CIIT Committee Meeting

     I'm calling the meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade to order.

     Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

    I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

    Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

     All comments should be addressed through the Chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. Please also note that during the meeting it is not permitted to take pictures in the room or screenshots on Zoom.

     Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me, and we will suspend for a few minutes in order to ensure that all members can participate fully.

    Today we are meeting with the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotions, Small Business and Economic Development and officials.

    We will have two panels. The first will be regarding the committee’s study on Canadian mining firms abroad, and the second panel will be regarding the main estimates for 2023-24.

    For the first panel, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, February 2, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of environmental and human rights considerations regarding Canadian mining firms abroad.

    We have with us today, on the first panel, the Honourable Mary Ng, Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Rob Stewart, deputy minister, international trade, and Sara Wilshaw, chief trade commissioner. From the Department of Industry, we have Charles Vincent, assistant deputy minister, small business and marketplace services.

     Welcome to you all.

    We will start with opening remarks and then proceed with a round of questions.

     Minister Ng, I invite you to take the floor for an opening statement of up to 10 minutes. You are doing only one opening statement for both panels, so we will give you the floor for up to 10 minutes, please.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    It was my intention to be there in person but thought best to not be coughing or sneezing all over my colleagues. Here I am virtually speaking to you.

     Good morning to you, the vice-chairs and all members of the committee.

    Let me begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. For those of us who are settlers or immigrants to Canada, it's important to remember that indigenous peoples have always been here and that we all have a role to play in reconciliation.

    I want to thank the Standing Committee on International Trade for inviting me to speak to you on the important work that you do. I'm always very happy to assist you with your work and to provide today an update to you and to Canadians on the work that our government has been doing on international trade.

    When I appeared before this committee five months ago, I said it was a pivotal time for our economy, for Canadians and for Canada's approach to trade. That remains true today.

    As we continue to recover from the pandemic and build our economic resilience, how we trade, with whom we trade and what we trade matters more than ever. Securing, strengthening and diversifying our supply chains matter more than ever. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has reminded us all that we cannot take our rules-based trading system for granted. The importance of Canada being a world leader in championing progressive, sustainable and inclusive trade matters more than ever. As Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, this is where my work is focused.

    First, we need to deepen Canada's trade and investment relationships with partners around the world in order to continue to open new markets to Canadian businesses and exporters.

    Second, we must support Canadian businesses to expand and grow beyond Canada, contributing to our economic growth and creating good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast.

    I'm pleased to share that we are making progress toward our trade and investment targets. We continue to build and safeguard an open and inclusive rules-based global trading system, and we're supporting Canadian exporters and innovators so they can be successful in scaling up their operations into those international markets.

    We're seeing this work through the numbers. Trade with our closest trading partner, the United States, surpassed a trillion dollars last year. As many of you, if not all of you, heard from the President just a couple of days ago, this is $2.5 billion of trade a day that goes between Canada and the United States.

    Since our government signed CETA with the European Union in 2016, our trade has increased by almost 53% from pre-CETA levels, and with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, our trade has grown more than 10% since the inception of that agreement.

    Prime Minister Trudeau welcomed President Biden to Ottawa for a very productive two-day discussion last week. The United States and Canada have a long-standing trading relationship. The United States is our ally, and the President reaffirmed the closeness of this relationship.

    We're working together towards a shared vision for a more competitive, inclusive and greener North America. Together, we'll build our economic resilience. Together, we're ensuring that trade benefits everyone, including our workers, our small and medium-sized businesses, and those who have traditionally been under-represented in our economies. Together, we're confronting the challenges of climate change.

    You heard the President say that, by working together, we will build the green economy. There are enormous opportunities for Canada and the United States to work even more closely together, creating good-paying jobs on both sides of the border. Throughout history, Canada and the U.S. have taken on big challenges, and we are doing that again.

    Canada and the U.S. are launching an energy transformation task force to accelerate our work together over the next year across the spectrum of the clean economy. We'll focus on promoting trade in clean goods, including green clean steel and aluminum, and we'll continue to collaborate on renewable energy, electric vehicle supply chains and the critical minerals value chains. That means good opportunities in those value chains for Canadian businesses, including small and medium-sized businesses, that will in turn create good opportunities for people to thrive and have great careers.

    Semiconductors are enabling advances in clean energy, communication, computing and more. Canada has a vital role to play in the North American semiconductor ecosystem.

    Because of the close partnership between Canada and the U.S., last year the U.S. announced a $250-million U.S. investment in the Defense Production Act for Canadian and U.S. companies to mine and process critical minerals for electric vehicles and stationary storage batteries. Just a couple of days ago on this visit, the United States announced an additional $50 million U.S. in the Defense Production Act to fund U.S. and Canadian companies for advanced packaging for semiconductors and printed circuit boards.

     Why is this good? It's good because for Canadian companies to work alongside American companies in this important value chain in critical sectors in this green economy will mean growth for our Canadian businesses, including our small and medium-sized businesses.

    With a relationship as large as the one we have with the United States, of course, we have issues that we are going to have to work on together, like softwood lumber. Now in the fifth round of the dispute, unfair U.S. duties are causing harm to the Canadian industry and the communities that rely on it, as well as to U.S. consumers. I raised directly with the President of the United States the need for a negotiated solution.

     Now more than ever, it's critical that we grow our trade and strengthen our supply chains with our partners who are our friends. This is not just our CUSMA partners, but also our partners in the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific region is one of the fasting-growing regions in the world. By 2030, it's going to be home to two-thirds of the global middle class. By 2040, the region will account for more than half of the global economy. It will represent significant opportunities for years to come.

    In the last year, I have visited the Indo-Pacific 13 times, most recently last month, when I brought over 170 companies to Singapore on a team Canada trade mission. While we establish new partnerships and opportunities across the Pacific, we're also strengthening our relationships on the other coast—the Atlantic. You heard me say earlier that our trading relationship with the European Union has grown by nearly 53%. This is really good for business, but the line that I would draw your attention to is the growth in trade in environmental goods and services, which have consistently seen growth. This really speaks to the importance of growing our green economy, not only with the United States but with our partners in the European Union as well.

    Just two weeks ago, while I was on the other side of the Atlantic, I led a team trade mission to the United Kingdom with women in tech businesses. There, we saw women entrepreneurs in tech who are leading the way and growing their opportunities in the United Kingdom. Here, of course, we are at the negotiating table, working with the U.K. to further strengthen our trade and investment ties to that long-standing ally.

     As we negotiate new agreements and modernize existing ones, Canada will lead with our values when it comes to our work around the world, and we expect companies around the world to do the same.

    This will take me to Canada's mining industry, which is known for strong, sustainable and responsible mining. Canada is one of the most sought-after partners by countries around the world, including in the global south. Like many industries that recognize the shift to a more responsible, sustainable and inclusive way of doing business, it's critical to building a competitive 21st-century Canadian mining industry, and they are leading the way in adapting to these challenges.

     They are working from a strong foundation. I want to give a shout-out to the Canadian Mining Association for initiatives like “Towards Sustainable Mining”, which is designed to ensure responsible and sustainable operations for Canadian mining companies around the world. Through their leadership, they have now worked with 12 other countries that will also adopt “Towards Sustainable Mining,” so that as a global community we are doing this together.

    It's a commitment for these companies here in Canada that will require mine sites to report on performance indicators related to biodiversity, climate change, indigenous and community relationships, health and safety, and more. It's the first standard to require independent external verifications. It aims to modernize and adapt to address new realities, challenges and priorities like transparency and action on forced labour, and advancing equity, diversity and inclusion in the mining workforce.

    Let me share a wonderful example of a company that I met most recently in Mexico: Canada's Torex Gold. It's the second-largest gold producer operating in Mexico. They have received some of the highest scores for mining standards and community engagement, and they have an almost 50% female leadership. Leading with Canadian values front and centre, it works.

     Mining is also seeing an expanded interest and prioritization as businesses innovate and develop green solutions that will accelerate the transition to net zero. For these to become a reality, critical minerals are going to be key building blocks for the green and digital economy of the future.

     Here in Canada, we're blessed with an abundant supply. They're essential to lowering emissions. They're key to electric vehicles and advanced batteries for security and tech manufacturing and for semiconductors. In short, they're the basic elements of everyday life.

    That's why our government developed a critical minerals list and a critical minerals strategy, backed by $4 billion, for the 31 minerals considered essential for the success of Canada as a global mining leader.

    Canada is not only producing these minerals, but we are setting our country up to be the global leader and to be the supplier of choice. We don't want to just produce them here. We want to build out the entire value chain here at home and grow our businesses—particularly our small and medium-sized businesses—every step of the way. It means doing the processing here in Canada, doing the refining here in Canada and, further downstream, doing the advance component manufacturing all here in Canada.

    I know all of us here today are thinking about what the future looks like. For Canada, our future is one where the mining and mineral processing industries can grow and thrive in a responsible, sustainable, inclusive and environmentally friendly way. It's a future where we are united in our goals, with Canada meeting the United Nations sustainable development goals and net-zero emissions by 2050. It's a future that is healthier for generations to come, more accessible for all and keeps us even more connected.

    I know that future isn't far off, especially when Canada works with the mining industry, our provincial and territorial partners, and indigenous partners in pursuit of making this reality. Be it here at home or abroad, we will continue to ensure that good jobs, fair agreements and progressive approaches that benefit Canadians and our economy will be the work that we're focused on doing.

    I look forward to talking about the progress that we've made, and I'm happy to take questions, Madam Chair.

    I apologize for those brief interludes of coughing and sneezing.

     Thank you very much, Minister.

    As much as we were looking to have you in person, we do appreciate the fact that you decided to keep the germs in your office and talk to us through Zoom so the rest of us don't end up with another cold.

    Mr. Seeback, you have six minutes, please.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Minister, you talked about trade with the United States. You also talked about—and this is what you just said—wanting to lead with our values and expecting companies around the world to also do so.

    Are you aware that in USMCA, or CUSMA, Canada's not supposed to allow for the importation of goods made with, or suspected to be made with, slave labour?

    I understand our obligations fully in CUSMA.

    Last time you were here at committee, I asked you a series of questions. In one of those questions, I asked you whether or not the Government of Canada had seized any goods suspected of being made with forced labour from the Xinjiang region of China and you said, “I believe that there have been”, which is interesting because I did an Order Paper question, and in that Order Paper question it came back that absolutely no goods were seized that were made, or suspected to have been made, with forced labour.

    Were you misinformed when you gave that information to the committee or did you misspeak?

    To the member, I provided what I understood to be the facts at that meeting.

    Let me say this: We take our obligations, particularly our trade agreements, very seriously. I know there has been much work that has been done by this committee, but also other committees, looking at this very issue. Ensuring that there is no forced labour in our supply chains is something that we are absolutely committed to doing. We've updated our responsible business conduct requirements for companies with respect to goods from the Xinjiang region. We have a declaration that is very specific for companies operating in that region that the trade commissioner service and EDC—

    Minister, you haven't actually seized any goods. Is that right? Are you disagreeing with the response from the Order Paper question?

    No goods have been seized at the Canadian border. Is that correct or incorrect?

    I'm going to have my officials answer that so we can be very correct.

    Are you disputing the accuracy of your government's response to an Order Paper question, Minister?

    Is that really the position you're taking now, to try to get a government official to answer it? I have the written response.

    No, I'm simply asking my officials to provide facts.

    Mr. Seeback, with all due respect, the minister has asked her officials to respond in order to ensure complete accuracy.

    Can whichever one of the officials who would like to answer that question, please answer it?

     Thank you.

    Thank you for the question.

    To the best of my knowledge, we seized one shipment but that was released, so it is no longer seized and—

    That would be zero.

    That would be zero at the end of that process.

    That's right. Thank you.

    Minister, are you aware that the United States has put together a list of companies that they know or suspect have been engaged in using forced labour in their supply chains? Are you aware of the existence of this list?

    I am aware that Canada, the United States and Mexico are meeting the obligations of our trade treaty in the USMCA, in CUSMA and in T-MEC. That is a commitment that our government has made and we'll deliver on.

    Look, the work that we are doing here is to help businesses develop a greater capacity to understand the vulnerabilities that they may have in their supply chains. We are doing that work diligently with Canadian companies so that they can be more resilient, so that they will comply with what is required of them through our treaties. That work is being done by our department, and we're going to keep doing this work, because ensuring resilient supply chains and making sure that there is no forced labour in our supply chains is the absolute commitment. We will comply with our trade agreements.

    Okay, but you haven't complied. Isn't that right? Because the United States, and this is an article—

    Mr. Seeback, please direct the questions through the chair.

    Yes, Madam Chair.

    Through you, Madam Chair, with all due respect, Minister, by October 1 of 2022, the United States had 2,600 seizures valued at over $1.3 billion of goods that were suspected to be made with forced labour. Over the same period of time—in fact, up to a few weeks ago when I got my Order Paper question—Canada has seized zero. How can you say that's complying?

    The United States has $1.3 billion, and Canada has zero. Clearly, you are not complying.

     We take compliance with our international treaty extremely seriously. With respect to goods in the Xinjiang region, there is a process, a declaration, that all companies that operate in the region must adhere to with the trade commissioner service and Export Development Canada. Companies are required to do that in order have access to the Government of Canada's services.

    We are also working to make sure that companies understand the risk of any forced labour in their supply chain, so that they can be more resilient and they will absolutely, always, be in compliance. We take compliance with our trade agreements extremely seriously.

    On the Canadian side—just as the Americans and the Mexicans are doing—we're working collaboratively to make sure that the trade agreement between the three countries is working.

    Minister, it's not working. You've seized absolutely no goods. The U.S. has seized 1.3 billion dollars' worth of goods.

    I have the list of companies that the United States has banned. I'm happy to give it to the minister, so she can copy and paste it and they can start enforcing it like the United States.

    Would the minister like me to hand her a copy of this document so she can get the government to do the work?

    Thank you very much, Mr. Seeback. I'm sorry, but your time is up.

    We'll go to Mr. Virani, please, for six minutes.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Minister, thank you for joining us. I'm sorry for the illness that's befallen you. I hope you get better soon.

    Thank you to the officials for being here.

    Minister, I'm going to start with mining. I appreciate that you're here on the estimates and on mining.

    I thought it was quite telling, with respect to the visit of President Biden last week, that his speech in the House of Commons and also the joint statement that was issued by the Prime Minister and President Biden referenced mining in particular. We heard this in the context of his speech in the Commons when he talked about the critical minerals sector in particular. I'm reading from some of that joint communiqué. It specifically says:

    I know that you've been working extensively on this issue with your counterpart trade representative, Ms. Tai. Could you elaborate on the work you've been doing and the significance of this kind of statement coming from the U.S. President?

    Thank you very much.

    It's very significant. Both countries are committed to fighting climate change. Both countries are committed to an economy where the economy and the environment can go hand in hand. We saw one of the deliverables that came out of this meeting, with an additional $50 million U.S. committed to essentially building out the supply chain. That includes U.S. dollars funding both U.S. and Canadian companies. It's $50 million this time, and there's the number I said a little earlier of $250 million last year. This is incredibly significant.

    We on our side are, of course, going to support that through the strategic innovation fund that makes sure that Canadian companies in this important supply chain are included as part of this value chain with our largest trading partner. That means creating jobs. That means creating jobs in the clean economy. It's creating a task force over the next year that's going to focus on the clean economy. Those jobs, entrepreneurs and businesses that are in Canada through this supply chain are very important.

    At the end of the day, this is about fighting climate change. It's about Canadian innovations and American innovations. This is about making the right investments so that we grow the green economy. We believe that we should be able to do that together.

    Thank you very much, Minister.

    We have in the room with us Sara Wilshaw, the chief trade commissioner for the TCS here in Canada and abroad. I want to pivot my next question to what the TCS does.

    When we talked about the mining sector, we talked about responsible mining and standards that are invoked. I know that, with the responsible business conduct strategy that was launched last April 2022, we took some very strong steps with respect to the incredible service provided by the trade commissioners, but we attached the notion of an attestation such that, if you want to avail yourself of trade commissioner services doing mining abroad in any of the various continents around the world, you need to attest that you will abide by the responsible business conduct strategy and the standards that we would seek to uphold.

    Can you elaborate a bit for the committee on how that came to pass as a policy of the Government of Canada and how it dovetails with the important work that the TCS is doing by ensuring that an attestation is required before you avail yourself of the TCS services, Minister?

     Yes, I appreciate this.

    Because the chief trade commissioner is there, would she mind taking this? It's mostly because I have no voice.

     I'm happy to. Thank you.

    In strengthening the responsible business conduct strategy that was reviewed and renewed in 2022—this is, I think, the third or fourth iteration of that strategy—we were looking for ways in which we could have a closer look at what the companies that we're engaging with overseas are doing and getting them to be better informed about the kinds of risks that are out there and the kinds of services we can help them with in order to mitigate those risks. This includes this integrity declaration for the Xinjiang region, in particular. There's also another integrity declaration to receive our services, which states that they understand the expectations of the government when it comes to their operations abroad and where they can get help and information about how to comply with those expectations.

    That was the genesis of that.

    Thank you very much, Ms. Wilshaw.

    Minister, if you had perhaps 20 seconds, I know we've taken great strides with respect to trade agreements in recent memory and ensuring environmental and human rights standards are entrenched in those trade agreements. CUSMA comes to mind, in particular.

    With respect to the trade agreements you are working on now with ASEAN, Indonesia, India and the U.K., are you working similarly to entrench environmental and human rights standards into those agreements, Minister?

    Give a brief answer, please, Minister.

    Yes.

    That's very brief.

    You have 10 seconds remaining and you can't do much with that.

    We'll go on to Monsieur Savard-Tremblay for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Minister, thank you for being with us today. Hello to your team as well.

    The 2023‑24 Invest in Canada departmental plan states that attraction efforts will be focused on the electric vehicle battery supply chain, among other things.

    Friday, I was a little surprised to see the entire government stand up and applaud President Biden when he said he was including all North American production in the tax credits under the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, because it is not true. In reality, the 45X credit for battery manufacturers only applies to batteries manufactured in the United States.

    Were you aware of that? You did not seem to be Friday. Furthermore, how do you intend to counteract the investment appeal of this credit, in concrete terms?

    Thank you to the member for that question.

    I might just take a step back. You'll remember that before the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, Canada was not included at all in the credits for building electric vehicles and those batteries. That was through extreme advocacy and hard work by team Canada.

    Here, I give credit to labour and to Canadian industry, and I give credit to our parliamentary colleagues. We all worked together—

    Forgive me, Minister, but you are talking about the Build Back Better plan, which originally did include a credit that applied only to vehicles assembled in the United States but that was later expanded to all of North America. I applaud the efforts that led to this change.

    However, my question is about batteries, and according to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, that credit still applies only to batteries manufactured in the United States.

    What we're doing here—and I think you heard that through the President's visit—is that we are deepening and building out our supply chains.

    I mentioned earlier the $250 million that the Americans invested through their Defense Production Act to include Canadian companies in the building out of critical minerals and that particular supply chain, as well as another $58 million for semiconductors. This is deliberately including Canadians working together with Americans, because our economies—and indeed the work we do together to innovate, build and sell together—have always benefited from this integrated relationship. That continues.

    In that case, let's start from the bottom up: are you familiar with the 45X credit in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act?

     You've seen in our budget and our fall economic statement that we intend to be competitive.

     I would like to remind the member that Volkswagen has just located their first-ever plant in North America in Canada. That is an indication that Canada is strong in the way in which we're going to build out the battery ecosystem.

     I look forward to working with my colleague and all parliamentarians, as well as provinces, territories and indigenous peoples, to make sure we are building this ecosystem here in Canada, because it is going to be good not only for jobs and workers but also for the environment.

    A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Since you didn't answer my question, I take it that you don't know that this credit exists.

    If you don't mind, I'll change the subject. Let's go back to the Invest in Canada organization. How will its management team be composed, and how will it operate?

    We have a terrific team at Invest in Canada, with a very strong board. Their mandate is to support the government in working with companies and investors who may wish to look at Canada as a place in which to invest, and of course, the battery ecosystem is such an example. They have been involved in all of the most recent transactions, which my good colleague Minister Champagne has been announcing, to attract investments.

     Today Canada is number two in the battery ecosystem, whereas it was number five. This work and this investment and the work that Invest in Canada is doing are making progress, and we'll continue to do that work.

    The Canadian Commercial Corporation's 2021–2022 to 2025–2026 Corporate Plan Summary highlights the impact of protectionism on the operating environment of this agency.

    In your humble opinion, what is the consequence in Canada of the rise of protectionism?

    We need to keep fighting against protectionism. We saw, during the pandemic, that many countries put up restrictions and that impeded the flow of really important things at that time.

    It's a lesson for us to continue to be diligent and to work against protectionism for open and free trade, particularly with our partners with whom we have agreements. We must continually work to ensure that trade remains open and fair.

    You have 30 seconds.

    In that case, Madam Chair, I will address the minister in the next round of questions.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Cannings, you have six minutes.

    Go ahead, please.

    Thank you, Minister, for being here, despite being under the weather. I appreciate that.

    We're here to talk about Canadian mining companies abroad. Probably half the mining companies in the world are registered in Canada.

    I recently had the opportunity to travel to South America with the Speaker, to Argentina and Chile. It was clear how important Canadian mining companies are to our trade with those countries—particularly to Chile, in the economy of which Canada is the largest investor.

    Given all those companies, over the years some very serious allegations have been made against Canadian companies. That, I assume, led to the creation of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. Sheri Meyerhoffer is now in that position, and she was before this committee in February.

    Despite the complaints we hear from other sources about some of these Canadian companies, she admitted that she had not heard any complaints at all from South America, from Central America or from Africa. When I talk to parliamentarians from Central America and South America, I hear those complaints.

    When I asked her why she hadn't had any, she said it was because she didn't have the power to compel witnesses and documents, and that those indigenous communities and small communities had been told not to bother complaining to CORE because they wouldn't get anywhere, and that it would be better to go through the courts or to the UN.

    In fact, at that committee meeting, she said:

    I'd like you to comment on why the ombudsperson has not been given those powers.

     I want to thank the honourable member for that important question. In my earlier responses I talked about the importance of what mining will need to be for Canada in developing the green economy, ensuring that it's done in a sustainable way but also in a way that leads with Canadian values. Standing up for human rights and ensuring that communities are protected are also a part of that.

    We work closely, of course, with Sheri Meyerhoffer in her role as CORE. I'm pleased that she has set up the office, has started and is doing that work and that work is progressing well in terms of fulfilling her mandate and taking on cases. I'm paying particular attention to the work that is being done here at this committee and the many witnesses who are coming forward with respect to this issue. I'm also taking a look at the work being done at the foreign affairs committee when it studied Senate Bill S-211. There is a lot of work that is being done.

    We are going to have to take into account these various issues, as they come forward, in our thinking of the future. At the very heart of what we must do, Canadians must lead with the values that shore us up to be good responsible corporate citizens. I expect that of Canadian companies, and we have updated our rules to ensure that is the case.

    I do applaud the mining association for its leadership, like I said, now working with 12 countries that have come on board on a way forward for the industry in terms of how it can do its work in a sustainable and responsible way.

    However, I'm paying particular attention to this work that parliamentarians and civil society are doing. We will obviously take these into account as we are thinking about the future work of the CORE.

    The mining association and most, if not many, Canadian companies are doing the right thing. I talked to Teck when I was in Chile. It has a big mine at Quebrada Blanca that's developing desalination, so it won't be tapping into the precious water resources there.

    Your predecessor, the late Jim Carr, commissioned a report to find out how best to structure CORE. The McIsaac report basically said that the ombudsperson should have the power to compel witnesses and documents or their effectiveness may be compromised. I'm just wondering why that wasn't followed.

    I'm looking forward to being in Chile in about 10 days from now. I will have the opportunity to be on a trade mission there. Suffice it to say, the many voices that are coming forward and the information that is being provided by parliamentarians, and many others, is certainly going to inform our thinking about the future of CORE.

    Thank you very much.

    Next, we have Mr. Carrie for five minutes, please.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank the minister for being here.

    Minister, you mentioned in your opening statement that we cannot take rules-based trade for granted, and your work is focused on this. We support our extractive resource companies. A lot of discussion about the environment has occurred, but they've neglected to note the world-leading status of our Canadian firms around the world. It made me think of a few companies in our domestic resource sector, specifically, as you mentioned, our trade with the U.S. and our softwood lumber. Wood is basically the only 100% renewable building material.

    I have in front of me a CBC article from March 12, 2016, where Minister Freeland said quite clearly, “We have the U.S. president announcing in the Rose Garden that he believes a deal [in softwood lumber] can and must be done.” The article continues, “Trudeau and Obama instructed Freeland and her American counterpart...to explore all options for solving the trade dispute and report back within 100 days.”

    Minister, that was 100 days back in 2016. It's been 2,555 days since then, and given we just had the President here, could you please explain to Canadians why it is not a priority for you to fulfill a softwood lumber agreement?

     Let me start there. That is not true. Of course it's a priority. Of course it's a priority for me to stand up for the forestry sector and for its workers. Of course I want to negotiate a deal with the United States. I've said that at every opportunity, and I said that directly to the President of the United States when he was here on Friday when we had our meeting.

    The unjustified duties against Canadian lumber and softwood are unjustified, and we are working with the industry. I continue to work with the industry. The argument I have made is that American consumers, those who are building homes and depend on our softwood lumber, also deserve to have more affordability in the way those homes are built there.

    As I said earlier, with a relationship as large as the one of Canada and the U.S., we, of course, are making a tremendous amount of progress in many areas. This is an area around softwood lumber that we have to keep working on, and I am committed to doing that.

    Madam Minister, I hate to contradict you, but basically the Prime Minister refused to raise the matter with President Biden. We know you explicitly told lumber CEOs, because the United States didn't want to speak to the issue of softwood, it would be left off the bilateral agenda during the recent visit.

    I was told that the same CEOs gave you a suggestion, on your request, for a special lumber envoy to the United States going back to 2021-22.

    Madam Minister, there is literally eight billion dollars' worth of duty deposits from Canadian companies with the United States. We see that Canadian companies, to get around this, are actually buying up American companies.

    You're saying that this is a priority. One hundred days to 2,555 days, Madam Minister.... I have these letters from the softwood lumber companies. Can you please explain why the Prime Minister didn't raise it specifically with the President when he was here, if it was such a great priority?

    Since I was in that meeting, I can tell you that the Prime Minister did raise it, and I followed that up.

    Well, he didn't say anything.

    The lumber industry has basically talked to you within the last month. I know you rushed a couple of meetings with them. I have a letter in front of me from March 10, and they actually asked you to come up with some solutions. What they have done is come up with a name. As far as solutions, you asked them for a name for a special emissary. Now the name, I understand, is David MacNaughton, who, as we know, is a former ambassador to the United States.

    Have you contacted Mr. MacNaughton yet to move forward and to see if he can help? Obviously, this government hasn't had any results for 2,555 days.

    I don't do rushed meetings. These are meetings that I have on a regular basis with the industry.

    I am very pleased to have a good working relationship with the industry. On the heels of what was the presidential visit, just as the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I met with the council of the terrific Canadians who, as part of team Canada, helped us renegotiate NAFTA, I also met with the Canadian forestry sector. It is an honour to do so because I believe that, in doing this work, I do it together with industry. To ensure that I hear directly from them is what I have done and continue to do. Make no mistake—it is a priority for this government. It is a priority that I continue to stand up for Canadian softwood lumber—the industry as well as its workers. It's a priority that we push the United States to come to the negotiating table.

    We are ready, and of course, we will always—

    Minister, they gave you a name and you failed to act.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Carrie.

    I'm sorry to both of you. The time is up.

    Mr. Miao, you have five minutes, please.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you to the minister and the officials joining us today.

    Minister, during the first meeting of the mining study, we heard testimony from the PDAC officials. Earlier this month, you also attended the annual PDAC convention. PDAC is known as one of the leading voices of the mineral exploration and development industry, with thousands of members in Canada and around the world.

    Why is it important for you to participate, and what were the outcomes of these meetings?

     I want to thank the honourable member for that really important question.

    PDAC, of course, is Canada's pre-eminent conference for prospectors and developers— essentially the mining industry. It brings together the world. I understand this year's PDAC conference was among the largest it's ever had, with somewhere, I think, around 48,000 participants. This really means the expertise that Canada has developed here in this sector, which is leading in the world, is why the world is coming to Canada, and Toronto in particular, for the PDAC convention.

    I had a really good opportunity to meet with many of Canada's mining companies of all sizes. It really reaffirmed, of course, and highlighted their leadership in the way they pursue mining around the world in a sustainable way. I also had an opportunity to meet with a number of smaller companies that really are providing those solutions along that value chain, whether it is batteries and clean energy on mining sites, whether it is water treatment to use less water or whether it is treatment that ensures less dust in the air and noise. There was a range of Canadian innovations and entrepreneurs and smaller-sized companies that go into those value chains.

    I often talk about my role as minister for both international trade and small business. It is this nexus that is so important. Mining, in particular, enables Canadian businesses to grow in that value chain, because of the work they are doing and the innovations they are pursuing, and to get into those mining chains of Canadian mining companies around the world. Certainly, this is with our partners as well. I would say it was a productive meeting. Again, the Mining Association of Canada is doing really terrific work in their leadership towards sustainable mining.

    Thank you.

    As you know, critical minerals are extremely important in Canada. Knowing this, our government has a world-class critical minerals strategy.

    Can you expand on Canada's global leadership in relation to critical minerals and how this links to global economic performance?

    Indeed, we are working with our allies and our partners so that Canada and those who respect the rule of law are able to develop these important critical minerals, and so that we can depend on each other as we are able to provide them and supply them throughout the trade supply chain. We have a critical minerals arrangement, of course, with the United States. We have one with the European Union. We have one with Japan. We just recently signed on with the United Kingdom.

    This is about working in partnership with those trading partners who respect the rule of law and whom we can count on as we are developing this really important industry, so that we are supplying them with values that are important to Canada and so that we are investing together and we are developing together in a sustainable and responsible way.

    My final point is that, given that critical minerals are so much in Canada's north, it's essential that we work side by side with indigenous peoples of this country so that we are doing this together—not only mining sustainably but doing so in a way that has indigenous peoples right at the very heart of it.

    My colleague, Minister Wilkinson, is of course doing this in his regional tables with the sector. These are important commodities, and it's also why we invested $4 billion for our first critical minerals strategy. This will create thousands and thousands of good middle-class jobs across the country, particularly in our rural communities and in our north.

    Thank you very much.

    We'll move on to Monsieur Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes, please.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Minister, allegations of Chinese interference have been in the news in recent weeks. What do you think their impact will be on international trade between Canadian and Chinese companies? Do you expect them to have an impact on markets, confidence or investment?

     Let me respond to that in two ways.

    Number one, we're looking forward to the work Mr. Johnston, as a special rapporteur, will do. He will do his work as given to him through the terms of reference, to ensure there is confidence in Canada's democratic institutions. That's number one.

    Number two, our Indo-Pacific strategy lays out coherency in terms of how we will work with China, particularly around trade. There will be opportunities where we will collaborate with China, such as in the area of fighting climate change. In Montreal, in December, we had a climate biodiversity conference. That had a Chinese presidency, but it was done here in Montreal. Coming out of that, it demonstrates that we have to work as a global community—everyone—to fight climate change.

    However, we're going to stand up for our values. We're going to stand up for issues, whether they be human rights or the rules-based trading system. We're going to do that. We've consistently done that, and that won't change. We believe that.

    Just like we're seeing in the battery ecosystem—where Canada is now number two, next to China, and we used to be number five—we can compete.

    Thank you very much.

    We have Mr. Cannings for two and a half minutes.

    Thank you.

    Minister, I would like to go to one of the other things that NGOs and other people working in the human rights sphere in Canada and around the world have been asking for.

    In terms of Canadian companies working abroad, there's some due diligence legislation that would ask these companies to carry out due diligence exercises in order to ensure their operations, or operations their subsidiaries in other countries carry out, are not violating human rights. We could be sure Canadian companies abroad are working the same way they would in Canada and not damaging Canada's reputation abroad. Peter Julian has Bill C-262, which lays this out in very clear terms. It's a very simple bill.

    Can you comment on whether you have considered this?

    Thank you very much for this.

    You heard me say this, earlier, and I'll repeat it: It is very important that Canadian companies operate to the responsible business conduct standards we require of them here at home, and that they operate around the world as if they are operating at home. Of course, there are many things we ought to be looking at to make sure those obligations are strengthened, to ensure companies are able to perform to their fullest capability, sustainably and respecting human rights, and that the ESG standards in their organization are considered in their various work, including due diligence. We are taking a very close look at the work before parliamentarians.

    What I can say to you is that this is work we could be doing as a country. We are looking at the range of issues making their way through, whether in committees or in civil society, so that we meet that macro commitment of Canada operating in the world as a global leader, in a sustainable, transparent and good governance way.

    Thank you, Minister.

    We'll move on to Mr. Baldinelli for five minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you to the minister and officials for being with us today.

    I'm going to build on some questions posed by one colleague earlier based on your comments, Minister, about building and safeguarding an open trading system.

    On October 28, while speaking to this committee, you said you wanted our trade to have high environmental and ethical standards. Your mandate letter of December 2021 contains 21 objectives. Points 13 and 14 speak to this. Point 13 talks of working with the Minister of Labour to introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour. Point 14 speaks of ensuring Canadian companies and Crown corporations uphold the highest environmental and social standards.

    Minister, where does that legislation stand, and why do we hold foreign companies and governments such as China to a lesser environmental and ethical standard than our own? Why is that okay?

    I'm very pleased to be working with the Minister of Labour on our own legislation that will eradicate forced labour from our supply chains. That work is ongoing and progressing. We are certainly supportive of some complementary work that is before the House at the moment in a private member's bill.

    It has been 18 months, Minister.

    How about the actions of foreign governments and their actions?

    In the work with respect to Canadian Crown corporations as well as the Canadian government, to ensure we are upholding the highest standards for companies, you are seeing that—

    How about the actions of foreign governments and their actions?

    Mr. Baldinelli, please allow the minister to finish her answer.

    I'll make a final point on that. It's why we updated the responsible business conduct strategy—to work with Canadian companies operating abroad so they can be more resilient. Crown corporations, of course, are also doing this work.

    Minister, it has been 18 months. Has that legislation been drafted? Has cabinet been examining draft legislation at all?

    The Minister of Labour is certainly on top of this and has been doing quite a bit of work on this front.

    Minister, why can the U.S. take action in the Xinjiang region on forced labour and we're incapable of taking such action?

    We absolutely are taking action. There's a declaration that all Canadian companies must provide to the Canadian trade commissioner service as well as to Export Development Canada in order to be provided services by the trade commissioner service.

    Every company I talk to tells me how valuable it is to be able to work with a Canadian company where they operate around the world. This service is extremely important to Canadian companies. What we're doing is that we are working with Canadian companies so that they are building up resilient supply chains so they can be more resilient in ensuring that their supply chains are clean.

    I will take that as being nothing.

    Minister, again, I will go back to your mandate letter. Point three speaks to leading Canada's efforts to combat protectionism, unfair trade practices and economic coercion around the world.

    Minister, nowhere in your mandate letter does it talk about the softwood lumber agreement with the United States and efforts by this Canadian government to resolve that.

    Do you not believe that, after eight years, it should be resolved? Do you not believe it should have been included in your mandate letter?

    I welcome everything in my mandate letter, and I'm so pleased to be able to work on behalf of Canadians, businesses and colleagues around the world to open up markets for Canadians. I won't repeat the numbers that I did earlier in my remarks about how well those relationships are taking place.

    Of course, softwood lumber is important. Of course, I place that as a priority. Of course, that is why I have been working with the industry. Of course, that's why and the Prime Minister raised it with the President last week.

    It's eight years. Simply put, Minister, if it's a priority, why eight years? Again, to my colleague's comments earlier, the lumber sector representing west coast and east coast has come together nationally and asked for the appointment of a joint emissary such as former ambassador David MacNaughton.

    What are your thoughts on that?

    I'm happy to take any solutions and all solutions, particularly when they come from Canadian industry.

    Will you implement it?

    My commitment is very clear. We are going to work with the United States and with our sector to try to find a resolution.

    In a relationship that is $2.5 billion every single day, lots of things go right but there are issues. We are going to have to keep working on those issues, and we're going to have to be persistent on them. That is my commitment to the sector.

     Thank you very much, Minister.

    Minister, would you please mute yourself in between, in case you happen to sneeze? It's difficult for the interpreters.

    Go ahead, Ms. Dhillon, please.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you to the minister for being here today.

    Over the past few months, Minister Ng, you've led some women's trade missions. Can you share some stories of success, or some examples of women entrepreneurs who have benefited from participating in these women-led trade missions?

     Thank you.

    Thank you so much for that question. How did you know that's probably one of my favourite questions?

    The most recent women-focused trade mission I led was for women in technology. There were about 40 companies that we took to the United Kingdom. These are companies in the AI cybersecurity space. These are companies that are providing renewable energy solutions. These are technology companies providing things such as medical devices or biomedical solutions. They're real, dynamic Canadian companies, and we're very pleased to have led that mission to the United Kingdom so that they could pursue both investments and opportunities in that market.

    Just a couple of months ago, I took about 175 companies to Singapore. There were many women leaders and entrepreneurs there as well. While on the ground, I had an opportunity to meet with some really terrific women entrepreneurs who are looking to expand and grow into Canada.

    We've done a whole series of women-led trade missions around the world. We've gone to India, to South Korea, to Taiwan and to Japan, and all of these trade missions have one objective in mind, which is to support the growth of Canadian businesses led by women business leaders into these dynamic markets. It's very much a part of Canada's first-ever women's entrepreneurship strategy, which I lead today. That's about a $7-billion investment, and the return on that investment is $150 billion to the Canadian economy. In the latest report that I received from the women's knowledge hub, those numbers are moving.

    We are closing the gap for women entrepreneurs who want to become entrepreneurs in the first instance, relative to their male counterparts, and we have seen an increase in the number of women entrepreneurs in our country. It's gone from 15.6% to just under 18%.

    This is progress that is being made, but it's progress because of deliberate investments. For a minister like me, who has an economic portfolio, I certainly can't do this work of supporting women alone. The $10-a-day child care is a game-changer, because it keeps women in the workforce, and it keeps those women entrepreneurs continuing to grow their businesses. Paid parental leave is also a game-changer to enable women-led businesses to contribute to the Canadian economy and to grow the Canadian economy.

    I don't want to leave $150 billion on the table. We're going to continue to work with Canadian women leaders, business owners and entrepreneurs to do this work.

    Thank you, Minister Ng.

    Over the next few months and years, how do you see this evolving? How do you see these trade missions making further impacts and changes?

    What I'm really pleased about is that it's $150 billion to the Canadian economy by doing one thing, which is adding women to our economy. Globally, I tell my colleagues around the world that it's $12 trillion in the global economy if we do this together.

    The global trade and gender arrangement is something that Canada is a part of. We're there with countries like Mexico. We're there with countries like New Zealand, Chile and a number of others. I continue to work around the globe to create a greater coalition of governments.

     We don't grow the businesses. What we do is create the right conditions so that businesses can operate and women-owned businesses can operate in ways that will support their growth.

    That is the work that we are doing and we will continue to do.

    Thank you, Minister Ng.

    The Indo-Pacific region is fast growing in importance. We know it has significant economic impact and is a major driver of growth and trade, especially when it comes to Canada.

    Could you tell us, with the Indo-Pacific strategy that Canada announced, what this means specifically when it comes to mining? Do you expect it to grow our economy in the future? Could you say a few words about that?

     Thank you.

    Answer briefly, Minister, please. You have 30 seconds.

     Mining is an important sector. For Canadian mining around the world, including in the Indo-Pacific, I had some really terrific meetings with mining companies that are looking to grow, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. That work will continue.

    Thank you very much, Minister.

    I will now suspend for a few seconds while we switch the panels and go on to the consideration of the main estimates.

    Thank you to the department officials for being here.

    I will suspend for a moment.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the committee is considering the main estimates 2023-24, vote 1 under Canadian Commercial Corporation and vote 1 under Invest in Canada hub, as referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 15, 2023.

    For the second panel, we have again the Honourable Minister Ng, Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development.

    From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Rob Stewart, deputy minister of international trade; Anick Ouellette, assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer, corporate planning, finance and information technology; and Annie Boyer, director general and deputy chief financial officer, financial planning and management. From the Department of Industry, we have Charles Vincent, assistant deputy minister, small business and marketplace services.

    The minister made her opening remarks in the first panel, so we will go immediately into questions from the members.

    Mr. Martel, you have six minutes please.

    Does Invest in Canada have any plans to promote minerals that are essential for battery production but are not included in the critical minerals list? Take, for example, Canadian mafic phosphate, which is of much higher quality than the sedimentary phosphate that abounds on the market.

    I'm sorry I can't hear.

    I'm sorry about that, Minister. We've asked Mr. Martel to start his six minutes again.

    Okay, thank you.

    Does Invest in Canada have any plans to promote minerals that are essential for battery production but are not included in the critical minerals list? For example, Canadian mafic phosphate is of much higher quality than the sedimentary phosphate that abounds on the market.

    To my honourable member, that's a very good question that I don't have an answer to.

    If my departmental officials do, I'm happy for them to answer. If not, I can also take it back and return to you with an answer, because I just don't have an answer.

    Do the officials want to attempt to answer that question?

    Mr. Stewart, please go ahead.

    Thank you for the question.

    The mandate of Invest in Canada is to promote investment in Canada to develop our industries. Exporting phosphates and other minerals is the priority of other organizations.

    Minister, the importance of adding phosphate to the list of critical minerals is an issue I've raised repeatedly. Every time, I'm told that the list is reviewed every three years. Yet an expert witness told the committee that three years is too long and that parliamentarians could put pressure on to speed things up.

    I sent a video recording of that testimony to your office on December 13, but I have yet to receive a response. Why don't you update the list?

    Thank you for the question.

     As you know, or maybe I'll just share, the development of the list for critical minerals rests with my colleague, the minister responsible for natural resources.

    It's the first I've heard from you as my colleague. Of course, critical minerals are very important, as you've heard and as you are also stating. I'm happy to take the input that you've just shared with me to my colleague, who has the responsibility for that list.

     I'd appreciate it if you could check on that, because this isn't the first time we've contacted your office.

    Now I'd like to get back to free trade agreements. In your opinion, if Bill C‑282 passes, would it make it harder to negotiate other free trade agreements?

    What I've said, and what our government has been clear about, is that we will not be providing access to supply-managed sectors in any future free trade agreements. That is a commitment that this government has made to the supply-managed sector in Canada.

    I don't know if the member is saying to me that they're no longer supporting Bill C-282, because you have been supporting Bill C-282, as have the rest of us.

    That's not what I meant. What I wanted to know is whether this bill would make future negotiations more difficult. I wasn't talking about supporting or not supporting the bill.

    The Canadian team of trade negotiators is excellent. They are among the best in the world. I think the proof of that is the many agreements that our negotiators have done. We continue to be at trade negotiations around the world. I believe we are able to negotiate strong agreements that provide good market access for our Canadian exporters while we protect supply management at the same time.

    Minister, the reciprocity of standards varies from one free trade agreement to another, depending on whether the products are imported or exported. For instance, Canada accepts certain products imported from Europe, but Europe blocks certain Canadian products. Have you ever discussed that?

    What I would say is that it's really important that we do everything we can to help our Canadian exporters get into those markets where we've negotiated free trade agreements. You were with me, Mr. Martel, when we were in Singapore and we did that meeting with the CPTPP partners. You saw around the table how each of the partners in the agreement talked about how the agreement is doing in the report of the committees. Those committees include things that are working well, but they also include things where we need to keep doing the work.

    The positive thing is that, as we negotiate agreements, we also have mechanisms in there to make sure that we make sure these agreements are working to the benefit of our Canadian exporters getting into those markets. That is work that we need to always pay particular attention to and keep doing, so that Canadians have access to those markets when we negotiate them in agreements. It's work that has to continue to be pursued with good diligence.

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

    We'll move on to Mr. Arya, please, for six minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    When we speak about the Canadian Commercial Corporation and Invest in Canada, I would prefer to have the chief executive officers of these organizations here so that we could ask them about some operational details. However, since the senior officials from International Trade and Industry Canada are here, maybe I can ask them certain questions.

    First, the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been in existence since 1946 and is a prime actor in the defence production sharing agreement that Canada and the U.S. have had since about 1950 or 1956.

     However, when I look at the operations and the results of CCC, in 2021 the value of the contracts signed was just $1.35 billion. That's compared to Canadian exports in 2022 of $777 billion, and that is rounding it up. Even for that small number, as the international prime contractor CCC is supposed to help Canadian companies get export commitments, orders from countries—they are not big—for which CCC will become the exporter as far as government-to-government contracts go, yet the amount was just $474 million last year. It's so low.

    Even for future plans, if you look at them, I think the value of contracts signed has gone from $1.35 billion in 2021 to just around $1.49 billion in 2025-26. Why is this so unambitious? We have about 15 free trade agreements with around 51 countries, so why is CCC so unambitious in assisting Canadian exporters?

    I want to thank my colleague for that very good question.

    That $1.3 billion for 400 SMEs is a large part of CCC's clients. These companies normally would not be able to get into those particular procurements. The fact is that CCC is able to, through their government-to-government contracting, create an opportunity for over a billion dollars' worth of transactions for over 400 SMEs in the country. That is terrific.

    Now, the CCC is not the only tool we have in our tool box. We have other tools as well to help Canadian exporters grow. I think about the work that CCC has done: helping Canadian companies to build an airport, for example, in one of the CARICOM countries; providing and supplying potash to another country in a significant order of magnitude; and helping a Canadian company to sell helicopters.

    I just met with the aerospace association not that long ago, and they talked about how important it is to have this vehicle to be able to do government-to-government contracts in markets where they would not necessarily be able to make those exports to customers. I always say—and my colleague will know this phrase very well, because it comes from our Prime Minister—“Better is always possible”, so we will continue to work with the CCC.

    However, I am very pleased with the work they are doing, whether it is in procurement facilitation for defence procurement with the United States or in the government-to-government contracts to build airports, to sell helicopters, to export potash or to sell ventilators or medical devices. That's the work the CCC is doing.

    As I said, the lion's share of their clients are Canadian small and medium-sized businesses that would not be able to get into those contracts or those markets if it were not for the CCC.

    Madam Chair, if Mr. Stewart would like to add anything to that, I'd be interested in hearing that.

    I would just add to the minister's answer that one has to think about this in a portfolio context. The vast majority of our support for trade from the Crown corporations goes through Export Development Canada, which financed and insured $111 billion of exports.

    Mr. Stewart, with my limited time, let me go back to what the minister said.

    I know that CCC is there to help companies export various things to many countries. I know she gave the example of the Dominican Republic and other specific examples, but the entire contracts, the government-to-government contracts for SMEs during the last year represented just $50 million. Compared to the exports of $777 billion, $50 million of government-to-government contracts for small and medium-sized businesses is not even a rounding error. It's negligible, nothing.

    I know the numbers are big in terms of how many SMEs they've helped, but the definition of an SME here is less than 500 employees—

     I will interject, Mr. Arya. If you would like some sort of answer, you have to give them a few minutes or it won't happen. They'll have six seconds left.

    I give up.

    Mr. Stewart, do you have six-second answer?

    No.

    All right. We'll just have to leave it at that.

    Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, you have six minutes, please.

     Can I steal my colleague's six seconds?

    Some hon. members: Ha, ha!

    You just did.

    Yes, I did.

    Minister, if you don't mind, I'm going to draw a link between this topic and the other topic we discussed during the first hour of this meeting, namely mining firms, which receive financial support. You told us that they won't get funding unless they respect human rights, which we could understand to include things like social or environmental rights as well.

     Could you briefly go over the requirements a company has to meet to be legally recognized as a Canadian mining company?

    I'm afraid that question in that specificity I don't know the answer to, so I'm going to ask my officials if they might have an answer.

    They're indicating that they don't have an answer either. Possibly you could get an answer back to the member in writing or to the clerk, so that everyone would have the answer.

    Just to be clear, you can't confirm or deny that all it takes for a company to be considered a Canadian mining company is a mailbox in Canada.

    On that issue, I am aware of that. That's not acceptable, so we're going to look into that. A company having a postal box and not operating in Canada is not a Canadian company. If that was a question, that's your answer.

    Great, thanks. This is the first time I've heard a commitment to tackling the issue of companies operating under a “flag of convenience”, given that Canadian law confers diplomatic and financial support, speculative benefits and tax benefits on companies that are not actually Canadian. Right now, most of the world's mining companies are registered as Canadian.

    I wonder if you could let the Committee know about any future steps taken to tighten up the legislation on this. Are you willing to do that, minister?

    This issue has come to my attention, so we are going to get at it, for sure.

     You heard my response earlier. Having just a postal box and pretending you're a Canadian company does not make you a Canadian company and therefore able to access all the range of services that the Canadian government provides to all these wonderful Canadian entrepreneurs and businesses that are working so hard to grow our economy and to create jobs in Canada.

    Perfect, thank you. I'm really looking forward to seeing what actual changes are made.

    During our study on the behaviour of mining companies abroad, our committee heard from representatives of Export Development Canada. They said there are really no stringent auditing or accountability mechanisms.

    Is your department also planning to tighten the screws on companies by making sure their behaviour is rigorously audited for every dollar invested in operations abroad?

    I'm trying to think how to respond to this. Canadian companies that operate abroad have an entire regime of legal obligations and others where they operate, but they certainly have them as Canadian companies as well. We expect Canadian companies, when they're operating here and abroad, to adhere to all of that, including responsible business conduct in some sectors like mining that require a duty of care and standard. I think my answer to you is that I expect Canadian companies to comply with the law.

    That's what you expect, but is anyone making sure? Are there any conditions, mechanisms, inspectors or institutions checking on this?

     If it's a digital company operating in another part of the world or in Canada, then is the Government of Canada supposed to monitor it? Is that what you're asking?

     Yes. You said you expect them to comply with Canadian law, but your expectations may not line up with the way the laws are implemented in real life.

    I think that, in terms of the legal regime of Canadian laws for Canadian companies, the range of reporting and due diligences that are required and their responsibility to meet those requirements, it's up to the company's to ensure that they do. There are regular mechanisms to ensure that companies are meeting their legal obligations.

    Minister, when a law is passed, I don't think we say that it's the criminals' responsibility to comply with it.

    Minister, give a brief answer, if possible.

    I don't consider Canadian companies criminals.

    That's not what I meant. What I meant was that, when a law is being implemented, you have to—

    Thank you, Mr. Savard-Tremblay. I'm sorry. I have to move on.

    Just a second. That was a pretty serious insinuation. I'd like to use my colleague's six seconds to clarify.

    The six seconds disappeared.

    I just want to clarify that I wasn't calling Canadian companies criminals. I was just saying that, when a law is passed, it's the government's responsibility to enforce it. We can't just expect people to miraculously comply with it.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Cannings, go ahead, please.

    Thank you.

    We've had a study that we've been looking at here in this committee. It's on the Inflation Reduction Act and its impact on Canadian companies and Canadian trade and investments with the United States.

    I was talking to a constituent of mine who was involved in a small business. They have a patented process that takes forest waste and turns it into cleaner fuels, into renewable diesel, high carbon-content biochar, etc. They're opening a plant here in Canada. It's a private company.

    The investors in the company are Bloomberg. It's a big American company. Bloomberg says it really loves the technology. The company wants to spread across Canada and open new plants across Canada, but Bloomberg was saying it can't afford to do that. With all of this money from the IRA and the United States, Bloomberg wants them to open up plants in the United States.

    I'm just wondering if you can comment. Is there any good news coming for a company that works in this space to help combat this lure to move across the border into the United States because of the IRA, something that says we will support these companies here in Canada?

    Thank you very much.

    That is such an important question. Your question is actually at the very heart of my role as the small business minister and the international trade minister.

    What you've seen our government do over the last number of years is support those most innovative companies, particularly those that are developing these technologies—or innovative solutions that have strong IP and so forth—to grow and create the necessary supports. That's so they are growing in Canada, creating those jobs and doing so with international partners.

    Yes, there are investments that come in to support that. The strategic innovation fund and the range of supports in the.... I apologize I don't remember the name right off the top. The finance minister announced it along with the Minister of Innovation not that long ago in the fall economic statement or the budget around a clean-tech fund. That really is to support their growth, particularly in their getting that access to capital in Canada.

    A lot of companies also make the choice to be here because of our strong education system, strong social supports and the strong support of the talent and skills that are here in Canada. We know that there is work and there continues to be work to be done to ensure that we are growing these Canadian companies to become the next Canadian giants. Whether it's the superclusters or the work that the various funds we have put out to incentivize for that growth, it is very much—

     Minister, I'm sorry for interrupting.

    Will there be something, either in the budget or in the near future, that will change this dynamic so that this company can build out its plants across Canada and not be forced by its investors, who see just the obvious advantage of taking the subsidies in the United States and building plants there instead? Will there be something different there?

     I'll leave it at that. Hopefully, I'll have time for another question after this.

    I'm looking forward to the budget tomorrow. The finance minister and I talked, about a budget ago, about the importance of reciprocal procurement between both countries: “We buy from you as much as you buy from us.” That principle of being able to support our Canadian companies to compete and grow in Canada is very much something I'm seized with. It's the Canada growth fund, by the way, which will foster that kind of growth.

    We want to make sure we're supporting these very Canadian companies, so that they continue to build their operations here.

    I believe that, in the resilience of the supply chain work that we talked about earlier, and certainly between Canada and the U.S., we're going to need to do this work together. Make no mistake—fostering Canadian companies to grow and scale as Canadian companies is at the very heart of what I spend every single day thinking about and working on.

    You have 58 seconds remaining, Mr. Cannings.

    Okay. Thanks.

    I'll just move on to a similar situation in the city of Trail in my riding. There's a big lead and zinc smelter, and there's a cluster of companies around that smelter that specialize in battery recycling because the smelter is there. One of them is probably the biggest recycler of lead acid batteries—the batteries you find in regular cars and trucks—in western North America. Another one is the world leader in lithium battery recycling.

    The one that does the lithium battery recycling was just bought out by an American company because they saw the advantage in getting this technology and getting these processes. They'll be staying in Trail, but that company will be taking that process and building plants in the United States.

    It's the same question: These companies are looking for Canadian investments and help from the Canadian government. They don't seem to be getting it. I'm just wondering where the disconnect is.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Cannings. You're about 30 seconds over. We really don't have time for an answer, but I think you made your point to the minister.

    Mr. Seeback, you have five minutes, please.

    Thanks, Madam Chair.

    I want to get back to softwood lumber.

    I think you said today that it's a priority for you to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. Is that correct, Minister?

    It has always been my priority, yes.

    My understanding is that, in January of 2022, the softwood lumber industry asked you to appoint a special envoy or a lead negotiator. This was in January 2022. It's been 15 months since then.

    Have you appointed a lead negotiator or a special envoy to resolve this very important dispute?

    I continue to have conversations and discussions with the industry. I look forward to continuing to work with them on a solution for softwood.

    It's not a trick question. Have you appointed an envoy or a lead negotiator?

    I'm looking forward to working with the industry and I'll continue to do so.

    Please, ask your questions through the chair.

    Madam Chair, it's not a difficult question.

    I'm asking if you have appointed an envoy or a lead negotiator. It's a simple yes or no.

    I'm going to keep working with the industry. This work continues.

    That's an incredible evasion of responsibility by a minister in answering a question, Madam Chair.

    Eight billion dollars in duties have been collected since then. Under the last settlement, $6 billion would be coming to Canadian companies. The market share has gone from 34% to 25%. I think you and I have a different definition of making something a priority for resolution.

    Have you spoken to your U.S. counterparts about appointing a special envoy or lead negotiator to resolve this dispute?

    I speak to my U.S. counterpart all the time about Canadian trade.

    Have you spoken to them about appointing a special envoy or a lead negotiator—one from Canada and one from the United States?

    I think I said this earlier in the area of Canada-U.S. trade. We're exceptionally proud that $2.5 billion goes across the border every day. We're really pleased that we renegotiated CUSMA to ensure that there are mechanisms in there to allow for both sides to deal with issues that arise from time to time.

    Softwood, of course, is a really important issue. It's really important to the Canadian economy. There are many workers in the sector, whom we care deeply about. It is an issue that I'll keep working on.

    Through the chair, Minister, I'm finding this incredibly insulting to this committee. I've now asked you two direct questions, which are simple. They require a yes-or-no answer. You are refusing to answer them.

    I'm going to ask this again: Have you discussed with your U.S. counterparts appointing a special envoy or a lead negotiator, like the softwood industry in Canada asked you to do 15 months ago?

    I have talked to the United States trade representative about softwood lumber. I've talked to the President about softwood lumber. I've talked to other interlocutors. I think I was speaking to a congressperson the other day about Canadian softwood lumber and the issue with the Americans.

    The answer is yes. I talk to the Americans about softwood lumber at every opportunity I have.

    That actually wasn't the question. I didn't ask you if you spoke to them. I assume you've spoken to them in eight years. Otherwise, it's a complete dereliction of your responsibility.

    My question was whether you have raised the issue of special envoys with the United States—yes or no.

     Madam Chair, on a point of order—

    Mr. Seeback, the minister has attempted to answer the question several times. I suggest you move on to another question.

    With all due respect, Madam Chair, she has not answered the question. I have asked her if she spoke about a specific issue, and she has not answered that question. I'm entitled to keep asking that question, and I'm going to keep asking that question.

    Did you speak to your United States counterpart about appointing a special envoy as requested by the softwood lumber industry in Canada?

    Madam Chair, on a point of order, I believe an issue has arisen. You just made a ruling, and now we have the member not following the ruling.

    You have 55 seconds remaining.

    Did you discuss the appointment of a special envoy with the United States, as requested by the softwood lumber industry in Canada—yes or no? It's not a trick question.

    I believe you have asked that question several times already, Mr. Seeback.

    I suggest you move on to another question.

    Did you or did you not discuss appointing a special envoy or a lead negotiator, with your U.S. counterparts, over the last 15 months, as requested by the Canadian softwood industry?

    Thank you, Mr. Seeback. Your time is up.

    We will move on to Mr. Virani, please, for five minutes.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Minister, I'd like to take you to the auto industry. We know that—and you've referenced this a little earlier, perhaps in the previous hour—there have been historic investments in the auto industry in the last approximately two years, to the tune of about $17 billion in entities like Stellantis and Toyota. Volkswagen has now initiated its first-ever plant outside Germany, in North America, in Ontario, for electric vehicles. There's even one in Oshawa, which is Mr. Carrie's own local riding. The GM plant is seeing a $2-billion investment.

    Can you talk about the critical minerals strategy and the communiqué statement made by the Prime Minister and President Biden on Friday, which connects to the attractiveness of the Canadian auto sector as a place for electric vehicle investments?

    Thank you very much.

    Canada and U.S. have been making automobiles together for 100 years, 50 years of that through a very deliberate integration of our supply chains. A vehicle moves across our borders something like, I think, seven times before it's finally assembled.

    Today, we are at a point in time where the vehicle of the future is going to be different. For certain, many vehicles of the future are going to be powered by batteries. The investments that we are seeing today demonstrate and reaffirm this important trading relationship for this very important sector that employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians, certainly here in Ontario, which both you and I represent, but indeed the echo effect of that is across the country.

    If you look at critical minerals today, you see that those minerals that will be mined sustainably will come from our far north. It's going to come from our rural communities. We are investing to make sure they have processing capability here in Canada. We are investing so that the downstream manufacturing can also be here in Canada. We're doing this with the United States, because, complementary to that, are things like chips and semiconductors that go into vehicles. It's something that we're working with the United States on.

    As I said earlier, we see $250 million, in the first instance, invested by the United States in U.S. dollars for Canadian and American companies through the Defense Production Act, and now another $50 million U.S. for that investment. It is both countries. Of course, in Canada here, with $250 million through the strategic innovation fund....

    This is both countries investing and creating the environment for the innovation to occur and for the manufacturing investments to come in for investments in the battery ecosystem and for organizations, like Volkswagen, which for the first time is locating here in North America, in Canada.

    This is really important work. Acknowledgement and leadership on how we tackle climate change are at the very core of this. We are able to invest today. The United States is investing in this. We're investing in this together, precisely because we're able to do that.

     Thank you, Minister.

    In terms of other regions of the country, I know that another aspect of the joint communiqué talks about co-operation on civil nuclear and nuclear fuel. That dovetails with exactly what you were talking about, things such as uranium and low enriched uranium, which is sourced in Saskatchewan. It's one of the principal locations on the planet.

    Can you talk a bit about how an agreement such as this, on the responsible use of small modular reactors and accessing low enriched uranium, including in Saskatchewan, helps you fulfill the part of your mandate letter that talks about ensuring that we have a clean energy grid, not just for Canada but for North America, and also that we are helping build jobs in the sustainable clean-tech sector?

    Absolutely. Again, it goes to the heart of my mandate and my job, which is to grow out Canadian innovations and enterprises into the international marketplace through our trading partners, in this case the United States, which is so important. It's also why we created the...why we are going to capitalize this clean energy and to create good jobs by having a task force that will accelerate this co-operation on critical clean energy opportunities and on supply chains.

    This is really working across the country and certainly with the U.S. so that we can capitalize this and make sure that our market here, between Canada, the U.S. and North America, is the most competitive in the world.

    Thank you very much, Minister.

    We'll move on to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes, please.

     I also want to talk about softwood lumber, minister.

    We know that the punitive tariffs are taking a huge toll on the industry. There's even a deal in the works to buy the Quebec company Resolute Forest Products, whose harvesting area covers between one-quarter and one-third of Quebec's forest.

    Have you had any discussions with your colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, about this possible transaction, which is a direct result of the trade war with the United States?

     I have not had discussions specifically around the sale. However, of course, Resolute is an important company in Quebec. It's an important company that employs many workers in the softwood lumber industry.

     I have spoken to their CEO on numerous occasions about how unfair the tariffs are for the sector and for that company. My commitment to working with not only that company but companies in the sector across the country remains so that we can try to find a resolution to this. That's what I continue to work to do.

     This is a transaction that could happen in what I think is a key sector, yet you say you haven't discussed it with your colleague.

    When the auto industry was at risk due to the U.S. Build Back Better plan, you organized a mission to Washington. The government even sent letters threatening the U.S. with countermeasures, but nothing of the kind was done for softwood lumber.

     Your mandate letter, which was published a month after the new wave of tariffs, makes no mention at all of the words “softwood lumber”. However, it does include the words “critical minerals” and even the word “coal”, if only to condemn its use. Why the double standard?

     I wouldn't characterize it that way. This sector, the softwood lumber sector, the forestry sector, is incredibly important to Canada's economy and to the workers they employ. I want to assure you, my honourable colleague, that the sector can continue to count on the work that we must do to bring the U.S. to the table. We continue to fight against the unjustified tariffs on softwood lumber.

    Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Cannings, you have two and half minutes, please.

     Thank you.

    I just want to turn back to the small business part of your portfolio, Minister.

    A lot of the small businesses in my riding, particularly those in the tourism industry—which is one of the main economic drivers in my part of the country—took out CEBA loans and other loans during the pandemic because they were shut down. They were among the hardest hit.

    The rebound for that has not really happened as fast as people predicted, so they're struggling to repay these loans. They've been asking for an extension on the loan repayment so that they can stay viable and keep the $10,000 of the loan that was guaranteed to them if they repaid on time.

    These companies are about to go under if they don't get continued help. As things rebound, they will survive but they need that additional help. I'm just wondering what you have to say to them.

    Thank you so much for this question.

    It's so important because, during the pandemic, it really was and continues to be the top priority to make sure that our small and medium-sized businesses get support through what was just an unprecedented time.

    You mentioned CEBA. Just under a million businesses got that support. We have been hearing from businesses. Some businesses—not all businesses—are well on their way to recovery. That's precisely why we extended the loan deadline to December of 2023.

    My colleague, the minister responsible for tourism, and I continue to listen to businesses on this. My commitment is that we'll continue to do that. I hope that what Canadian businesses, and small businesses in particular, have seen from the government is out-and-out support to make sure that they weather the toughest time and get through it. That commitment doesn't change.

     Thank you very much, Minister. We all hope that you're feeling better soon.

    Thank you to our officials as well for being here.

    I now have to deal with the main estimates.

     (Vote 1 agreed to on division)

     (Vote 1 agreed to on division)

    The Chair: Shall I report the main estimates 2023-24, less the amount voted in interim supply, to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister, again. I hope that you're much better soon and we'll have an opportunity to see you back at committee in person.

    Thank you to the officials.

    We are adjourned.