Evidence of meeting #133 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was emissions.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
I understand that, but he question is, do you think that approach would be successful with the new administration?
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I've already answered that—yes.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
You said that it's part of the tool box, but do you think this particular policy will be successful with the new administration?
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I think that having it in the tool box will result in a more successful negotiation.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Your testimony is that you think this is possible to move forward in a Trump administration.
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I'm not sure what part is confusing to you, sir.
Conservative
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I said yes.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
You said that, yes, this should be in the tool box. I'm asking you—
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I said yes and that having it in the tool box will result in a more successful outcome in the negotiations.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
I'm simply trying to ask you a question, Ms. MacEwen. There's no undertone. I'm not trying to take a partisan approach. I just feel that this is—
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I didn't suggest there was.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
I would love to hear CUPE's response to this. Maybe we could ask for a response in writing on this particular approach because I'm obviously not getting a response.
Mr. Campbell, I'll go back to you. Some of your comments were about a future where there's a parallel conversation about the CBAM and a trade agreement. Are you suggesting that we should work on the CBAM policy piece at the same time as we're doing a CUSMA-type agreement? Depending on what happens with CUSMA, do we pivot or not pivot? If it's unsuccessful, do we scrap the CBAM?
Partner, McMillan LLP, As an Individual
I think you should certainly be working on it in parallel. It gives you options.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Your testimony is that we should start now on a lot of this. If we were to start now, we would be two or three years out from this particular policy, based on what we saw with the European Union. With CUSMA, we're then playing the long game, and ultimately, we're looking at potentially dealing with a second administration when it comes into force. Would that not be correct?
Partner, McMillan LLP, As an Individual
There could be, before we're done. It's a long process, but you're obviously starting the big development early on, and you go as you go. This is a very unpredictable environment.
Liberal
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you very much to all of our presenters. It's been very informative testimony thus far.
Manny mentioned the investments we're making in the electric arc furnaces that were identified as being much lower in carbon intensity. In Sault Ste. Marie, the $420-million investment will, when the project is done, reduce emissions by 70%. It's like taking a million gas-powered cars off the road. It's generational funding because the world changes. We asked the Canadian Steel Producers Association why the steel industry made these investments. We asked Catherine Cobden. She said that's where the market is going. This is the path we're on.
My first question is for the United Steelworkers.
I was listening to your testimony, and listening to Marty's testimony previously, on taking a look at the CBAM as a possible way to help us continue to stop cheap Chinese dumped steel. We put on a 25% tariff, which is in lockstep with the Americans right now—and I'd like you to explain that—but could a CBAM potentially put on another layer of protection?
Department Leader, Research, Public Policy and Bargaining Support, United Steelworkers
Yes, I think so. I think it's important to give credit where credit is due. Recent policy initiatives taken by the government have included the section 53 tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum; improved monitoring at the border, although we think we could do more and devote more resources there; and the move in November to implement “melt and pour” requirements on imported steel. There also seems to be movement on “smelt and cast” requirements on aluminum. There was recently consultation there. These are all things we can do to protect our domestic industry vis-à-vis the most significant threat in steel and aluminum, which is excess capacity in the global market and the dumping and trade circumvention of steel and aluminum sourced in China.
As for moving to a carbon border adjustment mechanism, we recognize, as your colleague Mr. Desjarlais stated, that something needs to be done to mitigate carbon and address climate change. However, we have to ensure that our domestic producers aren't unfairly treated vis-à-vis foreign producers that are producing dirtier steel. It's counterproductive if we put a price on carbon in our domestic market for domestic producers and don't put a similar price elsewhere to ensure fair competition in our market and reduce carbon leakage.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I think there's another advantage too. I'm from a steel town. I was born and bred there. I have relatives who worked in the coke ovens. My brother-in-law's dad worked there. They used to get extra pension credits because working in the coke ovens with carbon is hard on the body. So it's not only good in this macro sense; it's also good for the worker, the everyday worker who goes into work and then goes home. I know that a lot of what you do at United Steelworkers is represent the workers who have cases related to health. I just wanted to make that point.
Angella, I'd like to go back to a comment you made. After Trump was elected, I mentioned to some of our trade officials—because I didn't know which way the CBAM could go—that I was looking forward to this study. You said it will give us a potential chip on the table in negotiations. Could you please elaborate on this chip that could be worth something?
December 11th, 2024 / 6:20 p.m.
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Sure.
Unions often negotiate. It's a big part of what we do. When you're going into negotiations, you don't necessarily take difficult things off the table before you get to the negotiations. You want to keep all the bargaining chips you could possibly have in your tool box so that when they're asking you to give something up for something you want, you have something you can give up, potentially. You also want to work towards a longer-term goal where you're normalizing the idea that carbon price fairness, levelling the playing field, is something you want long term.
