The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

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 bill is from the 43rd Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2020.

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-4s:

C-4 (2025) Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act
C-4 (2021) Law An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)
C-4 (2020) Law COVID-19 Response Measures Act
C-4 (2016) Law An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act

Votes

Feb. 6, 2020 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague's speech, as well as his legitimate concerns about the farmers and dairy producers in his riding.

Earlier, I asked his colleague why the Conservatives decided to vote in favour of the agreement even though they find it flawed. She replied that it was better to have a bad agreement than no agreement at all. That said, if we do not ratify CUSMA, NAFTA would remain in effect.

Does my colleague think it is worth voting in favour of this agreement? Would it not be better to ask the negotiators to go back and do their job?

If we negotiated properly, it would no longer be necessary to make concessions on the backs of farmers and aluminum workers.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

In my opinion, an imperfect agreement is better than no agreement. If this agreement is not ratified, the Americans and the Mexicans could cancel it altogether. In my opinion, this agreement is imperfect, but if we had no agreement, the Canadian economy would deteriorate quickly. That is why I will be voting in favour of the agreement.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to represent thousands of Canadians, both in my riding in eastern Ontario and as the official opposition critic for the economic development initiative for northern Ontario, who make a living in the living forest.

Of the many issues I have championed for Canadians as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, defending Canada's forestry industry was one of my first responsibilities when I was elected seven elections ago. I am not pleased that, after 19 years, I am still talking about some of the same issues regarding softwood lumber. This time, it is within the context of the renegotiated NAFTA. It should never have come to this.

The Prime Minister promised 400,000 Canadian forestry workers a framework agreement on softwood lumber exports with the Obama administration by mid-June 2016. The government's failure to meet that deadline, and its subsequent failure to negotiate a final agreement before the expiry of the last trade agreement on October 12, 2016, allowed forestry workers' jobs to become a political football to be kicked around by the new U.S. administration.

Many high-quality, well-paying jobs in the forestry sector are still at risk due to the federal government's lack of action on this important sector of the Canadian economy.

The worst part about there being no softwood lumber deal was the statement by U.S. trade representative Michael Froman of the Obama administration. He was on the verge of signing a new softwood lumber deal with Canada. The pact fell through when the anti-forestry lobbyists got the ear of a close prime-ministerial buddy, the disgraced Gerald Butts.

Someone close to the Prime Minister claimed, obviously as a stalling tactic, that a better deal could be reached with the incoming Trump administration. Only someone who was opposed to a healthy Canadian forestry sector could make that kind of claim.

The incoming Trump administration did not even have Canada in its sights. It was looking for concessions from Mexico. That changed pretty quickly with a number of diplomatic stumbles that made it appear the Liberal government was going out of its way to disrespect the American president. This jeopardized the tens of thousands of jobs that rely upon North American trade.

It was our government that negotiated a softwood lumber agreement by the end of April 2006, within three months of coming into office, to solve the last softwood lumber dispute.

As a member of the government that signed the agreement that expired October 12, 2015, I recognize there were critics of that agreement, just as there were critics, like me, of the previous agreement that had been negotiated under the old Chrétien administration.

Our government recognized that signing a deal that would satisfy everyone would have resulted in no deal. It was unacceptable then, just as having no deal today is unacceptable. That is why Canadians have little choice but to accept the deal that has been put before them today. Too many Canadian jobs are at risk.

The softwood lumber industry in my riding is characterized by small operations, many family-owned, and by the people who depend on jobs in the working forest. When I was first elected, the old Chrétien government softwood lumber policy was causing significant unemployment in my riding. Worried softwood lumber producers called my office regularly in the hope of a resolution regarding the softwood lumber dispute.

Forestry contributes billions of dollars to Canada's GDP. The forestry sector generates approximately 370,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada. Since the last agreement was signed by our Conservative government, things have changed.

The Liberal Party is making it a lot tougher to live in rural Canada and places like eastern Ontario where forestry jobs exist. Skyrocketing energy prices, a plan to ban burning firewood for heat as it is written in the Paris accord, and the carbon tax that now adds tax on the fuel that powers the only means of transportation for rural Canadians, spell hard times.

If times are tough when workers have jobs, we can imagine how tough it is going to be when increasing carbon taxes take away their jobs. Carbon taxes, like any Liberal tax increases, are job killers. In rural areas, jobs are hard to come by. Ben Hokum & Son Limited in Killaloe, Murray Brothers in Madawaska, McRae Lumber in Whitney, Lavern Heideman & Sons in Eganville, Gulick Forest Products Limited, Randy Commanda Forestry in Pikwakanagan, Thomas J. Neuman Limited, Pastway Planing in Palmer Rapids and Bell Lumber in Renfrew are just a few of the businesses in my riding that are affected every time there is a softwood lumber dispute.

For Canada's forestry industry, for the people employed in that industry, and for the businesses that provide employment and need certainty in their business if they are going to continue to invest in their businesses and create jobs, an agreement is critical.

American producers have alleged for years that the Canadian forestry industry is subsidized by federal and provincial governments. In the U.S., prices are set by the market, a situation the U.S. contends is unfair compared with the way Canada manages its forests. It believes Canadian lumber should be subject to a tariff to offset so-called subsidies.

In the past, the U.S. has introduced anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations against Canadian softwood lumber. Time and again, Canada has successfully defended itself against those actions. However, companies always fall off along the way.

In Canada, 94% of the forest is on public land, and by law all forest harvested on public land must be regenerated. All harvested trees are regrown. At 161 million hectares, or 43% of our managed forests, Canada has the highest volume of independently assessed, certified sustainably managed forests in the world.

Canada's forestry companies work with environmental groups, like Ducks Unlimited Canada, Pollution Probe, Nature Canada and the favourite of the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, the World Wildlife Fund.

The working forest benefits the aboriginal community in my riding. About 70% of aboriginal communities are located in forested areas. Forest companies are one of the largest employers of aboriginal people.

Far more forest is damaged by fire and insects, compared to the sustainable harvest that takes place in Canada.

Canadian mills are cleaner and greener than ever. What Canadians need is a lasting solution to ensure fair treatment of the Canadian forestry industry. My constituents truly hope the agreement before us today will bring certainty to the market.

For Ontario, trade with the United States is significant for the forestry industry. While up to 95% of Ontario's forestry product exports go to the United States, Ontario's share of the U.S. market equates to 3.34%. A producer in Ontario is selling domestically or to the United States.

Jobs have been disappearing at an alarming rate in rural Ontario. The need to keep jobs in the lumber industry to maintain our way of life is paramount.

Forestry is big business in Ontario, exporting 3.6 billion dollars' worth of goods annually, and employing over 43,000 people, many of whom work in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Wages and salaries add up to almost $2 billion in the Ontario economy. In the Ottawa Valley, the forest industry supports thousands of jobs. Primary wood manufacturing in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is over 10 times the provincial average. I can identify over 100 forest product companies that make their homes in Renfrew county.

The Canadian forest products industry is a major manufacturing sector, responsible for 12% of Canada's manufacturing GDP.

What is also important in this debate over the trade agreement with our largest market is how it is affecting our overall trade relationship with the United States. For value-added products, the United States is Ontario's number one market. More than half of all the forest products in Ontario are exported.

Members need to understand why we, on this side of the House, use the term “crisis” when we refer to the state of the Canadian softwood lumber industry when there is a dispute of any kind. Those products' largest export market is the United States. Exports from Ontario have increased by more than 100% since 1991.

The United States construction industry is worth nearly $700 billion U.S. every year. It will continue to be the focus of Canadian wood product shipments. It is imperative that the government respect the special trading relationship we have had in the past, and prioritize the need to manage trade.

It is time to see if all the toadying up to the extremists in the anti-forestry lobby will stop, now that a new NAFTA agreement has been signed.

To the credit of our own forestry industry, Ontario lumber mills will continue to invest in their operations in the absence of support from the government.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 1:55 p.m.

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, it is important to recognize that this has been debated, talked about and consulted on for over two years now. Whether it is premiers, non-profit groups, unions or business leaders, there has been a great deal of consultation throughout the country over the last two years, ultimately culminating in what I believe is a good, sound agreement that will secure markets in the future and provide the types of jobs that Canadians expect.

Given the past record of this government in creating jobs for Canadians, over a million jobs in the last four years, I believe this is an agreement that is going to add more value to the Canadian economy. Would the member not agree?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like the member opposite to table that agreement, the draft, so we can look at it and evaluate it the way he has.

The greatest and growing input cost is the threat of ever-increasing carbon taxes to pay for the debt burden the government is placing on future prosperity. I do not see any intention whatsoever on the part of the government to put forward the interests of the resource sector, which includes the softwood lumber industry. In Ontario, we saw how the Liberals kept on shrinking the footprint where we are allowed to forage for lumber and increased the input costs, including electricity, and now another tax.

The Liberals did not want the softwood lumber industry to be prosperous, and now those same individuals who bankrupted Ontario are in control in Ottawa.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, the member went through a lot about rural Canada, specifically her riding and some of the issues in Ontario. In British Columbia, the absence of a softwood lumber agreement is an issue. The government did not even put it in the mandate letters for the ministers responsible in 2015 or most recently in 2019.

I would simply ask the member if she believes the government is working, whether it is through this agreement or in other areas, for her constituents in the rural parts of her riding or against them.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, with everything the government has done to the resource sectors, be it oil and gas, mining or forestry, it has been the plan all along to just end them until they are no longer in existence. Every year more fall by the wayside. Whether it is this trade agreement or whatever the parliamentary secretary across the way said the government has on the way, when it is before us, we will have a look at it.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 1:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

It being 1:59 p.m. and pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until later this day, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 3:05 p.m.

The Speaker Anthony Rota

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading of Bill C-4.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Before we go to the question, do we all know the rules?

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #13

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 3:15 p.m.

The Speaker Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by nine minutes.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I thought that a point of order about question period had to be raised immediately afterwards. Please let me know if I was wrong.

In any case, during question period, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan claimed that the Canadian ambassador to China said yesterday that Mr. Celil is not a Canadian citizen.

I urge you to review the transcripts, Mr. Speaker, but I was there and I can tell you that the Canadian ambassador never said any such thing. What he said—

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 3:20 p.m.

The Speaker Anthony Rota

I did not see that after question period.

That was more debate than a point of order.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague from the Bloc can review the video. It is up on my Twitter @garnettgenuis—