International Trade Committee on Aug. 21st, 2024

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Welcome to meeting number 113 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

There is a message, of course, on the audio feedback. Before we begin, I need to ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Only use the black approved earpiece. The former grey earpiece must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face-down on the sticker placed on the table. Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can. All comments go through the chair. If any technical issues arise and, for the members who are on Zoom, if you have any issues about hearing clearly, please let us know.

I will now open the floor for discussion.

Mr. Williams, by the way, congratulations and welcome to our committee.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm very happy to be here. I'm leaving the industry committee. I think we're on our 190th meeting on Bill C-27, so it's nice to be leaving that committee. I know it's good work, and we had a very collaborative and co-operative committee, and we're looking forward to that here in the international trade committee.

Madam Chair, thank you very much for convening this meeting. The members of the Conservative Party and the NDP, through Standing Order 106(4), sent a letter to the committee to have this meeting today.

What we feel right now is we're dealing with potentially the greatest trade crisis of our time. We have two fronts that are facing us right now.

On one hand, we have what seems to be a close relationship with the U.S. that is cooling. Everyone saw the announcement last week where the U.S. almost doubled the softwood lumber tariffs on Canada even though Canada really has had a great trading relationship for a long time—a trillion dollars' worth of trade across the border and about the largest trading relationship in the world. Of course, we had a $52-billion U.S. announcement for battery manufacturing and assembly in Canada, and those batteries are used in cars manufactured in the U.S.

When we talk about what's at stake here, it's jobs. Two million jobs are attributed to our trading relationship with the U.S., directly and indirectly. The auto industry is the specific one we're focused on that employs 500,000 people in Canada. It's an industry worth $18 billion to this country, and this industry right now is under threat.

That is because, on the other hand, we face a contentious relationship with China. We've had allegations of foreign interference. We've had unfair trade practices, and when we talk about EVs, aluminum and steel—and I'm still the competition critic—I can tell you right now that the way China subsidizes these industries, especially their EVs, their steel and their aluminum.... It's not just the subsidization; it's the questionable trade practices and the questionable labour standards that they have. This is a really big threat to that trillion-dollar trade relationship we have with the U.S., but specifically to the auto manufacturing relationship we have. The stakes really could not be higher for Canada's economic future.

We talk about the money invested, but we also talk about jobs. The Americans didn't hesitate to protect jobs and industries. Canadians right now have been waiting three months to hear whether Canada is going to mirror the tariffs that have been put on those industries, which the Americans announced back in May. The Americans didn't hesitate. By not matching tariffs, we risk being seen as a weak link in the North American supply chain, and hesitation drives away investment. Retaliation, of course, is something we look at, but it's not something we can avoid by being passive. In fact, our inaction invites further aggression from countries like China, which will see our delay as weakness and capitalize on it.

We're not going to be able to stop the number of cars coming in. Tariffs don't stop EVs from coming into Canada. They will certainly slow them down, though. We risk certain effects if these vehicles enter Canada and they find their way through a back door to the U.S. market; we will further aggravate that Canada-U.S. relationship. Canadians deserve to know why it's taking so long to protect their jobs and industries. It has been three months since the U.S. implemented these tariffs. How much longer will Canadians have to wait?

The government must explain why it's dragging its feet when our economic future is at stake. Regarding the consultation the government conducted, we've talked to quite a few of the stakeholder groups involved in the consultation, and it has been thorough, but it clearly hasn't been comprehensive enough. Certain stakeholders have stated that we haven't covered data, for instance, and the fact that these are vehicles are coming into Canada. The U.S. is conducting a comprehensive study right now. We were studying part of that in the industry committee with Bill C-27, including, with these vehicles, the data that Canadians will give them, where it's stored and what it's used for by state-owned China.

The second thing would be the unfair labour practices, and the third would be the broader economic impact. Canadians deserve nothing less than to study this trade crisis, and therefore, Madam Chair, I will read the following motion to the committee:

That, given the risk heavily-subsidized Chinese-made electric vehicles pose to the over 600,000 Canadian workers in the steel, aluminum, mining, and auto-manufacturing industries, as well as risk to the $52.4 billion of taxpayers' money the federal government has spent on corporate subsidies for the electric vehicle industry in Canada, the committee begin a study of at least 8 meetings into the impact of tariffs on local industry and use of trade remedies to protect against Chinese electric vehicles, with 4 meetings held before September 30, 2024, and that the meetings consist of:

One 2-hour meeting with the Honourable Mary Ng, Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade, and Economic Development, and officials from Global Affairs Canada on the issue of tariffs and impacts on local industry.

One 2-hour meeting with the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials from the Department of Finance.

One 2-hour meeting with the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and officials from the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

One 2-hour meeting with the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and officials from the Department of Global Affairs.

At least four meetings with stakeholders deemed relevant to the subject.

that the committee request copies in both official languages, of all submissions made to the Federal Government's public consultation which ran from July 2nd to August 1st, 2024 on protecting Canadian workers and electric vehicle supply chains from unfair Chinese trade practices, that the copies be sent to the clerk for distribution to committee members prior to the commencing of the study, that the committee report its findings to the House, and that the committee immediately report to the House of Commons that the Government immediately match the United States' tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, steel, aluminum, critical minerals, and EV batteries and battery parts, and remove Chinese-made electric vehicles from all Federal electric vehicle subsidy and rebate programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Williams, do you have that available for the committee members in English and in French?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair. As far as I'm aware, they've been submitted to the clerk electronically.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Perhaps you could have that distributed so everyone would have it in front of them.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

We will do that right away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do you want to have it in front of you before you speak to it?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair. Can we take five minutes to review this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We're just going to hold off.

I have to do what the clerk tells me. We'll suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting back to order.

We have the motion moved by Mr. Williams, and I have a speaking list, which I'm going to read out quickly: Mr. Sidhu, Mr. Baldinelli, Mr. Arya, Mr. Genuis, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, Mr. Muys and Mr. Sheehan. That's currently the speaker's list.

I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Sidhu at this moment.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's good to be back here in the summer. I've never seen so many tourists around Parliament Hill.

It's no secret that the government has always been there to grow industry and protect workers. We were number three in the world after the U.S. and Brazil in receiving foreign direct investments. That means industry and companies from all around the world are coming to Canada to set up shop, creating thousands of jobs in the EV sector alone, as we heard earlier today. Over $50 billion has been invested by companies, and that's attracting thousands of workers to set up shop. Last week alone, Goodyear announced roughly a half-billion-dollar investment to create hundreds more jobs for tires that will go on some of these EVs, so we're definitely there to make sure we're protecting workers.

There was a consultation period that just finished, as my colleague mentioned earlier. It was roughly a 30-day consultation period during which we wanted to make sure we heard from industries. As we know, previously there were retaliatory measures from China that impacted a variety of sectors, whether we're talking about agriculture or steel and aluminum, so we want to make sure that we do this right. This is the number-one priority for our government to make sure that we do get this right.

When we look at the EV sector in my riding of Brampton East alone, Stellantis is creating hundreds of jobs and will be soon making electric vehicles there.

We want to make sure we continue incentivizing the industry to set up shop here with tax incentives like those in budget 2024 to continue growing the industry. We're seeing that across the board. No doubt about it, workers are looking forward to seeing more of that, and we want to make sure we continue to protect the industry.

Coming back to what the Conservative Party is saying about jobs and workers, of course it's important to us. What we've seen in the past, when Pierre Poilievre was a cabinet minister, was that over 40,000 auto-sector jobs were lost during that period, and we want to do the exact opposite to protect those jobs and keep them in this country.

Coming back to this motion here, I agree it's an important study, and we should be doing it, but definitely there are some minor corrections that we need to think of, and I want to get those on the record for the members who are on video as well.

On the third line, you'll see “risk to the $52.4 billion of taxpayers' money the federal government” has announced, but we have to remember this is not money that was spent. These are tax incentives that were given by various governments, and they will be accumulated when some of these companies start producing products. Therefore, I think the word “spent” has to be changed to “announced”.

On the sixth line down, you're going to see—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I do want to clarify something. Is an amendment being moved, or are we just hearing a discussion about prospective changes? I wonder if that amendment can be distributed while it's being moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's a friendly amendment that would change the word “spent” to “announced”. I think it's a friendly amendment that...

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

It's a friendly amendment that is on the record that we can discuss.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes. If somebody wants to discuss it afterwards, then you can discuss it afterwards.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

The friendly amendment is changing the word on the third line from “spent” to “announced”, because that's what it is.

On the sixth line down, it reads, “with 4 meetings held before September 30th”. The House is going to resume. We have to be flexible on committee scheduling, so I would say, “with 8 meetings", starting on the first day back. I don't know when the House will resume, but I assume we'll be sitting the first Monday we come back, so we can say “with 8 meetings”, starting on whatever that date is, “and that the meetings consist of...”.

I know we have listed four different hours with four different ministers. It might be easier to just say with meetings that consist of Minister Ng and officials, Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne.... I'm not sure if we need Minister Freeland here. As we know, Minister Ng is on the trade file, along with Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne, on the team Canada-U.S. engagement strategy. It might be beneficial for our members to hear that, so we might want to just readjust and add two ministers there.

We could have Minister Ng for two hours with officials and Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne for two hours. I don't think we need to specify two hours if we just mention the minister's names alongside "officials".

That's one, two and three. My fourth friendly amendment is about how we have to respect commercial confidentiality when industry gives us submissions on feedback during the consultation process. I think we need to add the words “subject to commercial confidentiality and national security considerations” because we are talking about ensuring that Canadian interests are protected. I think those words should be included.

The words again, for the clerk, are “subject to commercial confidentiality and national security considerations” after “practices” on the fourth line down.

I have a final friendly amendment. If you notice at the bottom, where we are saying “that the government immediately match the United States' tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles” and so on, we're presupposing the study that we're going to do. I think the recommendations will tell us what we need to do after we hear from industry and the ministers. Therefore, I think that bottom section needs to be gone. It should read, on the seventh line down, “immediately report to the House of Commons” with a period, and nothing else after that.

That's what I have.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry, Chair. I have another point of order.

I'm not trying to be persnickety here, but there are a bunch of different amendments being proposed. The term “friendly amendment” was used. That doesn't exist in the Standing Orders. A member can propose an amendment, or they can propose a series of amendments, and things can be adopted by unanimous consent if it exists. If not, things have to be debated.

It's all one amendment. If so, it's now subject to debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes. I appreciate your comments.

There have been several amendments suggested. I'm not sure how to do this.

To the members online, do we have to send you these amendments, or did you all hear them and we'll just discuss them? That's probably the best way to do it.

[A voice]

I think Mr. Tremblay's hand is up on that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Hold on.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, do you want to speak to the amendments that have been proposed by Mr. Sidhu?

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

I'd like you to send them to me.

If we have amendments to propose that conflict with other proposed amendments, this would be a good time to discuss them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It would be helpful if we had these in writing to get to you, but we don't have them, so I think we have to deal with them one at a time.

They're not huge amendments, but if they're amendments that the mover of the motion is okay with, I imagine the others in the committee will probably be all right with them as well.

I have my speaking list here, but can Mr. Williams speak to these amendments? That might be the easiest way to do this.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly want to hear from the rest of the committee on these. I support you if you want to do one amendment at a time, have the speaking and then vote on them. I think we can agree to look at these amendments separately.

Specifically, if I'm talking about the first amendment—and you can get your speaking order—certainly, changing the word “spent” to “announced” is something our side would be okay with. I know we don't have friendly amendments.

Of the four that were announced, the main one we have contention with is removing some ministers. Each one of these ministers has a part to play in this trade agreement or the relationships we've mentioned. Each one of those ministers is responsible for these trade agreements and the seriousness that comes with them. Therefore, that's one we would not be prepared to vote for.

If you want to start, Madam Chair, with the first amendment, I'd be happy to hear from the rest of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Williams has said he has no objection to changing the word “spent” on the third line to “announced”.

I don't think anybody has any objection to that.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, do you follow it? Yes. Okay.

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

On that point, everything is fine. I want to comment on the other matter, concerning ministers.