International Trade Committee on Dec. 9th, 2024

[Catherine Cobden]

Yes, as a general philosophy, we think we should keep pace with the United States.

Now, that being said, we're hoping to do this on an analytical base. The tariffs came into place on October 22. We'll know in the next six months or so—you know, how long will it take to develop a trend line?—how effective they're being. Then, whether the U.S. does this or not, we may wish to open up a conversation about whether the tariffs are high enough.

I will remind you that the U.S. not only have their 301 tariffs at 25%. They also have the 232 tariffs at 25%. In a lot of cases on steel, they're tariffing China at 50%, and we're at 25%. We're not yet sure whether 25% is sufficient, but we do recognize it as a bold step forward.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

One of the things that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Sheehan. Your time is up.

I have Mr. Savard-Tremblay, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

Ms. Cobden, you were asked whether tariffs were sufficient, and you said you didn't know yet. You didn't have time to finish your previous answer, but I would like to give you an opportunity to do so, since I wanted to discuss the same thing. Before we talk about solutions, though, we need to talk about problems. Are you able to confirm for us that Chinese steel is produced in accordance with environmental standards that are nowhere near up to North America's?

[Catherine Cobden]

Yes.

Thank you for your question.

In fact, we can confirm—again, through third party consulting studies, not our own—that Chinese emissions are very much higher in steel than in Canada and the United States collectively. Essentially, when we're allowing China into our marketplace, not only is there a job erosion issue because they're dumping steel and it's an unfair trade practice, but it also so happens that we're importing high amounts of carbon emissions that are essentially part of their production processes. Again, this speaks to the importance of our various tools to prevent carbon leakage and address unfair trade, because they're intricately linked in the steel sector.

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

You therefore recommend tariffs, especially in response to dumping, but also to curb the importing of steel that adheres to much lower environmental standards. That is why your association is in favour of such tariffs.

Let's talk about a possible Canadian carbon border tariff regime, one that works and does not conflict with Canada's international commitments.

What would you recommend to Ottawa as far as a regime like that is concerned? Are there negotiation and implementation challenges the government would have to plan for?

[Catherine Cobden]

Yes, I think there's a lot of work to be done. As far as the world trade order or the World Trade Organization goes, there's work to be done by them to better incorporate climate considerations, but our view is that we could do climate tariff work at our borders and, essentially, we can and should do that in a manner that is consistent and in collaboration, if possible, with the United States.

We don't want to take any more actions that create trade tensions between Canada and the United States, for reasons I've described: the integration of our economy, tariffs harming both sides of the border, being among allies and that sort of thing. That would be our sort of approach.

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

Mr. Van Rythoven, trade agreements such as the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement contain specific requirements preventing the signatories from weakening environmental protections to favour trade. The government is saying that the current protections appear to be preventing carbon leakage, in other words, the relocation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Do you think the provisions in the agreements could do the opposite and encourage some companies to move their operations outside the country?

[Dr. Eric Van Rythoven]

I thank the member for the question. I'm not sure I quite understood the end of it. I think it was about agreements and their effects on carbon leakage.

I think my more general statement today would be that the political environment globally is changing. Not only are countries going to adopt these particular climate measures to reduce their emissions, but there is going to be a broader political incentive. They're going to be much more appealing to domestic audiences.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to use the minute I have left to move a motion that was provided to committee members on Friday. It reads as follows:

That, considering that 22 service interruptions were noted during the first month of operation of the Canada Border Services Agency Assessment and Revenue Management (CARM) portal, some of which extended beyond 3 hours, and that the service standard during the first four weeks remains below the 99.9% target set by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA); Considering the numerous shortcomings reported by stakeholders, including errors in calculating duties and taxes, difficulties in making payments, inaccuracies in statements of account, problems logging on or registering for the portal, and an increase in the level of unexpected recourse to workarounds to manage the system since its implementation; Considering the high level of dissatisfaction expressed by stakeholders, revealed among other things by the survey conducted by the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters among its members, the results of which, forwarded to the members of the Committee, highlight an inability to reach the helpdesk to resolve problems, and a lack of knowledge of CBSA staff hampering their ability to provide adequate support; Considering that all the stakeholders who testified before the Committee, with the exception of the Agency, have been sounding the alarm for several months, and again in September 2024, about the system's technical problems and the lack of training and consultation with stakeholders, and that these witnesses repeatedly contradicted or denied the assertions made by Agency representatives when they appeared before the Committee on March 19 and September 25, 2024; Considering that the initial budget allocation for the CARM was $371.5 million over 10 years, and that as of December 31, 2023, the CBSA had already disbursed $556.8 million, an amount that has continued to rise in 2024 and will continue to do so in view of the numerous deficiencies to be corrected; and Considering that the development of the CARM portal was initiated 14 years ago, and that the Agency has postponed the implementation of its platform three times since 2021; The Committee recommends that the Auditor General conduct a performance audit of the CBSA's development and maintenance of the GCRA, including the roles and responsibilities of suppliers and subcontractors.

I would like us to debate the motion, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Savard-Tremblay.

The floor is now open to debate your motion, or, since we have scheduled committee business for the last 15 minutes, could we defer it and debate it so that we can continue with our witnesses? What is your desire?

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

I actually don't know how long the debate will take. I guess it depends on what members have to say. If everyone agrees, we can dispose of it fairly quickly, I would think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

The NDP supports this. We think that this is pretty straightforward, writing a letter and making this request. Hopefully we can just vote on this and move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Williams, you have the floor.

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

Yes, we agree as well. This is something we warned was going to happen when we discussed this at committee, so we certainly support these steps going forward to get this rectified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's the will of the committee, then, that we deal with this issue.

I apologize to our witnesses. Just have a bit of patience here.

I will refer it back to the clerk for a recorded vote, or may I make it a question? Is everybody in agreement with the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We don't need to waste any time. We are the most efficient group you'll find here, Mr. Miao, so welcome to our group.

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

I would still like a recorded division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's a question of time. We have two witnesses, and we have another panel of witnesses coming, and it's adopted and passed.

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

It takes about 30 seconds, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Nobody is in opposition, so that was dealt with fairly quickly.

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

You see, Madam Chair, it didn't take long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You see, it took no time at all, absolutely, but we didn't debate it at all. That's the will of the committee, and we're fine.

Mr. Johns, it's your floor now for six minutes, please.