International Trade Committee on Sept. 20th, 2017

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much.

[Clyde Graham]

If you wanted me to respond on climate change briefly, we are working with the federal government and the provinces to get achievable targets for reduction for our industry. We have limits on that because of the engineering and the science of ammonia production and potash production as well. Our industry supports the aims of climate change. We are hopeful that we are going to get outcomes from the federal government and the provincial governments that will recognize the limitations of our industry and secure the North American competitiveness of our industry.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Of course, with issues there, if you don't, you're going to be bringing in fertilizers from Egypt and so on, which again, are going to be able to undercut because they have different sets of rules that they're working with.

[Clyde Graham]

The market will adjust, as it adjusts.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Not really. You're right on the wire there. Those were good questions.

We're going to have to move over to the Liberals. Madam Lapointe, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much for staying within your allocated time. I appreciate that.

Mr. Graham, I have some questions for you.

Earlier, you talked about skilled workers and professionals and said that your company should be allowed to ensure that workers can work in any country.

What is your take on that and what kind of workers were you referring to?

[Clyde Graham]

Our largest companies tend to be integrated in North America. Some are based in Canada, like Agrium and the Potash Corporation. Some are based in the United States, but have very significant assets in Canada. I think one of the interesting things about our industry is that senior executives from those companies tend to move back and forth across the border, which is a good thing for Canada, because we have very significant executives in positions of influence in the United States in their industry and vice versa. There is a wide range of people who move.

For example, there are kinds of welding trades that we need on an occasional basis to do renovations of our facilities. Canada is not a big enough country to have large numbers of those skilled trades, so from time to time, it's important for us to bring them in on an occasional basis, as well as scientists, engineers, and other people like that.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What would be the effect of allowing that in the new free trade agreement?

[Clyde Graham]

This is an area that I think we would like to protect and possibly enhance. It does exist. There is a degree of labour mobility within the NAFTA. We think that's a good thing for Canadians and Americans, and in certain industries, for Mexican employees. We'd like that to continue and expand.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

I have a question for you, Mr. Runnalls.

You said that a clean economic strategy should be created. Given that some countries withdrew from the Paris agreement, how could this kind of a strategy be included in NAFTA renegotiations?

[David Runnalls]

There's an optimistic strategy and a pessimistic strategy. I mentioned them quickly at the end. The pessimistic strategy is that we have to make sure we protect our rights and Mexico's rights to honour our obligations under the Paris agreement from actions that penalize Canadian producers and Canadian companies that have actually obeyed Canadian law.

Normally, in trade agreements, the international environmental agreements are listed by name, and in NAFTA, the Framework Convention on Climate Change is not listed. At the very least, Canada should make sure it is listed, because if it's there, then Canada pursuing its obligations under that convention is non-actionable in trade terms.

The more optimistic one that I explored very briefly is that the future of a clean economy in North America is an enormously optimistic one, which could provide jobs. It could provide all kinds of employment opportunities and all kinds of technological opportunities. We're really at the stage now where Bloomberg New Energy Finance reckons that by 2022 it will be cheaper to build a solar power plant from scratch than it will be to operate an existing gas-powered plant in the United States, so the economics are changing very rapidly.

The Trump administration may be looking for some sort of an out on climate change. They're not going to sign up to Paris again, but they may be looking to try to improve their reputation a bit. The administration is under enormous pressure now from governors. There's a list of 30—mainly Republican—governors, who wrote to the president saying, please don't mess around with renewable energy; our states are very dependent on it.

Large companies like Walmart are investing tons of money now in renewable energy. It's an idea that's coming, and it's going to come no matter what the president does. If they're looking for a way to begin to leaven the effects of what they've said about climate change, to be in favour of the growth of the clean-tech sector and of a cleaner economy would be a very good way to do it. There are ways in which we could modify NAFTA to permit tariff-free and barrier-free entry to environmental goods and services.

We can do something about fossil fuel subsidies, which all the parties in this House and all the G20 members—including the United States and Mexico—have committed to eliminate. We could also do something about this funny little commission in Montreal, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Instead of seeing it swept out the door, which it will be if you bring the environmental provisions into the treaty, it could in fact be a clean economy commission. It could give advice, which could begin to create discussions, which could help to harmonize regulations on energy efficiency, for example. You'd get the three countries talking about something that wasn't climate change. They'd actually be talking about clean energy, which is a big employer and a very profitable enterprise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you and we're going to have to move over to the NDP.

Go ahead, Ms. Ramsey, you have the floor.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I don't know where to start. I have so many questions.

Like my colleague, I wonder if you could send us some information about the chemical reaction rule. That's something new to us here. For all of you, if you have a brief that you can submit to the committee afterwards, that would be greatly appreciated, to enable us to follow up on some of the finer details.

I'll go to the chicken folks with my first question. Do you have any indication of a discussion of opening access further in NAFTA? Have you been given any indication by the government that this is something that could potentially be on the table? We certainly heard Donald Trump and the administration in the 19 pages referencing supply management more broadly, but do you have any indication that you will be included in those conversations?

[Mike Dungate]

We have no indication in terms of that, so our message to Mr. Trump is that if he wants more access, sign TPP. It's there.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Okay.

It was opening further in TPP, so that's something you would consider.

[Mike Dungate]

There was a deal done in TPP. Would I say, if I was negotiating only for the Chicken Farmers of Canada, that I liked that deal? No.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Okay, fair enough.

My next question is about country of origin labelling. Do you think, then, there's an opportunity to address the COOL issue in NAFTA?

[Mike Dungate]

I'm not sure that there is, but I think there are enough demands from the U.S. side that we need to put back the same demands. There is a risk that some of our colleagues in agriculture fear the U.S. coming back on COOL. All I want to signal is that if they're coming back, our push-back has to be strong and it has to include chicken as well.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Graham, my colleague had a conversation with you that's very important, about expanding the professional business visas that exist. Certainly my riding is on the border and I hear quite often from folks that they want to expand that. Have you submitted to Global Affairs the list that you would like to see included, or have you participated in the government consultations where you were able to add to that list?

[Clyde Graham]

We have not yet submitted a list. The briefing we've received is that we're at a very preliminary stage, because the U.S. has not put substantive proposals forward yet in many areas. We'll probably have to study that and see what particular areas we'd like to expand that in, but our biggest priority is protecting what we have now. That works quite well.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

This voice comes from a lot of different folks, who talk about expanding that list. I would encourage you to submit specifically to Global Affairs where you see that expansion going forward.

[Clyde Graham]

We'll do that, and we'll send it to the committee as well.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I appreciate that.

Mr. Runnalls, my last question is to you. I appreciate everything you've discussed and I think you heard our conversation earlier with Ms. Dey. I want to ask you about the value of a continent-wide carbon pricing system to ensure that there's fairness amongst our jurisdictions.

[David Runnalls]

That's sort of nirvana, isn't it?