, can I imagine a future Conservative government doing much better than the Liberal government especially on the trade file? Absolutely. In fact, I can guarantee it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to a report. I wonder, as there have been many reports done and analysis, if he could refer to any others?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only report the government came up with on the value of this trade agreement was a bogus report. I am glad he asked the question. What the Liberal government did on the last day that the committee was reviewing this agreement, two weeks ago, was table-drop this economic impact assessment. The members of the committee had no ability to review the impact assessment. The committee had officials of the government there, but had no ability to ask them questions about the impact assessment. Then, once we reviewed the impact assessment, we realized that it was bogus anyway because it was comparing the new NAFTA to a world where Canada did not have a NAFTA at all.

That should be an embarrassment to the government. Liberals talk about transparency. The member for Elmwood—Transcona raised that issue of transparency. There was none here. They certainly did not consult with us.

As Conservatives, we take great pride in being the great champions of trade. Do they think they walked across the floor to ask if they should do this or that. No, they just went their merry way and conceded everything. They were snookered by Donald Trump.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.

I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak in support of Bill C-4. It is important to restate that Canada did not choose to renegotiate NAFTA. When confronted with the reality that our major trading partner was intent on replacing NAFTA, our government put in place a negotiating team that positioned Canada well as we began the process toward a modernized free trade agreement that, as my colleagues have stated in the House from time to time, has the overwhelming support of the House of Commons.

I have listened to much debate in the House and have heard various criticisms of parts of the renewed trade agreement, but members have not offered how they would have negotiated differently in those areas. While it is easy to pick apart points and say, “We would do it better”, Canada is a country of some 38 million people and our largest trading partner is a country of well over 300 million people. The official opposition would have Canadians believe that we could have simply gone to Washington and dictated to the U.S. every term we wanted in the agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Ridiculous.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

It is ridiculous. Trade agreements are negotiated between multilateral partners and countries. This particular one was between three countries, obviously: Mexico, Canada and the United States.

Canada, more than most, is dependent on trade. As a country of 38 million people, rich in natural resources, agriproducts and seafood, we depend on selling products worldwide in a competitive marketplace in order for Canada's economy to grow and succeed and to pay for the many programs that we as Canadians take for granted.

In these negotiations, I have to compliment the team that our government put in place to negotiate, at a critical time, a historic new agreement that will put in place, for Canadian businesses, Canadian farmers, Canadian fishers and Canadian workers, a secure framework as we move down the road and continue to grow and expand the economy.

Imagine for a moment standing here today in an environment with no agreement. Where would our industries be positioned? It is important to consider, in any particular trade agreement, which partner has more to lose and which partner has more to gain. For Canada, being a very small country compared to the U.S. in population and market size, it was extremely important that our negotiating team recognized that we had to have an agreement that served Canadians well and served Canada's economy well.

I have no problem going on the record to state that this agreement is a win for Canadians, a win established by a strong negotiating team that understood the dynamics and fundamentals of Canada's economy and ensured that the parts that had to be protected were protected.

I will not go into detail on the economic impact of this particular agreement, because it has been well debated in the House by earlier speakers. However, there is no question that Canada will be better positioned to move forward when the agreement is ratified than it would be if we had no trade agreement at all.

It is important to go back to how we arrived here. It was with a president intent on removing a trade agreement that had worked for a number of years, serving both countries well. That has been documented by speakers on both sides of the House. The agreement has served Canada and the U.S. well over the years.

It was extremely important that our government, being the smaller country population-wise in these trade agreements, secure an agreement that would be beneficial to all those sectors.

A couple of the last speakers basically portrayed the scenario that it was all wins for the U.S. and none for Canada. I believe that most fair-minded analysts would take a look at the agreement and say that Canada won on a lot of points, that Canada's team succeeded in a difficult environment and scored some big wins for us.

One of those wins that has been mentioned time and time again was that, from the outset, this government's line in the sand was always that supply management would remain in place. That was a major win in these trade negotiations, because at the start of this the U.S. administration was intent on seeing Canada's supply-managed system dismantled. That was a position that our government clearly would not waver on. There was room for negotiation, and at the end of the day we still have a sector that enjoys the benefits of operating in a supply market system.

My riding of Egmont is in the province of Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island is to Canada what Canada is to the U.S.. Prince Edward Island is a province with a small population, and we depend on trade for our agri products as well as seafood products. We very much depend on our national government to ensure that we have competitive trade agreements so that our goods move to market in a profitable manner and Prince Edward Island's industries remain protected that require it. Those industries that operate in a free market system do much better under this agreement, as was pointed out with the other agreements we signed with Europe and are now being negotiated with the Pacific Rim.

It is easy for opposition members to say that we should have done better in some areas, and we could have done better in some sectors, without offering what they would have exchanged to get to where their preferred position would have been. Yet, that is the role of the opposition. The opposition members can pick away at the government without offering up what they would do in our place. However, the government has a responsibility to ensure that at the end of the day Canadian entrepreneurs, farmers and fishers operate in a stable market environment with ensured protections. Some of the key areas that were protected are dispute settlement mechanisms, investor-state dispute resolution and the area of supply management.

As I indicated, Prince Edward Island is very small, and our dairy industry is very competitive. During this process, I met extensively with the dairy farmers in my riding. Let me read into the record a fact. Prince Edward Island has 1.7% of Canada's total dairy quota, and that quota has been growing at 3.5% annually, compared to the rest of Canada's at 2%, because the demand for domestic supply is moving. Over six years, that realized a 21% increase in market demand for Prince Edward Island's milk in a supply market system.

The industry is still growing and expanding. I recently had the honour of sitting down with some of the dairy farmers, the largest processors in my riding and the Minister of Agriculture and discussing what areas we had to continue to improve on to ensure that this industry remains competitive and small, medium-sized and large processors are competitive on an international market place.

I am pleased with this agreement. I certainly will be supporting it. I look forward to when this very important deal, which trumpets the accomplishments of this country, will be ratified in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the floor asked what Conservatives would have done differently. There are far too many things to list in a question, but certainly one of the things that should have been done was to treat our negotiating partners with respect. There are a number of examples, whether it was the Prime Minister in a press conference or the then foreign affairs minister attending an event, that seemed to draw the ire of the people they were sitting down at the negotiating table with.

To answer his question, that is one thing that would be done differently, among a whole host of other things. How does the member think it was appropriate to basically insult the people our negotiators had to sit across the table from and try to get an agreement done? In some cases, insults had been flying hours before.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, very simply, who was complimented in the final agreement? It was our lead negotiator, the then minister of foreign affairs. She was complimented by her trade counterpart from the U.S. and by the President of the United States. That answers the question of our position on how our trade people were treated in the U.S. Likewise, the end result of a successful agreement addresses that particular issue.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the dynamics of the discussions on this agreement are quite interesting. There is a rare unanimity among opposition parties, all of which concur that this agreement is far from perfect. In fact, it is supremely imperfect, but it seems that we are stuck with it.

I somewhat agree with my Conservative colleague. I felt compelled to speak when our colleague opposite said that no member had explained how things would have been done differently if others had conducted the negotiations instead of the government. First, we would not have touched supply management as they did. We would not have sacrificed the security of our farmers and dairy producers. We would definitely not have allowed the U.S. government to impose export tariffs on our dairy producers for goods exported to countries that are not even party to the agreement, nor would we have forgotten to provide the same protections to the aluminum sector as were provided to the steel sector. It took weeks of Bloc Québécois questions to the Liberal Party to finally have a semblance of agreement. It took a long time. I admit that it was a great achievement and that is why the Bloc Québécois will finally support the agreement.

In what way does my colleague opposite consider the points I have just made to be a good thing for the sectors we are discussing, namely, aluminum and dairy?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if we checked the records of debates on this topic in the Mexican assembly and the U.S. Congress there would be opposing politicians criticizing their governments for not doing enough in their various jurisdictions. We had the same comments in the three countries that we positively did not go far enough in one area or the other. The fact is that this agreement did protect Canada's supply market system and did protect those farmers who participate in it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with my colleague, and I know he cares as much about shipping lobster as I do about shipping salmon and the other species where I live.

The member talked about governments doing things differently. Clearly, we are happy to see the government adopt our policy to change the policy on tabling treaties here in Parliament.

The Canadian government must act now. I really want to give a huge shout-out to my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for working with the government and bringing this forward.

However, to give 90 days' notice of Canada's intent to negotiate a trade deal, to table negotiation objectives 30 days before negotiations commence and to provide an economic impact assessment along with ratifying legislation are basics for openness and transparency. Does my colleague agree that for transparency and openness in this deal, these should have been done in the first place?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, let us cut right to the end of the discussion. The proof is in the final document. We have strong unanimity in this House for supporting this agreement, so obviously we arrived there in a transparent and open process.

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

Mr. Speaker, because I do not have enough time, I will not give my speech on all of the benefits. We have heard from all parties today the many benefits of this agreement. Instead, I will comment on some of the points that have been made about the agreement.

One was related to reports. There are many reports that talk about the benefits of this agreement. A couple of the parties mentioned one report, but there have been many, and I will talk about a couple. RBC said, without disagreement, that the GDP would have gone down a huge amount, 1%, and affected 500,000 workers. Scotiabank said the Canadian economy would stand a strong chance of falling into a recession, without disagreement.

Another item that came up was the ability to export formula and skim milk type powders, saying they were cut off and we could not trade them anymore. That is not true. At a certain quota level, there will be a tariff, an increased charge, but we do not even export that much right now, so it will not have any immediate effect.

Something else that was said during the debate is that aluminum could be dumped into Mexico because of this agreement. There is nothing in the agreement that allows that. It has always been a concern of ours. We have always worked against that. In fact, thanks to the Bloc, we have strengthened the agreement in that respect.

There was the issue of government procurement. As members know, we have deferred government procurement to the WTO. Before we only had access to federal procurement through the WTO provisions and now we have access to 37 states, so that is a great improvement. Members talked about the announced intention of the United States to withdraw from that. That has been a rumour for years, but, as far as I know, there has been no official announcement related to that.

The Conservatives mentioned the benefit that we have increased the amount that can be brought across the border without taxes or duties, but we also protected business by having much lower amounts than the United States has.

We have to remember where we started in this agreement. The fact was that the United States wanted no agreement at all and the business community and most Canadians realized how devastating that would be for the country, so it is a great win that we have gotten this far. Some people have suggested that Trump could not tear up the agreement, but Mr. Trump achieved a lot of things that people did not think he would be able to achieve through the U.S. system.

Another item related to data for the large interactive computer providers, such as Facebook. Canada has its own laws about what is permissible and what can be watched. The safe harbour part of the agreement for these companies is only related to civil liability. If someone posts something, it is user-generated data only that companies are protected from. If it is not appropriate and not right, they would have to take it down. CUSMA will not prevent Canada from regulating online platforms or the use of administrative penalties. Canada can continue to regulate illegal content, including hate speech, and enforce criminal law.

Another point that was mentioned was the number of trade agreements this government has entered into. I would like to put on the record that in 2018, we approved the CPTPP, involving 11 countries; in 2016, we entered into the CETA with 27 countries; in 2016, we signed the agreement with Ukraine; and now we have this agreement. We are now the only G7 country with trade agreements with all of the other G7 countries, which is tremendous for our economy.

I was here for most of the debate today and those issues were raised as concerns.

The last one would be the auto industry. Today, I mentioned all the provisions that would help the auto parts providers, and they are very happy about that. When we increase Canadian auto parts businesses and the number of workers so more has to be made in Canada, the price of the vehicles go up. There was some lessening of the total sales, but the manufacturers of auto parts in Canada are much better off as is the industry because of this agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development will have four minutes remaining in his time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.