International Trade Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to acknowledge my colleagues.

Thank you, Minister Ng, for joining us today.

You and the Deputy Prime Minister sent a letter to the Americans. I believe it was last December. In that letter, you threatened the American government with retaliation if it went ahead with this plan. We know that the plan hasn't been voted on and that it has been put on hold for the time being.

Have you received a response? We haven't heard anything about a response. Is this still the most up‑to‑date information?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

I'm going to answer in English so that I can give you the fullness of an answer. I hope one day to be able to do it fulsomely in French.

Yes, the Deputy Prime Minister and I communicated and sent a letter to the American Senate. Of course at the time we did that there was some indication that the bill was imminently going to make its way through the U.S. Senate. Our advocacy has been consistent and strong from the Canadian side, not only from government, but from industry and labour leaders as well. Right now, that legislation is still in the American legislative system.

As I said in the opening, we will continue to do the work to advocate on this issue. We hope that this will not come to be. We're going to keep working on a solution with the Americans. Know that if there is not a resolution that is acceptable to Canada, then we will stand up for our national interests and defend them.

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

Yes, I understood that, Minister Ng. However, I wanted to know whether the Americans had responded, in writing or in any other way, to the letter.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

The response has been from many senators, whom, by the way, I continue to engage with.... Some of the senators or congresspeople whom we have met with didn't even know that this provision of this tax credit was even in their very big piece of legislation in the Build Back Better, so we had to do some educating there. For others who did know, they had to look at it and study it. We made the point that the legislation and these credits are not in compliance with our important trade agreement. That was a response from some. From others, we have found an alignment and agreement with Canada.

This work will continue. Those are some of the responses that we have received from the senators whom I and others have been speaking with.

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

In your letter, you referred to the possibility of suspending certain parts, aspects or sectors of CUSMA as part of the retaliation. Of course, I imagine that this will remain on hold until the legislation is passed. We're talking about the sale of the vehicles, but we also know that several public contracts are set aside for American companies under the Build Back Better plan.

Have you conducted studies to determine whether these public contracts, which are prioritized for American companies, could violate our trade agreement with the United States and Mexico?

If so, could we also access these studies, which I presume are very legal in nature?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I've been very clear to this committee in the past that we are concerned about the provisions the Americans have put forward that will essentially discriminate against Canadian inputs into American supply chains. We've always said that we expect a reciprocal procurement arrangement between our two countries. In the last budget you saw that we put forward that expectation with all of our trading partners, including the Americans. We're going to continue to advocate for our businesses, but we will absolutely insist on—

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

Minister Ng, I'm sure that you're concerned about this. However, that wasn't my question. My question was as follows. Have you looked at the contradiction between the bill and its various aspects and the free trade agreement that unites our three countries, the CUSMA?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I would say that we expect reciprocal procurement with our trading partners, and the United States is no different. We are going to ensure that we keep doing this work to ensure that there is balanced trade between both countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry. The time is up.

We're on to Mr. Masse, please.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Quickly, is Line 5 with the United States still in the courts? Is that the latest?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Yes, it is.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

Are you familiar with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's plan to bury 50,000 tonnes of nuclear waste in South Bruce, [Technical difficulty—Editor] the Great Lakes? Are you familiar with that file, Minister?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I apologize. I am not. I'm happy to take it away and have a look at it, now that you've raised it with me. I'd be happy to get back to you on that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's fair enough.

Former governor Granholm, at the Department of Energy, is concerned about Line 5 and this issue. Governor Whitmer....

With the Build Back Better law and with regard to EVs, there are 19 congressional representatives, including Representatives Kildee and Dingell, who are opposed to this. They've written to your government about it many times. I've done a lot of work on it. I ask you to look into that—and I'll look for a general comment—because these are some of the major people who are very concerned about Line 5 and this nuclear waste.

Wouldn't it make sense to at least look into how this is affecting the relationships? I can tell you that they haven't had responses, in many cases, to their concerns about these projects.

It's hard to negotiate with people if our reflections are not dealt with and, at the same time, we're not dealing with their reflections.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much for raising this with me.

I would say, overall, that it is really important to work on issues that are important on both sides of the border. I'm really thrilled that we have you on this committee, given your work and your relationship with those on the other side of your border, and given the proximity and the relationships you have. I thank you for that.

On this, I'm happy to go back, look at it and then perhaps get back to you at a later time, if that's okay.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Absolutely. You can't keep up on every file, but this one is sticking. There was a previous project that also stuck in their craw, so to speak, so I appreciate that answer and look forward to that.

I've been pushing for reciprocity for electric vehicle incentives. They went ahead with this. The government had a positive response to that.

I want to shift to another issue that might be related to our trade with EV vehicles. I tabled Bill C-231, which is about the right to repair on the automotive aftermarket. The U.S. is looking at this. If we were to have regulations with regard to aftermarket access to EV vehicles to make sure they're repaired, and the U.S. is doing the same, is that something the government would look into as having that type of reciprocity? It's similar to what we do with bumpers and a whole series of things for product safety and consumer rights.

My original bill in the House of Commons passed as a voluntary agreement, which is in place today, but it didn't have the digital component to it. In the past, Canadians couldn't get the same access to American markets. Will your government at least look into this to ensure that Canadians have the same type of access to fix their electric vehicles that Americans have?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

That's a really important point, and I am always happy to look at any kind of solution that allows us to have Canadian access. This one sounds to me like it also is compatible with not only job creation and so forth, but tackling climate change. It's along that same value chain, if I hear you correctly.

In the sense that it is consistent with what we are always trying to pursue with the United States, which is a relationship that creates greater opportunities on both sides for workers and for businesses—and, in this case, climate change—I think it's always worthwhile to have a look.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, I'll switch topics a little bit to the border, the trucks and the supply chain issue.

I represent a constituency where we have 10,000 trucks per day. Even during the pandemic there were 5,000 vehicles a day and about 4,000 per day during the worst of times. The border was never really closed. It's kind of misleading to suggest that it has been when the reality is that it's been very busy.

With regard to the policy that was announced today for the government meeting with maybe even the United States on trucker issues, can you enlighten us on some of that?

I've been pushing for a safe border task force. It's not an idea I came up with; it's from the business communities. Nothing has been done on it for two years. What can you tell us about the announcement today about a potential meeting between the Americans and Canadians about the border, trucking and the vaccine policy?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

You're absolutely right in terms of the volumes. Whether it is through the pandemic or today, as my colleague, the Minister of Transport would have shared with me, those volumes continue to be.... You represent a riding that actually sees them coming across the border.

We've always committed to working together with the Americans and with our colleagues on this very important issue because it's just so important to trade, to our businesses and to the workers they support.

On this announcement in particular, might I get back to you on it? I would like to have a conversation with my colleague, the transport minister, who is taking the lead on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Martel for five minutes.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you for joining us today, Minister Ng.

The Canada‑United States‑Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, came into effect on July 1, 2020. Since then, we've had many trade disputes with the United States regarding softwood lumber, Line 5 and dairy products. We now have a dispute over the electrification of transportation.

Are you disappointed with how you negotiated the CUSMA?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Martel, thank you for your question.

Let me start with a fact and maybe the fact will answer the question of how well CUSMA is working.

Just this month we've had the largest trade surplus between Canada and the United States that we have seen in the last 15 years. That means trade is up and volumes are up. That means the trading relationship is absolutely working.

As I said in my opening remarks, some of the mechanisms we negotiated in CUSMA were really important to Canada. Preserving a dispute settlement mechanism in CUSMA was very important for Canada. We negotiated that so that we would have a mechanism to properly resolve issues when they came through on trade.

In a relationship as large as the one that we have with the United States and Canada, yes, there are issues, but the numbers speak well to how well trade is flowing between the two countries. For the issues we have, we are going to always pay particular attention to ensuring that we are resolving issues, as we have been doing.

In fact, on the anniversary of CUSMA, I was in the United States and in Mexico meeting with my trade counterparts precisely to take stock of CUSMA, the committees and the work that is happening. It is working. I'm very pleased to continue to do that work on behalf of Canadians.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Minister Ng.

You're currently having many issues with the Americans. You told my colleague, Mr. Hoback, that you have had over 400 meetings with President Biden.

Yet, we have the impression that nothing has changed and that nothing is getting better. When the Trump administration was in power, it seemed that the negotiations were much more difficult and that, as a result, they weren't moving forward. We can now see that the situation is the same with the current administration.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

When I talk about the number of meetings, whether it is at the cabinet level with senior administration in the United States, or with the embassy with the ambassador or through the consul general, or through the various representatives by the Government of Canada, it really represents the strength of the relationship between Canada and the United States. There's the ability to work together to solve issues and to find solutions, but there's also the strength of those numbers.

That really speaks to the commitment between Canada and the U.S. to work on this committed road map for Canada and the U.S. on things like fighting climate change, on supply chains, on creating opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses, on making sure we are growing and growing back inclusively, with small businesses, racialized and immigrant-owned businesses and women entrepreneurs getting access to this very important market that is the United States.

So the many meetings—that signifies a very robust working relationship between Canada and the U.S. When you think about it, we all meet on a regular basis. Why? Because we're doing work together. That is what we are doing with the United States.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

A week ago, the United States cut its softwood lumber tariffs by about half, not because Canada responded, but because the American construction industry made the request.

Why wasn't a softwood lumber agreement negotiated when we negotiated the Canada‑United States‑Mexico Agreement, or the CUSMA?