International Trade Committee on Nov. 18th, 2022

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for the testimony in today's very important study. I really appreciate it.

I'd be remiss if I didn't ask my friends from the United Steelworkers a question.

Cody Alexander, a steelworker from the Soo, says hello to Marty. I told him I would pass that on.

The steelworkers played a pivotal role in the team Canada approach we had as we fought section 232 tariffs. We worked with our counterpart, because we have United Steelworkers here in Canada and have United Steelworkers in the United States.

Meg, what kind of dialogue do you have with the United Steelworkers about the IRA? Do you guys share your ideas for working together? Our economies are so integrated. Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie has 60% of its steel exported to the United States, and it goes into the auto industry and manufacturing industry. The section 232 tariffs were really a tax on Americans. That was our position. As soon as they hit us with section 232 tariffs, they were hurting Americans. The price of their fridges went up by 25%.

Meg, please share some of the dialogue you have had with the American unions about this.

[Meg Gingrich]

We do talk quite a bit. The U.S. side of the union shared their analysis of the IRA in advance, particularly on some of the domestic content requirements. We always work together. There's always a delicate balance with the rest of the larger U.S. labour movement, but as much as possible, we're very united in promoting a binational approach.

When it comes to the history of cheap imports that have flooded North American markets and hurt manufacturing jobs, Canada is never the problem. We're the best trading partner.

We talk at the highest levels of the union. We share our analyses. A third of the total membership is in Canada, so we're very influential in terms of the union's policies overall.

Even if we see a problem now with certain aspects of the IRA that we think might hurt our membership, we'll talk with our folks in the U.S. They work quite closely with the Democratic Party in particular and have influence there, as well as with the AFL-CIO. When we originally saw in a previous iteration the U.S. content rules for EVs and batteries, we were able to work with our leadership in the union in the United States to ensure they had influence over the AFL-CIO's position and the steelworkers' position.

Being an international union was extremely helpful regarding the section 232 tariffs. We immediately responded by saying that Canada was not the problem, and we were able to use our influence in the United States, working with the Canadian side, to get those repealed eventually.

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

That's excellent.

One of the observations I shared with the committee earlier, Meg, was that Canada is at the forefront of decarbonizing its steel outputs by going from coal to the electric arc. The market is looking towards electric vehicles. It would be really simple for a steel producer or an automaker to say, “That's a great electric vehicle, but it's made in large part with carbon that's produced by steel from another jurisdiction.” I'll just say that.

Would you not agree that there's a certain amount of advantage going forward in this whole supply chain, which is shifting exponentially right now towards electric vehicle manufacturing? Would you care to provide your perspective?

[Meg Gingrich]

I think we are well advantaged with Canadian steel in particular and with other cleaner industrial products. Especially if there are requirements to have a particular carbon output from the production of the materials that go into something, Canada is extremely well positioned. We need to make sure we can take advantage of that and continue to push for a binational approach. Certainly our union will continue to do that as much as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses. Again, every one of these meetings has invaluable information for all of us at the committee.

To the members of the committee, we were scheduled to go into committee business. I've been asked by Mr. Hoback if we could defer the discussion until Tuesday's meeting.

If it's okay with everybody, we're going to defer the discussion of committee travel until next Tuesday.

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

I won't be here next week, unfortunately. I would have loved to be part of that discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If we were to discuss this, would we have to go in camera or not?

[The Clerk]

You don't have to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. We don't have to. We can have a very brief discussion.

We have two options here. The discussion is whether we do three days in Singapore or two days in New Delhi, and I'll suggest this. When the logistics officers try to arrange a possible trip, it should be done depending on when we can get the most direct flights and when the logistics work better, per the logistics office. If we can get a direct flight, that would be preferable.

Second, Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Hoback have had extensive travel through this committee, so they are well equipped to help make the very best recommendations. If we get to travel, we want to make the best of that opportunity, with their input.

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

Can we hear their recommendations, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

To add in my three cents' worth, I think it might be more useful to spend three days in New Delhi as opposed to three days in Singapore, given the significance of the market in India and what's at stake, and given the extent of work that's already been done in the Asia-Pacific by the government delegation that's already there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll have further discussion on this on Tuesday.

Go ahead, Monsieur Savard-Tremblay.

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

There is an option for the week of February 13, which is a sitting week, and another for the week of March 13, when the House won't be sitting.

I'd like to know what needs to be resolved and what the determining factor is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The determining factor for all of this travel will be the House and the whips. We've adjusted the dates that were put in at the time to simply indicate that this is for travel in the coming winter. We'll decide further on, if we get House approval, exactly when the most appropriate date is. It's still very much up in the air.

Is everybody good with that? Okay.

I think everybody knows it's Friday. Everybody looks like they're tired and they're ready to have a wonderful, restful weekend.

Thank you, Madam Clerk and our interpreters.

I move adjournment.