Evidence of meeting #3 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cusma.
A video is available from Parliament.
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
Not at the trade caucus.
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
I will say that the trade agreement, despite it indeed providing opportunities for suppliers and so forth over time, does not offer a guarantee. If we were to lose our anchor plants in Canada or across the U.S., or even in Mexico, the supply chain would be greatly negatively affected by that.
This is what I was going to say.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
When the original deal was done, it got hung up in Congress when changes were requested. I'm vice-chair of the Canada-U.S. parliamentary association. We were often in Washington during the throes of that. There have been amendments made to the labour and the environmental section that got the deal through. Does your trade association support that?
It appears there is more consistency now on some issues that are creating complications for competition for Canadian workers. We heard a little from the labour side. Are those improvements supported by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association?
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
If you're speaking specifically about the labour value content aspects provisions—
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
—yes, we are supportive of them as part of the overall package.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
With that, though, you also noted several things and challenges that we face as a country. I'm concerned that the impression is that if we sign this agreement, if we do nothing else and we stop here.... What are your thoughts about auto manufacturing in Canada if we just sign the agreement and continue on without dealing with other issues? Where do you think we'll end up?
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
I have very strong thoughts about this.
We operate in a high-cost jurisdiction, so whilst we have the agreement in place, one needs to think about the overall backdrop here of the high operational costs in this country. If we do not address those and do not continue to show an effort to address those and actually make progress, then it will come to a point in time when people will look at Canada versus other jurisdictions and ask, how can we be relatively profitable here? I use the word “relatively” here because we can be profitable now, but it's really a question for future investment as to whether you can be more profitable in other jurisdictions. You're always competing with other jurisdictions, and if we don't address local operational costs or other issues here, then we'll be no better off.
One needs to look at this whole thing in a very holistic manner on a continuing basis.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
About five years ago, Ray Tanguay was commissioned by the federal government to produce an auto report. He tabled that with the minister in Detroit, Michigan.
You mentioned in your remarks that you've been appearing in front of committees for 36 years. Do you think that enough of that report has been acted on, or are there still elements of it that could be advanced for the auto industry and Canadian manufacturing? Is the report too stale now, or are there still some chances in that report?
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
The “Call to Action 2” report has been updated. The “Drive to Win” report replaces it. The report outlines many different things that continue to be necessary. I would suggest that we've probably made very little progress on many of those recommendations.
As recently as a couple of weeks back, or 10 days ago, the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council met and re-emphasized the fact that those recommendations need to be pursued and implemented by government. That includes regulatory co-operation and continuing to align our technical standards with those of the United States, in addition to labour, skills and all of those other things that are in that report. It's an evergreen report and those recommendations are supported by the entire industry, whether it's industry, labour, or government—and when I say “government”, I'm talking about the federal government, the Ontario government and the Quebec government.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Investments are happening. I see them across the river almost every month with regard to Detroit, which show that we actually do have a competitive workforce because much of that workforce is connected to my city of Windsor. It's about having fair conditions.
How much time do we have?
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Okay, good.
Mr. Boivin, you mentioned the $1.3 billion, and the tariff with regard to that. Are there things that you can suggest with that tariff? If we don't refund that tariff or use it, it's just another tax. In fact, it's become an albatross around the neck of my local steel manufacturers and the tool and die makers, and others. What I found is that many businesses gave up on bidding on some contracts that they were actually.... The profit margin was used up for borrowing for money owed from different suppliers because it took too long to get it back.
Is that the same experience you're facing?
President, Groupe Performance Stratégique
Yes, in the aluminum industry it's the same thing.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
They've just given up on some, even...because the 3% to 4% in profit is tied up because some of the smaller ones are having a hard time borrowing money to carry over the cost of it.
President, Groupe Performance Stratégique
I'll switch languages.
It's really important to put that money back in the industry's hands, perhaps through a mechanism that brings together industry associations, to improve the competitiveness of the steel and aluminum processing sector, in accordance with Canadian rules. We play fair. We won't make money improperly. We have the ability to be successful.
However, we have to have clear and fair rules, which set the stage for success. That's how we built our country. We can do it.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you. We can control that, too. That's what's frustrating about it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado
Thank you very much.
Now we will move into the second round of questions at five minutes. The first round goes to Ms. Gray.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This question would be for Ms. Mitchell. We're looking at what's in CUSMA with respect to extending the copyright terms to 70 years after an artist has passed. You have to question how this really allows for innovation and creativity within the industry.
I would like to refer to the very comprehensive statutory review of the Copyright Act this committee conducted in the last Parliament. It was very comprehensive, with 52 meetings and hundreds of witnesses, briefs and emails.
Once you look through all of that communication, there does not appear to be an overall consensus or an agreement among the artists and people within the industry on how to move forward.
I'm wondering if you can comment. I'll give you one quote from a well-known author and composer, Bryan Adams. He commented that extending the terms of the copyright “essentially enriches large firms of intermediaries, without providing money to creators”. Could you comment on that point and on how this would help, overall, the actual creators themselves?
President, Red Brick Songs, Casablanca Media Publishing
I think the issue that Bryan raised is separate from the actual extension of the copyright term.
To speak to Bryan's issue for a second, the majority of agreements these days, in 2020, negotiated between publishers and songwriters are fair agreements. They're more similar to partnerships. The songwriter and the publisher both share in the publishing and act together as partners. Our interests are very aligned. I really do believe that the paradigm Bryan was describing is an old paradigm that doesn't exist anymore. When I speak to my songwriters about these issues, we are always simpatico. We are always aligned.
On the issue of innovation, which you first mentioned, the money we get from having songs that are steady hits, songs that are going to fall into the copyright domain, is what we use to take risks on new songwriters. When I sign a new songwriter to a copyright, to a publishing deal, and we decide to split the copyright together, I am then investing that money to send them on co-writing trips to other places in the world in the hope that they're going to get those songs recorded by international artists. I am spending money on their own artistry, on radio promotion and on their having the time to write and create in the first place.
They're huge risks. They're big gambles. If I don't have profit from a reliable source of income, I won't be able to make those investments. I won't be able to invest in Canadians. We'll have less Canadian content, and I think that goes to the heart of creativity and innovation.
Legal Counsel, CMRRA-SODRAC Inc. (CSI)
Ultimately, all of those revenue streams generate revenue both for the publisher or the record label, on one hand, and for the songwriter or the recording artist on the other. As Jennifer said, they really are partnerships.
It's simply a mischaracterization of the issue for people like Bryan and others to assume that all of the benefit of the term extension is going to companies and not to artists. It just isn't true, and it's a gross distortion of reality.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you.
I want to ask you about the concept of registration requirement, because I know that was brought up. A number of people in the field felt that having the copyright extension, where people could apply for the other 20 years rather than its being automatic, would allow for a lot more flexibility in how people manage things. I'm wondering if you can comment on the concept of registration requirement.