International Trade Committee on June 11th, 2024

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

To follow up on that, what can we do to further improve the understanding of trade among our countries? I know that in the past, pages have been taken out in newspapers to express the meaningful impact that our trade has had on U.S. cities. Is there more we can do to raise awareness within U.S. cities and towns?

[Sean Heather]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is made up of about 3,000 state and local chambers. For every major trade agreement the United States has been a party to, we have activated the federation of state and local chambers to help tell that story. Often, we have taken with us from Washington ambassadors of our trading partners to do whistle-stop tours in various states. They get out and meet folks in the communities where trade is happening. We are prepared to continue that in support of the CUSMA review.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

As you know, the Prime Minister announced our team Canada engagement strategy with the U.S. earlier this year, led by Minister Ng, Minister François-Philippe Champagne and Ambassador Hillman. Part of my role is to go out to municipalities across Canada to see if we can bring in those stories and share them with our U.S. counterparts.

Mr. Chaffe, what are your conversations like with some of your counterparts down in the U.S.? What do you think the government should be focusing on with our U.S.-team Canada engagement strategy?

[Dennis Laycraft, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Cattle Association]

It's Dennis Laycraft. That's a great question.

For many years, we've maintained a very active communication strategy in the United States. We go to many of the state meetings. We participate in what's called the SARL—State Agriculture and Rural Leaders—meeting and the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region meeting. There's one in the east. There's the NASDA—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry. I have to interrupt.

The bells are ringing. It's a 30-minute bell.

Is the committee okay to continue until we get to 5:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

You have a minute and 35 seconds remaining.

[Dennis Laycraft]

As Mr. Chaffe mentioned, we have trilateral meetings three times a year where we work with our counterparts in the U.S. We have a great relationship with the associations at the state level. Governors are very influential down there. We consider our work there to be almost as important as our work here, as we export almost half of our production to the United States. There's been a mutually beneficial relationship that has grown as a result of this.

Mentioned earlier was a question about how much people in the United States appreciate the importance of trade. To be honest, that's a question we should ask in Canada. There's a lot more work we all need to do to talk about how beneficial this North American agreement is for our industry. It's the lifeblood for many of our producers, so we must be able to maintain it and go forward.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I have about 20 seconds left.

In terms of the states in the U.S., where do you think the Canadian government should be focused in relation to your industry?

[Dennis Laycraft]

It's on regulatory co-operation. We just went through a period with climate issues. For part of one year, we were importing seven unit trains of corn a week because we were short. Suddenly it flipped. In August, we started sending unit trains of feed grain south because they were short.

There's a mutual benefit when we have these integrated supply chains. The more we talk about how important that is to food affordability in North America and to having the regular supply we all take for granted.... You can reach the average person when you have that conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, you have five minutes.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It was my intention, as you probably saw, to move a motion. I won't move it today, since we don't have much time for debate, but I would still like to use some of my speaking time to quickly read it out. I hope we will take some time to discuss it at the next meeting. It reads as follows:

Whereas the Duty Free Shop Regulations under the Customs Act clearly state that goods in duty free stores are for immediate export only, and must be declared under the Act if returned to Canada; Whereas duty-free stores are subject to strict location, inventory, declaration and storage requirements to ensure that all products sold there are exported for consumption outside Canada; That the Committee recommend that the government recognize duty-free as an export industry, that a clear indication of the nature of this industry be conveyed to all federal agencies concerned, and that it report back to the House before the end of the current session of Parliament.

I will end the digression and return to the witnesses, whom I thank for their opening remarks.

Mr. Deather, first of all, the U.S. government's position during the renegotiation of NAFTA was to oppose the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. We know that the Trump administration exerted considerable pressure to put an end to what was then called chapter 11.

Is that the position of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well?

[Sean Heather]

If I heard the question correctly, it was what the chamber's position is on the chapter 11 investment provisions. The chamber strongly supports the bilateral investment treaties and investment chapters of our trade agreements. We were not supportive of the removal of chapter 11 from NAFTA as it relates to the U.S.-Canada relationship, but we are supportive of what remains in the agreement vis-à-vis Mexico.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

So you disagreed with the U.S. administration's position at the time.

[Sean Heather]

Yes, we were. It's not unique that we disagree with our own government. It happens routinely. The position of the United States was largely driven out of the belief that the U.S. should not be investing abroad. We believe that U.S. investment abroad is a good thing, just as we think foreign investment going into the United States is a good thing.

The politics around that decision may have been different in the United States from what they were in Canada, but for those reasons, we opposed it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Barry‑Shaw, earlier, I heard you say that you didn't share that position at all. You were in favour of eliminating chapter 11 of NAFTA, but you also say that a small part remains that should be removed.

Could you elaborate on that?

[Nikolas Barry-Shaw]

Yes.

I believe there remains, in chapter 14, a portion of what was previously chapter 11, which will apply to certain strategic sectors, including energy and telecommunications. I don't have a list off the top of my head of all the sectors that chapter 14 still applies to, but it means that Mexico, in its efforts to exercise its sovereignty over its energy sector, is potentially exposed to lawsuits from American investors.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Finally, if I understood your position correctly, in the event of a dispute, we should stick to a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism. In other words, investors must not be on an equal footing with a state, and if they feel wronged, they must rely on their own country to resolve the dispute between states.

[Nikolas Barry-Shaw]

Yes, precisely.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

All right, thank you.

Ms. Zalik, you're an environmental professor, if I understand correctly. If we want to tackle the climate crisis, we need to enforce more regulations to protect the environment.

Does CUSMA, in its current form, empower states with the sovereignty to enforce the necessary environmental measures?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, I'm sorry, but the individual you were asking the question of is having technical difficulties.

[Dr. Anna Zalik]

I've returned now.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Did you understand the question?

[Dr. Anna Zalik]

I didn't hear the question.

I had to disconnect and reconnect due to a problem. I'm sorry.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Chair, may I repeat the question?