International Trade Committee on Aug. 14th, 2017

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Good. Thank you.

Moving on, I saw your speech this morning. In the last few days you talked about labour and environmental clauses being very important in these negotiations. I'm wondering why, then, when you're using CETA as the gold standard.... We agree it's a great trade agreement, but the TPP goes beyond that. In it there are enforceable clauses/chapters on labour and environment. Why would you not then ratify the TPP, as Mexico is continuing to do, and have two to one on the Americans on enforceable chapters on the environment and labour? Why not ratify the TPP to give you that extra strength?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

There are two questions embedded in that, and let me take them in turn.

When it comes to the labour and environmental chapters, I'm glad to hear Conservative support for our government pushing very hard in these areas. I think that holds real opportunity for Canada. I am very pleased with the progress we've made there in CETA, a deal that is actually going to be provisionally applied in a few weeks.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Sure, but the clauses aren't enforceable. In the TPP, they are.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Hang on. That gives it particular value. It's particularly useful in trade negotiations to refer to a trade deal that is actually in force, not to something that is simply written on a piece of paper.

I'm aware of those provisions that were negotiated in the TPP, and I think they're very interesting. We will also use some of the ideas from the TPP, very much including some of the labour and environmental ideas, which have particular value because there was some U.S. input on them. However, I would point out that the TPP is a deal that this U.S. administration has rejected. We need to be aware and mindful of that.

Also, when it comes to the TPP, we need to realize that embedded in the body of that agreement—and I know you know this very well—is a provision according to which the agreement cannot enter into force. Even if the TPP 11 parties were all to ratify that agreement, it would not enter into force without U.S. ratification. All of our conversations about the TPP need to be based on that fundamental reality.

I do want to say, though, that I was in Manila last week and had very good conversations with many of our TPP 11 partners, including Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Japan.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

—Singapore, and Vietnam. We are very pleased to be part of continued discussions among that group. Canada absolutely sees the opportunities in the Asia-Pacific, and we are pursuing them energetically.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I have one last point. Softwood lumber was to be done. You had a 100-day plan that is long gone. It was to be done before NAFTA negotiations started. Are we to believe that softwood lumber now becomes part of NAFTA, or is it just going to be left aside until all the NAFTA work is done? There are a lot of people out in B.C. who are very concerned about their jobs, the future of mill towns, and so on. Where are we at?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I share those concerns. The softwood lumber issue is absolutely a key issue. It's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

When I hit the light, you have 15 or 20 seconds left.

Go ahead.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

It's a priority of mine and of our government. In fact, I was speaking about the issue less than 12 hours ago with some key representatives of the B.C. industry, and as I mentioned, Martin Moen is my partner in crime on this particular file.

We are very engaged with the U.S. on softwood lumber. We want a good deal and we think that is achievable, but we don't want just any deal, and the Americans know that. We want a deal that is good for Canadians.

I think at the moment that the softwood lumber negotiations will continue in parallel with the NAFTA negotiations, as has historically been the case. We are open to other modalities, but for now I think they'll continue in parallel.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Minister.

We're going to cut back a little bit on time. We're going to go to four minutes now.

Mr. Peterson, you have four minutes. Go ahead.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today, and thank you to those who have joined you at the table. We appreciate the input from all of you, as always.

You mentioned that earlier this week you met with some agricultural stakeholders in Edmonton, I believe, and that you're meeting with some labour people at a round table tomorrow in Toronto, if I'm not mistaken.

I want to focus on the automotive and manufacturing sector. It's a big employer in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora, and I heard you mention Magna today in your comments at the University of Ottawa. I know you've put Linda Hasenfratz on the NAFTA Council, which is great.

How else are we engaging with this sector to ensure that its interests are met in the NAFTA renegotiations?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you for the question, Kyle.

You're absolutely right that the auto sector, which is so important for your constituency, is important for all of Canada. The concerns of the auto sector, including those of car parts manufacturers like NAPA, and those of labour, are an absolute priority for us in our NAFTA negotiations.

I want to make one other point, because Gerry asked me about softwood lumber and I didn't have enough time to answer. I'll just say quickly on softwood that I do want to highlight what an engaged partner Wilbur Ross has been in those conversations. He has really gotten immersed in the detail of the file, has really been personally involved, and I really appreciate that.

On autos, we are consulting very actively and energetically, and are going to continue those consultations as the negotiations progress. We are talking to the big auto companies. We're talking to the car parts suppliers at multiple levels. As you know, it's a really complicated industry. I'm very pleased that Linda is serving on our council, and also, a really important piece for us is talking to labour. Labour understands the auto parts sector very well and has an important perspective.

One of the incredibly important things that our auto sector brings to the NAFTA conversation and that will be an issue that Canada will keep bringing up at the negotiating table is the extent to which our trade with the United States is really integrated and sophisticated. Flavio Volpe likes to say that we make things together. Don Walker likes to say that too about Magna, right? And that is really the point, that our relationship, particularly in a complex and highly integrated sector like auto parts, is really all about a highly integrated sector that works. One of the things that we are really going to focus on in the negotiations is being aware of the complexity of that economic relationship and ensuring that is reflected in the negotiations. We're going to work hard to make the trade there even easier.

There's something else for which I do want to really thank all the Canadians who work in the auto sector. Randy spoke right at the beginning about the work we have all been doing in reaching out to our partners and colleagues south of the border. That has also been a sector-to-sector outreach, and I think some of the most effective conversations that have been happening to date have been between Canadians and Americans who build things together. People in the auto sector have been particularly effective in having that dialogue and in ensuring that their American partners are fully aware of how important NAFTA is as a foundation for that very effective, integrated economic relationship.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Minister. I'm sorry, but we're out of time.

We're going to move to the Conservatives now, and Mr. Van Kesteren, for four minutes. Go ahead, sir.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Minister, we've been here long enough to know that it's really these guys that do the negotiating. It's our job, as legislators, as parliamentarians, to make sure that our priorities are stressed to our excellent bureaucrats that you've mentioned. I have three questions, and one sub-question. These questions are ones that I would think you, as the minister, would tell your negotiators going into the negotiations, “Listen, whatever you do, make sure this, this, and that gets done”.

I don't think we got a really clear answer on the dairy issue, so my first question is this. Will you trade away any access to the dairy sector, and will farmers be at the negotiating table with you, or with the negotiators when they're there?

Second—and these are questions that are pertinent to my part of the country in Chatham-Kent—Leamington—will you maintain the flexibility of container sizes in our processing industry? That is very important to us as well.

Third, will you consider the impact that decisions like the carbon tax will have on industries like the greenhouse industry in my riding?

Fourth, and I know this isn't part of the trade negotiation, but in your capacity as minister, will you continue to insist that the bridge gets built? We can do all the great trade deals we want in this place, but if we don't have access for our market....That has got be built.

Could you just address those four things? Thank you.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you very much for those questions.

As you raised dairy, I can't resist asking whether Max Bernier is also with the program here.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Well, I'll answer that question.

It really doesn't matter. We've made a strong commitment to this.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Pardon me?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

It doesn't matter. We've made a strong commitment—

[A voice]

You're negotiating; Max isn't.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Yes, we're not doing the negotiating. With all due respect, you are.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.

I was very clear in my speech earlier this morning, in my opening remarks here, and in my answer already that our government supports supply management. I think from the questions here that we are now hearing cross-party consensus on this. What is very important is how we frame this issue, both for our American partners and for Canadians. It's important to remind our American partners that in the dairy trade they already benefit 5:1. It's important to remind them also that while supply management is our system for supporting our dairy producers, they have their own systems for subsidizing and supporting their dairy producers. Again, as I mentioned in response to an earlier question, it's particularly important to underscore that in the Canadian public discourse. Those will be the points that we'll be making, and we're very clear on our position on that.

You asked about container sizes. Again, we're very aware of the value and importance of flexibility there. I would also put that in the category of how important it is for us to cut red tape and make trade easier. Certainly I believe that one of the objectives we share with the U.S. administration is that governments should not be creating unnecessary impediments or frictions that make business more difficult. We really see NAFTA as an opportunity to act and improve on that.

You mentioned the carbon tax. I think this may be one of points on which we have to have a friendly disagreement on both sides of the house.

Have I run out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Yes, you're out of time. Sorry.

We're going to move over. I think we have two minutes for the NDP.

Ms. Ramsey, if you could maybe just ask a question....

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Very quickly, will you require that all three parties ratify the eight core conventions of the International Labour Organization and adhere to the ILO's decent work agenda?

On the environment, can you speak to how you can ensure and be confident that you can even put the words “climate change” in NAFTA with a president in the U.S. who basically says that climate change is a Chinese hoax?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I'm sorry, Tracey, because of the echo in the room I didn't exactly get your last point. Could you repeat the climate change point?