Bill C-4 (Historical)

Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States

This enactment implements the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, done at Buenos Aires on November 30, 2018, as amended by the Protocol of Amendment to that Agreement, done at Mexico City on December 10, 2019.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 20 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Agreement, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and gives the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.
Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement.
Part 3 contains the coming into force provisions.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I hear my colleagues in the House criticizing the agreement. One of our concerns has to do with aluminum and the sacrifices being asked of workers in that sector. The same goes for agriculture and softwood lumber. We have also heard about economic sovereignty. I am sure everyone knows that, on the issue of sovereignty, we on this side of the House are always ready to listen closely.

These issues are the reason the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the agreement. If we have the same concerns regarding those issues, why is my colleague suggesting that we vote in favour of the agreement? What is it about the agreement that makes her want to vote for it?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to talk a bit about the aluminum industry. In Canada, we need to be extremely proud of the amazing work that our aluminum industry is doing in heading towards a low-carbon product. For aluminum not to have the same protection as steel in the agreement is quite shameful and shows a lack of appropriate negotiating by the Liberal government.

That said, the member asked why we would support the agreement. As I said at the start of my remarks, usually I can stand up very proudly with my vote, but today I will stand up reluctantly, because I think the harm to Canada if this very imperfect deal does not go ahead would be more than the harm that is currently there.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo shares a lot of the concerns of my constituents around trade, especially in the case of softwood lumber. It is a huge issue in British Columbia, and I thank her for bringing it up.

I wonder if the member would agree with the NDP that what we need here, coming out of this example, is a whole new way of negotiating trade agreements that would force the negotiating process to be transparent from the start, as is the case in the U.S. Congress and the European Union. In this way we would get a chance to debate the priorities of that negotiation, such as softwood lumber.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly we share the concerns around softwood lumber, but the NDP historically has been very reluctant to support any trade agreement, and so I am not sure we have common ground there in terms of the best way to move forward. However, had the government reached out in terms of some priorities, I think it absolutely could have had a better deal.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to thank the Conservatives for making it possible for me to participate in today's debate. I was not supposed to speak, but they allowed me to, so I thank them for that. There is co-operation in the House, which I think bodes well for the rest of the 43rd Parliament, because it will make it easier to move forward on issues.

Incidentally, I will warn my colleagues that I am going to talk about aluminum. I do not know if they are aware of this issue, but there has been some discussion about it lately.

Before I address the House this afternoon, I thought I would do some math for the benefit of all my colleagues. The Bloc Québécois has risen in the House nearly 90 times since the beginning of this Parliament to ask the government to explain to us and to the public why the aluminum sector has received less protection in the CUSMA than the steel sector.

I tried to count the number of satisfactory responses we received. I tallied it up, with the help of hard-working researchers. Unfortunately, the answer is zero. We did not get any satisfactory answers. Instead, we have had a lot of talking points, each one more laughable than the last.

We have been told that 70% is better than zero, even though they know full well that this percentage applies to auto parts and not the metal used to manufacture them. I would like the government to know that 70% of zero is still zero. It is simple math.

Another talking point we have been treated to states that the Aluminium Association of Canada, the AAC, supports the agreement. We are well aware that the AAC represents multinationals and not workers. Jean Simard of the AAC appeared before the finance committee as recently as Tuesday and explained that he would have really preferred to see aluminum get the same protection as steel. This talking point is also laughable.

Still another talking point is that we should listen to Premier Legault. We know full well that not since Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government has there been a Canadian federal government so at odds with Quebec.

The most amusing talking point, however, tells us that U.S. President Trump did not originally want an agreement and that CUSMA is therefore a win. We are well aware that Mexico was responsible for dropping the protection for aluminum because it benefits from the dumping of Asian aluminum.

Since we did not get a proper answer to our question, we suggested that the answer might lie in the fact that most of the steel industry is in Ontario. Otherwise, the agreement would have been different. That is irrefutable evidence. However, all we got was radio silence. Have we perhaps found the smoking gun? I am not sure, but I think so.

While Ottawa ties itself in knots trying to justify its mistakes, unions, residents and politicians in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region have rallied around a consensus, namely that Quebec's aluminum is the greenest in the world, that it helps communities that have been hurt by Canada's many trade disputes thrive, and that our people make it worth fighting for.

Since the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has chosen not to stand with us, we are the only party in the House that has been pushing for a broadly supported, transpartisan proposal on aluminum since day one of this amendment. That is why we do not need to ask Jean Simard whether he thinks the agreement will directly deprive our economy of $6 billion. We believe it will because it is a fact that is quantified in a non-partisan study conducted by experts using a flawless methodology, which we have provided to all parties. I hope everyone has done their homework.

It seems clear to me that CUSMA will ultimately protect China's aluminum industry instead of North America's. China smelts 60% of all of the aluminum in the world. Quebec essentially produces all of the aluminum in Canada, and this aluminum accounts for 6% or 7%.

What would it cost the federal government to protect such a critical industry in Quebec that is struggling around the world? Since the Deputy Prime Minister launched into a flood of figures the other day, I want to give her some important data to factor into her responses in the future.

Six key investment projects are at stake: phase 3 of the Alouette aluminum smelter in Sept-Îles; phases 1-B, 1-C, 2 and 3 of the AP-60 aluminum smelter in Jonquière; and phase 2 of the billet casting centre in my riding, in Alma.

Some $6.242 billion will be lost in the construction industry, simply because this government did not protect North America's primary aluminum market. We will lose 30,539 direct jobs in the construction industry, indirect jobs with suppliers and induced jobs in the consumer sector. We are talking about 829,000 new tonnes of the greenest aluminum on earth. The worst is that, according to the terms of the agreement, we will have to wait 10 years to renegotiate including the aluminum sector in CUSMA. There is one more figure.

The Quebec economy, and therefore Canada's economy, will lose $1 billion in spending. If you multiply that by 10, you get $10 billion. I will do the math for the government and tell them that it will ultimately cost $16.242 billion in communities that need this money.

The worst part of this agreement is that the 70% “protection” for aluminum parts will sanction aluminum dumping from Asia. If we agree to the terms of the agreement without saying or doing anything, manufacturers will be able to proudly stamp “Hecho en Norte America” and “Fabriqué en Amérique du Nord” on Chinese aluminum.

When we started, it was said that the Bloc was alone on the issue of aluminum. Now, when I look on this side of the House, and on the other side, I see that a number of my distinguished colleagues are now on the same page as us. The NDP and the Conservatives are now more or less sharing our concern for the aluminum sector and the tens of thousands of families that depend on it. I am happy, because the only ones now alone on the issue of aluminum are the Liberals.

Something else has affected me since this debate in the House began. Things have been said that are not acceptable in this House and that hurts me deeply. Last week, the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook said, "I know there is the issue of parts, but with all due respect, the group of people who came to Ottawa yesterday certainly did not stop in Quebec City." He said it in a tone that was supposed to be humorous.

In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, people have come together to form a regional movement. Civil society, aluminum workers and elected municipal representatives have genuine concerns. The study that was tabled now justifies those concerns. This is no joking matter.

These people are rallying together and coming to Ottawa to tell us that they have concerns and that they are worried for their region, their jobs, their families and their children, and the government is responding with jokes. The government is making fun of them by saying that they should have gone to Quebec City rather than coming Ottawa. Even if the member said, “with all due respect”, I think he did exactly the opposite. He showed a lack of respect for them. Regardless of the topic of debate, we will not agree on everything. However, demonstrating a lack of respect for citizens is unacceptable.

I have a note on my bedside table. The first thing I see when I get up in the morning is, “Who do you work for?” I work for my constituents.

I hope to have elevated the debate.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his speech. He gave an overview of this week's discussions. He clearly paid close attention to the debate and I commend him for that.

My comments last week were meant to be lighthearted. They were certainly not meant as a personal attack.

I will say one thing. I am the only Liberal Acadian from Nova Scotia. In Lévis, Quebec, there is a monument to the Samson family, in honour of the contribution of the two Samson brothers. It was erected in 1967 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Canada. I feel very comfortable. You are my friends, just as I know I am yours.

I no longer have time to ask my question, which was a really good one, so I will simply ask my colleague to provide his own comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Even though the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has been a member of the House for over four years, I would remind him to address his questions to the Chair and not to a specific member.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful words.

Now that we are friends, perhaps he will agree that it might not have been the right time for jokes about that. I am sure he will not make the same mistake again. I am so pleased to have shared that learning experience with the member.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not really know the member for Lac-Saint-Jean before today.

I really enjoyed his insightful speech, his summary of the past week and his expertise on aluminum. I want everyone here to know that I just want to be his friend.

In closing, I would like him to explain the difference between our party's position on aluminum and the Conservative Party's.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's question, and I want him to know he can count on my friendship.

The difference is that the Bloc is proactive. We want our ideas to have a real impact.

In spite of everything, I believe the Conservatives want to collaborate and make a difference on this issue.

Unfortunately, their proposals are not viable for now, but I am sure that, in time, we will achieve real gains and better protection for Quebec's aluminum sector and its workers.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too hope to befriend the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

I would like him to give us a more detailed analysis of the Liberal position on aluminum. Specifically, I would like him to explain the difference between parts and aluminum produced in North America.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not complicated. Steel obtained protections in this agreement that aluminum did not. In fact, 70% of steel must be smelted and poured in North America. Aluminum did not get that clause.

Aluminum can therefore come from China via Mexico. Mexico will turn aluminum into parts and eventually flood the U.S. market.

This does not just concern aluminum workers, but also some Liberals and Conservatives, who have parts factories in their ridings.

The aluminum will be processed in Mexico. It is also damaging for my friends and colleagues outside Quebec. I hope that we will have the Liberals' co-operation. I am convinced that we are on the right track, but we must not just talk; we must act.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech in this chamber in the new Parliament, I would like to take a minute to thank the voters of Regina—Wascana for electing me to this chamber. It certainly is an honour and a privilege to be able to represent the interests of Regina—Wascana in the House of Commons. I would also like to thank all of the volunteers on my campaign team who worked so hard putting up lawn signs, stuffing brochures into mailboxes and knocking on doors to make sure that the campaign was a success.

Of course, I have to thank my family, particularly my mom and dad. I am sure there have been many times when they wished that their son would just choose a more normal hobby other than pursuing a seat in Parliament, but I am glad it finally worked out for the better. I would also like to thank my brother Brad, his wife Kathy and my nephews Mason, Michael and Mark. They all had the opportunity to join me for my swearing-in ceremony, and it certainly was a special family occasion.

Now I would like to say a few words about Bill C-4.

On March 28, 2019, the Western Producer farm newspaper ran an editorial about agriculture policy. The Western Producer's editorial board said, “Two years ago, the federal government identified agriculture as a key sector for growth in exports”. Considering the high quality of our Canadian dairy products and the priority that the government gave to expanding agriculture exports, it came as a complete surprise to me that the new NAFTA, the new free trade agreement that the government recently negotiated with the United States and Mexico, had a serious flaw. This flaw, a concession made to the Americans at the expense of the dairy farmers in my province of Saskatchewan and thousands of other dairy producers across the country, is a real head-scratcher.

It is puzzling to me and to my fellow Conservative colleagues on the international trade committee why this government would kneecap our hard-working dairy producers by bargaining away their ability to increase dairy exports under the new NAFTA. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement does not just limit the ability of dairy farmers to export to the United States and Mexico; it limits their ability to export to Japan, China, Europe or anywhere in the world.

Yesterday, the international trade committee heard detailed testimony from a panel of government experts on Bill C-4. These experts included Mr. Steve Verheul, Canada's chief negotiator for the new NAFTA, and Mr. Aaron Fowler, chief agriculture negotiator and director general of trade agreements and negotiations from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

At committee, I asked Mr. Fowler to clarify whether the new dairy export tariff that our dairy farmers would soon have to pay included only the United States and Mexico or applied to Canadian exports to the rest of the world as well. Mr. Fowler confirmed that the agreement applies to Canada's exports to the rest of the world.

When I asked Mr. Fowler whether there was a similar provision under the old NAFTA, the trans-Pacific partnership or our trade deal with the European Union, Mr. Fowler said, “I am aware of no similar provision in any of our other trade agreements.”

Then I asked the negotiating team to provide some insight into how the dairy export limit made it into the new NAFTA. Mr. Fowler said that the U.S. was concerned about new innovative Canadian dairy products, and that Canadian exports of these products were displacing American dairy products from markets that they, the Americans, traditionally exported to.

I appreciate the detailed answers that Canada's negotiating team provided to the committee on how truly innovative our Canadian dairy farmers have become in recent years in specialized products that Canadians can export around the globe. However, in the end it was up to this government to negotiate a better free trade agreement, or at least not a worse agreement, with the U.S. and Mexico, and not to impose a new worldwide limit on our dairy exports. This Liberal export limit would cut farm revenue, and farm families need this extra money.

Better margins and increased profitability on each and every dairy farm are more important now than ever because dairy farmers and, in fact, other producers across Canada have to come up with thousands of additional dollars to pay for the Liberals' carbon tax.

It is very troubling that the government can prioritize the expansion of farm exports on one day, only to limit them the next. During negotiations, why did our trade representatives, who were working on a North American trade deal with the U.S. and Mexico, buckle under pressure from the Americans and agree to limit exports to the rest of the world on dairy products?

These dairy products could have been sold to hungry and thirsty Japanese, Chinese and European customers who were not even parties to this trade agreement. Why did no one catch the significance of this concession, the imposition of a limit on our dairy exports, before it was too late?

It was my sad duty to report to the dairy farmers of SaskMilk, who came to Parliament Hill yesterday to brief me and my Conservative colleagues, that their analysis of the Liberals' new NAFTA was, unfortunately, correct. The Liberal government did, in fact, cave to the demands of the Americans at the negotiating table to limit Canada's dairy exports to hungry, thirsty, paying customers around the globe who live in nations that are not even parties to this new NAFTA agreement among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member is missing out on a fairly significant point. Supply management means a great deal to farmers in all regions of the country. The United States was hopeful that Canada would abandon supply management.

I am very happy to say that the Liberals started supply management. From a party perspective, the Liberals brought it in and the Liberals have fought to ensure that we continue to have it. If the member were to check with his dairy farmers, he would find that the overwhelming majority of them understand and appreciate the importance of supply management and having those quotas, because this is the way we can produce quality products and protect the industry as a whole.

Would the member not say that this is a major gain for Canadians, in terms of certainty going forward, with supply management in this agreement?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it was the responsibility of the government to negotiate a better deal for Canada, or at least not a worse deal.

I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from SaskMilk who came here to Parliament Hill, and they were really excited about opportunities to export their products around the world. Now those opportunities have been taken away by the failings of our Liberal government in the NAFTA negotiations. It certainly is unfortunate that the Liberals were unable to obtain a better deal, or at least not a worse deal.