Evidence of meeting #5 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreement.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers
Yes, not only could it keep buying from China, but it could also buy more from China.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
My next question is on an altogether different topic. It's for the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance representatives.
You talked about exports. As you no doubt know, under the new agreement, the United States could have some control over Canadian milk protein exports to the Middle East and third countries.
Does that worry you?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Our mission is to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers in key markets across all the sectors we represent, which exclude supply-managed sectors. We represent virtually the entire agri-food sector, except for areas under supply management.
On the whole, rules and policies aimed at restricting exports do not sit well with our members, whether that means duties, tariffs, non-tariff barriers, quotas, tariff quotas, restrictive rules of origin, non-compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary measures, or any barriers related to technical rules.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
In other words, from the standpoint of non-supply-managed sectors, there are benefits, but you're saying that, according to your membership, certain risks are still possible for supply-managed sectors.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
What I mean is that we don't speak for sectors we don't represent, so we don't speak for sectors under supply management.
Whether it's subsidies, tariffs, quotas or restrictive rules of origin, measures aimed at restricting trade in one way or another in our sectors are generally not looked upon favourably by our membership. Our mission is to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, after all.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
However, we have quotas in the agricultural sector that all the members here consider beneficial.
How much time do I have left?
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
All right. I have another question for our friends from the United Steelworkers.
If I understood you correctly, the changes when it comes to softwood lumber are merely cosmetic. In other words, there hasn't been a clear pullback in that sector. It was overlooked in the negotiations.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers
Basically, yes. That's correct. There isn't much change.
What we are looking for is a way to get rid of the tariffs the United States is currently imposing on softwood lumber. Nothing in the agreement, however, puts a stop to the tariffs being imposed.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
I want to talk a little bit about the issue of the labour chapter and particularly the provisions for Mexico. In your opening remarks, you mentioned a bit about how much is going to hinge on the enforcement of that and what enforcement of that would look like. It seems there is a genuine opportunity to start incorporating into a trade agreement something that would make it not just about creating opportunities for business to exploit low-wage economies in order to increase their margins, but to actually start implementing some fair labour practices cross-border.
I'm curious to know what you think needs to happen. The NDP is supportive of the idea of having a committee on the Canadian side that would ensure that government had access to the best advice from people in the labour movement here, and also in the business community where there are examples of successful labour relations. I'm wondering what you envision successful enforcement looking like from the Canadian point of view in terms of how we can optimize the potential of these clauses and move forward on that.
Maybe we can start with Hassan and then go to Mr. Neumann.
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Given the limited time, I'll be very brief.
As you know, under the previous agreement, there were a number of complaints filed under the old NAALC, which is part of the current agreement. Not a single one of them has ever been resolved in a satisfactory manner. It's been a complete failure. First of all, it was a side agreement with no real commitment to its being enforced. Mexico never lived up to its obligations. I think this time around at least the labour chapter is incorporated into the agreement. There's a clear commitment to apply sanctions if the countries can't live up to that obligation.
I think the enforcement side of this agreement is really critical. Certainly there was a new government at the national level in Mexico that made a strong commitment. They want to, of course, meet their obligations, because workers never really benefited from decades of the old NAFTA. If you look at their wages and working conditions, they have not risen, and most importantly, workers didn't even have the right to choose their own union. More importantly, when they met with violence, it was sanctioned by the national government.
This is an opportunity for Canada and the United States to hold the Mexican government's feet to the fire to enforce this agreement. Of course, in that commitment to do so, they're going to need help. There are thousands and thousands of agreements that have been negotiated under what is called “labour protection”. The workers never participated in these agreements. They never chose the union, and the agreements are still in existence, so how do we eliminate those agreements? How do we give the workers a fair chance to choose their union democratically, in a fair way? More importantly, how do they negotiate an agreement so they can benefit from the products they're producing in that country?
Canada has an obligation because we promised to provide Mexico technical assistance, and also financial assistance. I think it's critical that Canada gets as much broad advice as we can from the labour movement here, but equally hold Mexico accountable for the commitment they have made in this agreement. When they don't live up to it, we should impose whatever sanction is necessary to bring them into compliance. That never happened under previous agreements. The provisions in this agreement allow for that to happen.
4:20 p.m.
National Director for Canada, National Office, United Steelworkers
To what Hassan said, the fact is that this was the line in the sand. The American labour movement and the U.S. Congress basically said that that was one reason they weren't prepared to move the CUSMA ahead, and they basically got the amendments they thought were appropriate.
Our union is very much engaged with Mexico. You've heard of Napoleón Gómez, who is the president of the miners and steelworkers in Mexico. He was in exile in Canada for 12 years. The steelworkers harboured him. He's now back in Mexico, and he's a senator.
First of all, the labour chapter is very important. As Hassan mentioned, if you look at the labour rights, they've not lived up to them, and there are protectionist contracts.... There are a lot of workers in factories that belong to the union and don't even know it. Those are deals that are made that undercut the legitimate trade union movement. In fact, if you look at the salaries and the other things that are taking place, you see that these also affect us. Now that we have a mechanism in place, it's very important they be given the infrastructure to do it. This is why I said in my submission that Canada and the United States and Mexico have to be serious about it.
I was led to believe that if you look at the current labour law in Mexico, you see that they have some of the best labour laws in the world. The fact is it's not enforced. If it's not enforced, it's worthless. This is the mechanism and we have an obligation, because if you want to continue to see their auto sector grow from 1.2 million to 3.3 million vehicles—it has surpassed Canada's—it's going to continue to grow at our expense because we can't compete. The big companies would gladly go to Mexico and build their auto factories there.
We have an opportunity now to enshrine some mechanisms to enforce the labour laws, and that's what's crucially important. I see that as something like a watershed with respect to moving this in the direction. It's now up to all governments, in particular Canada and the United States, to make sure that this mechanism is enforced.
Thank you.
February 18th, 2020 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We are joined today by my colleague, Richard Martel. I will be splitting my time with him.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Good afternoon everyone. My question is for the aluminum and steel representatives. It's straightforward.
How long ago was the last massive investment in a steel or aluminum plant in Canada?
4:20 p.m.
Executive Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers
The last one?
4:20 p.m.
Executive Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers
Do you mean investments made by companies or supported by the government?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Executive Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers
It's been a long time.
4:20 p.m.
Executive Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers
The last time a steel plant was built in Canada was 1978. Some investments have been made since, but you'd have to understand how big and small investments are defined. Small investments are ongoing. In the aluminum sector, a plant was built more recently. The Alma plant was built in 1992, I believe. There hasn't been much investment of late, though.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Do you think CUSMA could prevent new aluminum plants from being built?
