Evidence of meeting #31 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was service.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Can you elaborate for a second on the concept of a continental lens? I want to explore what you're saying.
Free trade is a fundamental aspect of how our economies are intertwined around the world, obviously, and that's an important and fundamental aspect of how our economy functions. When you talk about the concept of a continental lens, are you thinking of a retraction from that in some sense, or is it something else?
President and Chief Executive Officer, CentrePort Canada
It's not a retraction on global trade. I think it's a reflection on the current reality of global trade.
If companies indeed are starting to shorten suppliers or bring suppliers close to production activity, then they're going to be buying more from the continent. It's a partial reality. No one knows exactly when global trade is going to fully resume. Most companies are pegging that as a number of years off.
In the meantime, not only do they have to pivot on suppliers, but they have to pivot on where the newest customers are coming from. That's particularly important, I would say, to our smaller companies, our SMEs, because they may be most reliant on single suppliers or a single geography. They will need to move much more quickly in order to find new customers and support their supply chains or their companies are just going to go bankrupt, frankly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll have to end it there.
If somebody wants to add a supplementary to some of these answers, raise your hand. I might see you and I might not, because I can only get so many on the screen.
We're turning to Mr. Fragiskatos, then, who will be followed by Mr. Généreux.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
My question goes to you, Ms. Greenwood. I heard you today and I also read with great interest your Policy Options piece that was published in early April.
To be very simple about it, in your view, are medical devices the new frontier from a trade perspective?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
Medical devices are the urgent need of a health crisis and a humanitarian crisis like the pandemic, but what we're saying is that whether it's medical devices or personal protective equipment now, the same applies to the economic recovery, and we advocate that Canada and the United States confront these things together. We've built things together anyway.
On the piece you mentioned, we advocate for an extension of the 1963 defence production sharing agreement between Canada and the United States, which is where we treat each other as domestic for the purpose of defence procurement. We've been doing that since the 1960s. We think we should do that for everything, particularly now that our economies are taxed.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I wanted to ask you specifically about that idea because I think it's so interesting. In the Policy Options piece, you say the following in reference to the idea that we ought to have a guaranteed national treatment agreement in place for such firms:
Such an agreement would sweep away the obstructive tangles of international formalities and bureaucracies that frankly have no place in a situation like the one we are all living through right now. Both our governments need speed and flexibility, and so does business.
What international formalities and bureaucracies stand in the way of what you're ultimately proposing?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
Well, things in the United States, like when the U.S. uses section 232 to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum, and when the President of the United States or others threaten to not ship goods to our trading partners.... Whenever something emerges—whether it's a non-tariff barrier or an actual tariff—that doesn't allow us to work together the way we mean to work together, those are the kinds of entanglements that make it inefficient and expensive and, when you think about a pandemic, actually could cause lives to be lost.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Do you worry that because of the time we're in...? For example, you heard from Mr. Julian, who was talking about basically moving away from trade and focusing entirely on the domestic, on generating a domestic supply for some of these things, whether it's PPE or other vital necessities. Do you worry about a protectionist turn?
Frankly, we've already seen in the world in the past few years a protectionist turn, but it could become more pronounced. If it does, do you worry about that impeding exactly what you're calling for?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
Absolutely, we're very worried about a protectionist turn. Protectionism, particularly when you're thinking about Canada and the United States, just doesn't work. It's a natural human inclination in a difficult time to try to rely on ourselves as much as we can, but we make things together. Also, we need markets around the world. We have more abundant resources, capacity and innovations in Canada and the United States than our own people will ever consume, so we need markets.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
Thank you.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I've one last question, Mr. Chair, if I have time.
I can't hear you, Mr. Chair, so I'm just going to ask the question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Sorry, Peter. Mr. Masterson wants in on that question, too. I'll give you the time back.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Thank you.
I appreciate what Ms. Greenwood said, and I just want to provide that perspective from the chemistry sector. Again, we're your third-largest manufacturing sector, $60 billion a year. Because we have the resources to make it here in Canada, 80% of what we make is exported to global markets. I think we have to keep that in mind when we are talking about whether we are going to intentionally restrict markets or try to keep them as open as possible. What is our philosophy and our orientation? Much of the resource sector is certainly export-oriented.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
My last question is for Mr. Fadden.
Mr. Fadden, thanks very much. I always appreciate your insight, especially because you're a former national security adviser to two prime ministers.
With regard to the point that you made—I mean, you made a number of points—what stood out to me was when you said there are so many potential crises: natural disasters, climate change and its effects, health crises as we're seeing unfold right now. Do you have any advice on what the best way forward would be to prepare, from a financial perspective, for all these different emergencies? Is there a risk that there's a guessing game that's played out? How do you decide where to put the eggs? You don't want to put them in one basket, but at the same time, how do you logically prepare for any number of crises? Is it a matter of predicting this? Is it a matter of probability? Do you have to choose one over others? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Former National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Advisory Council Member, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Well, first of all, I would say that it's absolutely impossible to prepare for every potential crisis—you have to accept that from the very beginning—just like it's impossible to reduce risks in any particular case.
I think one thing we have to do is start worrying a little bit more about things that are to come. We just don't do that particularly well in this country, neither the federal government nor the provinces.
There are all sorts of organizations—within government and in the universities and the non-profit sectors—that develop very good models on what sorts of what I call “bad things”, to use the vernacular, are likely to occur over the course of the next little while. What we need to do is take advantage of all these, have them consolidated, have governments form the view of their prioritization, and then have a public discussion about them. I think that these sorts of things happen too much within government. It should be a very good subject, I think, for a House or a Senate committee to look at.
The last point I would make is that we cannot do this exclusively as the federal government. It must be done nationally.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, thanks.
Thank you all.
Next is Mr. Généreux, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz, and then we'll go to a bunch of single questions.
Mr. Généreux.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
This is for Monsieur Lemaire.
Mr. Lemaire, you spoke of the $1,000 earned over and above the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB. How much flexibility should the government give workers so that they can return to work while receiving the CERB?
You speak French, do you, Mr. Lemaire?
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Sorry, I had it on English, so I wasn't able to hear the French version. The translation cut off at the end.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
With such a French name, do you speak French a bit?
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
I have you on English, so I'm hearing only the one version.
Go ahead.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
You find that the $1,000 that can be earned while continuing to receive the CERB is too low and keeps employers from recruiting employees. What is your suggestion?