International Trade Committee on May 4th, 2017

[Mark Nantais]

Right now, as I mentioned, the situation in the parts industry is that we generally have a higher level of U.S. parts content and therefore related jobs in Canadian-built vehicles. The question becomes what the nature of that legislation or those policies would be. It's hard to speculate, other than simply you must buy and hire American. We're already doing that in the auto industry to a very great extent. In other sectors, that's not necessarily the case. It could have very significant implications for them. We'll have to see on that front. Others are going to have opinions here, I can see—

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Yes. Everybody's going to get—

[Mark Nantais]

They're chomping at the bit here.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Yes.

[Mark Nantais]

Maybe in the auto industry we're a little different because of that integration that has been in place for so long, but I'm not going to say there aren't or won't be any problems.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I think it was interesting and well done by Ford when they made an announcement in Michigan and the next day made an announcement in Canada. They had that balance between those announcements.

[Mark Nantais]

Yes.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Is there anyone else?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

Since I'm chomping at the bit, may I...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Go ahead.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

Thank you so much.

I had the opportunity to testify before the foreign affairs committee this morning and wanted to provide different testimony, so I have focused on regulatory issues. A lot of the border arguments and NAFTA arguments are in the earlier testimony, and I would refer you to those.

We talked about Buy American rules in particular. What the Canadian American Business Council feels is that when you look at Buy American rules, they should be “Buy American-Canadian” rules. In other words, if you were to consider Canada “domestic” for the purposes of U.S. procurement, that would solve a lot of things. That would solve Buy American rules. That would solve country of origin. It would solve border adjustability. It would really help.

There is a model for this, and the model is actually in the defence industry. Since the 1950s, Canada and the United States have had the defence industrial production agreement, in which it is required that Canadian defence suppliers be treated exactly the same as U.S. suppliers to the Pentagon. Our thought is to take a page from the defence sector and apply it across all sectors.

Just in case my friend Dan doesn't get a chance to speak, his shorthand for this is that when you say “Buy American”, you capitalize the C, so that it's “Buy AmeriCanadian”—if I can just steal your recap there, Dan. That's what we're advocating very strongly. We think it would solve a world of problems. We would recommend that to you.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

We hear “North American” a lot, even for a vehicle. You can't purchase a “made in Canada” or “made in the U.S.” vehicle. It's a North American product.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

That's right.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Dan, I'm interested to hear what you have to say on that as well.

[Daniel Ujczo]

On Buy American, just to be very clear, when we're talking about Buy American and the executive order, though, that is only when the U.S. government is purchasing. That's federal procurement, so it's not really a requirement on the private sector per se.

That said, when we're talking about Buy American, I think our strategy as the Canada-U.S. community should be less about free and open markets for everybody than about our having a procurement policy for an integrated Canada-U.S. and North American market. For example, if we can demonstrate that companies are established on each side of the border and that there are well-established supply chains, as I said, we could start certifying supply chains as “AmeriCan made”, with a capital C.

The other issue on the “Buy American, Hire American” order is that the Hire American piece of that is much broader than highly skilled workers. It is reviewing all immigration programs.

The number one issue that all of our companies have is moving bodies across the border right now.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

This is the issue that I hear about all the time in my office.

[Daniel Ujczo]

In terms of people, the border is going to be a very different place over the next few months because of that provision.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

It's very different now.

[Daniel Ujczo]

Absolutely.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Ever since the new administration, the calls have increased.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay. That's your time.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

We have very highly skilled and trained people, paid by companies in Canada, who are trying to go to service American customers and can't get across the border.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Ms. Ramsey, your time is quite over. We're going to have to move over to the Liberals.

Madam Ludwig, you have the floor.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you for your excellent and very informative presentations.

I want to start with an example of a smart, efficient, and friendly border. I represent the riding of New Brunswick Southwest. We have five international border crossings. The friendly example is that we have mutual aid with our American friends. In the case of structural fires, there is pre-clearance for the emergency vehicles to cross the border to attend to the fires, and vice versa. The challenge usually is that when the firefighters are returning to their own country they've forgotten their identification.

My first question is for Mr. Ujczo. You mentioned public consultation. We spent all or quite a bit of last year, 2016, working on public consultation regarding the TPP. I'm wondering if you could explain a bit of your process, but I'll give you the context for it.

As we look at NAFTA, what we often hear is the rhetoric on the news about how damaging and bad it is. When you're listening to the comments through these consultations, I'm wondering how scholars and policy-makers will separate NAFTA's direct effects on trade and investment from other factors, including rapid improvements in technology; expanded trade with other countries, such as China; unrelated domestic developments in America, Canada, and Mexico; and, other variables such as economic growth, inflation, and currency fluctuations and manipulations. There's a big question for you.

[Daniel Ujczo]

That's a great question. Starting with the latter point on what the other reasons are for the workforce issues that we have in the United States, particularly in our market in the U.S. Midwest, it's not a shortage of jobs. If you talk to any company, we have jobs. We simply don't have anybody who can do them. In the tool and die and marks industry, I go back to my days working in a steel mill and I wish I had trained to be a welder, because you can't find a welder these days in those areas.

However, NAFTA has become the bogeyman for all issues with trade. I think most people don't even know that it doesn't involve China, to be quite candid with you. That said, I've maybe been in politics a little too long. I don't tell the voters that what they believe to be their problem isn't their problem. There is just an ingrained spirit that NAFTA is bad for them. At the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean Canada. All of us around this room know that.

I think what's very important in the consultation period is to come up with examples. It would have been far more of a crisis if on day one Donald Trump had withdrawn from the TPP and torn up the NAFTA. Instead, we have seen over the last three months or so—100 days and change—that there is a very programmatic consultation process looking for facts, and now is the time to put the facts on the table. This is an administration driven by anecdotal evidence at the top. We keep hearing about the Chinese steel that goes to Japan that becomes an exhaust pipe through Mexico. That's one example that I think, frankly, somebody heard in a meeting and has shared. Examples like a hamburger a couple of days ago in Washington, and using other types of stories, such as the automobile that crosses the border, are the types of examples that we need to get out on the ground into the regions, talking about those, to show how integrated our trading relationship is.