Evidence of meeting #65 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 canola.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
The bells are ringing for a vote. Do we have unanimous consent to continue with our agenda until one o'clock?
12:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question is for Ms. Greenwood. I know she likes difficult questions. That is what I have heard.
Radio-Canada just issued a report about Stellantis halting construction of its battery factory because of a dispute with Ottawa. They maintain the government has not lived up to certain things. South of the border, Mr. Biden is accelerating critical mineral projects.
Ms. Greenwood, what are your thoughts on what is happening right now?
12:35 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
I think it's very difficult to compete in the subsidy game. Where I think Canada can compete and win, however, is in certainty on developing new processing facilities. If Canada were to introduce regulatory certainty and timing into how it approaches big infrastructure projects and big critical mineral projects, that would be a game-changer in the world. The U.S. has changed the arithmetic by massive subsidies. Canada could change the rest of the equation if it maintained its high standards but put some certainty into if a company meets those standards—not only standards for the environment and labour but also with indigenous collaboration.
If Canada would institute certainty and timing into that, it would be a game-changer. Right now, it's moving too slowly, and there's not enough certainty, in our opinion.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you, Ms. Greenwood.
Why is phosphate not yet on the list of critical minerals in Canada? Why has the government not put phosphate on that list?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
I have no idea. The list between Canada and the United States isn't the same. The U.S. doesn't recognize copper as a critical mineral, either. There are a lot of things that people think should be on the list.
I don't have a good answer for you, though. I'm sorry.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
It is important for the battery sector. That is the direction we are going in.
12:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
Absolutely.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Ms. Greenwood, in a study conducted in 2019, Statistics Canada stated that non-trade barriers are the main sources of trade friction with the United States.
In your opinion, what are the most important non-trade barriers that affect Canada's exports to the United States?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
It's because there are all kinds of mischief when it comes to trade policy.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Which sectors in Canada are most affected by non-trade barriers?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
A lot of sectors are affected, but it's agriculture, as you've seen from the testimony today.
You haven't heard from the Prince Edward Island potato growers, but we could have a whole long discussion about what the U.S. did to exclude P.E.I. potatoes from the market. I was involved in that, with a different hat on.
It's agriculture in particular. It's not just the U.S., as you've heard. It's around the world. It's important to tackle those.
Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Ms. Greenwood, I'll start with you, but others can feel free to jump in.
This is my second turn. I've been listening. I guess some of us are doing some reflecting on where we are, but also why we are where we are at this juncture in time.
You just mentioned, Ms. Greenwood, this issue about agricultural exports. We are a trading nation, as many people have pointed out. We are an agricultural exporter. We feed a large part of the planet. The food crisis around the planet has become only more acute in the last 18 months, given Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.
For the stepped-back observer, one would think that in this context there would be fewer barriers to getting our cereals to markets around the planet, as we heard from Mr. Walker, yet we're still seeing so many SPS measures.
How do we square those two? Is it just bad faith or mischief, as you just put it down to? How do we understand why it's happening and particularly why it's happening now, when there's so much global food insecurity?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
There's a lot of competition around the world. There's a lot of mischief.
The idea that Canada could get tough, focus on some of these non-tariff barriers and be prepared to really fight for Canadian industry is a key takeaway here.
When Canada perceived a near-death experience during the previous U.S. administration, with Donald Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum, Canada put up its dukes and really engaged in a very serious conversation with the United States. That doesn't happen every single day in every single market. You have to be careful about how you do that and when you do that, but I think getting tough on behalf of Canadian industry is something that Canada, from time to time, will need to do.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Let me turn to you, Mr. Heckbert.
You mentioned, in response to what Mr. Arya said, that it's not about tit for tat. It's not about retaliatory tariffs, but it might be about still staying in the same vein, where if an NTB is imposed upon us, perhaps we raise the spectre of an NTB.
Can you elaborate on that?
I appreciate what you're saying, Ms. Greenwood. The list is long. I remember Mary Ng and Chrystia Freeland also pushing back hard on the Build Back Better plan and the EV tax credit issue. That was with success.
Mr. Heckbert, explain to us what you're talking about if you're not talking about a retaliatory tariff.
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Pork Council
At this moment, I think it would surprise the world if we had a list of possible non-tariff trade barriers that we shared with our partners.
If we could come up with a list of things, we could say to the U.K. or to Europe, for example, that it actually turns out we have a whole bunch of things that we also think they need to improve on.
It's the notion that we would enter into the discussion, so that we could be a bit tougher. We could come in a bit firmer and have a point of view that would show some of our trading partners that we know they have non-tariff trade barriers. That's what they are; they're not a surprise to us; they are in fact intentional, and we intend to have a similar list. We would go back to them to say that if they continue to increase and block our products, they should know that we have similar mechanisms under consideration.
It would simply level the dialogue, so that no one would be surprised to see that Canada also could enter into those discussions.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Can I bring Mr. Carey into the discussion?
You mentioned about 20 or 30 minutes ago the work that Minister Ng is doing with WTO reform in the Ottawa group. It seems to me that if there is a shorter- or medium-term response, which is what Mr. Heckbert is suggesting, then the long-term response cries out for some sort of international harmonization.
All of you guys talk about science, science, science. We like science. I believe in science-based policy. It's a good content.
Where do we go in terms of broader medium- and long-term solutions, and is that Ottawa group type of leadership needed in other fora? That's restricted to the WTO. Is there a venue there for some sort of science-based approach and harmonization of standards, particularly when you get down to SPS and how it affects agriculture?
May 15th, 2023 / 12:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association
I'll maybe ask my colleague, Janelle, who does a lot of work with international institutions, to provide her perspective.
12:45 p.m.
Senior Manager, Trade and Marketing Policy, Canadian Canola Growers Association
There are a few things Dave mentioned. There's modernization at the WTO and getting the dispute settlement appellate body back working appropriately.
There are also other series of modernizations around an agreement on agriculture. We have an agreement on SPS measures that's currently in place. Countries are looking at how it could be better applied and used in terms of where we are today in agriculture. There are some avenues at that level. The SPS agreement actually has language that commits to science and commits countries to putting in measures in a way that does not block trade, and to adhering to international standards such as Codex. There is language that exist in our international agreements.
I think more largely there's a lot of work to do with our allies internationally to uphold a global framework for clear and open trade. I think we've seen with the pandemic and the illegal war in Ukraine that there have been some erosions of this international framework. Anything we can do internationally to maintain and promote it will have value in the long term.
Again, with that, I think Canada has always been a leader at Codex and in international standards. I think that creates a framework we can use, so we do not have to deal with a patchwork of standards. If we had one, then that would help pivot among markets and help reduce some of the market risks we've been talking about today.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of the witnesses very much for all the information.
To the committee members, we were scheduled to go in camera for a few minutes. I'm going to suggest we don't take the time to do the switch, and we just stay in the public session.
I will suspend for one minute for our witnesses to leave.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I'm calling the meeting back to order.
I think everyone has a copy of the proposals for our trip to Washington. I think the clerk has done an excellent job.
Do you want to speak to it briefly? Are there any additions or changes?
12:45 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Sophia Nickel
Sure. In terms of change since this was sent around, we have had a confirmation from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. We will be going to their offices.
The plan right now is to have meetings with stakeholders at the embassy from 3:00 to 4:30, then head over there and start the meeting with the Office of the USTR at 5:00.
We're also potentially looking into a working dinner on the evening of May 23—that's the Tuesday—with the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center. That would be potentially at our hotel.