Evidence of meeting #6 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 workers.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
I think the TRQs were just done, and the difference is that, for most of the imported dairy milk, we have the 10% cap now, so it has changed. As I understand it, most of the TRQs will be given to dairies, which helps dairies but does not help dairy farmers.
We can talk later. We'll give you a written answer directly from our dairy division.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
The time is up for Mr. Savard-Tremblay. Let's move on to Mr. Blaikie.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you.
Mr. Sobot from IPEX, I have to say, as a construction electrician by trade, that I've installed a lot of your product in the Winnipeg area. I wanted to follow up with you on some of your comments about the buy America provisions.
I know we've had a bit of discussion about this already, but we have a bus manufacturer in my riding called New Flyer Industries. A lot of their production goes to the United States. Over 90% of their sales are with American municipalities. It's not going to happen in this agreement because it didn't. What are some of the instruments or some of the things you think we need to pursue in order to gain some kind of protection from the buy America policy shifting jobs to the U.S.?
I know there was a meeting of governors recently. Unfortunately, Manitoba's premiere, Brian Pallister, chose to stay home and not send anybody on his behalf. Are there opportunities at the province-to-state level or Canada-to-state level to have agreements that would allow Canadian companies to compete for that work?
6:05 p.m.
Director, Corporate Affairs, IPEX Group of Companies
Mr. Blaikie, that's a perfect question. In fact, that's what some of the provinces are doing.
There is an opportunity for every province to have an agreement with the states. There are 37 states that are most crucial to us. Ontario is doing that right now. Quebec is doing that. A lot of the products that we make in Quebec we actually ship into the United States. There are seismic-resistant pipes there for earthquake areas. It's hard to believe, but pipe made in Quebec is being shipped to California because it's unique, new to the world, all that sort of stuff.
There are many opportunities for province-to-state agreements, and we're hoping that might alleviate some of the problem. However, we should always be looking for ways to work with our biggest customer, America, in order to see what they want and need. Maybe we can come up with some sort of agreements in the future, as well, federally.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
To the teamsters, you've mentioned the word “ambition”. I know that's sometimes a word used to characterize Canadian trade policy. When it comes to dairy, there are some pretty explicit, first-of-their-kind bans on the export of dairy products out of Canada, not just to the trading partners that are covered by the agreement but to anywhere in the world.
How do you think that squares with an ambitious export agenda?
6:10 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
It certainly isn't ambitious.
One of the problems is that dairy was thrown down the tubes. It's not a trading issue. The government decided to pony up $3.9 billion, and according to the minister, if I heard her right, listening to her testimony when she was here, she said that they're going to do that for CUSMA as well. It's just the workers who are left behind.
The problem with ambition is that, working with our partners and allies in Mexico and the United States, we're working on a deal between Mexico and the United States that Canada can sign on to. Some are on rail issues, some are roads, some minor, some larger, but Canada wouldn't go there because it wasn't ambitious. We're negotiating with somebody who is looking after their own interests and the interests of their nation.
I talked about the blinders. We're just asking that they take those blinders off and realize that we're not negotiating under some theoretical construct of a university professor in an ivory tower. These are real issues dealing with real jobs, real people. To discount things and ignore things because it doesn't fit into your theoretical notion of ambition in this modern world that we're moving into is just sad.
Somebody asked a question about fear. I've done a bit of bargaining, and I smelled fear. The fear was—at least at some level—the negotiators did not want to raise issues because they did not want in any way to upset the apple cart to get a deal. Congratulations, they got a deal. We need a deal. We support the deal. All in, it's a good deal, but these are lessons we have to learn. It's a message to Global Affairs and a message about how people bargain these deals, to realize that if you like the old way of doing things in secret, in silence, for 30 years....
I started with FTA. In that time, we had full access to everything. It was amazing. This is a little bit better. We're cracking the door, but just look what happened. I support Hassan Yussuff's statement yesterday. That's why we didn't' go over all of that again.
You have people coming here from labour, and NGOs and others, saying that, all in all, it's a deal. Maybe in six years we get to review it with somebody else. Maybe we can clean some of these things up and get a better one. The risk is having it there. That's what ambition in all about. It's not an insult or slam. It's just that the world has changed. Please take the blinders off.
We're working on Mercosur now and FTA. There are a few others we're actually working on. It's the same thing. Some I think might be very exiting, very supportable. Sometimes you have to take them off and make sure that people like Mr. Sobot here, and other companies.... Maybe don't be scared to stand up, or stand up for us in labour to protect our interests. It's okay to do it. Everybody else is doing it, especially America. Why shouldn't we too?
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
If I have a little more time, I'll use it.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Okay.
Ms. Hatch, just really quickly—maybe we'll get a chance to follow up—you started talking about where the manufacturing happens, whether in Canada, the U.S. or Mexico. We've talked a little at the committee about some better labour provisions, and particularly labour oversight in Mexico.
Could you speak to how that might affect your members and what they think. Is there an opportunity for any of that work to come to Canada, or is Mexico such a low-wage economy that most of the manufacturing is going to stay there?
6:10 p.m.
Manager, Policy and Data Analysis, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Canada
Yes, there's definitely an opportunity for manufacturers to come back to Canada. A couple of companies are moving some of their manufacturing back to Canada, into the Guelph area. It is definitely an opportunity, and that's one reason we definitely support CUSMA and the labour provisions there as well.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you all very much.
We move on to Mr. Shields.
Welcome to our committee today.
February 19th, 2020 / 6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Hoback.
Thank you, panellists, for being here today; I really appreciate it. I always learn a lot from panellists who come.
Mr. Beasley, you talked about an across-the-border agreement that I think very few of us know much about. When you talked about carbon sequestration, you also talked about the deal between Saskatchewan and U.S. states. Could you explain that a little more? That's “cross-border”. This is what we're talking about in this agreement.
6:15 p.m.
Todd Beasley
Absolutely, Mr. Shields, and thank you very much for the question.
It was on February 12, 2017, that there was an accord between the Saskatchewan government—SaskPower—and the governors of Wyoming, North and South Dakota and Montana to proliferate technology that was actually within the Quebec pension plan, technology called Cansolv. It was the first attempt at massive carbon capture from a coal-fired power plant. At the end of the day, this became very interesting to the world, because they took that CO2 and injected it into depleted oil reservoirs. They were thus not only removing massive amounts of CO2 from our environment but were turning it into enormous wealth.
As I mentioned in my presentation, they set a record late last year and have captured three million tonnes, which is the equivalent, ladies and gentlemen, one more time, of removing 750,000 vehicles from the road. This isn't putting a 40-watt light bulb in your house. This is major step change in terms of improvements to our environment and to airborne emissions.
The United States are not going to adopt Paris. They have no intention of doing so. They've made that clear. This does not mean, though, that they have any less commitment to the environment. What I'm trying to get across to this panel today is that perhaps what we should look at is following the Americans' example. Let's work on this from a technological perspective. Let's perhaps expand these types of relationships into other areas. Let these be the directions we're going to go in to solve the environmental problems we believe we have in society.
Mr. Shields, with that announcement—Donald Trump apparently referenced that agreement in 2018 in his state of the union address—they also put $2 billion from the U.S. EPA into this strategic initiative. The Americans are now embarking upon some of the largest carbon capture projects in the world by far.
Canada originally had that. It was originally developed at Suncor Energy up in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and by golly, that's the leadership that Canada can show.
Carbon taxation...? All it does is hobble us. Let's look at the examples of the past: acid rain. Let's look at public policy that deals with this at the megatonne level, rather than at the level of a 40-watt light bulb in your home.
Does that answer your question?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Yes. That's why working with the relationship with the U.S. and why this agreement we're talking about is important—building those relationships, as you say, with the biggest economy in the world.
6:15 p.m.
Todd Beasley
As Prime Minister Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland have said, it does not matter. We could shut Canada down and we will accomplish nothing for the world's environment—nothing. We need to realize that we must look at this from a strategic perspective. We must show the leadership. We have really smart people in Canada. If we were to unlock that economic, technical and entrepreneurial spirit through public policy, we would show incredible leadership to the world.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you.
I'm an electronics geek. One of my happiest days was down in Vegas at CES, the consumer electronics show, looking at all the new Internet of things appliances.
I'm curious. In this new agreement, Ms. Hatch, do we have the foundations to have regulatory harmonization, for lack of a better word, so that we can actually have products being built right across North America that can be used right across North America?
6:15 p.m.
Meagan Hatch
Regulatory harmonization is our number one issue. It took Canada 10 years to catch up to the United States in terms of energy efficiency levels, which I mentioned earlier in my presentation.
This government has worked through the regulatory co-operation council. They put in a lot of effort. Essentially NRCan and the Department of Energy get together and they look at ways in which they can make harmonization matter.
It's through that process that you're going to get more energy efficiency standards. There's continuous improvement. Each government can set stricter energy efficiency standards, and they will do that over time. We've seen this. A lot of our products have gone through many iterations of this process and now we have products that are very energy efficient. For example, a modern refrigerator uses less energy than a 60-watt light bulb for an entire year.
This has been a huge success. The Energy Star program is separate from that process, and I want to make sure that's clear and that people understand that today. That is a competition that manufacturers go through to try to be the best, the top 20% to 25%, and that also moves over time. Through increasingly strict minimum energy efficiency standards and this Energy Star thing, you get more energy efficiency savings.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I have just one quick question.
Mr. Sobot, I understand you had to lay some people off because of the blockades. I want you to know they are in our thoughts and prayers.
6:20 p.m.
Director, Corporate Affairs, IPEX Group of Companies
Yes, they are not laid off yet. However, there are four plants that are going down because we don't have any raw material: Langley, Clarkson, Pharmacy in Toronto and.... I have up-to-the-minute emails on that right now.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
First of all, I want to thank Sukh for thanking the staff. They play a very important role. We talk about team Canada all the time. We've been down to Washington a number of times. Our staff have been down there as well.
We talk about the unions, industry and the NGOs working together. I also want to recognize that.
Also, Sukh's son turned 16 today, so I want to thank him for being here.