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 p.m.
Meagan Hatch
Nothing is manufactured in Canada.
6 p.m.
Meagan Hatch
Nothing is actually manufactured in Canada.
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
Meagan Hatch
We still have a huge industry here. All of our companies are located in the 905 area. I'm not going to name them but we have 50 companies that I represent here in Canada.
6 p.m.
Meagan Hatch
It also affects retail. We have distribution centres across the country. They're sold in every store. They're in every home. It's a huge industry.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
The point is that there are no manufacturers in Canada that will be affected by Canada going for Energy Star.
6 p.m.
Meagan Hatch
No, but consumer choice will be affected.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
In terms of consumer choice and energy requirements, a lower consumption of energy is important too.
6 p.m.
Meagan Hatch
It's very strange that a ministerial mandate letter is tied to a program run by the American government. That just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to our industry.
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Good afternoon. Thank you all for coming today.
My first question is for you, Mr. Beasley. Your presentation focused on the intersection between trade and new environmental and ecological challenges.
Do you or your association support the Paris agreement or see it as positive?
6 p.m.
Todd Beasley
I believe fundamentally the answer to a good portion of our environmental challenges that may or may not be the issues that they are in how they are being presented....
We have pollution problems that need to be dealt with. As a society, we must be competitive. We must have public policy that encourages those technologies to be able to be proliferated. As I mentioned in my presentation, I believe fundamentally the best that Canada can do is to develop superb environmental technologies that the rest of the world can confidently adopt. That leadership, rather than punitive taxation, is the leadership that Canada can, and should, show.
6 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
In all cases, CUSMA is not subject to the Paris agreement.
Given what you've talked about today, do you think it's possible for a dynamic to emerge, not a problematic dynamic, but one that could put a signatory to the Paris agreement like Canada and a non-signatory like the United States on unequal footing?
6 p.m.
Todd Beasley
What I'm referring to in my presentation is the need for Canada to be strategic in this discussion of free trade. What we need to recognize is who we are relative to who the Americans are. We're dealing with the elephant in the room. If Canada just straight-up adopts carbon taxation, which our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister have acknowledged is not going to accomplish anything for us environmentally, that is only going to cause harm to the competitiveness of our households, our municipalities and our businesses. I believe history has shown that there's a better way, potentially, to solve this environmental challenge.
If it is truly an environmental challenge that we believe society has, if we truly believe it's an existential threat to society, if we were to look back using the acid rain example of an accord between the United States and Canada, and perhaps using the free trade agreement to be able to foster that, great things environmentally were accomplished.
Canada must be competitive. We must look at this from a strategic perspective, and at the end of the day, to hobble our society with taxation that the Americans have no intention of adopting, we're already behind the eight ball in terms of our manufacturers, our municipalities and our households, and quite frankly, society in general. We must look at this in an entirely different way, and I believe it's crucial that we do.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Where you stand is quite clear. Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Monette, from Teamsters Canada. It's on an altogether different topic.
If I understood correctly, you don't represent farmers, who have other associations, but you represent workers in the dairy processing sector.
6:05 p.m.
Director, Public Affairs, Teamsters Canada
That's correct. We represent the workers at Agropur, Saputo and all the others.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
When the diafiltered milk debate was raging, processors spent a long time discussing the issue. Some decided very early on to prohibit it, well before it became a political issue, while others did the opposite, finding it somewhat convenient.
Where does your association stand on the elimination of class 7?
6:05 p.m.
Director, Public Affairs, Teamsters Canada
I'll let my colleague answer that.
6:05 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Just to be clear, are you talking about the diafiltered milk?
6:05 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Yes, the issue with that was that America had used the diafiltered milk as a way to get around importation of milk into Canada, because it wasn't in NAFTA. The government put in a plan and a process so it would work. That was really what set the Americans off: There was no countervail, just using our product at home. I think was a good idea that was supported and both the producers and the industry got some value out of it, especially the dairy farmers.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
As you know, the agreement was referred to as class 7, but this agreement does away with class 7.
